3M Tech Guy

@STEK HOWARD - Canada

@STEK HOWARD - I was able to compress PPF (3M, STEK, Xpel and Suntek) about 0.1 mils when using excessive force with my thumb. I got about 0.2 mils of extra compression when using two hands. With mild thumb pressure, the readings did not change. @TomTint - I'm not familiar with the miter e scale test but congratulations on the excellent results! Good competition benefits the end users. I would much prefer to have a conversation with facts and data rather than innuendo, hearsay and rumors. @Jake - Excellent point! It's a balance between ease of installation and performance/durability.

It is absolutely our right and responsibility to challenge the status quo. The reason I ran this analysis was because I wanted to know if/how PPF thickness affected paint chipping resistance. To me, thicker film should provide better protection. In our OEM business, we use 10 mil and 14 mil PPF's for lower rocker applications. Why? Because they provide better protection on very demanding areas of the vehicle. While I have read this forum for a while, I know I am new to posting to the forum. As such, why should anyone believe what I say? Why shouldn't everyone challenge what I say? I can't answer those questions for you, but please understand that since I represent 3M, any time I post experimental findings, they are approved by 3M Legal. @STEK HOWARD - Very valid point wrt the dial caliper. While not the truest method for measuring thickness, it is fairly accurate. And, I cannot bring a camera into our testing room for confidentiality reasons. I will quantify how much compression I can generate tomorrow and report back. For this video, I tried very hard, to use the same pressure. My guess is that the most I could compress any PPF would be 0.1 mil, but I'll check. @Noel - While the results look and feel like brand advertising, the intent was to educate the installers and end customers that there are real consequences for installing/buying thinner films. Stretching a thin film, will result in a thinner film area, than stretching a thicker film in the same area. The gravelometer test is a standard OEM test. What variables of the test would you like me to clarify? @JoshVette - Yes, the panels all look similar. That's why I only counted the paint chips. As I stated above, it is absolutely your right and responsibility to challenge my results. I could have simply circled more dents in the thinner films (3M Legal would not have approved publication of the video if this was the case). It's up to you to believe whatever you choose to believe. However, why not challenge everyone else's claims that their films are 8 mils thick? In your opinion, what factors need to be controlled to make this a scientific test? And finally, does it make sense to you, that a thicker film would provide better protection? @TomTint - Once again, it is your right and responsibility to challenge my results. I will just toss this out there: If you don't believe my results, prove me wrong. A 90 degree angle of impact provides the greatest amount of energy and therefore, the greatest opportunity to chip the paint. As such, it is the most demanding circumstance to run the test. That is also why the panels are conditioned at -30C prior to the test: to create a worst-case scenario. This is why the OEM specification test methods require a 90 degree impact angle.

This video attempts to answer the question: "Does PPF thickness affect long-term durability?" Your intuition would say, yes. The thicker the film, the more it will protect the underlying paint. Thinner films are easier to install and cost less, because you are getting less material and possibly, less protection. The 3M Automotive and Aerospace Solutions Division is ISO9001 certified which allows us to supply products to automotive OEM customers. It is an extremely rigorous standard that provides the structure to consistently offer products that meet customer, statutory, and regulatory requirements. It is the entry level for quality systems in the automotive industry. It also allows us to provide specification test results on our own, without going to an outside test facility. One such typical test is Chipping Resistance, which is shown in this video. Samples are conditioned at -30F because that represents the most difficult conditioning scenario for paint and PPF. The failures that are documented (Sharpie circles) are actual paint chips: not dents in the panels.

Unfortunately, it is very difficult to determine the actual identity of most PPF's. One very reliable method is to analyze the film via Infrared (IR) Spectroscopy. Each PPF has a unique chemical fingerprint which can be analyzed via IR. While that is a standard piece of equipment in most analytical labs, it isn't so much in the real world. We use this equipment to verify warranty claims because 10-15% of the claims we process are not 3M film.

I’m looking for feedback on our Scotchgard PPF Pro Series Satin Matte. Please share any comments about appearance and/or installation. #3m #3mppf @3mfilms @aerotectfilms @epdwindowfilm @interwestdc @accentdistributing @starshieldsolutions