ceramic vs regular window tint?

[RudyH]

Curious, any reason to go one over the other?
The guy at the shop said with all the electronics in the S4, there is a chance that the regular metallic tint can interfere and suggested the ceramic.

I don't use a radar detector, no nav, using A2DP but that's in the car...thoughts?

Have until Monday to decide

[integroid]

Go with ceramic.....higher end tint and will not fade. I wouldnt put anything less in any of my cars including my spare truck. What brand are they pushing on you?

[BoostEasy]

FWIW ceramic tint is a little cloudy compared to standard tint. I was thinking about it but the too-honest tint guy said it's all the same to him but unless you need the heat blocking, go std tint. He pulled out rolls of both and held them up and the ceramic wasn't as clear as std. Given I live in CT where the sun isn't so strong, I went with std tint.

[walsh]

Llumar Formula One Pinnacle Ceramic

/thread

[RudyH]

I can't remember what brand they are using. It was around $410 for the ceramic and about $200 for the regular.

I never had ceramic so wasn't sure, especially for double the price

[Epixman]

you might want to go ceramic, I actually put standard tint on my B7 and had some radio interference on some stations. So lesson learned, I'd pay a little more

[MrFunk]

I believe it has a higher heat rejection vs standard tint.
It is also a tiny bit more grainy... but not bad by any means.
You should try and find Carbon Tint... it's better than Ceramic - more clear and even higher heat rejection.

[afdent11]

I believe it has a higher heat rejection vs standard tint.
It is also a tiny bit more grainy... but not bad by any means.
You should try and find Carbon Tint... it's better than Ceramic - more clear and even higher heat rejection.

Every installer I called said carbon tint is the mid grade and when I looked up specs, the carbon always had lower heat rejection than the ceramic and always cost less, too. I'm not sure it's considered better than ceramic.

[achilleas101]

Every installer I called said carbon tint is the mid grade and when I looked up specs, the carbon always had lower heat rejection than the ceramic and always cost less, too. I'm not sure it's considered better than ceramic.

barely. is it worth the cost to save an extra 6% in heat rejection? to each his own.

carbon tint:
http://www.suntekfilms.com/files/826...t_auto_CXP.pdf
Suntek CXP 35 = 53% heat rejection (TSER)

3m Ceramic
http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/mediawe...nce%20Data.pdf
CM 30 = 59% heat rejection

the 3M crystaline (CR40) is only 1% more at 60% tser than the ceramic.

if you look at the 50% class, the carbon is actually 1% better - 48 vs 47% than the ceramic.

to the OP, you definitely don't want metallic, as what you were told is true, it does interfere with electronic signals. Most of your options really are between carbon and ceramic.

[afdent11]

barely. is it worth the cost to save an extra 6% in heat rejection? to each his own.

carbon tint:
http://www.suntekfilms.com/files/826...t_auto_CXP.pdf
Suntek CXP 35 = 53% heat rejection (TSER)

3m Ceramic
http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/mediawe...nce%20Data.pdf
CM 30 = 59% heat rejection

the 3M crystaline (CR40) is only 1% more at 60% tser than the ceramic.

if you look at the 50% class, the carbon is actually 1% better - 48 vs 47% than the ceramic.

There's not a huge difference in price between Suntek's CXP and Llumar's CTXi ceramic since the CXP is Suntek's highest end film. Suntek's regular carbon film only has a heat rejection of 42% and that's quite a bit less than 59%. To me it was worth the extra money for a more than 40% improvement in heat rejection.

[MrFunk]

Every installer I called said carbon tint is the mid grade and when I looked up specs, the carbon always had lower heat rejection than the ceramic and always cost less, too. I'm not sure it's considered better than ceramic.

Interesting!
The shop here I got most my work done used to sell ceramic and moved to carbon stating it was much better... if what you are saying it true then they are full of BS

[integroid]

I believe it has a higher heat rejection vs standard tint.
It is also a tiny bit more grainy... but not bad by any means.
You should try and find Carbon Tint... it's better than Ceramic - more clear and even higher heat rejection.

You are wrong....carbon tint is mid grade. Ceramic is at the top.

[integroid]

Interesting!
The shop here I got most my work done used to sell ceramic and moved to carbon stating it was much better... if what you are saying it true then they are full of BS

Most likely said that because they make higher margins on Carbon tint. The mid and low grade tints make the installer tons of money.....high end tint not so much.

[MrFunk]

Most likely said that because they make higher margins on Carbon tint. The mid and low grade tints make the installer tons of money.....high end tint not so much.

Yup - makes sense.
Well - if that's true then I'm glad I got ceramic all round.

[roger v]

I've always had ceramic put on my cars. It blocks heat very well and doesn't mess with radio/cell-phone signals.

[RudyH]

Thanks guys - sounds like ceramic is the way to go!

[info@eurovision]

Dye film
Carbon film
Ceramic film
in that order ...

Carbon film does not come close to the Clarity of a true ceramic. A good quality ceramic uses a sputtering process during the construction yielding some of the clearest film in the market. Carbon is a great balance of performance vs cost but will sacrifice clarity. One thing to also take into consideration is that although a carbon film may say 39% TSER and a ceramic 37% TSER the ceramic MAY still out perform the carbon because of the heat rejection properties are different between the 2 films. For example the carbon may not be able to reject the same amount of infrared heat as the ceramic. There are many factors but technology is changing every year with films. Now there are Nano Carbon-ceramic hybrids that perform very well along with even better clarity.... the one film on the market that is hard to beat is 3M crystalline. The tech behind that film was way ahead of its time. Cant wait to see how it will be improved.

[pdqgp]

Llumar Formula One Pinnacle Ceramic /thread

^^ This is what I went with and love it. Llumar Looks amazing. Definitely has a better overall look than the standard dye based tint, won't fade or color shift and won't interfere with phones or GPS, etc. like metallic laced tine can.

I did 15% on Rear, 35% on Back, 50% on Fronts and 70% AIR Blue Tint on windshield. The subtle, ice-blue shade on the windshield looks great and really does do a great job of keeping the front cool.

[jokingjimmy]

We have 3M Crystalline all the way around. Sunroof and windshield as well (70 on those). My car stays cooler sitting in the sun with Windows up than down and open. In Florida summers, that's saying something.

I highly recommend them. You can't even tell the windshield has anything on it, it's so clear and light, yet the dash doesn't get that hot to the touch (black dash lol). UV is not going to damage my dash. My wife is super sensitive to the sun and with Crystalline no issue for her. With my previous car with 3M Color stable super dark, she would still get sun damage. Also, this stuff is really clear at night (doesn't affect astigmatism).

2 things to consider with Crystalline: 1. Color is a warmer tone, more of a bronze color rather than smoke/grey, so it could affect the look of your ride. 2. The darkest they get isn't super dark. So, if seeing at night is not an issue, you want a grey color to the tint and/or you want super dark, don't get the Crystalline lol. Just my 2¢.

[hotleadsingergu]

I've always used 3M high-end normal or Ceramic, and I've never had trouble. It works great and lasts forever.

[MS203]

+1 for the Foruma One Pinnacle tint.

i had 35% standard on my old S4, which i eventually changed to 30% F1 pinnacle ceramic. It is WAY better quality. the standard was $200 and the F1 was $500.

If i were you i would get the F1 ceramic. Im actually about to get it on my B8.5 again. The color is perfect too. most standard tints are slighty green or slighty blue, however the F1 is a pure black color. I will admit that ceramic appears to be a little darker than standard, but its slight. not sure why. Also the heat rejection and UV blocking is awesome.

at this point after having F1 ceramic on my old car, it is probably the only tint ill ever put on my cars in the future... its THAT good/high quality

[t3han0maly]

I had the Pinnacle Formula 1 on my previous car and have the 3M Crystalline on the S4. Both were great for heat rejection (I live in Atlanta and plenty of very hot days are had). The Pinnacle at 35% looked darker than the 3M but I find the heat rejection of the 3M to be better. If I had to do it all over again I'd go with the 3M.

[chi123]

I just used standard dyed Llumar film. Cost me $180 to have it done. I had it on my other car for 4 years and liked the tint quality so I got it done on the S4. The new tint on the S4 looks just like the tint that was put on my other car 4 years ago. I had to get one window re-tinted on my other car since I replaced the window. I had 3M ceramic tint put on and it appeared cloudy compared to the dyed Llumar tint. It bothered me and I had it redone. I would probably get Formula One tint since Llumar makes it if you want quality tint.

[hotleadsingergu]

I had the Pinnacle Formula 1 on my previous car and have the 3M Crystalline on the S4. Both were great for heat rejection (I live in Atlanta and plenty of very hot days are had). The Pinnacle at 35% looked darker than the 3M but I find the heat rejection of the 3M to be better. If I had to do it all over again I'd go with the 3M.

This. The Crystalline is the normal stuff I use. I get 15% all around including a strip on the windshield, and it's perfect. On the hotter days I'll put up a sunshade anyway, but it keeps the car a great temperature. With the sunshade up you can't see a thing inside the car, without it you can only see slight outlines from any direction but straight-on. I've never had a problem with it.