If it is minor, IE just a scuff/mark you may be able to buff it out. Otherwise the entire piece has to be replaced.

 

that won't buff out . . . absolutely no idea what happened either! Just washed the car a few days ago and no issues . . .

 

I had a Tacoma with 10YO PPF on it. A seagull bombed it and where the bomb hit the PPF was destroyed. Fortunately only the PPF was damaged, the paint below was still pristine.

 

It should only be a couple hundy to replace the hood PPF - maybe less

I just had this fender done it was $175

https://mbworld.org/forums/w213-amg/...ml#post9004121

 

Originally I was very skeptical about the ppf on the front of my 2013 E63 that I bought used in 2015 that had the front 1/4 hood, and front bumper done. After years, every car I own has it on the front. It really negates the damage from the rock chips over time. I'm very happy with it.

 

On cars this expensive a full front PPF is a no brainer… if you care about your car’s appearance whatsoever it should be PPFd.

 

PPF is great - until it's time to remove it. That is a nightmare, even if you have a competent guy do it. I know 3 guys with PPF on their cars and 2 of them had major paint damage at removal. This is on a Ferrari and a McLaren. Paint damage on these cars can kill their value ($30-50,000 depending on the model) and there is no hiding even the best re-paint or patch from the paint roller (paint meter) when it comes time to sell the car. Dealers and PPI people always look for that stuff when they take cars in and they WILL find any damage or repaints.

Issues include damage to paint during removal, the film coming off in pieces, and old adhesive not coming off. In the worst cases, the paint comes off with it... especially the low VOC water-based paints they use nowadays. The irony is that the worst problems occur with urethane bumpers - precisely the areas you are most likely to protect. 3M PPFs are especially bad because the adhesive is super-strong. Cleartastic seems to be less problematic to remove. The older the PPF, the worse the problems. And it's not just the PPF and the adhesive... modern auto paints continue to evolve chemically as they age, and the process of deterioration is worsened by trapping them under a non-breathing layer (remember how the old bras damaged paint?). Same deal here, and the clearcoats are especially susceptible.

So, stay away. Personally, after what happened to those guys, I won't even touch a used car that has it. If you have to coat, then use ceramics. The only exception might be an area on a car that you know is going to get beat up either way, such as lower rocker panels, rocker extensions, low vents and ducts etc. An example is the C7 Z06/GS. Every Z06's rear brake ducts get trashed because the sticky tires throw up a lot of junk and the front tires are fully exposed at the rear of the front fender. So you may as well PPF because the ducts are going to get trashed anyway. Ironically, this area is really tough to do with PPF because of the sharp angles. So in the one case where PPF might make sense, you can't really use it!

 

Thanks for sharing. Caveat with PPF IS DONT USE IT IF YOU DONT KNOW HOW TO REMOVE the PPF.
MY 2c: no issues and no damage following manufacturers suggestion: Using the hair dryer TO WARM UP SECTIONS AND EASY PULL OF THE PPF.
.

 

Easy solution, don't remove it. I've heard stories like that before, but who knows what exactly was going on in those cases. Did they follow the manufacturer's recommendations? Was the installer factory trained? What were the environmental conditions and so on. Ferraris and such is one thing, but when it comes to cars that are actually being driven, you can probably do a lot more damage to the paint from UV exposure if the car is parked outside, salt exposure in the winter etc. It's all relative.

If no PPF is on it, you'll eventually look at a respray unless you like looking at sandblasted paint. Ceramic coating does nothing to protect the paint from chips. It just makes it easier to clean due to the hydrophobic properties. I guess it comes down to what you prefer. A sandblasted, rock chipped front of the car, or potentially some paint damage if the film needs to be removed for some reason.

I've yet to have a reason to remove the PPF in the first place and I keep cars for 6+ years typically. Actually on second thought that's not true. I had to replace the film on the rear bumper of my previous car after 6 years, because somebody in a parking lot bumped into me. No paint damage. They just replaced the film. Earlier films used to yellow, but again environmental conditions always play a role. How much UV exposure did the car have? Was it garaged? Was it driven in harsh winter conditions? Cars are meant to be driven and that means they'll sustain damage sooner or later, one way or the other, but PPF keeps it looking great until then. Life's too short. Can't take that Ferrari with you to the grave.

 

Plus - Ferrari. Their "paint" in a lot of areas is just enough overspray to not be transparent. LOL. Ferrari paint is the worst.

 

The previous owner of my E63s PPF'd the front, hood, and front fenders. After 5 years there was some damage to the PPF to the front. Rock chips ect. It looked like the carbon piece in front actually had damage, and the around the intercooler the PPF had taken some hits. I had a place here in Phoenix, replace the front section, and it looks completely brand new. I would say it is worth its weight in gold.

 

I had a Tacoma I had clear bra'd when new in 2009. I took the bra off in 2019. That truck was always parked outside, 24x7. When I took the bra off it came in pieces. I used a spray made specifically for removing PPF glue and that worked really well. The paint under bra was pristine and unfaded. Paint not under the bra was faded. Didn't look great. FWIW

 

PPF does make a difference by protecting your paint from chips and scratches. High-quality film is usually nearly invisible, but you might see slight edges in certain lighting. If you want to protect your car in construction-heavy areas, it’s worth the cost.