Sondra is right that something else unique to this car could have caused the problem. Perhaps some wax or glass cleaner or something.

But stongard should be safe for cars treated with many different cleaners, and waxes. ( I am assuming that the car wasn't cleaned with acetone or sulfuric acid as I don't think any reasonable owner that wen't to the trouble of stongarding would be careless about their car)

Anyway, there could be an incompatibility of stongard with some or one of these cleaners. That possiblity is very remote as we have seen no other claims of grazing.

So what does this mean? In my opinion it means that there is a chance, albeit remote, that stongard reacted poorly with some product used by either SCS2K or the stongard installer.

As unfortunate as this may be, Stongard should have taken it's lumps and replaced the housings as their product should not react poorly with things used on cars in good faith. (As it is impossible for them to test with EVERYTHING, they should have viewed these $900 as R&D avoided). And second, they should have requested the housings to try to figure out the bad interaction so that they could warn future owners.

Just my many 2

 

I am amazed at the marketing suicide that the CEO has taken on this issue.
Personally I do not know who is at fault be it stoneguard, honda or the owner, but the reaction that the CEO has given has stunned me.
I can see his side, if he firmly believes that his product has not caused the problem, but to then publicly slam one of your clients is just crazy.
In my opinion spending a thousand dollars getting this guys lights repaired would be
a) good customer service
b) excellent PR for the company
c) could result in confidence being restored in his product

So many people read these forums who do not necessarily own a stook - Mustang owners for one - does the CEO think that they will be buying his product? Word of mouth and recommendation are two of the biggest deciding factors for potential customers, this one statement will result in a high number of lost sales for that I am sure.

Not meaning to preach, just my opinion for what it is worth!

Anthony

 

Let's put this into perspective: Stongard is wildly overpriced sticky plastic.

Now that I know that Stongard does not support its customers after the sale, I will spread the news -- Stongard and its CEO are disrespectful to their customers.

BTW, black7546, if you read the CEO's post carefully, he's saying that you have to buy an extended warranty to get the "through the product" impact coverage. I don't get much comfort from the fact that the CEO is arguing the semantics of what looks to me like a really shifty and worthless warranty. I also still think that no judge would support a product liabilty defense based on whether the damage was caused by impact through the product rather than a faulty installation.

As for claims of slander, Stongard ought to bear in mind that it has done more damage to its good will by posting this petty and obnoxious letter than SCS2k ever did.

This is an amusing exercise in corporate suicide.

 

I am not going to pretend to know what the cause of the cracked housings is. But I agree that there seems to be something that is just unknown. I think, too, that the CEO of StonGard could have really made some lemonade out of all these lemons around this issue. This thing has been a PR disaster for StonGard and dropping a grand for Mr Lieber's headlight housings would be a small price to pay for this whole unfortunate incident - even if StonGard is not at fault, they could have scored major points with owners here. Not forthcoming, I am not sure that even if they did fix the situation that people would turn back the clock on the damage that has been done. A little damage control would have been terrific PR for StonGard. It may be a little too late...

I'll be interested to see how this all shakes out...

 

Thanks again everyone.

Mr. Ston Gard, I have not slandered your company or product. Thanks for the implied threat though. As a clinician, I take all available data and form a hypothesis based on what is presented to me. Here's the data I have:

1. Ten months of Arizona weather with no Ston Gard and no cracks
2. NEVER applied anything more caustic, powerfull etc to the lenses other than soap.
3. Ston Gard applied, lenses pre cleaned by YOUR representative. No cracks are present.
4. Again, no chemicals applied to lenses.
5. Within 2 months my lenses are ruined.
6. Return to YOUR representative, he removes Ston Gard.
7. Lenses have cracked no further in 2 weeks.
8. This has happened before in Audi, Chevy, and Nissan. (I just found out about those last two today)
9. No other Honda has this problem.
10. Honda dealer has never seen it before.
11. You have an income to protect.
12. You have never seen my car.
13. You have never spoken to me.
14. I don't know if you've ever seen an S2000.
15. You have never made an effort to speak with me.
16. YOUR representative asked me to submit this under warranty regardless. This, if Ston Gard is at fault, constitutes fraud.
17. YOUR representative then asks me to "test" your product by applying it again. If the new lights crack, I am again to submit it to Honda under warranty. Another fraud.
No why would I doubt the "word" of this company? (sarcasm)

To make the assumption that the lenses are defective because an auto manufacturer based on a completely different continent (audi) had a problem with a completely unrelated car is ludicrous. To make the assumption that my lenses are defective with you having never even spoken to me or looked at my car is laughable. How can you possibly determine that they are defective without having seen them, examined them or even asked about them?
It sounds to me like you're covering something up.

If you'd like to prove YOUR product is not at fault, buy me some new lights. I'll be happy to send you mine and you can test them all you want. If they are defective, I will then submit it to Honda under warranty.

I give the following retraction:

The title of my previous thread should have been "I Believe Ston Gard Ruined My Headlights" At this time I cannot PROVE that Ston Gard was the cause but I believe it is.

Just my opinion, the facts as I see them and me expressing my right of free speech.

[Edited by SCS2k on 05-20-2001 at 04:30 PM]

 

I wonder what Honda's response would be to this? Give Honda the facts and ask if they would replace under warranty or not. They might replace while not admitting oem defect (maybe what StonGard should have done), or state it is clearly StonGard problem. Hmmmm...

 

"Again, I am sorry for Dr. Lieber's experience and I would have appreciated him doing his due diligence before slandering my company. Once he gets his lights replaced I would be happy to supply him with a free set of replacement covers. I would hope he would post a retraction but that is up to him."

I was hoping that by now this had been resolved. I was counting on stoneguard to grin and bear it. I had want'ed to install this product but now after this responce and the fact that there are doubts in my mind as to the follow up factor by stoneguard, I would never let stoneguard put me in the position of being called upon to "post a retraction". You had better react to the customer with a grain of salt and deal with the customer alone, no matter how he dealt with you.(you know---damage control) This whole thing was bad for your business and instead of putting an end to it, you shot yourself in the foot.

 

Good news travels fast; bad news even faster. I love my stone CHIPS. To my mind, S2000's SHOULD show visible evidence of use! Nuff said.

 

In the interest of a company's most valuable asset- its goodwill- Stongard should have replaced the lights at its own expense. By the very nature of the product as an after-market protectant, the company has nothing to loose and everything to gain by taking the approach that it will resolve disputes in favor of the customers. The forensics of this occurance may never conclusively prove the chain of events and who is ultimately at fault. But such a situation should not set the spanish inquisition in motion. By servicing and respecting customers, by going the extra mile, StonGard would have made a disappointed customer happy who likely would have told others of his positive experience. That would have resulted in more sales. By taking their 'prove it or else' attitude StonGard has saved itself a few hundred dollars on one uncertain claim and lost hundreds of uncertain customers. What a foolish, short-sighted way to run a business.

 

Hmmm,

Price to repaint bumper - $500
Insurance deductible to replace impact cracked headlamp - $500
Potential uncovered cost with suspect protective product - $1800 or more

I have never used Stonguard. I have considered it on several occasions. It is no longer an option. I have met Jim, seen his cars and know that he keeps them in immaculate condition.

On the topic of customer service, most of the issues have been covered already. However, as someone who has worked and consulted for companies on this topic, I can say that Mr Stonguard has violated most of the principles involved. I would be happy to discuss these issues in detail, but since I consult, I will hereby offer my services to the company in the event they wish to avoid a future faux pas such as this. Should the company not wish to retain my services, I would suggest reviewing the principles of common sense before future "press releases" such as this post.

UL