I was wondering if any has 50% tint on their sedan and got pics of it? I searched a few times and got no pics for 50%, I searched a few other places and got a hit, but it was on a bimmer. Thanks.

 

Don't bother with 50. 35 is worth it, but 50 is really close to stock.

 

50 is wack

 

More isn't always better. I think 50% looks awesome.

check it out.

 

^
I can't even tell it's tinted.

 

sukhi, thanks a million for the pics. Your G looks amazing.

It sucks here in cali with the tint laws, so I'm just looking for something to keep the UV and some heat out.

 

Go 35. Even if the state limit is 50, you should not get hassled with 35.

 

Anyone ever think that each person might have their own preference. I think the 50 is subtle & keeps the car lookin classy. Sukhi's car is a perfect example of subtle beauty.

MikeyMike....to each is own, your opion is wack.

 

The state limit in CA for front tint is 100 (aka no tint) or 70, depending on where you read/who you ask.

I have 35 in the front and 15 in the rear on my G and I've been pulled over twice for it. Used to have 50/15 on my previous vehicle, never got pulled over for that. It looked pretty decent because dark tint in the back will make light tint in the front seem darker.

If the police are **** in the area where you live, I'd go with 50 in the front and 15 or 35 in the rear.

 

I have 50 and it looks great. I will see if I can get some pics tomorrow. I didn't go less than 50 because my uncle owns a tint shop and he's been getting people left and right in the shop getting their tint removed or they'd have to face fines.

 

Move out of the Peoples Republic of California.............that is rediculous.

California, with it's left wing hanging out all the time does more damage than they realize..........

 

If you can get some pics, that would be great. I've been anxiously waiting for the past month to find some time to get the windows tinted.

 

Please dont start. I wouldnt call a 32% approval rating a commanding mandate.

 

Bring on Hillary Some will never learn. Although it is a Democrat's sworn duty to complain (Jesse Jackson comes to mind), regardless of conditions, please don't forget the irreperable damage of Carter and Clinton (yes, we all know now that he is the reason we are in Iraq, not Bush).

There's a reason for this statistic:

Democrats, on the other hand, have no repeat, multi-candidate majority victories. In fact, no Democrat has ever been elected to succeed a Democratic predecessor, even with a plurality win. Truman and Johnson succeeded Democrats but both ran as incumbents, raised from the Vice Presidency by the death of their predecessors before being elected to a full term.

 

Is it because Clinton let Iraq develop WMD? lmao