Jump to content

SunTek

Guest deanjones

By Guest deanjones
in Window Tinting - General Discussion

Recommended Posts

Guest tintguy7

Guest tintguy7

Posted
Posted

I been using st for many years and had to stop using it, hp char and carbon. but I cannot understand how you can sell carbon as an alternative and cheaper film than atx. c arbon cannot acheive those performance #s, or even come close to. :thumb

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Guest deanjones

Guest deanjones

Posted
Posted
I been using st for many years and had to stop using it, hp char and carbon. but I cannot understand how you can sell carbon as an alternative and cheaper film than atx. c arbon cannot acheive those performance #s, or even come close to. :thumb

That's why it's a cheaper solution. I think you missed my point.

If people want a color stable film that won't interfere with car electronics, but don't want to pay the big $$ for a ceramic, Carbon is absolutely a cheaper solution.

As far as achieving those numbers, it's not far off. FormulaOne's Ceramic 35 maintains 50% heat rejection. Carbon 35 maintains 42%. That's not that far off.

However, my point is they want a color stable film that won't interfere with electronics, but they're willing to pay less money for less performance, the Carbon is a good alternative.

On another note, why did you stop using it? Can you PM me your reasons if you'd rather not post them here? I'm curious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
b_faulk75

b_faulk75

Posted
Posted

I love the carbon, been using it almost exclusively for over a year now, no failures YET, hopefully none ever.... The carbon does meter out a bit dark, it does depend on the car but why do you think they offer a 45% ,good stuff for me!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TintWizard

TintWizard

Posted
Posted

I'll keep an open mind on the Suntek..I just need other tinters to be the guinea pig for the longevity ..only time will tell. ATRCH from Llu Llu is holding up well over time ..I hear the SunTek HP is comparable..the only thing lacking in testimonials is the longevity ..everything else seems to be in check. I need someone to come on here and say "I've kept close tabs on jobs I did 4-5 yrs ago and still looks good "

This isn't SunTeks fault..I don't think its been around long enough to give those testimonials is all just like any company that introduces any new line .

I know a lot of tinters are using it , I wish you the best of luck with longevity..if it's there, then you've saved more money with material than me :nono:trustme

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest deanjones

Guest deanjones

Posted
Posted

Well, LLumar has the nifty little Llumastar stuff, right? Which is "color stable". I thought their ATR was converted to the Llumastar technology in or around 2004. If that's the case, then LLumar's ATR should absolutely outlast SunTek's HP being that their HP is not a color stable dye...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest haroldshouseoftint

Guest haroldshouseoftint

Posted
Posted
Yeah, it's tough deciding between SunTek and LLumar...

:nono It was an easy choice, :lol2 neither one :lol2:lol2

:lol2 Its tough to chose between any film brand :trustme

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest tintguy7

Guest tintguy7

Posted
Posted
That's why it's a cheaper solution. I think you missed my point.

If people want a color stable film that won't interfere with car electronics, but don't want to pay the big $$ for a ceramic, Carbon is absolutely a cheaper solution.

As far as achieving those numbers, it's not far off. FormulaOne's Ceramic 35 maintains 50% heat rejection. Carbon 35 maintains 42%. That's not that far off.

However, my point is they want a color stable film that won't interfere with electronics, but they're willing to pay less money for less performance, the Carbon is a good alternative.

On another note, why did you stop using it? Can you PM me your reasons if you'd rather not post them here? I'm curious.

is it possible to get a 42% tser on a 100% dyed film with only uv inhibutors? I can't understand how a dyed film have a 8% tser difference than a ceramic? is it possible?

hey vc, jump in anytime. I'm just trying to educate myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest tintguy7

Guest tintguy7

Posted
Posted
I'll keep an open mind on the Suntek..I just need other tinters to be the guinea pig for the longevity ..only time will tell. ATRCH from Llu Llu is holding up well over time ..I hear the SunTek HP is comparable..the only thing lacking in testimonials is the longevity ..everything else seems to be in check. I need someone to come on here and say "I've kept close tabs on jobs I did 4-5 yrs ago and still looks good "

This isn't SunTeks fault..I don't think its been around long enough to give those testimonials is all just like any company that introduces any new line .

I know a lot of tinters are using it , I wish you the best of luck with longevity..if it's there, then you've saved more money with material than me :nono:trustme

hey tw, I've been using st since 2002. the problems I was experiencing was that the hp char 35 turned purple in about 1.5 yrs and it has been delaminating about the same time or even sooner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest deanjones

Guest deanjones

Posted
Posted
is it possible to get a 42% tser on a 100% dyed film with only uv inhibutors? I can't understand how a dyed film have a 8% tser difference than a ceramic? is it possible?

hey vc, jump in anytime. I'm just trying to educate myself.

I'm not sure... I'm just going by what SunTek states under http://www.suntekfilms.com/specs.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...