Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Just got another Invision kit from Autobarn. It works well but doesn't last forever - my lenses were ok for about a year or so with the car virtually always garaged.

Autobarn also sell the Meguiars kit for a few more $$. Would be great to know if there's any real difference between that, Invision and Glassylite.

Also, if anyone knows of a longer lasting UV sealant let us know.

I just recently used the invision stuff on the top of my M35 stagea headlights and to me it made it worse but it worked great on my V35 sedan lights. Ohwell excuse for some mint headlights from nipon land.

Glassylite i think will be my next buy when it happens.

  • 1 month later...

post-76251-0-54013000-1390795174_thumb.jpg

Thought I'd add my own experiences with these 3 products.

In 3rd place the Turtle Kit from Supercheap. It was the cheapest out of the 3, I liked the fact it told you approximately how long to sand/polish for, but there was a pityful amount of headlight sealer.

In 2nd position the Invision Kit from Repco. I bought it on special but it usually costs about $55. The Yellow X chemical (wtf is in it?!?!!?) that you are only allowed to leave on for about 10 seconds was amazing, it appeared to strip the yellow colour from the lens before my very eyes!!!! However i wasnt a fan of the 4 lots of wet and dry, partly because they'd chopped off the grit numbers off the back, but also because I prefered the sanding pads in both the Turtle and RainX Kit.

1st place goes to the RainX kit, middle off the pack for price, easy to follow instructions, plenty of sealer and polish. It has the same amount of lens lubricant as the Turtle Kit but you can just use water when it runs out.

Cheers

Simon

I used the Repco kit, comes with the UV sealant. Has everything you need, sandpaper, sanding block, masking tape, masking paper, cloth. The result speaks for itself. Was only $33 on special. Oh and it's not the Invision kit pictured in the post above, it's a repco self-branded one.

IMG-20140125-WA0003.jpg

IMG-20140125-WA0006.jpg

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 4 months later...

I used this one. Took me about an hour to do two cars in total and still plenty in the UV Protectant tin for another application to both.

2AQCAZ3.jpg

Hey mate, where did you get those Dupli-color restoration kits? I couldnt find them on ebay.

  • 6 months later...

I bought the meguiar kit, it did an okay job. I put alot of effort and care in to the restoration to try and get my moneys worth. In the end it was still a little frosted, but it looked to be from the inside. So far its been about 2 weeks, shall report when things start to degrade again.

  • 4 weeks later...

Seems like whichever kit is used the problem will return eventually. How about:

1 - Wet sand/polish

2 - spray with a clear coat

I don't see a downside with this?....Sure you would have to do a lot of masking but isn't it fairly permanent?

You would want to get a professional spraypainter to do it for you, most paint jobs I have done with a rattle can come out as a very slightly dimpled/uneven surface.. fine for a panel, but not what you want on a headlight.

I was over getting the hazy yellow headlights and re doing it every 6 months. In my experience the uv spray/sand kits will get cloudy again eventually and won't look good if you don't spray it in thin even coats

I used these guys:

http://www.uticolor.com.au/contact-nsw.html#Hills

Specifically the guy that does Blacktown

He did the usual sanding etc and then applied this sealant thing meant for paint. (He is a spray painter by trade) it's been over a year and the flakey or yellow stuff hasn't come back in the slightest.

He told me it would last and not one customer returned with the headlight yellowing and I was pretty skeptical.

I think it cost $60 a headlight or something along those lines and he was initially reluctant to come but as it was a small job but I pestered him. Nice guy, knows what he's doing.

I'm not exaggerate when I say it has not come back in the slightest. He's a magician.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • So it's a ginormous undertaking that will be a massive headache but will be sorta cool if pulled off right. And also expensive. I'm sure it'll be as expensive as buying the car itself. I don't think you could just do this build without upgrading other things to take the extra power. Probably lots of custom stuff as well. All this assuming the person has mechanical knowledge. I'm stupid enough to try it but smart enough to realize there's gonna be mistakes even with an experienced mechanic. I'm a young bloke on minimum wage that gets dopamine from air being moved around and got his knowledge from a Donut video on how engines work.]   Thanks for the response though super informative!
    • Yes, it is entirely possible to twincharge a Skyline. It is not....without problems though. There was a guy did it to an SOHC RB30 (and I think maybe it became or already was a 25/30) in a VL Commode. It was a monster. The idea is that you can run both compressors at relatively low pressure ratios, yet still end up with a quite large total pressure ratio because they multiply, not add, boost levels. So, if the blower is spun to give a 1.4:1 PR (ie, it would make ~40 kPa of boost on its own) and the turbo is set up to give a 1.4:1 PR also, then you don't get 40+40 = 80 kPa of boost, you get 1.4*1.4, which is pretty close to 100 kPa of boost. It's free real estate! This only gets better as the PRs increase. If both are set up to yield about 1.7 PR, which is only about 70 kPa or 10ish psi of boost each, you actually end up with about 1.9 bar of boost! So, inevitably it was a bit of a monster. The blower is set up as the 2nd compressor, closest to the motor, because it is a positive displacement unit, so to get the benefit of putting it in series with another compressor, it has to go second. If you put it first, it has to be bigger, because it will be breathing air at atmospheric pressure. The turbo's compressor ends up needing to be a lot larger than you'd expect, and optimised to be efficient at large mass flows and low PRs. The turbo's exhaust side needs to be quite relaxed, because it's not trying to provide the power to produce all the boost, and it has to handle ALL the exhaust flow. I think you need a much bigger wastegate than you might expect. Certainly bigger than for an engine just making the same power level turbo only. The blower effectively multiplies the base engine size. So if you put a 1.7 PR blower on a 2.5L Skyline, it's like turboing a 4.2L engine. Easy to make massive power. Plus, because the engine is blown, the blower makes boost before the turbo can even think about making boost, so it's like having that 4.2L engine all the way from idle. Fattens the torque delivery up massively. But, there are downsides. The first is trying to work out how to size the turbo according to the above. The second is that you pretty much have to give up on aircon. There's not enough space to mount everything you need. You might be able to go elec power steering pump, hidden away somewhere. but it would still be a struggle to get both the AC and the blower on the same side of the engine. Then, you have to ponder whether you want to truly intercool the thing. Ideally you would put a cooler between the turbo and the blower, so as to drop the heat out of it and gain even more benefit from the blower's positive displacement nature. But that would really need to be a water to air core, because you're never going to find enough room to run 2 sets of boost pipes out to air to air cores in the front of the car. But you still need to aftercool after the blower, because both these compressors will add a lot of heat, and you wil have the same temperature (more or less) as if you produced all that boost with a single stage, and no one in their right mind would try to run a petrol engine on high boost without a cooler (unless not using petrol, which we shall ignore for the moment). I'm of the opinnion that 2x water to air cores in the bay and 2x HXs out the front is probably the only sensible way to avoid wasting a lot of room trying to fit in long runs of boost pipe. But the struggle to locate everything in the limited space available would still be a pretty bad optimisation problem. If it was an OEM, they'd throw 20 engineers at it for a year and let them test out 30 ideas before deciding on the best layout. And they'd have the freedom to develop bespoke castings and the like, for manifolds, housings, connecting pipes to/from compressors and cores. A single person in a garage can either have one shot at it and live with the result, or spend 5 years trying to get it right.
    • Good to know, thank you!
    • It's a place for non car talk. There's whoretown which is general shit talking. But also other threads coving all sorts of stuff(a lot still semi car related)
    • Looked it up. It sounds so expensive lmao I'd rather not. Awwwww but I just love that sound
×
×
  • Create New...