Tintguy1980

I don't think you'll be happy with a 50% given you do not want it to look tinted.
 
If that untinted look tops your priority list, you want something  in the CR70, CR80, or CR90 range, with CR 70 having a slight tint look to the glass (and bluer than the 80 or 90).
 
I'm going to attach a file showing all the Crystalline performance values; may be it'll help in choosing.
 

I don't think you'll be happy with a 50% given you do not want it to look tinted.
 
If that untinted look tops your priority list, you want something  in the CR70, CR80, or CR90 range, with CR 70 having a slight tint look to the glass (and bluer than the 80 or 90).
 
I'm going to attach a file showing all the Crystalline performance values; may be it'll help in choosing.
 

I've had Crystalline 40 on my front driver and passenger glass for 7 years now, it's always parked outside sun-exposed, and it is holding up pretty dammed impressive here at the South side of Virginia (as if it were installed recently).

No it isn't over by any means.
 
My take:
1. It looks like an inexperienced gorilla handled this job with a wore out razor knife.
2. The shop owner is on the hook and he then must get his $$ back from the offending installer(s).
3. If owner pushes back, your only recourse would be to spend your own $$ to fix it right and then litigate in small claims, serving the shop owner with the papers.
4. Always take the time to drive down to a tint shop to see their work before scheduling with the type car you have described (aka buyer beware).
 

Also lightly mist the headliner, when possible, and where a cap to contain head hair.

I had my 2015 Jeep windshield replaced in 2019 after it cracked due to snow sliding off the roof onto the hot sun-exposed glass, when coming to a stop.
 
The new one has mild wavy distortion on one side that you have to look to see at certain angles. I don't have tint on my windshield and it took awhile before I caught a glimpse of the area. That's when I looked over the entire sheet. For me, it's a no bother situ, as in not distractive enough to impact driving.
 
Feedback is simply to add credibility to the above quote (not that he needs it) and as tinters, we see this more often than one would think.

No it isn't over by any means.
 
My take:
1. It looks like an inexperienced gorilla handled this job with a wore out razor knife.
2. The shop owner is on the hook and he then must get his $$ back from the offending installer(s).
3. If owner pushes back, your only recourse would be to spend your own $$ to fix it right and then litigate in small claims, serving the shop owner with the papers.
4. Always take the time to drive down to a tint shop to see their work before scheduling with the type car you have described (aka buyer beware).
 

I've had Crystalline 40 on my front driver and passenger glass for 7 years now, it's always parked outside sun-exposed, and it is holding up pretty dammed impressive here at the South side of Virginia (as if it were installed recently).

For your stated purpose almost any film from a quality manufacturer will accomplish what you're after which is blocking the UV that's going to fade/break down your interior materials. Crystalline is a great film that offers higher IR rejection, but it certainly comes at a premium. As far as the light refraction with the rear window goes it's unavoidable unless you want to remove your defroster grid, that said some films are better than others in that department but there are a number of variables that come into play.

I'll second the heat gun damage and raise you with some overly aggressive scrub/wiping.
 
Jackwagons like that have been effing up the industry since it began. I'll wager anything that they absolutely saw it and delivered it with a straight face. Hood rat mentality. It's one thing to damage someone's auto, but not acceptable to try to pull that crap and believe it's ok.

Sorry but yes, that is heat gun damage and a razor knife cut.  Somebody doesn't know how to snap a door glass properly.  That was probably done while shrinking on the car before install, as I think those are frameless windows.  But that is heat gun damage for sure, I've done the same thing on a different vehicle before.  I know that damage first hand.  Good news is that plastic piece is relatively easy to replace.  You're just gonna have to deal with either them replacing it or you having to.  

And now it's Dano & TD for the win!

Ronald Reagan – “Freedom isn’t free and America is the last stand on Earth.”
 
  
 
I bet Ronnie would be pissed right now.
 
 
 
 
 

Replacement is up to you, how bad that scratch bugs you. It can be touched up with paint to hide it a bit.
 
Personally I wouldn't trust them to remove the film, they'd probably just leave all the clear adhesive behind for the next guy to deal with. Tough call because now you have to pay someone to remove and replace it.

Wow, jobs like that really give tinting a bad name. Not sure what caused the scratch, but I think you are right about it being them.
 
Yeah, they should have cleaned up the seats and shelf after.
 
The last picture is adhesive that was left behind from the first job they removed.
 
What a hack job. I wouldn't let them work on it again.  

If it's a chain I would consider taking it over to the main location to make your case.  It's terrible to see what some installers will try to get away with when they don't have any meaningful oversight. 
 
Small independent shops/shop owners are usually the best to deal with. They generally won't risk their rep with any of the hack-n-tac clownery, where the chains will often hire anyone standing with a pulse. 
 
If you were my brother on the other side of the county, and they don't offer to make you whole, I would say to you document everything, get two estimates for all damages including OEM for the glass ( not a chance it left Toyota that way with a scraping gouge in it ), film removal, detail and two days of car rental. Add to that any ammount paid up front and write a letter of demand served through a process server to their registered agent (available by looking up their article of incorporation/ secretary of state)
 
They will look stupid in small claims if they refuse and likely have to cough up for it. Maybe have an attorney write it if you have someone local for contract type writing and add the cost to your demand.
 
This may sound like overkill until you find out how much the factory glass replacement is. I would force them to make you whole. You sound like a mild guy and may not want to go this route. I personally would hold their nose to the mat and make them tap out, either up front like an honest biz, or in small claims. That's the cost of poor employee screening. eff 'em.
 
When you get ready for your next car, you can always post a request here on Tint Dude and someone will most likely have a good referral for you in your area.
 
 
 

Placebo effect. 😆

Ima thinking the limo film on the outside could do a tad better since it's absorbing the majority of the solar energy before traveling through glass. If limo was on the inside and he was using AC, the absorption would reradiate toward the cool air inside versus out though the glazing system. Has it been tested in my time analyzing film products? No.
 
If you look at the TSER of an interior mounted 20% reflective film, it's reported around 79%. For an exterior mounted equivalent, the TSER jumps to 84%. 5 percentage points in film performance translating into a 10-15 degree improvement inside is at best questionable.
 
We all know that air passing over the outside surface will carry away any heat build up in the outer pane, so, traveling down the road at 60 mph you'll have a difference compared with sitting still. Same would occur if filmed on the inside. Sitting in a campground with 7-15 mph breeze ... well ... meh!
 
That's how it strikes me but, I have to say there are far too many variables involved that are not known for any of us to be believing his claim of 10-15 degree difference between interior mount vs exterior. Here's a few: Dual-pane? Tinted dual-pane? LowE dual-pane? Air conditioning efficiency? Limo tint metallized? Limo Ceramic? Limo straight-dyed? Air movement on the exterior surface? Measuring air temp? Measuring temp where the sun strikes a surface inside?


 
 

Placebo effect. 😆

Ima thinking the limo film on the outside could do a tad better since it's absorbing the majority of the solar energy before traveling through glass. If limo was on the inside and he was using AC, the absorption would reradiate toward the cool air inside versus out though the glazing system. Has it been tested in my time analyzing film products? No.
 
If you look at the TSER of an interior mounted 20% reflective film, it's reported around 79%. For an exterior mounted equivalent, the TSER jumps to 84%. 5 percentage points in film performance translating into a 10-15 degree improvement inside is at best questionable.
 
We all know that air passing over the outside surface will carry away any heat build up in the outer pane, so, traveling down the road at 60 mph you'll have a difference compared with sitting still. Same would occur if filmed on the inside. Sitting in a campground with 7-15 mph breeze ... well ... meh!
 
That's how it strikes me but, I have to say there are far too many variables involved that are not known for any of us to be believing his claim of 10-15 degree difference between interior mount vs exterior. Here's a few: Dual-pane? Tinted dual-pane? LowE dual-pane? Air conditioning efficiency? Limo tint metallized? Limo Ceramic? Limo straight-dyed? Air movement on the exterior surface? Measuring air temp? Measuring temp where the sun strikes a surface inside?


 
 

Placebo effect. 😆

Ima thinking the limo film on the outside could do a tad better since it's absorbing the majority of the solar energy before traveling through glass. If limo was on the inside and he was using AC, the absorption would reradiate toward the cool air inside versus out though the glazing system. Has it been tested in my time analyzing film products? No.
 
If you look at the TSER of an interior mounted 20% reflective film, it's reported around 79%. For an exterior mounted equivalent, the TSER jumps to 84%. 5 percentage points in film performance translating into a 10-15 degree improvement inside is at best questionable.
 
We all know that air passing over the outside surface will carry away any heat build up in the outer pane, so, traveling down the road at 60 mph you'll have a difference compared with sitting still. Same would occur if filmed on the inside. Sitting in a campground with 7-15 mph breeze ... well ... meh!
 
That's how it strikes me but, I have to say there are far too many variables involved that are not known for any of us to be believing his claim of 10-15 degree difference between interior mount vs exterior. Here's a few: Dual-pane? Tinted dual-pane? LowE dual-pane? Air conditioning efficiency? Limo tint metallized? Limo Ceramic? Limo straight-dyed? Air movement on the exterior surface? Measuring air temp? Measuring temp where the sun strikes a surface inside?


 
 

Placebo effect. 😆

Ima thinking the limo film on the outside could do a tad better since it's absorbing the majority of the solar energy before traveling through glass. If limo was on the inside and he was using AC, the absorption would reradiate toward the cool air inside versus out though the glazing system. Has it been tested in my time analyzing film products? No.
 
If you look at the TSER of an interior mounted 20% reflective film, it's reported around 79%. For an exterior mounted equivalent, the TSER jumps to 84%. 5 percentage points in film performance translating into a 10-15 degree improvement inside is at best questionable.
 
We all know that air passing over the outside surface will carry away any heat build up in the outer pane, so, traveling down the road at 60 mph you'll have a difference compared with sitting still. Same would occur if filmed on the inside. Sitting in a campground with 7-15 mph breeze ... well ... meh!
 
That's how it strikes me but, I have to say there are far too many variables involved that are not known for any of us to be believing his claim of 10-15 degree difference between interior mount vs exterior. Here's a few: Dual-pane? Tinted dual-pane? LowE dual-pane? Air conditioning efficiency? Limo tint metallized? Limo Ceramic? Limo straight-dyed? Air movement on the exterior surface? Measuring air temp? Measuring temp where the sun strikes a surface inside?


 
 

I scratched llumar film way to easy.  Found it horrible compared to global. 
This was probably 5 years ago at the Performance Challenge tint off. 

Just like in the past, the car manny did this just to f**k with installers of film. 😆

The automotive film with the hardest scratch coat is made by Eastman under the brand names FormulaOne and or LLumar.
 
You'll know how easily a film will scratch when actuating the windows up and down. If they scratch pretty quick, that's an inferior coating.
 
I do have to say that 3M Crystalline 40 has been on my car since early 2016 and there are zero scratches, adhesive is crystal clear, and the color remains stable. Possibly another label to use in the future.

Putting a clear ceramic (70, 80 or 90) will aid in reducing incoming solar energy (near infrared, UV, visible light) while driving the car, leading to increased creature comfort more so when in motion. However, keep your expectations low, if you park the car in the sun.

If the film you choose has a TSER rate of 40%, you still have 60% transmitting in. This translates into a slower heat up when in the sun, however, if parked for a long period of time in the sun (like an eight hour work shift), DO expect the car's cabin to be hot.
 
I would recommend 3M's Crystalline series (it is pricey). It has the capability to reflect near infrared energy as opposed to the majority of films absorbing (which heats up the glass) and re-radiating to the coolest side of the glass. You will sense the hot glass next to you more so with standard ceramics than using Crystalline. Near infrared is the part of the sun's energy you 'feel' in the immediate.
 
Some is better than none.

For Optivision 15 dual-reflective film.
 
You will need to confirm whether or not the lowE glazing is a hi-performance lowE: low E2, low E3, or low E4. Hi-perf low E works by retaining man-made heat (being lost through the glass) AND repelling a substantial amount of solar energy. Hi-perf low E glass has the capacity to reject 60%, upwards to 94% (low E4) of the sun's energy.
 
If the lowE is the old standard coating that works by retaining man-made it in the room (only), then I'd suggest it be a no go.
 
If you need assistance in determining which type of low E coating you are facing, you can using a meter to determine the performance or you can read the following and learn a simpler way: