Ceramic Tint suggestions

[JayceM]

The cops might not bother you, but if you're not legal your inspection might not fly. Ceramic is also a must if you use a radar detector - metalic based tint cuts down on sensitivity

We don't have inspections where I live. So if the cops don't bother you, no one can.

 

[Paulsr]

Are ceramic tints worth it? I know there are some cheaper options from 3M that are between basic bitch tints and ceramic and aren't metallic. Is a higher quality tint just better for letting light in?

I went with the Suntek Carbon XP Series because it has nearly equal performance to ceramic but without the color hue that comes with ceramic. For me the hue detracts from the exterior appearence of the car.

 

[TW428]

I had the folk at Genesis Yorkdale install my tint prior to taking delivery. 20% in the rear and 35% on the front windows which I was told is the legal maximum tint in Ontario. I don't feel that the disparity in the degree of tint between the front and rear windows is that noticeable or distracting. Please recognize that a 20% tint in the rear window combined with the auto-dimming rear view mirror does darken the view out back when you're looking in the mirror.

 

[Gebop]

I went with the Suntek Carbon XP Series because it has nearly equal performance to ceramic but without the color hue that comes with ceramic. For me the hue detracts from the exterior appearence of the car.

Don't want to throw shade here, but none of this is actually true. This dyed film is not that close (i.e. "nearly equal") in IR/heat rejection to the better quality ceramic films. It has good performance for dyed film, but modern ceramic films are a level above in terms of performance. CXP is also known for having a green hue. There is a reason tinters call this brand SunWreck: because its one of those infamously thin and easily scratched films, that shrinks great but has haze issues and fades or color shifts inside of five year or less for many.

Don't take my word for it, read what the pros over at tintdude think of it.

Suntek CXP vs Llumar CTX
Suntek Carbon XP Color Stability?
Typical results from Suntek cxp tint?
what is the benifits to ceramic tint vs cxp or crystline?


Please know I'm not trying to bag on you personally, but I do think others reading here should balance your comments with the more broadly held professional sentiments regarding this product.

 

[NLJ]

Don't want to throw shade here, but none of this is actually true. This dyed film is not that close (i.e. "nearly equal") in IR/heat rejection to the better quality ceramic films. It has good performance for dyed film, but modern ceramic films are a level above in terms of performance. CXP is also known for having a green hue. There is a reason tinters call this brand SunWreck: because its one of those infamously thin and easily scratched films, that shrinks great but has haze issues and fades or color shifts inside of five year or less for many.

Don't take my word for it, read what the pros over at tintdude think of it.

Suntek CXP vs Llumar CTX
Suntek Carbon XP Color Stability?
Typical results from Suntek cxp tint?
what is the benifits to ceramic tint vs cxp or crystline?


Please know I'm not trying to bag on you personally, but I do think others reading here should balance your comments with the more broadly held professional sentiments regarding this product.

My understanding is that it was the SunTek CXP and older films that scratched easily and not the Ceramic CIR.
Also tints last longer in the north than in the south because of the amount of heat they are subjected to all year round.
Am I right?
I'm going to pick the best for my given price but not too many complaints if any about SunTek among Canadians. In fact, most big reputable tints here all have SunTek plus other brands and highly recommend it. Maybe because support is better since they are a Canadian company?

 

[surprisinguy]

What inspection are you referring to?

Well that's nice! Go as dark as you want then

 

[Paulsr]

Don't want to throw shade here, but none of this is actually true. This dyed film is not that close (i.e. "nearly equal") in IR/heat rejection to the better quality ceramic films. It has good performance for dyed film, but modern ceramic films are a level above in terms of performance. CXP is also known for having a green hue. There is a reason tinters call this brand SunWreck: because its one of those infamously thin and easily scratched films, that shrinks great but has haze issues and fades or color shifts inside of five year or less for many.

Don't take my word for it, read what the pros over at tintdude think of it.

Suntek CXP vs Llumar CTX
Suntek Carbon XP Color Stability?
Typical results from Suntek cxp tint?
what is the benifits to ceramic tint vs cxp or crystline?


Please know I'm not trying to bag on you personally, but I do think others reading here should balance your comments with the more broadly held professional sentiments regarding this product.

I am not an expert on the subject so I can only speak from experience. In 2011 I put Suntek Carbon XP on my black Maxima. Over the 7 years I had the tint I was very happy with the way it looked which was the main reason I had it done. If there was any fading it was not enough that I noticed it.
Last April I traded the Maxima in for a G90. My G90 is black and I wanted to get tint ASAP. As a retired technology worker I know how fast things are changing so I read up on all the new products especially ceramic and was just about ready to go with ceramic when someone on this forum pointed out that there is a slight hue in the ceramic products. (That discussion is documented in a chain on this forum). I had seen cars with a definite color hue of blue or brown on their windows. I don't know what product they had used but it looked unappealing to me and wanted to make sure I didn't get something like that. When I was ready to have the job done I went to a local tinter and looked at samples. I couldn't see a difference between Suntek’s Carbon XP and their Ceramic product until I held them up against the window of the shop and looked through the sample. Then I could see a slight bluish hue in the Suntek ceramic sample but only black color in the Suntek Carbon XP (aka CXP); no green, blue, or brown hue, only black. So I went with the CXP35. After 6 months I am still very pleased with it. Now that it is installed I still see no color hue at all.
Regarding the specifications the main spec that has significance for me and probably for most people is the solar energy rejection. For my CXP 35 this figure is 53% solar energy rejection. On 3M's web site it says “Advanced ceramics in the film reject up to 59% of total solar energy“. So apparently there are some ceramics that are better than CXP in heat rejection, but as I said appearance is my number one priority. Also I don’t know how significant the 6% difference is because I can’t convert it into degrees of heat rise when my car is sitting in the sun. That would require experimentation. I haven’t seen any data on that.
Regarding low angle haze which occurs when the sun shines directly at the window: Yes I can see cloudiness in the film when the sun is at a very low angle. I would never put it on the windshield. Looking out the side window at the sunset or sunrise is not one of my priorities. Of course I would prefer to have it look clear in all circumstances and ceramic may be better but I have never had ceramic so I don’t know how well that eliminates haze in a 35% product.
Regarding scratches: I have never gotten any visible scratches during the 7 years I have used it.

I read all the interesting links you provided. Fortunately I saw nothing there that would have caused me to go with ceramic even though I don’t mind the extra cost.

 

[Gebop]

I am not an expert on the subject so I can only speak from experience. In 2011 I put Suntek Carbon XP on my black Maxima. Over the 7 years I had the tint I was very happy with the way it looked which was the main reason I had it done. If there was any fading it was not enough that I noticed it.
Last April I traded the Maxima in for a G90. My G90 is black and I wanted to get tint ASAP. As a retired technology worker I know how fast things are changing so I read up on all the new products especially ceramic and was just about ready to go with ceramic when someone on this forum pointed out that there is a slight hue in the ceramic products. (That discussion is documented in a chain on this forum). I had seen cars with a definite color hue of blue or brown on their windows. I don't know what product they had used but it looked unappealing to me and wanted to make sure I didn't get something like that. When I was ready to have the job done I went to a local tinter and looked at samples. I couldn't see a difference between Suntek’s Carbon XP and their Ceramic product until I held them up against the window of the shop and looked through the sample. Then I could see a slight bluish hue in the Suntek ceramic sample but only black color in the Suntek Carbon XP (aka CXP); no green, blue, or brown hue, only black. So I went with the CXP35. After 6 months I am still very pleased with it. Now that it is installed I still see no color hue at all.
Regarding the specifications the main spec that has significance for me and probably for most people is the solar energy rejection. For my CXP 35 this figure is 53% solar energy rejection. On 3M's web site it says “Advanced ceramics in the film reject up to 59% of total solar energy“. So apparently there are some ceramics that are better than CXP in heat rejection, but as I said appearance is my number one priority. Also I don’t know how significant the 6% difference is because I can’t convert it into degrees of heat rise when my car is sitting in the sun. That would require experimentation. I haven’t seen any data on that.
Regarding low angle haze which occurs when the sun shines directly at the window: Yes I can see cloudiness in the film when the sun is at a very low angle. I would never put it on the windshield. Looking out the side window at the sunset or sunrise is not one of my priorities. Of course I would prefer to have it look clear in all circumstances and ceramic may be better but I have never had ceramic so I don’t know how well that eliminates haze in a 35% product.
Regarding scratches: I have never gotten any visible scratches during the 7 years I have used it.

I read all the interesting links you provided. Fortunately I saw nothing there that would have caused me to go with ceramic even though I don’t mind the extra cost.

Thank you for the measured response. Specs within the film industry are not regulated, so there is some debate as to actual validity of what some manufacturers are claiming. There is marketing gamesmanship to be considered as well. TSER rejection is commonly used to cross compare, but IR rejection has become an important up-sell tool in many instance and you will hear some speak to this (IR light) being what you 'really feel' as heat. True a point, which is why some shops have demo panels with IR bulbs shining through graduated tinted glass panels, in order to showcase IR rejection superiority of one film over another.

In truth, there are other factors that come in to play. Here is a quote from another tintdude thread (link below) where and manufacturer's rep summarizes some of the other elements:

"There are many other specs that affect the performance of a window film. You have TSEa, TSEt, TSEr, SHGC, SC, VLR......... All of these factor into the films performance. If this is all that you have to go by I can see why you think that GR is what affects the change in TSER. Films do 1 of 3 things...they either Absorb(TSEa), Reject(TSEr) or Transmit(TSEt) Solar Energy. You are correct in that IR is the sensation from the sun that we feel, but it is not what wholly makes up Solar Energy(Heat). Even in the representation MMM shows above, they are Highlighting TSER, because that is what is the most important spec. If they felt that IR was the most important spec, you can rest assured with a 97% IR rating they would be highlighting that instead of the TSER."

Even understanding all this, we still have industry specmanship used for marketing purposes. Case in point with 3M using a 97% IR number when it is pulling from a small band of the total spectrum vs. Huper Optik that quotes using the IR entire spectrum. 3M used an asterisk to point this out, but the point is usually missed by most casual readers. They make the argument that they're highlighting the only important part of the spectrum - true or not- it still distorts any apples-to-apples number comparisons.

The rejection/absorption/transmission distinctions are interesting as well. Eastman owns FormulaOne and it has been said from insiders that their F1 Stratos film is simply CTX with an additional layer of Air Blue sandwiched in-between layers, which does give them measurably better performance numbers, but causes the film to trap more heat on the film surface and in turn transmit it inside the vehicle, which has created some concern with tinters that this will prematurely cause the glue layer to fail down the road. You will also hear people discussing performance differences once the vehicle is moving and dissipating absorbed heat vs. a stationary vehicle.

All interesting for those of us fascinated with such things, but at the end of the day, there remains little reason (other than cost) to chose a dyed film when the technology has advanced to where it has, given that the price premium is not substantially greater; especially when amortized over the length of ownership. Dyed film will fade or turn purple over time, with that effect hastened in sunnier locations; it's usually only a matter of 'when'.

Film clarity is important to me, but I can understand that a value buyer may be willing to accept that as an offset for a smaller cash outlay. Thinner scratch layers may likewise be less of a concern if the price is right for some, but a more robust film may be something others would be willing to pay for, if they were aware of this upfront. There is no single best choice for all situations and budgets. If you can educate yourself to know what options matter to you and where spending more makes sense, then you are way ahead of the average person getting their windows tinted.

Link to mentioned thread: Quoting Film Specs

 

[Paulsr]

Don't want to throw shade here, but none of this is actually true. This dyed film is not that close (i.e. "nearly equal") in IR/heat rejection to the better quality ceramic films. It has good performance for dyed film, but modern ceramic films are a level above in terms of performance. CXP is also known for having a green hue. There is a reason tinters call this brand SunWreck: because its one of those infamously thin and easily scratched films, that shrinks great but has haze issues and fades or color shifts inside of five year or less for many.

Don't take my word for it, read what the pros over at tintdude think of it.

Suntek CXP vs Llumar CTX
Suntek Carbon XP Color Stability?
Typical results from Suntek cxp tint?
what is the benifits to ceramic tint vs cxp or crystline?


Please know I'm not trying to bag on you personally, but I do think others reading here should balance your comments with the more broadly held professional sentiments regarding this product.

This link is all about the CXP line. It appears to confuse that with the more expensive

Thank you for the measured response. Specs within the film industry are not regulated, so there is some debate as to actual validity of what some manufacturers are claiming. There is marketing gamesmanship to be considered as well. TSER rejection is commonly used to cross compare, but IR rejection has become an important up-sell tool in many instance and you will hear some speak to this (IR light) being what you 'really feel' as heat. True a point, which is why some shops have demo panels with IR bulbs shining through graduated tinted glass panels, in order to showcase IR rejection superiority of one film over another.

In truth, there are other factors that come in to play. Here is a quote from another tintdude thread (link below) where and manufacturer's rep summarizes some of the other elements:

"There are many other specs that affect the performance of a window film. You have TSEa, TSEt, TSEr, SHGC, SC, VLR......... All of these factor into the films performance. If this is all that you have to go by I can see why you think that GR is what affects the change in TSER. Films do 1 of 3 things...they either Absorb(TSEa), Reject(TSEr) or Transmit(TSEt) Solar Energy. You are correct in that IR is the sensation from the sun that we feel, but it is not what wholly makes up Solar Energy(Heat). Even in the representation MMM shows above, they are Highlighting TSER, because that is what is the most important spec. If they felt that IR was the most important spec, you can rest assured with a 97% IR rating they would be highlighting that instead of the TSER."

Even understanding all this, we still have industry specmanship used for marketing purposes. Case in point with 3M using a 97% IR number when it is pulling from a small band of the total spectrum vs. Huper Optik that quotes using the IR entire spectrum. 3M used an asterisk to point this out, but the point is usually missed by most casual readers. They make the argument that they're highlighting the only important part of the spectrum - true or not- it still distorts any apples-to-apples number comparisons.

The rejection/absorption/transmission distinctions are interesting as well. Eastman owns FormulaOne and it has been said from insiders that their F1 Stratos film is simply CTX with an additional layer of Air Blue sandwiched in-between layers, which does give them measurably better performance numbers, but causes the film to trap more heat on the film surface and in turn transmit it inside the vehicle, which has created some concern with tinters that this will prematurely cause the glue layer to fail down the road. You will also hear people discussing performance differences once the vehicle is moving and dissipating absorbed heat vs. a stationary vehicle.

All interesting for those of us fascinated with such things, but at the end of the day, there remains little reason (other than cost) to chose a dyed film when the technology has advanced to where it has, given that the price premium is not substantially greater; especially when amortized over the length of ownership. Dyed film will fade or turn purple over time, with that effect hastened in sunnier locations; it's usually only a matter of 'when'.

Film clarity is important to me, but I can understand that a value buyer may be willing to accept that as an offset for a smaller cash outlay. Thinner scratch layers may likewise be less of a concern if the price is right for some, but a more robust film may be something others would be willing to pay for, if they were aware of this upfront. There is no single best choice for all situations and budgets. If you can educate yourself to know what options matter to you and where spending more makes sense, then you are way ahead of the average person getting their windows tinted.

Link to mentioned thread: Quoting Film Specs

It is quite apparent that you are involved in some way with the tinting business. Would you care to share with us the nature of your involvement? It may add credibility to your comments.

 

[NLJ]

Tinted. SunTek CIR 20. 24% light transmittance.
Looks classy!
Was 6:45pm by the time it was done so it was too dark for pics!

______________________________

Help support this site so it can continue supporting you!

 

[Gebop]

This link is all about the CXP line. It appears to confuse that with the more expensive

It is quite apparent that you are involved in some way with the tinting business. Would you care to share with us the nature of your involvement? It may add credibility to your comments.

You have assumed incorrectly here. For the record: I have ZERO personal involvement in any aspect of the tinting business, beyond that of being an educated consumer.

 

[Gebop]

Tinted. SunTek CIR 20. 24% light transmittance.
Looks classy!
Was 6:45pm by the time it was done so it was too dark for pics!

Amazing sometimes how something as simple as tinting can really set a car apart. Look forward to seeing the pics.

 

[Paulsr]

You have assumed incorrectly here. For the record: I have ZERO personal involvement in any aspect of the tinting business, beyond that of being an educated consumer.

Great, so that makes two of us.

 

[Paulsr]

Thank you for the measured response. Specs within the film industry are not regulated, so there is some debate as to actual validity of what some manufacturers are claiming. There is marketing gamesmanship to be considered as well. TSER rejection is commonly used to cross compare, but IR rejection has become an important up-sell tool in many instance and you will hear some speak to this (IR light) being what you 'really feel' as heat. True a point, which is why some shops have demo panels with IR bulbs shining through graduated tinted glass panels, in order to showcase IR rejection superiority of one film over another.

In truth, there are other factors that come in to play. Here is a quote from another tintdude thread (link below) where and manufacturer's rep summarizes some of the other elements:

"There are many other specs that affect the performance of a window film. You have TSEa, TSEt, TSEr, SHGC, SC, VLR......... All of these factor into the films performance. If this is all that you have to go by I can see why you think that GR is what affects the change in TSER. Films do 1 of 3 things...they either Absorb(TSEa), Reject(TSEr) or Transmit(TSEt) Solar Energy. You are correct in that IR is the sensation from the sun that we feel, but it is not what wholly makes up Solar Energy(Heat). Even in the representation MMM shows above, they are Highlighting TSER, because that is what is the most important spec. If they felt that IR was the most important spec, you can rest assured with a 97% IR rating they would be highlighting that instead of the TSER."

Even understanding all this, we still have industry specmanship used for marketing purposes. Case in point with 3M using a 97% IR number when it is pulling from a small band of the total spectrum vs. Huper Optik that quotes using the IR entire spectrum. 3M used an asterisk to point this out, but the point is usually missed by most casual readers. They make the argument that they're highlighting the only important part of the spectrum - true or not- it still distorts any apples-to-apples number comparisons.

The rejection/absorption/transmission distinctions are interesting as well. Eastman owns FormulaOne and it has been said from insiders that their F1 Stratos film is simply CTX with an additional layer of Air Blue sandwiched in-between layers, which does give them measurably better performance numbers, but causes the film to trap more heat on the film surface and in turn transmit it inside the vehicle, which has created some concern with tinters that this will prematurely cause the glue layer to fail down the road. You will also hear people discussing performance differences once the vehicle is moving and dissipating absorbed heat vs. a stationary vehicle.

All interesting for those of us fascinated with such things, but at the end of the day, there remains little reason (other than cost) to chose a dyed film when the technology has advanced to where it has, given that the price premium is not substantially greater; especially when amortized over the length of ownership. Dyed film will fade or turn purple over time, with that effect hastened in sunnier locations; it's usually only a matter of 'when'.

Film clarity is important to me, but I can understand that a value buyer may be willing to accept that as an offset for a smaller cash outlay. Thinner scratch layers may likewise be less of a concern if the price is right for some, but a more robust film may be something others would be willing to pay for, if they were aware of this upfront. There is no single best choice for all situations and budgets. If you can educate yourself to know what options matter to you and where spending more makes sense, then you are way ahead of the average person getting their windows tinted.

Link to mentioned thread: Quoting Film Specs

There is a disadvantage of tint that is seldom mentioned.
I noticed it the first time I tinted my windows. It occurs during night driving. When looking in the rearview mirror the headlights of cars behind you have more glare with tint on the back window. Perhaps all products have the same issue and that's why they don't talk about it.

 

[NLJ]

There is a disadvantage of tint that is seldom mentioned.
I noticed it the first time I tinted my windows. It occurs during night driving. When looking in the rearview mirror the headlights of cars behind you have more glare with tint on the back window. Perhaps all products have the same issue and that's why they don't talk about it.

Possible because of the sloping angle making the light bend a second time going through the sheet of film.
I noticed it too last night but I will have a little haze for some time since it is winter and we probably won't see any sun for it to cure properly anytime soon!
Was told not to lower the window for 5 days!

 

[Paulsr]

Possible because of the sloping angle making the light bend a second time going through the sheet of film.
I noticed it too last night but I will have a little haze for some time since it is winter and we probably won't see any sun for it to cure properly anytime soon!
Was told not to lower the window for 5 days!

It's scary but the bubbles do go away.

 

[surprisinguy]

With the ceramic tint that I have you can see there is a very slight bluish tint to the windows

 

[NLJ]

Can't say much about the colour cast at the moment since we haven't had any sun and its still curing. But I can see some dot matrix air bubbles on the rear edges. Damn those dot matrix. May have to push them out or wait till it dries!

 

[Paulsr]

Can't say much about the colour cast at the moment since we haven't had any sun and its still curing. But I can see some dot matrix air bubbles on the rear edges. Damn those dot matrix. May have to push them out or wait till it dries!

All the bubbles went away for me.

 

[NLJ]

All the bubbles went away for me.

The dot matrix ones?
I don't think it is water bubbles. Looks like air to me!