suntek standard film

[ultratintsouthport]

Care to discuss the issues you've had with Carbon Ultra? And maybe what sets your current line apart from it?

See a lot of knocking on Carbon (which I could care less) but no mention of why......

Sure thing TE.

Firstly they claim to have colour stability and fade resistance. I have seen for myself that this isn't the case. And after less than 18months too.

My other BIG issue with them is dismally poor performance. After having a couple of my customers return saying "it hasn't made any difference, it may as well not even be there", I decided to install it on a 2nd car I had, to try if for a few weeks. Let me tell you, they weren't kidding. With the sun directly on the drivers window there was very little difference in the heat you could feel on your face and arms between window up and window down. When I finally got around to putting the films under a spectrum analyser I found that regardless of the claimed TSER, the Carbon18 had an IR rejection of less than 16%. That's pretty piss poor in anyone's language.

So how does it compare? I'm sceptical of any product until I've proven that it works. We had our doubts about 3M's claims of colour stability in their CS range (this was about 12yrs ago or so now) and decided to prove that it wouldn't last by installing CS20 on our shopfront windows that face directly east and get hammered by the sun every morning. To this day there is still no evidence of fading or colour change, nor adhesive failures of any discernible kind. These days I know a lot more about the technologies that go into that film and understand why.

So what about performance? Under the same analyser, the CS20 rated at 22%VLT and 55% IR Rejection. (almost four times that of the slightly darker Suntek "just-as-good-as-3M" film.)

If I promote or sell a product that doesn't work, I am eroding my customers trust in us. They look to me and my business as a trustworthy source of information on window films and I have no desire to let them down.

That being said, CS isn't exactly the Bees Knees of films either. If anything, that's kind of our bottom-of-the-range film now. We also use a lot of 3M Crystalline, SolarGard Ultra Performance, and now the UltraGard Fusion Nano-Ceramic.

[coast2coasttinting]

The reasone I dropped all suntek film was due to a number of fail issues inside of 18 months to 3 years. For starters poor scratch coat and weak adhesive. It does fade considerably after 18 months. And around the 3 year mark it will blister and the scratch coat is flaking off something awful.

[Tint Eastwood]

 

Care to discuss the issues you've had with Carbon Ultra? And maybe what sets your current line apart from it?

See a lot of knocking on Carbon (which I could care less) but no mention of why......

Sure thing TE.

Firstly they claim to have colour stability and fade resistance. I have seen for myself that this isn't the case. And after less than 18months too.

My other BIG issue with them is dismally poor performance. After having a couple of my customers return saying "it hasn't made any difference, it may as well not even be there", I decided to install it on a 2nd car I had, to try if for a few weeks. Let me tell you, they weren't kidding. With the sun directly on the drivers window there was very little difference in the heat you could feel on your face and arms between window up and window down. When I finally got around to putting the films under a spectrum analyser I found that regardless of the claimed TSER, the Carbon18 had an IR rejection of less than 16%. That's pretty piss poor in anyone's language.

So how does it compare? I'm sceptical of any product until I've proven that it works. We had our doubts about 3M's claims of colour stability in their CS range (this was about 12yrs ago or so now) and decided to prove that it wouldn't last by installing CS20 on our shopfront windows that face directly east and get hammered by the sun every morning. To this day there is still no evidence of fading or colour change, nor adhesive failures of any discernible kind. These days I know a lot more about the technologies that go into that film and understand why.

So what about performance? Under the same analyser, the CS20 rated at 22%VLT and 55% IR Rejection. (almost four times that of the slightly darker Suntek "just-as-good-as-3M" film.)

If I promote or sell a product that doesn't work, I am eroding my customers trust in us. They look to me and my business as a trustworthy source of information on window films and I have no desire to let them down.

That being said, CS isn't exactly the Bees Knees of films either. If anything, that's kind of our bottom-of-the-range film now. We also use a lot of 3M Crystalline, SolarGard Ultra Performance, and now the UltraGard Fusion Nano-Ceramic.

 

  

Nice break down. I was wondering if you (or anyone else) had many comebacks on failures and what they were. Been thinking about re-arranging some of my auto lines and whether to drop Carbon all together or bump it down to an entry level option. Many thanks Ultra.....and C2C.

[RockyDaz]

Care to discuss the issues you've had with Carbon Ultra? And maybe what sets your current line apart from it?

See a lot of knocking on Carbon (which I could care less) but no mention of why......

Sure thing TE.

Firstly they claim to have colour stability and fade resistance. I have seen for myself that this isn't the case. And after less than 18months too.

My other BIG issue with them is dismally poor performance. After having a couple of my customers return saying "it hasn't made any difference, it may as well not even be there", I decided to install it on a 2nd car I had, to try if for a few weeks. Let me tell you, they weren't kidding. With the sun directly on the drivers window there was very little difference in the heat you could feel on your face and arms between window up and window down. When I finally got around to putting the films under a spectrum analyser I found that regardless of the claimed TSER, the Carbon18 had an IR rejection of less than 16%. That's pretty piss poor in anyone's language.

So how does it compare? I'm sceptical of any product until I've proven that it works. We had our doubts about 3M's claims of colour stability in their CS range (this was about 12yrs ago or so now) and decided to prove that it wouldn't last by installing CS20 on our shopfront windows that face directly east and get hammered by the sun every morning. To this day there is still no evidence of fading or colour change, nor adhesive failures of any discernible kind. These days I know a lot more about the technologies that go into that film and understand why.

So what about performance? Under the same analyser, the CS20 rated at 22%VLT and 55% IR Rejection. (almost four times that of the slightly darker Suntek "just-as-good-as-3M" film.)

If I promote or sell a product that doesn't work, I am eroding my customers trust in us. They look to me and my business as a trustworthy source of information on window films and I have no desire to let them down.

That being said, CS isn't exactly the Bees Knees of films either. If anything, that's kind of our bottom-of-the-range film now. We also use a lot of 3M Crystalline, SolarGard Ultra Performance, and now the UltraGard Fusion Nano-Ceramic.

  

Nice break down. I was wondering if you (or anyone else) had many comebacks on failures and what they were. Been thinking about re-arranging some of my auto lines and whether to drop Carbon all together or bump it down to an entry level option. Many thanks Ultra.....and C2C.

I agree with Ultra and C2C as well.

I performed my own tests on Carbon on a IR meter and found Carbon to be an underperformer as far as IR rejection goes. Brands tested include SG, JWF,3M, ST and UltraGard.

To be fair, it performs about as well as any other plain dyed nr film, not great at all.

With a basic scratch coat test which involved putting all films on the counter and swiping 20 times with a steel wool pad, Carbon was by far the worse performer. No surprises there with the colour being in the scratch coat, and is the initial reason I dropped it out of my lineup, just too much wastage during the install with pulling film off due to scratches.

As for adhesive issues, I have not as yet seen a warranty from pre 2011, at this time however, I seems something changed at ST with their adhesives, and have processed a number of warranties on work done in 2011/2012 at which point I stopped using Carbon and CXP.

Warranty work was for bubbled adhesive on work that was only on average about 18 months old.

At all times SunTek were great to deal with and there were no problems at all with processing claims.

To be fair, it may have been a batch issue related to film purchases at that time, but at that time I stopped using ST for auto due to the poor scratch coat, the adhesive issues are revealing themselves now.

Hope that info is of some use Eastwood. I do not particularly enjoy bagging mannys on forums, as I believe all mannys will have issues periodically.

[SuperSetKing]

Last I checked that film holds a 3 year warranty. I am not seeing the validity in complaining its not lasting any longer. Being we have films that, and no film can last for ever, has a lifetime warranty, one that carries a 3 year should tell you something. 

Prime example, wanting dirt cheap film, not wanting to buy a premium film, but wanting it to perform like one. You want a film that last 5 plus years, find a carbon extruded mfg film and pay for it. 

 

• Standard

• Specifications
•  
•     Competitor Comparison

• The Standard line of window films offers both high quality and good protection. Other features and benefits include: 
• 
  
• A dyed-charcoal construction
• A non-reflective interior and exterior appearance
• Good heat, glare, and UV rejection
• Excellent optical clarity
• Three-year Manufacturer’s Warranty

[ultratintsouthport]

Last I checked that film holds a 3 year warranty. I am not seeing the validity in complaining its not lasting any longer. Being we have films that, and no film can last for ever, has a lifetime warranty, one that carries a 3 year should tell you something.

Prime example, wanting dirt cheap film, not wanting to buy a premium film, but wanting it to perform like one. You want a film that last 5 plus years, find a carbon extruded mfg film and pay for it.

• Standard

• Specifications
• Competitor Comparison

• The Standard line of window films offers both high quality and good protection. Other features and benefits include:
• A dyed-charcoal construction
• A non-reflective interior and exterior appearance
• Good heat, glare, and UV rejection
• Excellent optical clarity
• Three-year Manufacturer’s Warranty

That may be so for the Standard range, but to the best of my knowledge the Suntek Carbon is promoted here in Aust as having a lifetime warranty against fading. When that film fails after three years, you've either got a manufacturing problem, or someone is telling lies.

But don't worry, I'm sure the quality control of Commonwealth Laminating and the ethical business practices of Eastman Chemical will be fantastic for the industry after the merger...

[emoji12][emoji12][emoji12]

[SuperSetKing]

Well ST Carbon is a carbon impregnated, its pushed with just about the same warranty as CXP I believe. Sadly they simply will not perform the same. But they could care less and will be happy to play roulette on the warranty. They make so much money making and selling everyone else's film. CXP is a carbon extruded film. And it will out perform impregnated every time at least on color stable fading ect.