[QUOTE=John Mace]
Is there really any such thing as a “mild” pitting? Maybe we need a Slow Cooker forum or something for that kind of action.
[/QUOTE]
My vote is for a “Hot Plate” forum…1920s style.
[QUOTE=Rick]
Many car companies refer to anti-smash glass as high security glass or security glass.
[/quote]
Okay, that’s useful to know overall. However, the news article doesn’t say “security” glass, it just says “reinforced” glass. So we’re speculating here on what type of glass it did have.
Right. And since I’ve already been ignoring them, I will continue to ignore them. We’re not talking about the pros and cons of rental vehicles, we’re talking about why someone would want to have a feature on their car that allows them to lock an intruder in the car.
The armoured Ford Expedition I linked to looks just like an ordinary SUV to my admittedly amateur eyes. It doesn’t look like a Hummer or a Brink’s truck; it just looks like an SUV.
Right. That’s what we’re assuming, that since the teenager wasn’t able to kick out the windows, the windows must have had something thicker than ordinary 1/4" anti-theft laminate glass, thus rendering it, colloquially speaking, “bulletproof”, and that the car must have been an armored SUV, and not just an ordinary SUV.
Well, that depends. According to this bulletproof/security glass comes in different thicknesses, from 1/4" to over 3", depending on what kind of firepower you’re expecting your kidnappers to be packing.
Why? Why couldn’t it have been an armored SUV? And, what difference does it make? 
[QUOTE=Rick]
yeah, but all I got was this mild pitting. :mad: The slow cooker of pittings apparently.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but think of how tender you’ll be in 12 hours. 
[QUOTE=danceswithcats]
Yeah, but think of how tender you’ll be in 12 hours.
[/QUOTE]
And juicy!