![]() 07/11/2018 at 10:25 • Filed to: None | ![]() | ![]() |
Finally got around to finding a tint shop to get tints installed on my Subaru. My main goal is heat rejection so I’m doing ceramic tints for $325. Shop seems reputable and the guys I talked to were definitely car people, so I feel welcome there. I have until next Saturday to figure out what tint level I want to get with that. So I ask the Oppo hive mind what should I go with?
Legal limit in California is 70% fronts, any tint rears.
So what I am considering right now are the following options:
1. 70% all around (lightest tint available)
2. 50% all around (my top choice right now)
3. 70% front, and 50% or 35% rear (uneven, 35 is kind of too dark for me )
I’m currently leaning towards O ption 2 to be close enough to the limit to where I doubt I would have trouble in the majority of cases. Option 3 is keeping it legal but still getting the extra darkness for the rest of the car, but I’m unsure how I feel about an uneven tint. Of course there’s always O ption 1 but after looking at some of the options I feel 70 is way way light. With the ceramics I should get the desired effect anyways but I’m just curious what some others think.
![]() 07/11/2018 at 10:46 |
|
50 is good all around and not too dark. 35 is what factory SUVs and minivans use for rear windows. I’ve had both and the 50 is good. That’s what I’ll do my S8 with whenever I can justify spending the money on it. I had 35 in my S4 and liked it for privacy, but it was pretty dark for night driving. I had 50 on my CTS and my sts and it was plenty dark for shading the sun, but you can still see in, so less likely to get hassled by the man. ;)
But I got pulled over in my S4 and the officers commented on the darkness of the tint, but didn’t write me a ticket. It pays to be polite. And I always drop all the windows if in that situation anyway so they can see inside. With a sun shade in the front window, the car stayed nice. Still got hot, but not nearly as bad as I get now in an untinted car.
![]() 07/11/2018 at 10:57 |
|
Option 2, yes.
How much are the Ceramics running you? I have just regular tint including a very light tint on the windshield plus 10% all around (Way more than state requirements obviously but the previous owner had it on and I haven’t got pulle d over for it..Yet ).
I was thinking of removing front tint and putting a clear Ceramic but I was quoted like $160 for that alone. Any negative effect of putting a clear ceramic on the front windshield?glare? blur? signal interference?
![]() 07/11/2018 at 11:00 |
|
I’ve been cited once, and told by a CHP captain another time I can’t have any window tint on the front, and people get cited for it all of the time. However, CA VC Section 26708 seems to indicate you can. But as I’ve never heard of this, I’ll have to get clarification.
But the VC section state that you have to have:
The driver has in his or her possession, or within the vehicle, a certificate signed by the installing company certifying that the windows with the material installed meet the requirements of this subdivision and the certificate identifies the installing company and the material’s manufacturer by full name and street address, or, if the material was installed by the vehicle owner, a certificate signed by the material’s manufacturer certifying that the windows with the material installed according to manufacturer’s instructions meet the requirements of this subdivision and the certificate identifies the material’s manufacturer by full name and street address.
![]() 07/11/2018 at 11:10 |
|
Edit: I’m still trying to figure this out, and it seems that standard windows already come with 70% VLT, so any aftermarket film applied would be illegal, hence why people get cited for it, even when it was very light, like mine.
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/sdut-window-tint-laws-strict-2013apr16-story.html
![]() 07/11/2018 at 11:13 |
|
Shit makes no sense whatsoever lol. I get why California has the laws it does but enforcement and education of the laws is all over the place..
![]() 07/11/2018 at 11:55 |
|
I’m getting 35% on the fronts and 15% on the rear of my car this weekend.
CA sucks for tint I actually got a note from my doctor so I could have tint on the front. Now I live in OR and 35% is the darkest you can have up front.
![]() 07/11/2018 at 12:55 |
|
That seems crazy dark to me lol. I find it fairly confusing looking up the laws. I see 70% as the stated law but then it changes depending on where you look it up. But definitely any tinting will make a difference on these 100+ days. The STi is like a fish bowl with how big the windows are and my AC just can't keep up.
![]() 07/11/2018 at 12:58 |
|
It was quoted $150 for just regular tints I believe and with ceramics that total went up to $325. I don't think it sounds like a lot of money so I'd rather spend a bit more.
![]() 07/11/2018 at 13:03 |
|
It’s crazy dark and will look even darker on my black car.
![]() 07/11/2018 at 14:34 |
|
I’ve got 35% ceramic all around on all my cars and I think it's a good choice. Doesn't hinder my visibility at night at all, great heat rejection, and I like the even look all around. With the light color interior in my 335i it looks perfect.
![]() 07/11/2018 at 19:08 |
|
Personally, I’d go legal at 70 all around. The unevenness would drive me nuts (even though it’s jdm-ish
,
yo), and it would give the next asshole to pull you over one less thing to try to write you up for. It’s ceramic so you’ll still get most of the heat rejection, and you’ll still be able to see out of the car at night.
![]() 07/11/2018 at 19:43 |
|
I kind of wish I could try both. They only really had sample cars with stupidly dark tints because that's what people always want. Lightest tint on a car at the shop was like 35% lol. Limo tint was on like more than half the cars. Idk how they see at night. I'm basically torn between 50 and 70, but either way I definitely need to get a front plate so that at least I'm not doing two things wrong at once.