20% tint too dark?

[MachLightning]

I went 10% on my Mach E on sides and back. I absolutely love the way it looks, but it is a little tough sometimes on dark roads. I’ve rolled my windows down more than a few times when turning at night in unlit rural areas just to make sure I have good visibility.

I haven’t tinted the Lightning yet, but when I do I’ll go 20% instead.

For the record I’m in Maryland. State regulation is 35%, but typically it’s not enforced unless it’s on the windshield.

Sponsored

 

[zakress]

Here's my recommendation as a tinter-
if you're worried about it being too dark- then 35%.
I have 20% on the truck, I personally would have done 15%, but I bought a 20% roll.
Windshield tint is very helpful-- not just for heat, but also for glare from other vehicles headlights at night. 50% is what I do. 70% is practically clear- just for heat.

If you have any other questions please ask.

Another benefit that I don’t see mentioned much is the glare off a wet road is almost nonexistent.

For my fellow drivers with astigmatism, those headlight halos are at least half size now with just a 70% ceramic tint. Be sure to use ceramic for this one, regular film won’t do much for this.

 

[telrod11]

So I have read through most of the threads on window tint and I’m looking for feedback specifically as to whether 20% tint is too dark for front side windows in rural areas at night. Currently have 45 on sides and want to go a bit darker. I’m going with Xpel XR black, just going back and forth between 20 and 30/35. Thanks

I bought mine used, with tint on the front windows, and I'll tell you, at night and in the rain, it's tough.

Be careful about going too dark...

 

[BennyTheBeaver]

Just a heads up, the rear 3 windows seemed to come from the factory with a darker glass than the driver/passenger front windows. I did 20% all over and the back are darker than the front (I didn't touch my windshield). I had 35% on a previous truck and it was too light for me. But to each their own, tint preference depends on personal taste and laws in your area.

 

[MBM]

Just a heads up, the rear 3 windows seemed to come from the factory with a darker glass than the driver/passenger front windows. I did 20% all over and the back are darker than the front (I didn't touch my windshield). I had 35% on a previous truck and it was too light for me. But to each their own, tint preference depends on personal taste and laws in your area.

Understood. What are your thoughts on the 20% at night, do you feel the visibility is adequate?

 

[BennyTheBeaver]

For the most part. It's definitely dark, but I've had no issues where I felt I couldn't see everything around me. Again, my tolerance and someone else's may vary though.

 

[RocketGhost]

On my '18 F150 I did 25% on the fronts. Exact match (using a meter) to the factory tint on the rears. It appeared lighter because of light coming through the windshield.

For my Lightning I wanted to go darker. 20% on the fronts and 70% on the rears. We didn't put a meter on it but the rears are just a tad darker than the fronts.

20% up front is fine and not too dark at night. I've had no concerns about visibility. But I do think visibility would be an issue for me if it was any darker.

Everyone's eyes are different, what's ok for me might be too dark for others. My eyesight isn't perfect but I don't have nighttime vision difficulties when driving. Reading is a different story, when we go to a dimly-lit restaurant my wife has to read the menu to me - or I'll use my phone camera to zoom in.

 

[theawesomegamer]

Just a heads up, the rear 3 windows seemed to come from the factory with a darker glass than the driver/passenger front windows. I did 20% all over and the back are darker than the front (I didn't touch my windshield). I had 35% on a previous truck and it was too light for me. But to each their own, tint preference depends on personal taste and laws in your area.

Yes the rear glass is called privacy glass. I don’t have a meter but usually it’s somewhere around 20%.
I did 20% over all and that drops it to 5% rear (and sunroof).
it’s nice so you can leave the sunroof open, and so people can’t see what’s in the back of the truck.

 

[MBM]

On my '18 F150 I did 25% on the fronts. Exact match (using a meter) to the factory tint on the rears. It appeared lighter because of light coming through the windshield.

For my Lightning I wanted to go darker. 20% on the fronts and 70% on the rears. We didn't put a meter on it but the rears are just a tad darker than the fronts.

20% up front is fine and not too dark at night. I've had no concerns about visibility. But I do think visibility would be an issue for me if it was any darker.

Everyone's eyes are different, what's ok for me might be too dark for others. My eyesight isn't perfect but I don't have nighttime vision difficulties when driving. Reading is a different story, when we go to a dimly-lit restaurant my wife has to read the menu to me - or I'll use my phone camera to zoom in.

Thanks for your input, good info there. That is something I learned recently that if wanting to match front to back the front needs to be a bit darker.

 

[EFG]

I have 28 % xpel ceramic all around and the same on windscreen to the AS1 line. it is a massive upgrade from stock and came from the tint shop with a Florida State compliance sticker affixed to door jamb that the Florida Highway Patrol looked at once when I got stopped for it. They just nodded and sent me on my way. They definitely ticket you for anything below the windshield AS1 line and mostly they are reasonable. They just really don’t like the darker tints due to officer safety when approaching the car.

I had 20% on my Civic Si and probably got ticketed 5 or 6 times over the years before I got a NJ medical exemption I qualified for at the time. didn’t stop them from stopping me, just stopped the tickets. It really was too dark on the windshield for night driving, as others have said.

 

[Jim Lewis]

I think something to keep in mind is not just first-passthrough IR rejection but an overall figure commonly referred to as Total Solar Energy Rejection (TSER). Although marketing materials may show, Wow!, 5% tint rejects 95% of IR, it never ends up being that good. The rejected IR, rather than being reflected back into space, likely ends up heating up the window tint film. The film gets hot and reradiates much of the absorbed IR into the cabin. Visible light can also be absorbed and heat the tint film or pass through and heat materials it strikes inside your vehicle. See the 3M Ceramic table below, where the last column represents the total effective IR rejection and the next to last, essentially initial IR rejection. Total Solar Energy Rejected is shown in a middle column:

See the post I quoted above for 3M Ceramic and 3M Crystalline Total Solar Energy Rejection and Infrared Energy Rejection figures. I used different grades of tint on various windows and the moonroof, and I don't notice much difference in appearance from inside or outside the vehicle. Maybe I've just psychologically adjusted - it's a gradient from front to back. Even though my windshield has 90% VLT 3M Crystalline on it, it looks pretty dark from outside the vehicle and does a good job of rejecting infrared (as shown by the table in the referenced post). I'd say even with good tint on all my truck windows, the moonroof, even with the shade pulled closed, is an annoying source of Texas summer heat - and my moonroof is tinted! It's just lousy Ford roof insulation...my 2007 Honda Accord Hybrid had a moon roof with no tint on it, and I never basked in infrared radiation like I do in my Lightning on a really hot, sunny Texas summer day.

One of the 3M Crystalline features is that it's supposed to be good at reducing glare at most tint levels. I always go for the anti-glare coatings on my glasses, too, so if you wear glasses because of old age presbyopia, as I do, that probably helps reject glare a lot, no matter what tint is (or isn't) on your vehicle windows.

Edit_Update: A little reading, though, shows that tint glare reduction is simply by total visible light reduction - by dimming your overall visibility proportionally at the same time, although some tint may incorporate polarizing materials that work like polarized sunglasses. Glare on glasses, especially those with polycarbonate lenses, is generated by reflections off the outside and inside lens edges and is totally an artifact of the lenses themselves. An anti-reflective coating can reduce the glare from 12% of the transmitted light to less than 1% - and non-glasses wearers don't suffer this type of glare at all.

 

[MBM]

See the post I quoted above for 3M Ceramic and 3M Crystalline Total Solar Energy Rejection and Infrared Energy Rejection figures. I used different grades of tint on various windows and the moonroof, and I don't notice much difference in appearance from inside or outside the vehicle. Maybe I've just psychologically adjusted - it's a gradient from front to back. Even though my windshield has 90% VLT 3M Crystalline on it, it looks pretty dark from outside the vehicle and does a good job of rejecting infrared (as shown by the table in the referenced post). I'd say even with good tint on all my truck windows, the moonroof, even with the shade pulled closed, is an annoying source of Texas summer heat - and my moonroof is tinted! It's just lousy Ford roof insulation...my 2007 Honda Accord Hybrid had a moon roof with no tint on it, and I never basked in infrared radiation like I do in my Lightning on a really hot, sunny Texas summer day.

One of the 3M Crystalline features is that it's supposed to be good at reducing glare at most tint levels. I always go for the anti-glare coatings on my glasses, too, so if you wear glasses because of old age presbyopia, as I do, that probably helps reject glare a lot, no matter what tint is (or isn't) on your vehicle windows.

Edit_Update: A little reading, though, shows that tint glare reduction is simply by total visible light reduction - by dimming your overall visibility proportionally at the same time, although some tint may incorporate polarizing materials that work like polarized sunglasses. Glare on glasses, especially those with polycarbonate lenses, is generated by reflections off the outside and inside lens edges and is totally an artifact of the lenses themselves. An anti-reflective coating can reduce the glare from 12% of the transmitted light to less than 1% - and non-glasses wearers don't suffer this type of glare at all.

Thanks. I do wear glasses for nighttime driving and I have the anti-reflective on them, seems to help.

What tint percentages did you put on the side windows?

 

[theawesomegamer]

See the post I quoted above for 3M Ceramic and 3M Crystalline Total Solar Energy Rejection and Infrared Energy Rejection figures. I used different grades of tint on various windows and the moonroof, and I don't notice much difference in appearance from inside or outside the vehicle. Maybe I've just psychologically adjusted - it's a gradient from front to back. Even though my windshield has 90% VLT 3M Crystalline on it, it looks pretty dark from outside the vehicle and does a good job of rejecting infrared (as shown by the table in the referenced post). I'd say even with good tint on all my truck windows, the moonroof, even with the shade pulled closed, is an annoying source of Texas summer heat - and my moonroof is tinted! It's just lousy Ford roof insulation...my 2007 Honda Accord Hybrid had a moon roof with no tint on it, and I never basked in infrared radiation like I do in my Lightning on a really hot, sunny Texas summer day.

One of the 3M Crystalline features is that it's supposed to be good at reducing glare at most tint levels. I always go for the anti-glare coatings on my glasses, too, so if you wear glasses because of old age presbyopia, as I do, that probably helps reject glare a lot, no matter what tint is (or isn't) on your vehicle windows.

Edit_Update: A little reading, though, shows that tint glare reduction is simply by total visible light reduction - by dimming your overall visibility proportionally at the same time, although some tint may incorporate polarizing materials that work like polarized sunglasses. Glare on glasses, especially those with polycarbonate lenses, is generated by reflections off the outside and inside lens edges and is totally an artifact of the lenses themselves. An anti-reflective coating can reduce the glare from 12% of the transmitted light to less than 1% - and non-glasses wearers don't suffer this type of glare at all.

I have LLumar F1 Pinnacle on my EV6- and I probably wouldn't recommend it. I still feel a significant amount of IR coming through. I don't have any experience with 3M ceramic, but I know Crystalline has a very high IRR and TSER, but it's priced to that as well. It's incredibily expensive.
I like GeoShield films. I put GeoShield Apex Ultra 20% on the lightning. The 20% film I installed has a TSER of 63%, but an IRR of 94.5%, which is close to Crystalline. You feel practically no heat. I always tint vehicles, and so when we had no tint on the truck it was brutal.
But personally I think that the GeoShield films are great, they preform well for each budget, and is a lot cheaper than crystalline.
IMO

 

[Jim Lewis]

What tint percentages did you put on the side windows?

Checked my 5/29/23 invoice and it says 90% VLT on the windshield, and on the side rear and rear windows (They came already factory-tinted to 25% VLT). 50% VLT on the front side windows and 70% VLT on the moonroof, again because it was already factory-tinted. Adding the film to already factory-tinted windows was just to help with total infrared energy rejection.

I think that the GeoShield films are great, they preform well for each budget, and is a lot cheaper than crystalline

I agree that 3M Crystalline is obscenely expensive, 2x the cost of 3M Ceramic, which itself is very pricey. But after buying a 2023 Ford Lightning Lariat ER with a Home Integration System installation, $1,600 for the tint seemed like spare change. I also consoled myself that 3M Crystalline applied by a licensed dealer comes with a lifetime guarantee against bubbling and streaking. 3M will replace it at no charge if that ever happens on any window. Do the GeoShield films come with the same guarantee, 10 or 20 years down the road? That's the reason I didn't bother wrapping the vehicle, even though the tinter was keen to sell me that, too. It wasn't guaranteed to last more than few years.... (I was also willing to bet that 3M would still be around 10 or 20 years down the road...).

 

[theawesomegamer]

Checked my 5/29/23 invoice and it says 90% VLT on the windshield, and on the side rear and rear windows (They came already factory-tinted to 25% VLT). 50% VLT on the front side windows and 70% VLT on the moonroof, again because it was already factory-tinted. Adding the film to already factory-tinted windows was just to help with total infrared energy rejection.




I agree that 3M Crystalline is obscenely expensive, 2x the cost of 3M Ceramic, which itself is very pricey. But after buying a 2023 Ford Lightning Lariat ER with a Home Integration System installation, $1,600 for the tint seemed like spare change. I also consoled myself that 3M Crystalline applied by a licensed dealer comes with a lifetime guarantee against bubbling and streaking. 3M will replace it at no charge if that ever happens on any window. Do the GeoShield films come with the same guarantee, 10 or 20 years down the road? That's the reason I didn't bother wrapping the vehicle, even though the tinter was keen to sell me that, too. It wasn't guaranteed to last more than few years.... (I was also willing to bet that 3M would still be around 10 or 20 years down the road...).

Yes, wraps don't last very long. And yes, Geo provides a lifetime warranty against discoloration, bubbling, peeling, adhesive failure, the whole shoot an match. It helps me know that the customer is protected when buying this film-- I wouldn't want to install it on people's cars if I didn't believe in it.

Sponsored