Windscreen Replacement - experience

D

dboi10

Registered User
Joined
Apr 4, 2016
Messages
9
Reaction score
11
Points
3
Hi all,
Wanted to share my experience of having my A3 MY16 windscreen replaced. There are some posts that go back in time that are not true or helpful anymore so i wanted to set a clear and honest experience for April 2017.

Travelling down the M4 and got smacked by something that left a 2 inch crack developing - annoying. I've insurance with Admiral, so went online and instantly set up an appointment with Autoglass directly. Was really impressed at not having to phone, and them instantly knowing who i was. Paid my £75 excess to Autoglass in advance and set up a visit to my home in a few days. Autoglass chap turned up on time (within a 5 hour window) and was v professional and a nice chap too. I was half dreading having a new windscreen from reading lots of reviews so far, so i stayed and watched what he did. The tools he has are amazing and so designed not to mark or damage the body work - he took pride in his work (perhaps because i watched him.. haha). The old windscreen had a sun band, acoustic glass and a rain and light sensor area. The new windscreen had a sun band, acoustic glass and a new rain and light sensor gel pad ready to go. The brand and serial of the new windscreen was exactly the same as the old one, but does not have the Audi logo (AGC AUTOMOTIVE). The new screen has exactly the same type and style black dot marks around the edge too. The new screen doesn't have any defects or "wobbly bits".
Sounds like i work for Autoglass on reflection - but quite simply, they did the job i expected without issue or worry.

Hope that helps anyone going forward.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tele2050, Audi Bairn, richinsoton and 4 others
You're happy, and in that context - your world - it's all that matters.

However, I will say that it's the attitude that the likes of your insurance company (as well as their nominated glass replacement guys) want. They (the insco) save a shed load of money and the fitting guys get to earn their projected margins from fitting cheaper glass. Too many consumers accept all the fluffiness around these scenarios when they should be looking at the bigger picture.

FYI, the two screens are NOT exactly the same, 'minus the logo'. The one with a logo is a premium product, the one without is a cheaper version, effectively a fake.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rob2k68
Well pleased for you mate.
I have never had a glass fitted on the first visit as they always seem to have the wrong one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rob2k68 and SILVAF0XX
dboi10
I also had my screen changed yesterday by Autoglass (same year as you and rain sensors etc) I was also worried about the non Audi glass but Autoglass were happy to assure me that it is exactly the same glass but they are not allowed to put the Audi logo on.
We had along conversation on this and they convinced me that it was the same screen. The quality of work was superb and the actual screen is exactly like the one taken out minus the logo, no distortion or defects that I can see.
The comments from Glassman are interesting but not sure if they are factual or opinion, can only say as I find, and the screen does not look any different. I would be interested to know if he/we could identify that it is a cheaper one and I would certainly take that up with Autoglass and Directline.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Audi Bairn, richinsoton and Rob2k68
I had mine replace by Autoglass back in February. However as the crack happened with only 400 miles on the clock I was only prepared to accept OE Audi glass. Couldn't fault the service from Autoglass and were happy to supply what I wanted if I was prepared to wait a few days longer. Each to their own I suppose.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: Audi Bairn, richinsoton and Rob2k68
Agreed Barry, did you have to pay any extra, I could have had the OEM screen but at cost which seemed expensive just for the logo. Who are you insured with if you don't mind me asking, hope its not Direct line!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rob2k68
audi upgrades
traindweller said:
Agreed Barry, did you have to pay any extra, I could have had the OEM screen but at cost which seemed expensive just for the logo. Who are you insured with if you don't mind me asking, hope its not Direct line!
Click to expand...

Insured with Aviva only cost me the standard £75 excess. Dealt direct with Autoglass and they just had to get the ok from Aviva once I requested the Audi glass.
I'm sure someone else said on another thread that up to 1yr old an insurance company cannot refuse the request for OE glass.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: traindweller and Rob2k68
traindweller said:
dboi10

The comments from Glassman are interesting but not sure if they are factual or opinion, can only say as I find, and the screen does not look any different. I would be interested to know if he/we could identify that it is a cheaper one and I would certainly take that up with Autoglass and Directline.
Click to expand...

Fact.

http://www.glasstecpaul.com/windscreen-manufacturers-what-do-they-really-mean/

The aftermarket version are not manufactured to the same standards - or using the same manufacturing processes - as the Original Equipment ones.

For another side to the debate:

http://www.glasstecpaul.com/manufacturer-warranty-windscreens/
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rob2k68 and BarryG79
Something else to consider. In order to 'copy' an OE version, some important characteristics are altered: curvature; width (over the widest points) even hardware like rain sensor mounting brackets, scuttle retainers, dowels, silkprint etc.

Just because it looks the same, it doesn't mean it is the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rob2k68
I had a new screen fitted just over a month or so ago by Autoglass. Again can't fault the workmanship apart from the fitter putting the wipers on my carbon air box lid LoL they soon got moved!

Car is two years old but I requested OEM glass which I waited a week for and again only paid the £75 excess for - insured with Adrian Flux but underwritten by AXA.

Wanted OEM so all of the trademarks were the same and matched. Also Audi supplied a 2017 screen which had more blackout in the gap between the sun visors so effectively a design update from my 2015MY original. Also was concerned that the bits you can't see being the acoustic interlayer between the two glass plys being up to the same standard.
 
Rob2k68 said:
I had a new screen fitted just over a month or so ago by Autoglass. Again can't fault the workmanship apart from the fitter putting the wipers on my carbon air box lid LoL they soon got moved!

Car is two years old but I requested OEM glass which I waited a week for and again only paid the £75 excess for - insured with Adrian Flux but underwritten by AXA.

Wanted OEM so all of the trademarks were the same and matched. Also Audi supplied a 2017 screen which had more blackout in the gap between the sun visors so effectively a design update from my 2015MY original. Also was concerned that the bits you can't see being the acoustic interlayer between the two glass plys being up to the same standard.
Click to expand...

I see this a lot with OEM glass taking a while to order in. Whenever I order (either directly or via TPS) it's same day next day. In fact, BMW, JLR, MB, Porsche et al are the same. Even some of the Jap stuff is next day or 5-10 day back order.

ETA: re acoustic glass - there will usually be a motif but many now will have the letter 'A' below the screen E numbers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rob2k68
Glassman said:
I see this a lot with OEM glass taking a while to order in. Whenever I order (either directly or via TPS) it's same day next day. In fact, BMW, JLR, MB, Porsche et al are the same. Even some of the Jap stuff is next day or 5-10 day back order.
Click to expand...

I think part of the wait was whilst Autoglass got the green light for OEM glass from my insurance. Audi had 37 screens in stock in the U.K. so I think it was virtually next day once ordered then I waited a few days to get the fitting booked.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Audi Bairn
Rob2k68 said:
I think part of the wait was whilst Autoglass got the green light for OEM glass from my insurance. Audi had 37 screens in stock in the U.K. so I think it was virtually next day once ordered then I waited a few days to get the fitting booked.
Click to expand...

Ok, fair enough.

Were you made aware (being insured with AXA) that your No Claims will be suspended for a year after making a windscreen claim?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rob2k68
Glassman said:
Ok, fair enough.

Were you made aware (being insured with AXA) that your No Claims will be suspended for a year after making a windscreen claim?
Click to expand...

No mention at all about no claims being effected- I have full and protected if that makes a difference?
 
My view for what its worth....had two windscreens in my S3 in the last 18 months (one OEM one not). Both fitted by Autoglass and great customer service as experienced by the OP on both occasions. Not being a glass expert I have not noticed any difference between them.

OEM v non OEm alwsty creates a bit of debate on here but point that I don't agree with @Glassman on in his ascertaining that if its not OEM its fake. In fact it not fake unless being passed off as OEM

If they meet the same standards (ISO or whatever) and the same specification then they are identical!!! There might be subtle differences but are they important? If they were that important a difference they would be covered by the specs and standards?

The analogy I use is cornflakes...... are Kellogg's better then Tesco own brand end of the day it's personal choice
 
  • Like
Reactions: traindweller, Audi Bairn, dboi10 and 1 other person
Glassman,
Thanks for posting that info, it makes interesting reading although i agree with Daveotto the glass may not be fake. Autoglass told me that it is the same glass but without the logo and that seems to be born out in the info you supplied.
Direct line make a point in the policy book that any windscreen claim will not affect your no claims or the no claims protection. I do agree though that if I were to change insurers I would have to declare the screen as a claim and that would affect the new policy. I suppose this encourages us to stay with the original insurer.
 
I know a bit about glass and yes although there are standards for breakage and optical quality the glass surface tolerances can vary quite a lot depending on the manufacturing process so press bent versus gravity sag formed - google or Wikipedia for more info.

Sag will give a general surface tolerance of +/-3mm but will be good around the periphery where it's bonded to the car as that's the part that sits on the tool. Press formed is a complete matching tool machined to the glass surface from CAD and is much more accurate. If OEM is pressed (likely due to the number of A3's produced) and the non OEM sag formed then there can be sufficient deviation to cause wiper judder, squeaks or other issues - even if made by the same glass manufacturer it could be a different plant and different process. Sag formed glass will also vary more batch to batch due to furnace temperature, heat distribution and time a bit like baking a cake I guess.

Don't know for sure who makes non OEM glass or how but just saying that it could be different.

I had a non OEM screen in my last car a Seat Leon and it was fine but wanted OEM AGC logo this time round given the value of the car and what I'm paying in insurance.
 
Interesting topic. Haven't changed my windscreen for yrs but if i were put in the position now then i would insist on making sure its a genuine Audi OEM glass, after all its a part of the car. After a crash would you let your insurer replace a bumper with a non OEM part, even if its the same specs etc? I'm 100% sure that none of us would, so why should glass be any different?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rob2k68
Rob2k68 said:
I know a bit about glass and yes although there are standards for breakage and optical quality the glass surface tolerances can vary quite a lot depending on the manufacturing process so press bent versus gravity sag formed - google or Wikipedia for more info.

Sag will give a general surface tolerance of +/-3mm but will be good around the periphery where it's bonded to the car as that's the part that sits on the tool. Press formed is a complete matching tool machined to the glass surface from CAD and is much more accurate. If OEM is pressed (likely due to the number of A3's produced) and the non OEM sag formed then there can be sufficient deviation to cause wiper judder, squeaks or other issues - even if made by the same glass manufacturer it could be a different plant and different process. Sag formed glass will also vary more batch to batch due to furnace temperature, heat distribution and time a bit like baking a cake I guess.

Don't know for sure who makes non OEM glass or how but just saying that it could be different.

I had a non OEM screen in my last car a Seat Leon and it was fine but wanted OEM AGC logo this time round given the value of the car and what I'm paying in insurance.
Click to expand...

Good explanation, had not considered wiper judder due to dimensional tolerance (and should have based on my knowledge of tubular glass manufacture and impact on glide and break free forces for syringe barrels)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rob2k68
I had a non OEM windshield replaced twice in my last car. Both had glass faults; one had minor viewing distortions, the other had weird colour distortions that was only visible with the full sun shining on it The third one also had minor issues and I gave up asking for the glass installer to replace them. He did a good job on the installations but the glass was substandard to which he agreed.
The issue here was my insurer, as they will not replace with OEM windshields after the car is over two years old. I learnt my lesson and took out separate insurance for all vehicle glass to replace with OEM on my present car, regardless of age. The windshield installer which is a company with multiple locations, stated he has had issues with some suppliers of windshield glass and it costs him time and money when these issues arise, as he does not get full compensation from the supplier but his hands are tied by some insurance companies directions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rob2k68
Apologies to shorten the quotes, but easier to refer to.

Daveotto said:
If they meet the same standards (ISO or whatever) and the same specification then they are identical!!! There might be subtle differences but are they important? If they were that important a difference they would be covered by the specs and standards?

The analogy I use is cornflakes...... are Kellogg's better then Tesco own brand end of the day it's personal choice
Click to expand...

First and foremost, Tesco's own branded stuff is usually ***** (compared to the proper stuff). I've tried their 'rich tea biscuits' and threw the packet in the bin.

Secondly, you cannot have a product tier system differentiated only by an authenticity 'stamp'. Only in rare examples you will find an identical (glass) product with the logo removed (never added). If you can add a logo retrospectively, it opens up all kind of implications. Just because a windscreen meets a standard it doesn't make it as good as the thing it was copied from. Just today I fitted a Q3 screen on a used car and the fit was someway short of being 'as good as' the one that came out of it.

I can show you countless examples of the differences between the non-genuine products 'they' want you to accept and the one - as a paying consumer - you should be insisting on. The two are different and cannot be classed as identical; the manufacturing processes are not the same, ergo: there is a difference in quality.

traindweller said:
Glassman,
Autoglass told me that it is the same glass but without the logo and that seems to be born out in the info you supplied.
Click to expand...

Most Autoglass techs regurgitate information fed to them by their misinformed managers. It is not the same glass and there is rarely an exception to this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rob2k68
I had National Windscreens fit a non-OEM screen to my old A3 after Autoglass cancelled two appointments, didn't have one on stock and finally admitted that they couldn't get one for over two weeks. Unfortunately the auto wiper function was erratic afterwards and never worked the same again.
I will always insist on an OEM screen if I need one in future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rob2k68
Glassman said:
First and foremost, Tesco's own branded stuff is usually ***** (compared to the proper stuff). I've tried their 'rich tea biscuits' and threw the packet in the bin.
Click to expand...

Subjective and down to your personal opinion, in a controlled test of branded v non branded you would not be able to pick the branded product in around 80-90% of the times...my wife worked for Tesco's product testing and development department for about 1o years!!!!!!

Glassman said:
the manufacturing processes are not the same, ergo: there is a difference in quality.
Click to expand...

Different process does not necessarily mean difference in quality ......that's my view from 28 years experience in a high volume/high specification industry as a technical director in manufacturing engineering
 
  • Like
Reactions: Audi Bairn and Rob2k68
Daveotto said:
Different process does not necessarily mean difference in quality ......that's my view from 28 years experience in a high volume/high specification industry as a technical director in manufacturing engineering
Click to expand...

There are a few variables.

1. Genuine OE glass.
2. Aftermarket glass;
a) produced by the OE manufacturer;
b) manufactured by a non OE brand.

To expand a little (and risk repeating myself) the Original Equipment Manufacturer ( "OEM" ) will produce windscreens for their client; let's use Audi as the example, and Guardian to be the manufacturer. Those 'branded' windscreens and glass products (bearing the four ring logo) will go the assembly line, and there will be some stock allocation for the main dealer networks. Guardian will also manufacture an aftermarket product - one which does not bear the four ring logo - and in fact, the hardware will be different (the early non OE A3 screens by Guardian for example never fitted as well as the OE versions, and the scuttle retainer didn't retain the scuttle well if it did at all!). There will be other tell tale signs; the font size on the 'GUARDIAN' logo will be a different size; the silkprint on the glass will be slightly different (in the margin size or the shape of the VIN cut out).

When you push the OEMs (like Guardian, Pilkington, AGC, Saint Gobain Sekurit etc) for the definitive word on whether or not the products are the same or not, or even if they have been made in the same factory to the same standards, they will reply with very cautious statements like, the (aftermarket) products 'respond' to the main technical and aesthetic characteristics as the original. A bit like saying the fake England top bought from a market in Istanbul also 'responds' to the main technical and aesthetic characteristics of the ones sold by the FA via official FA retail outlets. In many cases, the aftermarket glass (made by the same manufacturer as the genuine ones) is not the production line or same plant and often not always the same country.

Not to be confused with: brands who do not manufacture glass for a particular car or model. For example, Guardian manufactured glass for the earlier A3 model, but when the rain sensors were modified (IIRC) Pilkington got the shout. Also, don't look too much into the country codes of where the glass was manufactured.

There are brands such as XYG, Nordglass, Shatterprufe, Safevue, Starglass (to name a few) who are all about aftermarket products. With the exception of Shatterprufe (the did some OE glass for Mercedes a few years back) and Starglass (London Taxis) none of them have managed to break into the OE market... yet. Fuyao Glass used to be in that list but they're now OEM for a few manufacturers including Audi, Bentley and Jaguar and as decent as the 'genuine' products are, the aftermarket 'non gen' stuff is still shockingly bad (IMHO).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Flying Scotsman and Rob2k68
Glassman said:
When you push the OEMs (like Guardian, Pilkington, AGC, Saint Gobain Sekurit etc) for the definitive word on whether or not the products are the same or not, or even if they have been made in the same factory to the same standards, they will reply with very cautious statements like, the (aftermarket) products 'respond' to the main technical and aesthetic characteristics as the original
Click to expand...

It is also possible the glass is made on the same line and to the same standard with the same input materials but the OEM is prevented contractually for declaring this to outside parties....6 of one half a dozen of the other

I will be convinced by facts and data rather than conjecture or conspiracy theory...if you have any I am more than happy to concede
 
  • Like
Reactions: traindweller, Audi Bairn and Rob2k68
Daveotto said:
It is also possible the glass is made on the same line and to the same standard with the same input materials but the OEM is prevented contractually for declaring this to outside parties....6 of one half a dozen of the other

I will be convinced by facts and data rather than conjecture or conspiracy theory...if you have any I am more than happy to concede
Click to expand...

Yes, the manufacturers are tight lipped, and hence the data and facts won't be any more than insider knowledge. I know people in the industry and from all corners of the industry, and after doing a bit of research myself (talking to manufacturers as well as visiting some) leaves a lot unanswered. You can call it a conspiracy theory and to a degree, by definition, I can't say it isn't conjecture. However, the point here isn't to engage in lengthy debate and bun fights, but to make the end user - and the public - aware of what insiders are telling us (and for obvious reasons, they would have to remain anon as some are still working within the same circles).

In the 25 years I have been fitting screens, I can say with certainty that the majority of non OE screens are not as good as the genuine OE versions (fitting, shape, curve, cut, hardware and optically). The genuine OE parts are - 99% of the time - a far better experience all round. No issues trying to make one fit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rob2k68, Audi Bairn, Daveotto and 1 other person
Glassman said:
the point here isn't to engage in lengthy debate and bun fights,
Click to expand...

No bun fights from me, wanted to highlight that there always a whole bunch of factors influencing branded v non branded products and its not just down to perceptions on quality
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rob2k68 and Audi Bairn
Got a huge stone chip this week so am having mine replaced on Friday, car is only 7 months old so have requested oem

Had 2 FY screens fitted to my c6; one let air in and one rattled against the vin number holder (poor fitting) - the 3rd screen they fitted was Audi branded made by FY so was never sure if there was any difference - but had no problems with it

As I work in the automotive industry it's safe to say any oem aftermarket part will not meet the same standard as line side parts, tolerances are always lower and reject line side parts are reworked into oem seconds/aftermarket
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rob2k68
AndyT306 said:
As I work in the automotive industry it's safe to say any oem aftermarket part will not meet the same standard as line side parts, tolerances are always lower and reject line side parts are reworked into oem seconds/aftermarket
Click to expand...

Don't you start as well, you'll get him going again...

Daveotto said:
I will be convinced by facts and data rather than conjecture or conspiracy theory...if you have any I am more than happy to concede
Click to expand...

:welcoming::playful:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rob2k68
Glassman said:
Don't you start as well, you'll get him going again...



:welcoming::playful:
Click to expand...

just stating facts... i can't prove it happens with windscreens, but i'm worked in 2 tier 1 suppliers, and it does happen with other parts
 
that would be a more politically correct statement... however the soft thinking approach should include MAYBE include that SOME rejects are supplied as seconds without rework at all
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Jimbob76
Windscreen Replacement
Replies
38
Views
12K
SPIKE_
SPIKE_
Keef1004
Windscreen replacement
Replies
10
Views
2K
KenL
K
Pickle1970
Replacement windscreen price?
Replies
3
Views
13K
BarryG79
BarryG79
gamegenie
Windshield/Windscreen replacement question
Replies
3
Views
3K
DJAlix
DJAlix
S
PCP car windscreen replacement
Replies
9
Views
6K
sunscreemer
sunscreemer
Top
Back