For an extra $125 I can have the LLumar CTX film installed in my 2005 Prius rather than the ATC. CTX provides 14% more solar energy rejection. Do any of you know enough about solar films to offer an opinion as to whether the extra charge is worth it? The cost for the ATC is $199 for a Prius (all the windows). So the CTX total cost would be $324. Thanks.
Unless the CTX offers a better warranty than the ATC, (which is a tell-tale sign of the lower model ), looks different (such as better color), or got better reviews, I definitely wouldn't bother. You'll never notice the difference between that solar energy rejection, which I think is a fake spec anyway. Generally you get what you pay for. So I think there must be another reason why the CTX is $125 more. I'd look into that further. I highly doubt it'd be the solar energy rejection alone. BTW, the CTX actually provides 42% "more" solar energy rejection than the ATC, not 14% "more." But that's just semantics.
The major difference is the CTX is a ceramic signal enabling film, both have a manufactures lifetime warranty. The link below shows some differences but does tell me why I should get the CTX over the ATC. Select between Llumar ATC, Llumar ATR or Llumar CTX film for your Car Tint Kits Different Types of Window Film
In the past, a Metal based window film, such as ATR, has the problem that it will screw with cell phone transmissions. This is effectively turning your car into a Faraday Cage. In that case ATC would be preferable over ATR ATC, however is a dye based film and will in time lose the tint and fade spots will appear. I would not get that one. CTX however, has the stability of ATR, without the RF interference properties! For me, this would be a no brainier, if you want your cellphone to work in the car, go CTX! It may cost more, but there is a great reason for that, it works! .
OldWolf, it is more informative to think of reduction in solar gain as a fraction, and not the difference between the two values. The ATC lets 67% of the heat in, the CTX 53%. So the ATC lets 67/53 = 26% more heat than the CTX into the cabin. Metal tints potentially causing radio interference is correct, and may affect your GPS too if you put a strip of tint at the top of the front windshield. I have a ceramic Llumar tint on my car from 2005, but IIRC the solar heat rejection is considerably higher than 50%. If I find the spec I'll update this post. The holy grail of tint is to reduce solar gain and not reduce visible light. Some tints are better at this than others, but there is always a compromise. Be careful of too much visible light blockade if you have bad eyes or drive at night in the city.
We are only allowed 35% tint here in North Carolina. The CTX is signal enabling, so I shouldn't have any problem with cell phones or GPS signals is what LLumar is suggesting.
Does that mean no less than 35% visible light penetration, or does it mean no less than 65% light penetration ? The CTX you posted lets in 43% visible light. Addendum: This site says 35% tint means no less than 35% of visible light has to penetrate window, so there may be products that block even more heat you can consider.
Here is formula one ceramic tint options Sorry, I see i chopped off the labels. Column #1 is % heat block, column #3 is light transmission. Last column is reflection The '30' only lets in 33% of visible light, but I think the law would be hard-pressed to notice you are illegal. It lets in 43% of heat, considerably better than the 53% of the Llumar product. The '35' product is completely legal for NC, and blocks more heat than Llumar CTX
Apparently "40" LLumar products are used by this shop because "35's" have failed the state test occasionally. I don't know how the state tests films, optically probably, but they do test it annually. If it fails it must be removed. That would be a pain. Now I am curious to find out how NC test auto films. This tinting stuff is a whole new subject for me.
Hi Guys, I am going to get tint too. One quote I got was $352 for Formula One Pinnacle ceramic tint. I got another quote, well actually three others, $150 Madico Charcool, $200 3M Color Stable, $500 3M Crystalline. From what I have read, the 3M Crystalline is by far the best, because it is much more clear than the other ones but have the protective properties of a colored film so they can add more layers to provide more protection but still allow light in to comply with tinting laws. The installer is the same for the Charcool, Color Stable and Crystalline and he said the Charcool is just as good as Color Stable if not better but he is just having a sale on the Charcool. Based on what I have been finding on the specs, I am not sure if it is correct or not but, Charcool and Color Stable have 40% TSER, Pinnacle has 54% TSER and Crystalline has 60% TSER at the equivalent VLT%. Here are the links to the data: Madico Specifications | Madico Window Films & Specialty Films Product Code CH. http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/mediawebserver?mwsId=66666UF6EVsSyXTtnxf6oXT6EVtQEVs6EVs6EVs6E666666--&fn=Auto%20WF%20Performance%20Data.pdf Product Code CS for Color Stable and CR for Crystalline. http://www.formulaone.com/pdf/FormulaOneSpecSheet.pdf Anyone have any thoughts if it is worth getting either the Pinnacle or the Crystalline or if I should just take the Charcool?
