Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register
  • Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
  • Tesla's Supercharger Team was recently laid off. We discuss what this means for the company on today's TMC Podcast streaming live at 1PM PDT. You can watch on X or on YouTube where you can participate in the live chat.

Model S - Window Tinting

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Thanks araxara and Hometheatremaven. $260 is in line with what I was expecting... and $120-ish for AirBlue 80 sure sounds like it might be worth going that route instead. (And I'm always looking for an excuse to drive down to SD!).

So now I'm re-thinking whether or not to go with the Photosync. Looking at some specs, I'm wondering if it's really worth the price premium?

Should we be comparing "total solar energy rejected" or "infrared rejection"? Which is more important?

Spectra Photsync 75:
70% to 75.6% visible light transmission
53.5% to 61.3% total solar energy rejection
80% to 88% infrared rejection
http://www.prestige-films.com/docs/Photosync_DataSheet.pdf

3M Crystalline 70:
69% visible light transmission
50% total solar energy rejection
97% infrared rejection
http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/mediaw...EVs6EVs6E666666--&fn=Crystalline Brochure.pdf

Lumar Air 80:
78% visible light transmission
43% total solar energy rejection
(couldn't find infrared rejection spec)
http://www.formulaonetinting.com/window-films-offerred/uv-protection.html

Madico Wincos 60 (this is what I already put on all 4 doors...and it's a little darker than I'd like on my windshield):
68% visible light transmission
44% total solar energy rejection
92% infrared rejection

Madico Wincos 70 (if I can even find it; my installer doesn't stock it):
74% visible light transmission
42% total solar energy rejection
92% infrared rejection
http://www.wincosir.com/car_tint.html

Can anyone speak to the rainbow effects, or ghosting any of these may or may not have?
 
I had air 80 on my previous car and now the photosync on the tesla. There is a difference in heat blockage so you get what you paid for.

Thanks simplesolar and everyone else for the help. Sounds like if it's $185 for the Air80 and $350 for Photosync, we might as well drop the extra $165 and go for the Photosync. Especially on the windshield, I'm sure we're not going to regret going with "the best."

I appreciate everyone's advice! And once it's all done I'll try to get some good pics to post. :)
 
Thanks simplesolar and everyone else for the help. Sounds like if it's $185 for the Air80 and $350 for Photosync, we might as well drop the extra $165 and go for the Photosync. Especially on the windshield, I'm sure we're not going to regret going with "the best."

I appreciate everyone's advice! And once it's all done I'll try to get some good pics to post. :)

That's what I said to myself!! Makes it so much easier to justify it when I plan on keeping my car for a looooooooooooooong time.
 
Thanks araxara and Hometheatremaven. $260 is in line with what I was expecting... and $120-ish for AirBlue 80 sure sounds like it might be worth going that route instead. (And I'm always looking for an excuse to drive down to SD!).

So now I'm re-thinking whether or not to go with the Photosync. Looking at some specs, I'm wondering if it's really worth the price premium?

Should we be comparing "total solar energy rejected" or "infrared rejection"? Which is more important?

Spectra Photsync 75:
70% to 75.6% visible light transmission
53.5% to 61.3% total solar energy rejection
80% to 88% infrared rejection
http://www.prestige-films.com/docs/Photosync_DataSheet.pdf

3M Crystalline 70:
69% visible light transmission
50% total solar energy rejection
97% infrared rejection
http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/mediaw...EVs6EVs6E666666--&fn=Crystalline Brochure.pdf

Lumar Air 80:
78% visible light transmission
43% total solar energy rejection
(couldn't find infrared rejection spec)
http://www.formulaonetinting.com/window-films-offerred/uv-protection.html

Madico Wincos 60 (this is what I already put on all 4 doors...and it's a little darker than I'd like on my windshield):
68% visible light transmission
44% total solar energy rejection
92% infrared rejection

Madico Wincos 70 (if I can even find it; my installer doesn't stock it):
74% visible light transmission
42% total solar energy rejection
92% infrared rejection
http://www.wincosir.com/car_tint.html

Nice table for comparison. There is actually more updated info on this document showing the 35% Photosync http://www.prestige-films.com/docs/photosync_datasheet_061713.pdf. The 35 tint gets up to 80% solar energy reduction. I believe any other tint maker can only hit about 60%. I'm not physicist, but based on BTU meter demos, I don't think total solar energy rejection is equivalent to heat reduction. There are a few youtube videos for Spectra Photosync showing heat reduction measured by a BTU meter. And it looks like like the BTU meters are reading about 90-95% reduction whereas 30-40% ceramic gives 75% reduction. I've seen a video of a news segment raving how the Huper Optik reduced heat from 400 BTU to 200. Photosync reads 15-20 BTU. It seems if you're looking for a cooler car interior, the Photosync wins hands down for heat reduction. I've decided to install Solar Adaptive Transitional (SAT) film in mine which is supposedly the same, except this brand is manufactured in Japan vs US. There are no Photosync brand dealers in Texas.
 
Can anyone speak to the rainbow effects, or ghosting any of these may or may not have?

I see about 6" of rainbow effects along the top of my windshield with Air 80 when viewed with my polarized sunglasses. It's far enough out of my field of view not to bother me. I haven't seen any ghosting.

meaning - when I look out of the top 6", I see rainbowing. But I don't usually look out from up there. :)
 
Last edited:
We do not see rainbow effects with the Crystalline... We did 70 on the front and Pano and a double tint of 3M Color Stable 50 first (for the nice smoky color vs. Crystalline isn't as smoky) and then Crystalline 50 on the sides and back and have polarized glasses. Out tint shop recommended the double stack with Color Stable due to our concerns with Crystalline looking purple/red from the outside when it is by itself. Turned out nice.

Can anyone speak to the rainbow effects, or ghosting any of these may or may not have?
 
If you are in the NJ/NYC area, a bunch of us are getting together tomorrow evening, 7:00 PM Wednesday 7/31 at the Cheesecake Factory - Short Hills Mall, to look at tint installs that we've had done on our Model S's. There are 3 definite's coming (including myself) with 3 different brands of tint installed and several others coming to look at them to decide what they want to put on theirs.

I will be there with 3M Crystalline 40front/40rear, another with Madico Charcool 55front/35rear, and a third with Wincos 70front/30rear. Feel free to show up if you want especially if you are thinking of tinting your windows and haven't decided what to get yet.
 
We do not see rainbow effects with the Crystalline... We did 70 on the front and Pano and a double tint of 3M Color Stable 50 first (for the nice smoky color vs. Crystalline isn't as smoky) and then Crystalline 50 on the sides and back and have polarized glasses. Out tint shop recommended the double stack with Color Stable due to our concerns with Crystalline looking purple/red from the outside when it is by itself. Turned out nice.

Yeah my rainbow is across the entire windshield. Also makes windshields on other cars pink or green, and white cars can look pink or green too. Though... either I'm getting used to it, or it's slowly getting better, 5 weeks later.

I assume ghosting means light or washing, or less clarity through the windshield, due to a sort of glare from sunlight coming thru at certain angles?

Or is that from light refracting around the defrost wires in the rear windshield?
 
Nice table for comparison. There is actually more updated info on this document showing the 35% Photosync http://www.prestige-films.com/docs/photosync_datasheet_061713.pdf. The 35 tint gets up to 80% solar energy reduction. I believe any other tint maker can only hit about 60%. I'm not physicist, but based on BTU meter demos, I don't think total solar energy rejection is equivalent to heat reduction. There are a few youtube videos for Spectra Photosync showing heat reduction measured by a BTU meter. And it looks like like the BTU meters are reading about 90-95% reduction whereas 30-40% ceramic gives 75% reduction. I've seen a video of a news segment raving how the Huper Optik reduced heat from 400 BTU to 200. Photosync reads 15-20 BTU. It seems if you're looking for a cooler car interior, the Photosync wins hands down for heat reduction. I've decided to install Solar Adaptive Transitional (SAT) film in mine which is supposedly the same, except this brand is manufactured in Japan vs US. There are no Photosync brand dealers in Texas.

Thanks for the post Andrew. Did the homework for all of us and made it really easy to understand.
 
Thanks for the post Andrew. Did the homework for all of us and made it really easy to understand.

You bet. I also did a little more digging into the "infrared rejection" numbers, and that sounds like it's such a loosely defined term that it's pretty much bogus. If you're comparing different darknesses within the same line of film (such as comparing a Wincos 30% vs. Wincos 60%), then it may be helpful. But it seems we can't really compare that number across different manufacturers, because they all test for it differently (they can look at different wavelengths and different angles of incidence). So to answer my own question: Looking at "total solar energy rejected" is a far better comparison.

I'm also curious to learn more about what Skintrade said above - about looking at "solar energy reduction" rather than "solar energy rejection" -- but that information also seems hard to come by, if not impossible! We'll just have to get a whole bunch of Teslas together on a sunny day and find someone with a BTU meter!
 
For those interested, here are before and after pics for a dark tint.

IMAG0029.jpg

IMAG0037.jpg
 
Lloyd,

I am leaning towards Photo as well. My car is white with black interior. Do you find it has the bluish hue?

I'll be posting a lot of photos later tonight (sorry, didn't get a chance to do it last night) that clearly show how 3M Crystalline 40 looks blue/purple on the back window. I have side by side photos of my S with 2 other S that hvae Madico Charcool and Madico Wincos and they're window looks normal (black) while mine looks purple. 3M Crystalline looks fine on the side windows though (not purple).