View Single Post
      06-14-2008, 09:34 PM   #19
crzy4135i
Major
crzy4135i's Avatar
United_States
81
Rep
1,075
Posts

Drives: 08 135i
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: US

iTrader: (0)

3M™ Crystalline Automotive Window Films

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin(OKC) View Post
I've got 3M Crystalline on my car. The installer used to do Huper and says this is much better stuff when it comes to performance, but also easier to put on without flaws. I really like mine and it has made a huge difference in cooling down the car.
Here's the performance data taken from the websites:

"Huper ceramic 30
visible light transmission 34%
visible light reflectance 11%
shading coefficient 0.47%
total solar energy rejected 61%
infared light rejection 85%
UV light reflectance 99.9%

Huper ceramic 40
visible light transmission 42%
visible light reflectance 9%
shading coefficient 0.53%
total solar energy rejected 55%
infared light rejection 80%
UV light reflectance 99.9%

3M™ Crystalline Automotive Window Films 40 (rear window limit in VA)
39% Visible Light Transmitted
59% Total Solar Energy Rejected
66% On Angle†
97% Infrared Rejected††
50% Solar Heat Reduction
6% Visible Light Reflection Int.
7% Visible Light Reflection Ext.
99.9% UV Rejected
56% Glare Reduction
†TSER On Angle calculated at 60 degrees
††IR for wavelength range of 900-1000 nm

Huper ceramic 50
visible light transmission 50%
visible light reflectance 10%
shading coefficient 0.59%
total solar energy rejected 49%
infared light rejection 68%
UV light reflectance 99.9%

3M™ Crystalline Automotive Window Films 50 (front window limit in VA)
50% Visible Light Transmitted
56% Total Solar Energy Rejected
63% On Angle†
97% Infrared Rejected††
46% Solar Heat Reduction
7% Visible Light Reflection Int.
8% Visible Light Reflection Ext.
99.9% UV Rejected
43% Glare Reduction
†TSER On Angle calculated at 60 degrees
††IR for wavelength range of 900-1000 nm "

Quick Summary:
Comparison of the 40 tint:
total solar energy rejected (3M: 59% / huper: 55%)
infared light rejection (3M: 97% / huper: 80%)

Comparison of the 50 tint:
total solar energy rejected (3M: 56% / huper: 49%)
infared light rejection (3M: 97% / huper: 68%)

It appears 3M performs better.. not to mention I have a 3M installer in my local area.

http://www.huperoptikusa.com/pdf_doc...DUCT_RECAP.pdf
http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3...ineWindowFilm/
__________________
Ordered 4/7/08, Delivered 5/15/08, Sold, but not forgotten.
Appreciate 0