S2000 Talk Discussions related to the S2000, its ownership and enthusiasm for it.

StonGard's response to the message board

Thread Tools
 
Old May 21, 2001 | 09:02 AM
  #61  
Penforhire's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 8,601
Likes: 1
From: La Habra
Default

Some people mentioned StonGard is a cut-pattern of a 3M film. It is no secret that it is 3M ScotchCal (sp?) film. I think Ston-Gard takes too large a mark-up for the cut pattern but it is not absurd (I heard raw material is something like $20/Sq Ft). It is NOT just clear 3M graphics film (check out the 3M website).

Seems to me in a case like this StonGard has recourse to go back to 3M, if necessary, to reimburse their payment to our injured friend.

Like UL, I considered the cost of StonGard versus the eventual repainting required and decided to apply the $500-$800 funds toward that future repaint. I'm not sure why some people believe our plastic light covers need protecting. They seem rugged and rounded to me. If I follow a gravel truck I'm more worried about the windshield. Hey, if StonGard had a windshield cover ...
Reply
Old May 21, 2001 | 09:10 AM
  #62  
tagheuer's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
From: North Orange County
Default

s.g.'s response really puts a sour taste in my mouth...they need a lesson in customer service big time...
Reply
Old May 21, 2001 | 11:01 AM
  #63  
Luder94's Avatar
Moderator
25 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 12,904
Likes: 93
From: Big Box suburb, IL
Default

[QUOTE]Originally posted by fisch
[Bpig f'er -

*i've* never heard of a competing product.

someone could get the source IP from the post, then use something like http://www.arin.net to start the trace.

there are ways.

hmmm, looks to be IIS 4.0 on NT or win98, perhaps the 216.65.34.0 subnet?
Reply
Old May 21, 2001 | 11:16 AM
  #64  
FlyingPig's Avatar
Registered User
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,551
Likes: 0
From: USR, NJ
Default

There are competing products. Xpel is one of them.
However, if you didn't detect it, I wasn't seriously suggesting that a competitor posted the message. Maybe the sarcasm wasn't too clear?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by fisch
[B]
pig f'er -

*i've* never heard of a competing product.

someone could get the source IP from the post, then use something like http://www.arin.net to start the trace.

there are ways.

hmmm, looks to be IIS 4.0 on NT or win98, perhaps the 216.65.34.0 subnet?
Reply
Old May 21, 2001 | 11:23 AM
  #65  
Utah S2K's Avatar
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 4,307
Likes: 13
From: Ogden
Default

There are two prominent protective products on the market, Stonegard and Clear Bra. Both use the same base product, a clear shield manufactured by the 3M Company. The headlight lense is made of a plastic polymer and yes they may "craze" when exposed to long intense periods of ultrviolet radiation (i.e. sun). These are the "isolated cases Stongard is refering too. Mostly found in Arizona (wonder why?). Dealing a lot with various plastics during my years in manufacturing I would also say it would be very possible for the plastic to fail if certain cleaners were used prior to installation. If these cleaners were not neutralized (i.e. rinsed with water) prior to sealing with the 3M product, chemical attack could definitely occur. This attack would be enhanced with UV radiation (i.e. sunlight). Moral to the story is:

If you plan to install the 3M product from either distributer clean your lamps thoroughly with your choice of cleaner. The reclean using distilled water severla times to assure the surface of the plastic is virgin.

P.S. Clear Bra offers a 4 year warranty....enough said.
Reply
Old May 21, 2001 | 12:41 PM
  #66  
Clovis's Avatar
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,664
Likes: 9
From: Plano
Default

[QUOTE]Originally posted by amartin
[B]My concern with Stonegard, personally, is quite simple:
Reply
Old May 21, 2001 | 01:05 PM
  #67  
PariS2K's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
From: Paris
Default

oh dear ston guard...have you noticed...more than 1500 readers (and potential customers) have read this post, and the number is rising!

now, if that really was the CEO of ston guard, i cant help feeling he has got his just rewards.

however, as others have mentioned, its all too easy to be deceptive on the net...and if that was an imposter, dont you think we might have been a little unneccessarily harsh on his company?

wouldnt it be worth one of our more energetic members, and maybe someone who has already had some dealings with ston guard, to actually contact the guy via a quick phone call, just to verify the authenticity of his post?

just a thought...
Reply
Old May 21, 2001 | 01:05 PM
  #68  
S2K Fan's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 6,898
Likes: 0
From: San Jose
Default

I wonder if we'll get another response
Reply
Old May 21, 2001 | 01:08 PM
  #69  
Yellow S2000's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 904
Likes: 0
From: Athens
Default

Originally posted by S2K Fan
I wonder if we'll get another response
I don't think so. The CEO did more harm then good. He won't be back..IMO
Reply
Old May 21, 2001 | 01:28 PM
  #70  
S2.001K's Avatar
Registered User
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
From: Bethesda
Default

Originally posted by Bieg
Skarv, there is another point to consider too: perhaps SCS2K, unbeknownst even to him, used a product on the lenses that was detrimental to the glass?
How about the fact that the lenses were clear before the product was applied and while the product was still on them they cracked. That would indicate to me that perhaps the INSTALLER used a product that was not good for the lenses when he prepared them for the installation. No one else on this board has experienced this headlight problem with or without the stongard. It would seem to me that the stongard product is safe and that Honda does not have a plastic lens problem. It is more likely that the installer used a non approved cleaning product in preparing the surface. This SHOULD be made right by the installer and Stongard. The fact that it is not is what bothers many people here. EVEN IF there is a doubt Good Will should have been the rule and they should have picked up the tab and took the defective lenses to study the cause.

Of course SCS2K is not going to be a sponsor anytime soon so let's blame him right Sondra? Let's not piss off the potential and actual sponsors.

If this forum is going to be used for the benefit of the sponsors by promoting their products to the "S2000 Community" it is also going to be used by the S2000 Community to report on bad experiences with said products and or vendors. It is a sword that cuts both ways.

Unless of course you guys change the rules and we are not allowed to say anything negative about our experiences.


Perhaps this should be the new theme song?
Sung to the tune of "Home On The Range"

Home home on the board
where the sponsors and vendors all pay
where seldom is heard
a discouraging word
and people sell modifications all day

Bieg,

If im ever in NY, Im gonna have to have a beer with you. I would love to hear your rants on life! LOL
Reply



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:23 AM.