Elmojo wrote:As far as I'm aware, this applies to only the two front windows, and of course the windshield cannot be tinted at all besides a 'sun strip' across the top.
I noticed an interesting side note in my latest issue of Car and Driver that reminded me of this thread. It was a discussion about the various new "annoyances" (features) that the cars in the test had (it was a luxury SUV comparo...for which, BTW, the QX56 came out on top for truck-based full-size). They discuss various things that made their radar detectors difficult to use, most of which will only interfere with radar/laser detectors (The QX56's always-on adaptive cruise control laser rangefinder, and the Audi Q7's K-band radar-based "side warning system" which yells at you if you try to merge into someone who's in your blind spot").
But the new Mercedes GL has a feature that's sure to cause problems for TPMS systems, nav systems, sat radio systems, and tons of other RF-based features: tinted front glass. The tinting is legal because it doesn't interfere with visible spectrum...it's a metallic film designed to reduce cabin heating from IR.
Seems pretty stupid to me. It is by now a known fact that metallic films interfere with RF, laser, and radar. All the best film companies use non-metallic films. So why on earth would a car manufacturer use metallic film...especially when it's likely to cause problems with various factory or aftermarket features?
I won't be buying a MB GL class any time soon (or, hopefully, ever) so it's not much of a concern to me. It does go to show that ultralux brands will go to any length to include new gimmicks (like Infiniti's active-cruise-based "Preview Braking" which is another of those "sounded cooler on paper" features)--even if they cause all sorts of unnecessary problems. Fixing problems that don't exist, and in the process create new, significant ones. Ingenious.