Tim@adonisdetail
Former Vendor
Hey Fiver! Check out the guys at Luxe Auto Spa in Murray. Their work is phenomenal and they are a Prestige dealer now!
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Hey Fiver! Check out the guys at Luxe Auto Spa in Murray. Their work is phenomenal and they are a Prestige dealer now!
Premier Mobile
Former Vendor
Prestiges warranty is nationwide, so if there is an issue with the film such as bubbling, fading, purpling, or cracking, it is covered by the manufacturer.
Premier Mobile
Former Vendor
For those considering between Huper and Photosync, here is a test we recently conducted with EDTM Spectrum Analyzer. This is the most advanced portable system that measures Infrared (IR) for both near and far IR. It is also the most accurate system available to the market that uses its patented optics to reproduce the solar spectrum to give unquestionable data. It runs with NFRC300 standards, so there are no mistakes or variances in the readings of the films being tested. Below are the 2 cars:
1. Porsche 911 GT3 done by a Southern California Huper Dealer with Huper 50
2. Jaguar done by us with Photosync 55
*Spectrum Anaylzer reads the amount of Infrared passing through the glass.
Huper 50
83% infrared rejection at 900-1000nm
82% infrared rejection up to 1700nm
Photosync 55
98% infrared rejection at 900-1000nm
95% infrared rejection up to 1700nm
As you can see there is a significant difference in infrared rejection at both near and far IR readings
1. Porsche 911 GT3 done by a Southern California Huper Dealer with Huper 50
2. Jaguar done by us with Photosync 55
*Spectrum Anaylzer reads the amount of Infrared passing through the glass.
Huper 50
83% infrared rejection at 900-1000nm
82% infrared rejection up to 1700nm
Photosync 55
98% infrared rejection at 900-1000nm
95% infrared rejection up to 1700nm
As you can see there is a significant difference in infrared rejection at both near and far IR readings
Premier Mobile
Former Vendor
Have you done these tests on other products like CTX or Crystalline? I am trying to find the best balance between effectiveness and cost. It seems Photosync is the consensus best product, but based on quotes I've gotten, costs nearly twice a much.
Premier Mobile
Former Vendor
Not with CTX as it wouldn't be a comparable test and we do not get any customers coming in here with it. However, we did do one with Crystalline a while ago...it is somewhere on this same thread. Crystalline will read 97% IRR between 900-1000nm, but it drops down to the low 80s (comparable to Huper) when you measure up to 1700nm.
Hmm....wouldn't there be a difference between the factory blockage amounts of the Porsche vs. Jaguar? Following this assumption, I would've like to have seen the Porsche front windows tinted with both Huper on one side and PS on the other and then compared, and subsequently the Jag done the same.
Thanks for that info. Let's hope that proves true should we ever need warranty work done.
ishop4more
Member
Premier Mobile
Former Vendor
rfmurphy81
Member
Have you or would you be able to run that test against Xpel Prime XR 35%? I'm curious whether I made the wrong decision.
Premier Mobile
Former Vendor
Unfortunately not. Compared to that film, you are better off with Ceraluxe, Huper, or Crystalline.
I have it on my 2 P85+s and the X. It is definitely needed for both cars because of the number of glasses on em. Have it on my S some 80k miles ago and the Photosync is holding up great. No issues with it at all and just as happy as we were from the first day.
markn455
Member
In all but a handful of stats putting film on the windshield is illegal. I do find it interesting that some states have seen the wisdom of allowing film to be placed on the windshield. I am curious if there is a trend going in the direction of more states allowing this. IMHO, I don't see any issue as long as you don't go too dark. Perhaps 70 or lighter. Every car I have tinted for the last 10+ years have had the windshield with a 70% film. I have never had an issue with law enforcement or anyone even question. In my option, a 70% does not really look any different that a typical factor tinted windshield.
Reading through this thread I see that the vast majority of us, self included, tint our windshields. Clearly we represent most of all states and the legality of putting film on the windshield is rarely mentioned. In fact, it seems that mostly Californians are concerned about the side and rear glass being too dark. Other than this, the legality of tint rarely comes up. It would be interesting to know if anyone has ever been questioned or cited for having film on their windshield?
My local installer and most of the installers in the area offer pricing and install film on the entire windshield. My installer tells me that he personally nor any of his customers have ever reporting having a problem. I suspect if they did, they would be coming in to have it removed. In this state it's not only a misdemeanor to drive a vehicle with film installed on the windshield, its a misdemeanor for the installer to actually install it. However, it's as common as tires on cars.
Any thoughts or comments on this subject?
Reading through this thread I see that the vast majority of us, self included, tint our windshields. Clearly we represent most of all states and the legality of putting film on the windshield is rarely mentioned. In fact, it seems that mostly Californians are concerned about the side and rear glass being too dark. Other than this, the legality of tint rarely comes up. It would be interesting to know if anyone has ever been questioned or cited for having film on their windshield?
My local installer and most of the installers in the area offer pricing and install film on the entire windshield. My installer tells me that he personally nor any of his customers have ever reporting having a problem. I suspect if they did, they would be coming in to have it removed. In this state it's not only a misdemeanor to drive a vehicle with film installed on the windshield, its a misdemeanor for the installer to actually install it. However, it's as common as tires on cars.
Any thoughts or comments on this subject?
Cyclone
Cyclonic Member ((.oO))
It is also "illegal" going 1 mph over the speed limit. That said, when I go 1 mph over the speed limit, I don't worry about because "the law" won't be writing me a ticket unless I'm otherwise being a problem. I suspect the same applies to those with 70 or lighter windshield tints.
markn455
Member
I think you are spot on. If you are not being a pain on other levels, you are likely fine..
TaoJones
Beyond Driven
Exactly. It's 2 things, really:
1. An add-on like every other little thing a traffic cop will find after finding something to pull you over for in the first place. Almost nothing to do with public safety at that point and much more to do with the "volume of traffic activity" - a metric that is associated with performance, and therefore indirectly with salary and advancement.
2. A mechanism to target a certain demographic more often associated with criminal activity. Some might call that profiling. Others would call it common sense. It was originally sold as a measure to protect officers. Well, over time, it's been borne out that there's little correlation between cowardly roadside ambushes and window tint. Like none. However, as with many bad laws, it's a lot easier to pass as a panacea than to remove it later. There are still laws on the books in New England that state all cars must be preceded/led by a person on foot waving a red lantern - so as to not scare the horses. And so here we are.
1. An add-on like every other little thing a traffic cop will find after finding something to pull you over for in the first place. Almost nothing to do with public safety at that point and much more to do with the "volume of traffic activity" - a metric that is associated with performance, and therefore indirectly with salary and advancement.
2. A mechanism to target a certain demographic more often associated with criminal activity. Some might call that profiling. Others would call it common sense. It was originally sold as a measure to protect officers. Well, over time, it's been borne out that there's little correlation between cowardly roadside ambushes and window tint. Like none. However, as with many bad laws, it's a lot easier to pass as a panacea than to remove it later. There are still laws on the books in New England that state all cars must be preceded/led by a person on foot waving a red lantern - so as to not scare the horses. And so here we are.
markn455
Member
markn455
Member
Okay, right or wrong I am going with Crystalline again.. I have used it on three other vehicles. I believe the photosync might be a little better in the specifications and has a little better look. In fact, I wanted to go that direction but cost was a major factor. The best price for a total car sides, back, windshield and Panorama roof was $1,100.00 before tax. 3M Crystalline is $685.00. I went with 3M. My appointment is Friday. We will see how it goes.
Similar threads
