3m Crystalline on the 3IS
06-01-14, 09:48 AM
#16
Driver
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: CA
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Usually 30% isn't that dark if you don't have the windshield tinted. But as soon as you slap something over the largest transparent area that provides light into your car everything gets darker. I was debating over no front plates, but didn't want to give more reasons to get noticed and pulled over.
According to my installer the windshield is expensive because it's a large area and the roll of film that can fit it costs more from 3M than the smaller rolls they have for side windows. So even though they are the same material from the same company, the larger the film roll the more expensive it is.
According to my installer the windshield is expensive because it's a large area and the roll of film that can fit it costs more from 3M than the smaller rolls they have for side windows. So even though they are the same material from the same company, the larger the film roll the more expensive it is.
06-01-14, 11:05 AM
#17
Lexus Test Driver
sonyhome - pinnacle is a great film but it doesn't offer any infrared rejection as far as i know, right? although the overall heat rejection, i believe, is just as great as crystalline's? why is it that there is so much hype surrounding crystalline's film in the hotter parts of the world? i'm thinking that it likely has to do with the ability to reduce heat absorption without having to compromise visibility, i.e. you can choose a near-clear tint percentage (70%/90%) and have the film reject just as much heat as, say, a 40% traditional film tint. i'm going to do some investigating, though, because your car looks amazing and everyone also talks about how pinnacle's lines are so impressive.
tea, basically, i want the tint that will offer the most heat rejection without having to go terribly dark - i really would like to use a 60%/70% film (as lame as that sounds to a lot of people) and not have to worry about some chp officer pulling me over because i will worry, i'm just one of those worry wort types.
edit: sonyhome, you're right 30% isn't that dark but it definitely does depend on the angle and time of day and california cops and chp officers can be really stringent because the state is so cash-strapped. it depends on the area, though. san diego county isn't nearly as bad as los angeles county from what i've read and experienced. my previous IS was tinted at 40% all the way around with nothing on the windshield and i was never pulled over here in SD county but i was pulled over twice in LA county and i rarely drive north to LA. still, though, something for me to think about with such an expensive film going on this car.
tea, basically, i want the tint that will offer the most heat rejection without having to go terribly dark - i really would like to use a 60%/70% film (as lame as that sounds to a lot of people) and not have to worry about some chp officer pulling me over because i will worry, i'm just one of those worry wort types.
edit: sonyhome, you're right 30% isn't that dark but it definitely does depend on the angle and time of day and california cops and chp officers can be really stringent because the state is so cash-strapped. it depends on the area, though. san diego county isn't nearly as bad as los angeles county from what i've read and experienced. my previous IS was tinted at 40% all the way around with nothing on the windshield and i was never pulled over here in SD county but i was pulled over twice in LA county and i rarely drive north to LA. still, though, something for me to think about with such an expensive film going on this car.
06-01-14, 03:02 PM
#18
Pole Position
Thread Starter
@oxytocin - that makes sense that the largest surface area would require a larger and thus more expensive sized roll of film. it also makes sense that the more area you have tinted, the less light enters the vehicle and thus the vehicle will look darker inside -- the windshield making that large of an impact hadn't crossed my mind, so thanks for mentioning it!
@tea - i hear you. i don't want to draw any more attention than is needed to the car by the police/chp because i just don't want to deal with fix-it tickets and because, as you mentioned, the film isn't inexpensive to rip off and put right back on.
@tea - i hear you. i don't want to draw any more attention than is needed to the car by the police/chp because i just don't want to deal with fix-it tickets and because, as you mentioned, the film isn't inexpensive to rip off and put right back on.
06-01-14, 03:09 PM
#20
Pole Position
Thread Starter
where do you live in ca? how do you feel the heat rejection is? noticeably cooler? worth the $850 spent? and finally, do you have any photos of the car with the tint on her?
thank you!
06-01-14, 03:21 PM
#21
sonyhome - pinnacle is a great film but it doesn't offer any infrared rejection as far as i know, right? although the overall heat rejection, i believe, is just as great as crystalline's? why is it that there is so much hype surrounding crystalline's film in the hotter parts of the world? i'm thinking that it likely has to do with the ability to reduce heat absorption without having to compromise visibility, i.e. you can choose a near-clear tint percentage (70%/90%) and have the film reject just as much heat as, say, a 40% traditional film tint. i'm going to do some investigating, though, because your car looks amazing and everyone also talks about how pinnacle's lines are so impressive.
tea, basically, i want the tint that will offer the most heat rejection without having to go terribly dark - i really would like to use a 60%/70% film (as lame as that sounds to a lot of people) and not have to worry about some chp officer pulling me over because i will worry, i'm just one of those worry wort types.
edit: sonyhome, you're right 30% isn't that dark but it definitely does depend on the angle and time of day and california cops and chp officers can be really stringent because the state is so cash-strapped. it depends on the area, though. san diego county isn't nearly as bad as los angeles county from what i've read and experienced. my previous IS was tinted at 40% all the way around with nothing on the windshield and i was never pulled over here in SD county but i was pulled over twice in LA county and i rarely drive north to LA. still, though, something for me to think about with such an expensive film going on this car.
tea, basically, i want the tint that will offer the most heat rejection without having to go terribly dark - i really would like to use a 60%/70% film (as lame as that sounds to a lot of people) and not have to worry about some chp officer pulling me over because i will worry, i'm just one of those worry wort types.
edit: sonyhome, you're right 30% isn't that dark but it definitely does depend on the angle and time of day and california cops and chp officers can be really stringent because the state is so cash-strapped. it depends on the area, though. san diego county isn't nearly as bad as los angeles county from what i've read and experienced. my previous IS was tinted at 40% all the way around with nothing on the windshield and i was never pulled over here in SD county but i was pulled over twice in LA county and i rarely drive north to LA. still, though, something for me to think about with such an expensive film going on this car.
06-01-14, 03:56 PM
#23
Pole Position
Thread Starter
nano - it looks really nice. that was the film that i had originally chosen and that's probably what i'll wind up with; that shade or 60%, with no less than 70% on the windshield.
anyhow, though, your car looks great. thanks for sharing the photos and feedback - greatly appreciated!
anyhow, though, your car looks great. thanks for sharing the photos and feedback - greatly appreciated!
06-01-14, 06:01 PM
#24
http://www.formulaone.com/pdf/FormulaOneSpecSheet.pdf
I got my windshield done for $100 (originally they wanted $150 but discounted it because I did Pinnacle & XPEL PPF also) with Crystalline 90 but there is no way I can validate it is Crystalline or Pinnacle on my windows or XPEL PPM for that matter... My installer did give me a warranty card for the Pinnacle tint but would not for Crystalline because it was illegal.
Last edited by SonyHome; 06-01-14 at 06:04 PM.
06-01-14, 07:02 PM
#25
Driver
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: CA
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I got my windshield done for $100 (originally they wanted $150 but discounted it because I did Pinnacle & XPEL PPF also) with Crystalline 90 but there is no way I can validate it is Crystalline or Pinnacle on my windows or XPEL PPM for that matter... My installer did give me a warranty card for the Pinnacle tint but would not for Crystalline because it was illegal.
Edit: So I found my receipts... I paid $700 for installing Crystalline on all my windows, $300 was for the windshield, everything else was $400 all together. Sorry about the confusion, $1,200 was for a full hood wrap.
Last edited by Oxytocin; 06-01-14 at 07:10 PM.
06-01-14, 11:02 PM
#26
Pole Position
Thread Starter
All the 3M tints come from the factory with 3M logos all over it, when completed the installer uses 70% isopropyl to rub off the logos. To authenticate the tints are indeed Crystalline my installer left one logo on each window at the lower left corner, when I was paying he said he would take them off if I wanted but they looked fine so I left them on.
Edit: So I found my receipts... I paid $700 for installing Crystalline on all my windows, $300 was for the windshield, everything else was $400 all together. Sorry about the confusion, $1,200 was for a full hood wrap.
Edit: So I found my receipts... I paid $700 for installing Crystalline on all my windows, $300 was for the windshield, everything else was $400 all together. Sorry about the confusion, $1,200 was for a full hood wrap.
also, +1 about the information on 3m factory logos coming on their tint films.
Here is the spec from their site. I'm not sure about IR rejection. I've not seen any one go by IR rejection. They usually go by TSER (Total Solar Energy Rejection). Crystalline is better if you want 50% light or more w/ high TSER but I don't think it's worth what they are charging still.
http://www.formulaone.com/pdf/FormulaOneSpecSheet.pdf
I got my windshield done for $100 (originally they wanted $150 but discounted it because I did Pinnacle & XPEL PPF also) with Crystalline 90 but there is no way I can validate it is Crystalline or Pinnacle on my windows or XPEL PPM for that matter... My installer did give me a warranty card for the Pinnacle tint but would not for Crystalline because it was illegal.
http://www.formulaone.com/pdf/FormulaOneSpecSheet.pdf
I got my windshield done for $100 (originally they wanted $150 but discounted it because I did Pinnacle & XPEL PPF also) with Crystalline 90 but there is no way I can validate it is Crystalline or Pinnacle on my windows or XPEL PPM for that matter... My installer did give me a warranty card for the Pinnacle tint but would not for Crystalline because it was illegal.
i think that IR rejection is particularly useful if one wants to use a lighter tint film and still wants a high TSER. the two are intertwined, of course, with the 3m crystalline film in particular as i believe it's the only film currently available in north america and western europe that offers ir protection thus increasing the total solar energy rejection at a variety of tint shades, some being clear or nearly so.
also, thank you for providing the pinnacle information -- much appreciated!
06-27-16, 01:58 PM
#27
Driver School Candidate
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: California
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks!
06-27-16, 02:03 PM
#28
Driver School Candidate
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: California
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
06-27-16, 02:05 PM
#29
Driver School Candidate
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: California
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi, can you share your location and which tint shop you purchased the service from? Thank you!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
JETLEX
IS - 2nd Gen (2006-2013)
2
07-03-12 08:55 AM