Jump to content








LUMAR VS SOLARGUARD VS MADICO?


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 *promosinc *

*promosinc *
  • Guests

  12 August 2004 - 09:15 AM

Hi everyone. I am new to this board, and I am not a dealer. I am a homeowner wanting to tint my sliding glass doors. I live on the west coast of central Florida, and, if Hurricane Charlie doesn't wipe us out, I would like some help deciding between SolarGuard, Madico and Lumar. I am not budgeted for Vista, Panorama or 3M.

My priority is protecting my brand new furniture from fading. My room faces west - to southwest and gets a strong afternoon sun. I have a 12' X 8' sliding glass window. I've gotten estimates for all three products ranging from $270 - $345, the low bid is from a Madico dealer. We have a homeowners' association in our community which does not allow either the bronze finish or the highly reflective mirrorlike finishes, so most of my neighbors are getting grey film in the 50% range.

I've tried to read through some of your posts, and it doesn't look like Madico is a favorite when it comes to residential film. Not sure if I'm right about this, though? I've heard the advantage of Lumar is they have double UV protection -- in the adhesive and in the film. SolarGuard is very popular in my community. Confusion!! Help!!

I could use some help deciding which of these brands would do the best job protecting my fabrics from fading and still preserving my nice view -- trees and sky, no water.

Seeking guidance from the experts...
  • 0

#2 *Blade *

*Blade *
  • Guests

  12 August 2004 - 10:48 AM

Being a Solargard user....I would recommend Stainless Steel 35%. Blocks 52% of the heat and if you didn't tell anyone they'd never know it was there. It's the most popular film I install on homes. Sound like decent pricing...With that amount of square-footage I'd charge you $480. :uh
  • 0

#3 *Blade *

*Blade *
  • Guests

  12 August 2004 - 11:04 AM

Of course, the appearance depends on the day and angle you look at it too. Cloudy day.......looks pretty reflective here, huh? Same film. SS-35
  • 0

#4 Devil with bad attitude

Devil with bad attitude

    Member

  •  6,000+
  • 6,032
  • Taswegian
  • Exp: 39



  12 August 2004 - 11:19 PM

Your Madico equiv would be the Sunscape DG 35 grey neutral.
Like Blade says...some light it looks quite reflective, others it looks like nothing at all.
Double UV protection? :nope unless you are going into the realm of Madico's CLS 200 XSR Museum film, then I'd doubt the bona fides of that being offered. :lol6
Devil
  • 0

#5 *promosinc *

*promosinc *
  • Guests

  13 August 2004 - 11:03 AM

Both the Lumar rep and a Madico rep have told me Lumar has UV inhibitors both in the adhesive and in the film. Anyone know for sure?

I like the price I got from the Madico rep -- just wondering if the quality is as good -- I've heard good and bad. Could use a little extra guidance on Madico -- seems to be the least well known. Is their quality comparable to Lumar and Solarguard.

Thanks, all, for your help.
  • 0

#6 *tintslut *

*tintslut *
  • Guests

  13 August 2004 - 11:06 AM

maybe LLULLU uses this ??

http://www.automotiv...eijinFilms.html
  • 0

#7 *metint *

*metint *
  • Guests

  13 August 2004 - 11:19 AM

Last information I had privi to was there were only three manu's that used weatherable polyester throughout their ENTIRE film offering... two are listed in this thread... the third may be Mad if you told them they weren't one of them... Some film makers use weatherable poly only in a couple of films so as to lay the claim.

They are not UV inhibitors... they are UV absorbers... weatherable poly has the absorbers in the the structure... other UV absorbers are located in the mounting adhesive and are more prone to rapid degradation through sun exposure. UV absorbers are used to protect the polyester from aging.

Edited by metint, 13 August 2004 - 11:22 AM.

  • 0

#8 TintPoser

TintPoser

    Member

  •  300+
  • 374
  • Exp: 2.5

  13 August 2004 - 07:23 PM

Madico does have inhibitors in the polyester and the adhesive.
  • 0

#9 *promosinc *

*promosinc *
  • Guests

  16 August 2004 - 06:06 PM

I'm just reviewing my notes from my meetings with the reps from Madico, Llumar, and SolarGuard. Only Llumar made the claim about double UV protection -- in the film and in the adhesvie. I asked the Madico rep and he said Madico did not offer the double protection.

"Devil with bad attitude" suggested Madico Sunscape DG 35 Grey Neutral. The film the Madico rep showed me was Madico SG-330. Their specs say it absorbs 50% of total solar energy. Visible light transmitted 32%, reflected 18%. Anyone know the difference betwen DG 35 and SG-330?
  • 0

#10 mischief

mischief

    Member

  •  100+
  • 135
  • Exp: 22

  16 August 2004 - 09:13 PM

Way too much time spenting looking at the minutia (little stuff, can't spell very well). Not enough time on the big issue -- which contractor do you think will do a better job. The difference is price is minor, silly, not worth worrying about. Stop wasting you time. Do you trust any of the people who have presented to you? If yes, buy. If not, keep looking.

You don't need "double UV protection". Lots of fancy words trying to make a distinction between grade b films. If you can't afford, grade a, don't worry. B will work, as long as the installer is good with his/her hands.

Second, Remember UV along does not cause fading. You should be looking to reduce the visible light down to around 35%. If you go with a 50% film, it won't be dark enough to solve the problem. If none of the people you've met have said this -- keep looking.

Finally, don't let the price influence the decision too much -- it costs more to do the job twice.
  • 0

#11 mischief

mischief

    Member

  •  100+
  • 135
  • Exp: 22

  16 August 2004 - 09:14 PM

sorry about all those typos and saying the same thinng over and over... its late, can't seem to give up and go to bed.
  • 0

#12 *metint *

*metint *
  • Guests

  17 August 2004 - 12:40 PM

You don't need "double UV protection".  Lots of fancy words trying to make a distinction between grade b films.  If you can't afford, grade a, don't worry.  B will work, as long as the installer is good with his/her hands.

UV absorbers in the product are there to protect the polyester from degradation through sun exposure. The mounting adhesive, especially pressure sensitive, does not like UV absorbers so the absorbers are more prone to short life in a PS adhesive environ. This leads to shorten life expectancy for polyester.

UV aborbers are in a more stable environment when in the polyester material itself augmented by absorbers contained in mounting adhesive. The combination thereby gives longer life and superior UV protection to all... polyester, adhesive, deposition, lami-adhesive, scratch resistant coating (which is sensitive to UV) and furnishings and fabrics, even though only partly responsible for fading.

Edited by metint, 21 August 2004 - 10:03 AM.

  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users