Noeh

iTrader: (3)

I love my 50% tint. If you account for our 70% VLT glass, you have 35% overall VLT.

panda_ek9

iTrader: (6)

Yeah, I had 35% all around and been getting a hard time for it since, I live in so cal.. so I went with 50% front and 35% rear.. I have black interior so it makes the tint look darker than it is.. to me this is a good setup

ZeroSeVen

iTrader: (1)

Front window tint is illegal in CA. It's all up to you on how much risk you're willing to take. It also depends on where you live and how strict they enforce the law.

I live in the central valley and local police here don't give a crap on dark front window tint, black taillights and loud exhausts. But they never fail conducting sobriety checkpoints on weekends

Worst case scenario is you get dinged with a fix-it ticket. It's more of a hassle than anything else because you have to remove your front tint and have an authorized person (local police, sheriff, DMV personnel) sign off your proof/certificate of correction and pay any dismissal fee and this must all be done in a timely fashion.

I wouldn't even recommend doing a 50% on the front just for sake of having it for aesthetic reasons because it won't give you any. If you want to stay conservative then you can go 35% front and 15-20% rear.

This is what a 35% front and 15% rear looks like. It has a good transition.



And you can always open your sunroof too allow more light inside if you are driving at a high risk zone. Works best on light colored interior.

richylee

so i did went with 50% for the front and 15 for the back check it out,
pretty happy how it came out
i decided to go with 50 just because i do not wanna get in trouble with law enforcement, its annoying as hell so yeah :/

anyways enjoy guys!

LexoticJ

iTrader: (5)

not bad... i went with 5% all around and 50% on the front winshield...

Sango

iTrader: (10)

CA's tint laws is similar if not identical to BC, Canada laws.

I have 35% (38%) front, 40% (43%) rears, and 80% (78%) front windshield and don't have issues myself. They are stricter because the officer has the right to cut/slash your tint on the spot for an illegal tint at their discretion, which does force the driver to eventually show up at a certain due date at the police station to show that the tint has been removed or else face a more serious fine (several hundred dollars) on top of the tint ticket.

They would most likely get someone on a tint as a secondary offense if they can find something to get you as a primary offense. Just to be safe, don't be the odd man out (ie. speeding). or cover your behind.

piguy

Unlike most on here, I was more concerned about heat/UV rejection than aesthetics, and I live in CA where you can't go below 70% on the fronts (which is factory tint). So I went with 50% 3M Carbon (better performance than dyed-film without risk of electronic interference) all the way around (excluding windshield).

I'm overall very happy with it. Sometimes I wish it was darker but most of the time I think it's just about right, particularly with my NGP color. I think if my car was darker or lighter than I would want a darker tint but this flows really well and the windows blend in nicely with the gray color. But yeah you can still see inside pretty easily, so if privacy is important than definitely go darker.

Sango

iTrader: (10)

^
The 3M Carbon? Not sure if that is the correct name.
http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3...ts/Automotive/

Anyways, the 3M Crystalline 90 (86%) is also a good choice as well if you're looking for tint which one one notices with heat rejection. The same goes for the Llumar Air Blue 80 (78%).

piguy

Yeah sorry, I meant the 3M Color Stable which I think is made of carbon polyester. I looked into the 3M crystalline but it was going to be more than twice as much or something absurd like that.