Jump to content

BodegaBay

 >10
  • Content count

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About BodegaBay

  • Rank
    New Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Age
    40
  • Country
    United States

Recent Profile Visitors

633 profile views
  1. As always, thanks[mention=39410]dynamicappearance[/mention] ! I'll have it all covered with CR.
  2. My wife's 2016 Kia Sedona has privacy glass the back of vehicle: 2nd and 3rd rows + rear hatch. It also has what Kia advertise as "Solar Control Glass on the windshield and front-door windows." I'm dubious about the Solar Control glass part as I still feel it could use some additional protection. I plan on putting Crystalline up front to help with that. My question is, is it waster of money to put Crystalline in the back of the vehicle where it's already darken with the Privacy Glass. I've seen a post on this forum that privacy glass absorbs the infrared while tint like Crystalline reflects it. Undoubtedly the fronts will be Crystalline. Should I just use Color Stable for the back? Thanks.
  3. According to the new Formula One spec sheet, Stratos is on par with Crystalline in terms of TSER and IR. Stratos is so new that there's not been real world long term testaments to the product yet vs. years from Huper and Crystalline.
  4. Thanks for posting the pic. Have you installed any Stratos in lighter VLT?
  5. Thanks @no ma'am for the tip. I didn't even realized the existence of F1 Stratos until you mentioned it here. It's not on their website; I had to dig to find it under Llumar's North America's website. @DynamicAppearance Looks like Llumar/Formular One now recognizes IR as an separate measurement with this release of their new Stratus line. From the specs, it looks like they are measuring the small portion of wavelength you were mentioning about with 3M. Their specs are toe-to-toe with Crystalline's. I've not been able to find out much on the web or YouTube (just 2-3 marketing vids) but it's definitely caught my interesting. I'll have to check if my local F1 dealer is carrying Stratos yet.
  6. That's quite a dramatic difference between two different authorized Huper dealers in the same market! That would definitely make suspicious. Whichever film you choose, I recommend asking the dealer leaving a few watermarks on each wimdow after installation. It's easily wiped off by a water/alcohol soulition. Both Crystalline and Huper print watermarks all over their films to combat this type of shenanigans. If you drive that much and your main priority is heat rejection, hands down I would recommend Crystalline. Make sure you get the windshield as well because what's the point of having 80% coverage?
  7. Also @whodis, you should list your quotes here to see if it's actually reasonable. They are high quality films that are expensive; some require expert install techniques vs. your avg. tint installation. Also bear in mind the market you're in. For me, I live in a medium sized city and paid $700 for complete coverage with Crystalline and Huper. I priced it in bigger markets like San Francisco area and those would be $1,000 to $1,200. Just like anything, you pay to play.
  8. @whodis, I've had ALL THREE on my vehicles over the years and below are my experience in terms of your question regarding heat rejection and quality. I'm just a consumer and rely on the info by the experts on this board. There's plenty of good info by @DynamicAppearance and others regarding these three films in the search database. F1 Pinnacle: I've have Pinnacle 35 (VLT) on my wife's Mazda minvan (all windows; no windshield) for 6 years now and it's a rock solid in terms of quality. It's charcoal color has been unchanged throughout the years and I liked it's clarity without any hazing. As for "heat rejection" - I've not been impressed with it over the years, especially after I've experienced Huper Ceramic and 3M Crystalline on my two other vehicles. 3M Crystalline: I had CR70 on my Subaru sedan (all windows + sunroof + windshield) for two years and it's a durable thick high quality film. My only qualms with it is the color differences between the shades; the darker VLTs have a brownish bronze tint while the higher VLTs are has this hazy blue to it. It's looks good from the inside but from the outside there's a definite hazy bluish tint to it. As for heat rejection, I can't rave enough about it. Even at the 70 VLT, I could sit in car on hot summer days and not feel like I'm roasting. It's that good and worth every cent if heat rejection is your top priority Huper Optik Ceramic: I have C70 on my Audi sedan windshield and sunroof and C50 on the side/back windows. I chose the Huper over the Crystalline simply because I wanted a different color tint than Crystalline. It has, IMO a rich classy reflective look to it I've not seen on other films. The quality is very high, no scratches, no hazing and durable over 1 year so far. It's heat rejection is noticeably less than Crystalline but greater than Pinnacle. It was a happy medium choice for me to choose Huper for the looks over the performance. In terms of heat rejection, you have to be careful about asking this question. If you are measuring TSER - Total Solar Energy Rejected ("The percentage of total solar energy rejected by filmed glass"), all these three films measure similarly. What you should look for is the IR - Infrared Rejected specs ("The percent of infrared light rejected by the film on the glass. Infrared light is primarily responsible for the heat you feel when driving.") @DynamicAppearance, I'm thoroughly astounded by Crystalline's 97% IR spec across the line. I could sit in my previous Subaru sedan with just 70% VLT coverage on all windows on a hot day and not feel like the sun is burning me. Sure it was hot but a nice toasty feeling, not a sunburn feeling you get from the sun through glass sitting or driving at one focal point. I love Huper's appearance but I can't deny Crystalline having a very noticeable bump with Infrared Rejection! I'm very surprised IR spec is seldom talked about on this forum and won't even consider films that don't list them in their specs (I'm talking to you Formula 1 and Suntek!).
  9. Thank you for that very useful info; I'll be sure to stay away from the Panaflex. In regards to the Ceramic, I've had Formula One Pinnacle on my wife's minivan and it's been going 4 years strong. It still looks classy and very factory like to this day. My sole reservation about it is there is no Pinnacle 70 or 80 for the windshield. I would have to go to Air 80 which I've read cast more of a blue hue to it. I'll look into Huper Optik as well. I think you may be reading into "BRANDS" way to much. My recommendation to you is go to your most experienced local shop and use or have them use what they recommend to you, overall a good standing business will take care of you. CXP is way to green. CRYSTALLINE is wierd lol color wise PANAFLEX you are right its new, but most of all these "brand" companies selling these updated films to customers/dealers is also new with exception of some manny's out there who've had ceramic for years. The more you read into brands the more confused you'll get. Good luck I didn't mean to give an impression I was looking into the branding too much. I guess I'm more comfortable with established brands (3M, Formula One/Llumar, Suntek, etc) due to their history and support for dealers and consumers -- hence my reservations about choosing someone like Flexfilms and Panaflex.
  10. So I'm all in on the Nano films (CXP, CR, PS) and had Crystalline on my last car. This time around I was going to use CXP mainly due to cost-to-value ratio vs. Crystalline: similar performance specs across the board at 40/50% of price. Additionally, I didn't care too much for the colors of CR: 70/60 looks bluish and 40/50 bronze/brown hue. CXP looks more grey/charcoal uniformly across all shades. However, my local dealer threw me curve by introducing Panaflex Ceramic. The installer thought the PF ceramic does a better job in performance and is more expensive than CXP. I'm not so sure -- all the specs I've read seem to indicate better performance numbers from the Nano films. Plus I'm wary of this Panaflex ceramic since I only see limited info for film and company. Can you guys help with the sanity check here? What am I missing? Thanks.
×