What I did this weekend on my 2006 987.1

This weekend I used the Sylvania lens cleaning kit to remove the the yellow haze from the headlights. Replaced the worn temp and fan switches and replaced the driver- side pivot lever for the interior door handle. My 2006 BS looks great. Thank you YouTube.

Always good to tweak things in winter, it keeps us connected to our cars for the arrival of spring. Excellent job metatarsal patella. (the body's largest sesamoid bone in case you're ever on jeopardy)

That sylvania kit is pretty sweet right? I used my rotary buffer with the included compound for that last step prior to clear coat and they came out great.

I realize the weight and safety is a consideration but frankly for the cost of these headlights they should have a special glass lens impervious to sun damage, I'm sure Corning glass could do it. Here's an example, these are early Fiat 850 spider headlamps. Nothing makes me less impressed than all the Benz cars, Porsche cars and others with lame polymers that can't evade sunlight, like the engineers couldn't see that train coming.. I had a perfect pair of these and thousands more in obscure parts, my dad trusted a guy to sell and split and well human nature took over.... Vintage Fiat 850 Spider Carello Headlight Glass Housing | eBay <p>Vintage Early Fiat 850 Spider Carello Headlight Glass Cover/Lens housing Rare. Condition is "Used".</p><br><p>Vintage auto parts </p><p>Front cover lens is broken </p><p>Everything is original </p><p>Please look at photos to see the condition it is in</p><p>You will receive everything in the... www.ebay.com

You can thank the ralph nader types in the US that got glass headlights banned in the mid 90s. The old expression, "they just don't make 'em like they used to" is oh so real but often you'll find its because of socialist a$$hats that won't let the free market work as it should.

OK then the manufacturers need to raise their polymer game to be commensurate with the cost of all these headlights. They were all round glass when I was pumping gas, simple to replace and dirt cheap. The 850 was an out layer and those headlamps were quickly swapped for regular rounds I believe around 1970. You have to remove most of the front end to put new ones in my Ford, thanks for that design fellas.

The old round and square (70s) sealed beam headlights from the 50s through the late 80s were great. They didn't allow for much changes in styling though. I think the new headlight designs are not feasible to make in glass. I had a Miata made in the late 90s that still had the round lights. Things last forever and super cheap to swap out when they went bad. Because every manufacturer went to composite headlights with plastic in the late 80/early 90s (because they are cheaper to make, not because of "safety") they are isn't really anyone making the glass ones in bulk anymore. No market and not DOT approved for new cars.

If you look at the 1963-65 series one E-type their solid glass headlamp covers are so similar to the Cayman. A similar process could be used and still put the Bi-Xenon system behind it.

Sigh.. instead of complaining about something ALL cars face, I'd suggest doing something to prevent this from happening (initially or again). 10mil paint-protection film over the repolished headlight (or over a brand new one) will keep it looking BRAND NEW for over a decade. My '09 Boxster has it - since new - and the lights look PERFECT. My '11 Cayenne has it - since about 50k miles (now 109k) and they look PERFECT. If it ever gets scratchy, yellowed or whatever (mine never has) remove it and install new. The cost to get them professionally installed (look for a "wrap guy") was around $75 for the Cayenne. The "clear coat" that comes with all the DIY kits is worse than the original coating was on the lights - I can promise you (from experience too many times) it will look like crap in 2 years, even if garaged. It makes all the difference in how the car looks, and subliminally will change how long you feel you'll love the car. Few people love women with bad eye makeup, and the headlights are the eyes of the car. BTW - it's a common misunderstanding that DOT approves anything. DOT writes specifications, manufacturers certify that their product meets the DOT specifications. The specifications probably prohibit glass since there is a potential it can break and injure a pedestrian hit by a car.

I can't remember where I saw it, but at least one company even makes pre-cut PPF for 987 headlamps. Not sure on the thickness / quality but it was like 50 bucks for the kit, and you could get it in "I'm a racecar!" yellow or "Where's my vape?" smoke tint as well as clear. IIRC it even has little alignment tabs to keep you from messing up the placement. Been considering giving it a try once it warms back up enough here for the adhesive to stick properly / my hands to be articulate enough to not mess up the application. My lights are in OK shape, but start to get slightly hazy every couple months requiring me to spend a few minutes with a rag and some polishing compound.

I’ve used the Sylvania headlight restoration kits in the past and they work very well. After I cleaned the headlights, I installed Lamin-x over them to prevent the discoloration from returning. It’s fairly easy to install. Patience and a hair dryer is your best friend when installing it. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That may have been the product I was thinking of - Lamin-x sounds familiar at any rate.

The shop I used had a computer program for their film cutter, and that program had a template for Cayenne headlights. He put a piece of clear film in his cutter and in about 15 seconds had two pieces cut to fit the headlights. The entire install took maybe 10 minutes top. Oh - on the pre-cut kits.. there used to be kits available for various BMW models. I ordered some and they were made from a very thick (about 1/16") film, almost impossible to get on the headlight cleanly and smooth. This was supposed to prevent stone breaking of glass headlights (the euro headlights on the E36/M3 were glass and I had some), but for our plastic headlights all that's needed really is a thin protective layer - 10/thousands (aka 10-mils) of an inch would work just fine, and is a pretty standard film.

I keep my car garaged and use Plexus on them and they are as new. I have to lol at the "glass can hurt people" angle, I fully understand the laceration danger. However, I can assure you from personal experience after being struck by a car that taking out a windshield and denting up metal panels isn't club med either. A memory foam front end would have been awesome, now whose my legislator again? IMO thousand dollar headlights being junk across all applications doesn't mean they are less junky or that it's acceptable. It's like airlines: "At ABC airlines we know we stink, but so does every other airline", great thanks! I grew up across from people with plastic on their sofa, I'm not doing the headlights that way, the clear-bra it came with is plenty.

Also, add Rain-X after that and you never get dirty.

Maybe I did, maybe you did. I suffer every day because a pregnant woman decided the stop sign was a suggestion. The headlight composition of her Buick didn't mean diddily squat in the outcome. Arbitrary rules are to limit insurance company losses, that's why we wear a three point belt or get ticketed as bikers fly by laughing, life is dangerous. It's also why you can drive a classic with a lap belt without forced conversion. I'm confident a driver in a car without a belt has a better chance of survival than a motorcyclist struck in a similar mishap. Yet forced belt compliance feeds the "mobile generators of revenues" saves the companies money (which is all they care about) and yields fat lobby checks to politicians from insurance companies. That's my old man cynical sense of it, I could be 100% wrong.

My point was originally directed to the moronic commenter above who compared safety regulations to “socialism” and an attack on the free market. (If guys like that were in charge we’d still all be in the process of being slowly poisoned by tetrahedral lead in our gasoline, because the “free market” found it marginally more profitable.) I agree with you that life is dangerous, but that does not mean we have no choice but to live in a jungle fighting leopards with sticks. Safety regulations are written in the blood of the innocent, not insurance company balance sheets. What you view as “arbitrary” rules like eliminating glass headlamps, or leaping jungle cat hood ornaments, or implementing three point belts (or even lap belts) have without a doubt saved humanity countless amounts of needless suffering. That insurance companies find it more profitable to avoid paying out on needless death and injury claims is incidental, and I’m sure the most craven adjusters would far prefer to pay for a $150 chrome bumber rather than a $5,000 plastic crumple zone bumper. I’m sorry to hear about your personal situation. Distracted driving is, in my view, the biggest threat to safety on the roadways today. I’m sure each person in this forum has either a similar personal experience or an anecdote from a friend or loved one. EDIT: I see your dirty edits. The version of your comment I am responding to is memorialized above, in my comment. Changing your comment and your post after I have already responded (without noting you have done so) is dirty pool.

That insurance companies find it more profitable to avoid paying out on needless death and injury claims is incidental. Haha yeah.... I used to believe that until my company exposed women to potentially false positive mammograms because it was cheaper to be potentially sued by individuals than expose their 95% market-share to peril by pulling product they had no replacement for. Why they even were a bit cross with me for identifying the problem in the field which was in the purview of my job. These were people I believed had the utmost integrity. PS I edit a lot because I'm old and dumb, not trying to foist my perceptions on anyone or negate your point which is salient as well.

Question - does anyone have a reference to this mention that glass headlights were eliminated for safety/pedestrian reasons? I'm not finding that anywhere in my quick searching... I figure if people are stating it, they must have a reference? That said, most of the references I see for this change are because plastic is cheaper... that I can totally believe. Anything they can do to shave pennies is game (we all know this to be true, don't we!)

Folks - this is wandering into political discussions which are strictly verboten on Planet-9. Please cease and desist. If it continues you can expect to see your posts removed and perhaps other action taken. Thanks for your cooperation in keeping Planet-9 a friendly place to hang out.

✋I started this train wreck I believe... Apologies Sir/Ma'am... Ralph Nader did not deserve the flak, he is a gentleman and a scholar 😎

Dang. I wish my kids were that easy to corral. You gents are...... Well, gents.

It’s a great question. My suspicion is that a confluence of a number of events shaped this development. First, European (as opposed to American) safety regulations — with particular respect to pedestrian safety— begin tightening up in the 1990’s. They required reduction of harm associated with vehicle / pedestrian collisions. This makes sense because, as a rule, Europe’s population density is higher and it’s roadways are more interwoven with urban pedestrian populations. Second, you have the cost issue. Not only is the plastic cheaper, but it is cheaper more generally speaking to use one type of component across global markets. Think of supply chains. If they are going to have to go to plastic in Europe, may as well also do so in North America and Asia. Third, there is the actual issue of the actual properties of the materials themselves. This is what I think you were pointing out. In this respect, I think a dollop of common sense is in order. We are probably all familiar with the image of the taped over racing car headlights - done because they were prone to shattering when hit by flying debris, such as a rock from another vehicle, for instance. I’m not sure how much scientific study is needed to draw the conclusion that broken glass is bad when it meets human flesh at even low speeds. That said, and to your point, I am not aware of NHTSA or other organization publishing a study specifically about the safety impact of glass head lamps vs plastic. Making the glass thicker can lower the probability of shattering, but it also increases weight, cost — and critically, in this context, helps not at all with the issue of pedestrian safety. Conversely, we’ve probably all had a semi throw a rock that hit the plastic headlight on our Porsche — and just scratched it. The same type of strike that would have likely shattered an older glass headlamp cover. So, in summary, I originally made the claim regarding pedestrian safety, against this background and in light of common sense. I am not personally aware of any “smoking gun“ document regarding specific hazards.

I apologize too, don't want to make Don work any harder or alienate anyone, everybody here is super cool; it's the only place on the net I post with that vibe.

Just a thought on glass vs plastic.. plastic was here before Europe. The "hot-setup" on E36 BMW's (M's for me..) was to buy the euro headlights. They used glass lenses and were far superior in pattern and light output to the plastic US ones. I believe it was US regs that drove the use of plastic.. not euro (for a change.) And thanks for the cooperation in keeping a friendly atmosphere. Next thing you know people will start revealing their real names.. (Something I've done for over 20 years on the Usenet and Web.. and never regretted.)