Windshield Repair Forum

tk14 and others that replied. 320 was the smallest sanding disc I have. I had a few lens in the past that I wished I had a smaller pad with some bite to it. I would have saved time and a few pads. I plan to order in the morning the smalles pad I can get 180 or 220. I already had it down for my next order after reading a post a few weeks ago. I live on the east coast , so I try to order products when I have several items, to save on shipping. I thought the compound would have weaken the coating on the chevy, but it had zero effect. Have any of you used a square of sand paper on a lens that had a tough coating?

I have a guy I trained a few months back to do HLR's, when I get busy and cant get to the detail shop quick enough. He called on Tuesday and said he had gone through 6 pads and still couldn't get the lens clear on a 99 Caddy. I told him to stop and I would be there in a few minutes. I just got back from San Diego, and had a box from delta waiting for me. I had ordered the new 180 Sanding disc. I gave the guy one of the 180 pads to replace the 320 he was using. With one pad he finished that lens and the one he hadn't started on. He then used a 360 and a 1500 pad. He polished the lens and applied the UV Coating.
The headlighhts looked great. I would have used a 3000 pad instead of the polish. I provide the detail shop some supplies and loan them a metabo, but they are responsible for their work. I see them and others using delta products taking shortcuts to save a dime. The guy said he didn't want to do too good of a job or all their customers would expect the same results. I guess thats why they call me for their prefered customers. The New 180 pad saved time and money. I called Korey and ordered more after I saw the results while at the shop.

WHy would one restore a headlight rather than replace? From some of the times listed here it sounds like it may be a cost wash....that is unless the headlights aren't available aftermarket. Just curious.

I only repair, but have looked into HLR for several years. I would use Delta or IPS for the service. The customer can save hundreds of dollars vs replacement.
Here's a hint. Set up a route with especially high end dealers to pick up bad lenses, polish, and resell to the dealer. Bad thing was the Parts/Service MGR immediately went in house, was a friend of mine!!
My bad back is the only thing holding me back.

I fell / blown out of a helicopter twice during two tours to VietNam. My back gets stiff quickly, when doing HLRs if the lens are low. I use a small fold out stool that works great. I do HLR on some vehicles that the lens would cost $300 or better, plus instalation fees. I normally do a HLR in my area for under $60 (30-40 min) and they look great. I've completed several Dodge Caravan HLs lately that had a hard surface to remove, but they looked like they were just purchased when I finished them. More people can come up with my fee than new replacement cost. I charge extra for side markers, Foglamps, and rear lights cleaned & polished. A lot of truck Foglamps are glass. I clean and apply UV to them and they look like new. As long as the customer is satisfied, Iam happy and they are happy with the results and apperance of their vehicle.

I had a call to restore a 2009 Chevy Cobalt HL's. The owner was entering it in a contest on Sunday. He had painted the top half of the lens with black paint. Then he sprayed ployulthane over the entire lens. He purchased a kit from a parts store and tried to take it off, which created more problems. I used 2 (180 grit pads) to remove the paint. I used 320, 600, 1000
1500 and 3000 grit pads to smooth the lens out. It looked really good afterward. It took me about 75 minutes from start to stop. I also cleaned and polished his rear lights during that time as well. The headlights would have costed him discount $408 plus shipping and labor to replace them. I failed to mention $30.60 in sales tax. He would have misssed his event had he ordered the new len's. I am glad I ordered those 180 grit pads a month agp. I have had a few cases that they saved me a lot of time when sanding off after market chemicals.

I restored the headlights on a 2001 Saturn yesterday that is now at the top of my most difficult list. The lenses had a crystallized look and feel to them....something I've never seen before. The surface of the lenses felt like an 80 grit sandpaper in some areas. It looked like some one may have sprayed them with automotive clear in the past.

It took me over an hour just to remove the damage with 180 grit and another 20 minutes or so to finish out the job. The customer was thrilled which is my end goal but I was somewhat frustrated with the amount of time it took to restore these lights.

I am going to order some 120 grit paper just in case I run into another Saturn like this one.

My list for harder than normal coating removal would be Ford Focus, Jeep Gr. Cherokee, BMW (all), and as previously mentioned, Impala (nightmare on whatever street) and Mustang. From doing literally hundreds of lenses over the years, I automatically start with 180 on any of these. These types just laugh at 320 or anything higher. My weapon of choice is a 3" CP pistol grip air powered d/a with 3M Hook-It II pads. Used to do everything by hand, but these 53 year old elbows start singing a tune with too much repetitive motion, and trust me when I say its not a very pretty melody.

mend master wrote:My list for harder than normal coating removal would be Ford Focus, Jeep Gr. Cherokee, BMW (all), and as previously mentioned, Impala (nightmare on whatever street) and Mustang. From doing literally hundreds of lenses over the years, I automatically start with 180 on any of these. These types just laugh at 320 or anything higher. My weapon of choice is a 3" CP pistol grip air powered d/a with 3M Hook-It II pads. Used to do everything by hand, but these 53 year old elbows start singing a tune with too much repetitive motion, and trust me when I say its not a very pretty melody.

Hmmmm, I find BMW's to be the easiest and I have very good results with them. GM cars seem to be the worst for me.

Let me qualify what I said. BMW has a fairly thick OEM coating and typically requires 180 to get the ball rolling so to speak. I have a BMW dealer as a customer and have done a fair amount of them for him. I would agree, they are not the worst to work on, but they are tougher than average to get the original coating of off.
In my experience, and probably everyone else's too judging from the comments, there are three dynamics to the more difficult ones we see. One is tough OEM finish, another is a competitive product has been applied, and the other is the poor quality of the lens to start with.
GM lenses can be some of the hardest to get a good looking finished product. I would agree they are probably the worst overall because in my opinion they start with a poor quality of material and have a poor design, especially most of their 90's vintage cars. How many GM's do you see with water in them? Sometimes I expect to see fish in there, especially after a good rain and there is a 1/2" or more of water inside the lens! The mold tits are a challenge to work around, they tend to get a smoky band at the top inside, especially on older Buick and Olds products, they seem to get a thicker, crustier build up than a lot of other lenses, the curvature is odd on some models, and others are recessed making it much more difficult to avoid any type of paint damage even with masking. That's my experience with them anyway.
Hope that clears up my comment. Get it, headlight recon, "clear up"?! Okay, yeah I know, don't quit your day job! LOL!