protecting pleather seats?

[David Fermani]

I might be misreading your post, but are you suggesting that the UV protection on the glass and in the coating is so strong that you don't need additional protection or are you suggesting that since you have seen these materials fade (with all of the inherent protection) that nothing could slow UV damage down?

Products, such as 303 Areospace Protectant have been independently tested (according to the manufacturer) and have been praised for years by end users in the aeronautical and marine industries, and certainty the hundreds of positive reviews have some baring on the products effectiveness.

Not saying that additional protection isn't beneficial to some unknown degree. Overprotection is never a bad thing. But is it realistic to assume that these products will actually block out UV rays more than what is found in OEM glass, the treatment *within* the topcoat of the surface and the UV stabilizers built into the actual substrate? For clarification, there are blockers found in automotive glass and interior components, as well as in the 303 protectants, but there is no documentation to support that either will totally stop the degradation caused by the sun. Before buying into this theory, I called 303 and spoke with Roger in great length about their products and their use in the automotive industry. Their company mainly focuses on the marine and textiles industry, but because their product?s uses overlap with that of autos, they service it as well. Much of their testing has been done by their clients and more importantly none has been done on the materials found in modern automobiles. I discussed a ?what if? scenario of their product having any value on a vehicle?s interior surface, but no testing could be referenced to support the theory. As a matter of fact, the majority of 303?s own testing occurred back in the 70?s. He mostly claimed that many customers that use their products on UV sensitive(degrades w/UV light) material such as marine grade vinyl & neoprene seat covers have had great success, but no documentation backing up these claims could be provided as to how it would perform on modern interior automotive surfaces. Roger did admit that modern automotive interiors are much more UV stabile than ever before. For example, if this product was applied to ? a vehicle?s interior and was parked outside (not driven) for 10 years in a S. Florida climate, there is no documentation to support that there would be any different results to the untreated side as opposed to the treated one. Roger also admitted that keeping the surface clean is very important and to avoid using products with silicone at all costs. He also claimed that the use of silicone in many interior car care products found on the market today are rediculously inappropriate and it's the duty of the manufacturer to be properly educate the comsumer. Instead, they are actually responsible for premature deterioration to vehicles.

 

[Todd@RUPES]

Not saying that additional protection isn't beneficial to some unknown degree. Overprotection is never a bad thing. But is it realistic to assume that these products will actually block out UV rays more than what is found in OEM glass, the treatment *within* the topcoat of the surface and the UV stabilizers built into the actual substrate? For clarification, there are blockers found in automotive glass and interior components, as well as in the 303 protectants, but there is no documentation to support that either will totally stop the degradation caused by the sun. Before buying into this theory, I called 303 and spoke with Roger in great length about their products and their use in the automotive industry. Their company mainly focuses on the marine and textiles industry, but because their product?s uses overlap with that of autos, they service it as well. Much of their testing has been done by their clients and more importantly none has been done on the materials found in modern automobiles. I discussed a ?what if? scenario of their product having any value on a vehicle?s interior surface, but no testing could be referenced to support the theory. As a matter of fact, the majority of 303?s own testing occurred back in the 70?s. He mostly claimed that many customers that use their products on UV sensitive(degrades w/UV light) material such as marine grade vinyl & neoprene seat covers have had great success, but no documentation backing up these claims could be provided as to how it would perform on modern interior automotive surfaces. Roger did admit that modern automotive interiors are much more UV stabile than ever before. For example, if this product was applied to ? a vehicle?s interior and was parked outside (not driven) for 10 years in a S. Florida climate, there is no documentation to support that there would be any different results to the untreated side as opposed to the treated one. Roger also admitted that keeping the surface clean is very important and to avoid using products with silicone at all costs. He also claimed that the use of silicone in many interior car care products found on the market today are rediculously inappropriate and it's the duty of the manufacturer to be properly educate the comsumer. Instead, they are actually responsible for premature deterioration to vehicles.

Perhaps the constant drone of a rotary polisher (and the vibrations of a DA) have killed more brain cell's then I care to admit . Because I still don't understand your point.

If your point is to say that you don't have a personal opinion on the matter, but here are the questions/concerns you have then my only logical response would be to consider the 40 years (from the 1970s) a company like 303 has been around and consider the overwhelmingly positive reviews of the product through out its history. I have always applied 303 to my wife's trim and seals, and when parked next to a similar model the difference has always been staggering. My HHR is kept outside 24/7 and is treated with 303 fairly consitantly. The trim on it still looks great (particularly when parked next to other HHR's). Given the year of my car it would be impossible for any HHRs to be more then 12 months older then my car.

So while I understand skepticism in the face of a lack of convincing evidence (one way or another) I would say that in my experience I have not seen any degradation on materials that I have maintained with 303 and that is hard for me to ignore.

 

[David Fermani]

Perhaps the constant drone of a rotary polisher (and the vibrations of a DA) have killed more brain cell's then I care to admit . Because I still don't understand your point.

You killing your brain cells is a totally different discussion all together?.:rofl:

If your point is to say that you don't have a personal opinion on the matter, but here are the questions/concerns you have then my only logical response would be to consider the 40 years (from the 1970s) a company like 303 has been around and consider the overwhelmingly positive reviews of the product through out its history.

Just because a company (especially one in the protection industry) has been in business for so long, doesn?t necessarily equate to them providing a service that is on par with theirs or their client?s claims. Case in point, Zeibart, which is the largest and most successfully recognized name within the vehicle protection industry.
http://www.ziebart.com/ They?ve been selling protection services since the 50?s but we all know their lifetime guarantee on rust, paint and fabric is simply untrue. These companies bet on the law of averages in hope that an educated consumer won?t buy or question their claim.

I have always applied 303 to my wife's trim and seals, and when parked next to a similar model the difference has always been staggering. My HHR is kept outside 24/7 and is treated with 303 fairly consitantly. The trim on it still looks great (particularly when parked next to other HHR's). Given the year of my car it would be impossible for any HHRs to be more then 12 months older then my car.

We?re talking about interior trim, not exterior. Big difference. I?d be willing to bet you care for your cars (at least the exterior of your HHR X_X) much better than even the above average consumer who most likely utilizes inferior products and processes anyways.

So while I understand skepticism in the face of a lack of convincing evidence (one way or another) I would say that in my experience I have not seen any degradation on materials that I have maintained with 303 and that is hard for me to ignore.

It?s second nature for me to sometimes question people in the know, especially ones that offer miracle products. Call me a skeptic, but I really have a hard time believing that a product can measureable prevent deterioration to a vehicle?s interior beyond what the solar glass and UV stabilized interior components are doing. Per one auto industry source (Pete Dishart, President and Global Manager for PPD Industries), he claims that Automotive glass screens up to 98% of damaging UV rays greatly minimizing the damaging effects such as causing vehicle fabrics to fade and degrade, leather to age, and plastic and wood to crack. Unless you or someone you trust have conducted side by side comparisons on an exact vehicle for multiple years, it?s nearly impossible for one to monitor/measure the sun?s effect on interior trim protected with this product. You must admit that it?s a bit puzzling how a company has no data to substantiate their claim supporting their own product? When asked, they claim their testing was done decades ago by customers on materials totally different that what we?re referring to.

 

[Dave1]

Not saying that additional protection isn't beneficial to some unknown degree.

That qualifier fits a lot of products actually...........


As far as UV protection, proven marine satisfaction is a good as it gets imo.....

No glass, all sun......

If 303 can help that in any way, it's a big plus for any automobile interior.....

 

[David Fermani]

That qualifier fits a lot of products actually...........


As far as UV protection, proven marine satisfaction is a good as it gets imo.....

No glass, all sun......

If 303 can help that in any way, it's a big plus for any automobile interior.....

Gotcha on the Marine application Dave. The point I'm trying to get across is "is this added protected needed, required & realistic" for the preservation of a vehicle's interior? We can also double dark tint(which is more effective than a product such as 303) every window in a car to give it even more protection, but is this needed, required or realistic for preserving an interior? I usually never use any interior protectants and I've never noticed any premature UV wear. I just personally don't see a need for a product such as this as an interior treatment (unless maybe a convertible). Sure it can *assist* in blocking UV rays, but how much of these rays that have already been blocked are being halted by this treatment? Probably a pretty marginal amount, that may not damage the UV stabilized interior components anyways.

 

[CEE DOG]

David F., I appreciate your skepticism as it invites thinking and discussion which promotes education. I read all the posts here but I'd bet 1000$ that after 10 years a car parked in the sun with 303AP on half of it and nothing on the other half would show a difference.