But if I had you hop in one car, then hop in the other, you could tell. I'd argue that separated by a week, sure you won't notice 140F vs. Two points, first the minor one, then the more major one. ![]() I could find the link, but the difference was something like 140F with tint and 150F without tint, after time in the sun (with 50% tint!). In my understanding tint isn't supposed to completely fix this problem (although interior damage due to UV should be less). Only downside is $$$, it's very expensive.Įven with the best tint (photosync or crystalline at 50% or darker), the car is still going to be hot after a day in the sun. Some people even haven't believed me when I told them the windshield is tinted. It really is a great tint so far and it's what is on my windshield as I mentioned. If you are open to it, you may want to check out Photosync's 75% for your car as you mentioned. Everything isn't completely scalding, only the shifter is after a long baking session in the sun! I really don't mind the light lost in a 35% as it also provides glare reduction and such at a bit higher level. It's pretty light though, so I'm happy with it. Photosync only goes as high as 75% I believe it is, so that's what I got this time. I had 90% Crystalline on my windshield in my last car, really helped. Some of the tint is practically impossible to see out of! A lot of people go 20% or darker down here honestly, whether it be for looks or for heat reduction. 35% tint down here is generally considered a low number based on what I have seen. Yeah, down here in Florida, it's about the same type of heat with temps in the car reaching extremely high as they just bake in the sun. 66 -1.2 = -.54, which is almost 3 times as fast as without the tint, even for only having a 34% solar energy rejection!) So with the AC the car will cool at a rate =. If you get a 3M crystalline 90 tint, then the car heats at a rate of 1. Over time the temperature goes down at a rate = 1 - 1.2 = -0.2. Then the AC cooling must be more than that, because the car gets cool, say the AC effect is -1.2. (My logic for why 34% heat reduction is a lot is just that without any tint my AC does fine, which means that on a hot day, say, the car heats up by some amount, that we will call 1. I'd definitely do the 3M crystalline 90 though because a 34% reduction in heat would be more than enough for me. I've been running no tint in the WRX for 10 years, but for the last 3 years I commute where it gets over 105F regularly, so I've been thinking about getting tint on my next car. It's just hard for me to understand needing more than 58% solar energy reduction and therefore hard to understand why go darker than 75% tint (25% lost light). 58% solar energy reduction with only 25% lost light, a great trade for hot locations. So its bang for the lost light is 34/14 2.42, and you get almost two and a half times the heat reduction compared to the lost light.Īlthough if you want more than 34% heat reduction, the photosync 75 option looks great. ![]() Too heavy a trade for me.Ĭomparatively, the 3M Crystalline reduction of 34% would still make a huge difference in terms of heat, but it only reduces VLT by 14%. Not bad, but it means that your bang for the buck is 79/68 = 1.16, so you get only a little more heat reduction compared to light lost. ![]() That tint has a VLT (visible light transmitted) of 32%, so you lose 68% of the light/visibility for a 79% solar energy reduction. The Photosync tint you mention that reduces solar energy by 79%, is a 35% tint. Thanks for the information, I was playing it a little fast and loose with the data.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |