** Sorry for the long post! ** We bought our first home last July, and knew going in that the roof had about 2 years left before it needed to be replaced (house was built in 1989, still has the original shingles). Existing shingles are cracked, have no flexibility left in them, and we have some algea growth. We decided to just get it done this year, along with having the two existing skylights we have replaced. So I got a couple quotes and signed a contract with a roofer who convinced me to go with IKO Cambridge AR shingles (manufactured in Canada), based primarily on them being heavier than other shingles on the market. We're also having 2 Velux skylights installed. The shingles were delivered yesterday (Friday) to my complete surprise (would have been nice for the roofer to call me...), and the roof will be installed Monday (again to my surprise, as I had to contact the roofer to find that out). I picked this roofer because he was about $1700 less than the next closest estimate, offers a 7-yr workmanship warranty, and seemed to be knowledgable, with great reviews everywhere I looked. The two other roofers that I did not sign with quoted Certainteed shingles (guy who was $1700 more) and GAF Timberline (these guys were about $3k more).
So I was just looking up IKO, and aside from the company website, just about every other mention of IKO out there is negative. Most of the issues seem to have come up with roofs installed in the mid to late 90's, and a lot of problems seem to be with the "organic" shingles (Cambridge AR's are fiberglass, which makes me feel a little better), and the shingles manafuctured in Canada seemed to have more issues. Has IKO's reputation improved as of late? Did I just make a big mistake agreeing to have these shingles installed? Can someone reassure me? The job is $10,000, so I'd kinda like to not feel like I'm just wasting our money.
Another question - the singles that were delivered were on two pallets. One has nothing but Cambridge AR shingles, but the other pallet has Cambridge AR's and about 5 packs of Marathon Ultra AR shingles. The Marathon's have a lower wind resistance warranty (60 mph versus 110 mph for the Cambridge), and a lower "Iron Clad" protection warranty (5 years versus 15 yrs for the Cambridge), so all signs point to them being an inferior product. I'm a civil engineer and have no problem rejecting the use of an inferior product by the contractor when I paid for a better one - just wondering if this is a common practice? I'm already not happy with the lack of communication from my roofer - if they are trying to slip in a cheaper product hoping I won't notice, I'll be really angry.
Thanks for your help - hopefully I didn't make a really, really bad decision.