Thread: 35% window tinting a good idea?

Originally Posted by Eevo

having rear windows darker makes no sense in terms of safety thought.
do you not looking out your rear windows when you do a head check?

You can still can see traffic through the dark tint, and no different to driving a commercial van or panel van.

Tinted dark or otherwise, in a defender the reflections from the front to rear in the mirror and windows are always interesting!

If people are concerned - go the 35% it's more than ample and easy to live with.

Some go 35% to the C pillar and then 20% on the cargo glass to provide privacy.

On Emma's 90 we went (at her request) 35% front 20% rear. Works really well and looks great.

Originally Posted by Tombie

and then 20% on the cargo glass to provide privacy.

in SA thats not legal, not that i have a problem with it

Think I'm just gonna go 35% on all the side and rear windows.

Sent from my GT-P5210 using AULRO mobile app

for the last 20 years, I have had tint-a-car apply the T35 formula 1 tint to every vehichle I have owned except one (which I still own, but will not alter for the sake of originality).

And when purchasing the RRC I was very happy to notice the same tint was already applied.

A couple of reasons for doing this.

1. tint-a-car nationwide warranty - and yes, I have used it once. and it has not been an issue.

2. The fact that I actually had to use it once, and only because after 12 years, the tint film on the rear window formed a blister near the edge of the glass. It was pulled and redone on the spot without question.

3. the Formula 1 tint they use is the darkest legal tint with the best UV rating you can get - without having to worry about the carbon vs metallized film argument.


Yes, I agree that 3m films are possibly superior. But I'm not arguing when I have a number of cars here with the F1 tint and no issues after many years and being parked outside (not in a garage) in QLD summer sun.

I love the look of T20, but it is not legal, period. So While dark looks dead-set awesome on some colours, the T35 is the best way to go from a legality perspective. And it's really not that much lighter when you're driving.

The biggest concern should be the UV rejection rating. In this country, it should be mandatory in all vehicle glass as standard. but it isn't, so go figure. Skin Cancer is something you can get for free, and if you've ever seen what happens to someone with stage 3 or 4 melanoma, you'd be damn quick to do something about preventing your exposure to excessive UV.

Dark is merely aesthetics. UV rejection is for your personal Health & safety.

Originally Posted by Mercguy

for the last 20 years, I have had tint-a-car apply the T35 formula 1 tint to every vehichle I have owned except one (which I still own, but will not alter for the sake of originality).

And when purchasing the RRC I was very happy to notice the same tint was already applied.

A couple of reasons for doing this.

1. tint-a-car nationwide warranty - and yes, I have used it once. and it has not been an issue.

2. The fact that I actually had to use it once, and only because after 12 years, the tint film on the rear window formed a blister near the edge of the glass. It was pulled and redone on the spot without question.

3. the Formula 1 tint they use is the darkest legal tint with the best UV rating you can get - without having to worry about the carbon vs metallized film argument.


Yes, I agree that 3m films are possibly superior. But I'm not arguing when I have a number of cars here with the F1 tint and no issues after many years and being parked outside (not in a garage) in QLD summer sun.

I love the look of T20, but it is not legal, period. So While dark looks dead-set awesome on some colours, the T35 is the best way to go from a legality perspective. And it's really not that much lighter when you're driving.

The biggest concern should be the UV rejection rating. In this country, it should be mandatory in all vehicle glass as standard. but it isn't, so go figure. Skin Cancer is something you can get for free, and if you've ever seen what happens to someone with stage 3 or 4 melanoma, you'd be damn quick to do something about preventing your exposure to excessive UV.

Dark is merely aesthetics. UV rejection is for your personal Health & safety.

Fully agree about skin cancer. I've had some cut out and its not pleasant.


Can I ask the cost of them doing a full tint to a vehicle?

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Fully agree about skin cancer. I've had some cut out and its not pleasant.


Can I ask the cost of them doing a full tint to a vehicle?

my disco was $250 for a cash job.

most places charge about 500-600