#80 and #9
- Thread starter WAZIT01
- Start date
JasonD
New member
I will partly answer your question, but then add another question to it.
Yes, it will remove more swirl marks, but probably not any more than if you were to just polish the whole car again with #80.
#80 is a 4 on Meg's aggressiveness scale, and #9 is a 3. They are very close.
That being said, what is the difference between #9 and #82? They are both rated a level 3 polish.
One more thing to add, if you didn't get everything out with #80, then you probably should have started out more aggressive. I would have started out with #83 before progressing to #80. That would have given you a better finish with less effort.
Yes, it will remove more swirl marks, but probably not any more than if you were to just polish the whole car again with #80.
#80 is a 4 on Meg's aggressiveness scale, and #9 is a 3. They are very close.
That being said, what is the difference between #9 and #82? They are both rated a level 3 polish.
One more thing to add, if you didn't get everything out with #80, then you probably should have started out more aggressive. I would have started out with #83 before progressing to #80. That would have given you a better finish with less effort.
JDookie said:
This thinking seems contrary to the more accepted theory of starting out with the least aggressive product and advancing to more agressive only if necessary. Except for the worst cases I would much prefer to start with #80 or similar product before moving to #83. I would also opt for a second pass with #80 before stepping up in terms of aggressiveness.
As for the #9 product, I don't get it. It doesn't seem to perform well as a "correcting polish" or as a "gloss polish". I have a bottle that will probably last me forever at the rate I pick it up.
Accumulator
Well-known member
I'd remove all the marring with the #80, even if it takes multiple passes. If you want to use the #9 afterwards for a final polish it might improve things a little more (more gloss) but then again it might not. #80 is designed to leave a ready-to-wax finish anyhow.
#9 is designed to remove *very* fine flaws, often after other, more aggressive polishing; such as micromarring left by other products (note that's the technical/professional old-school definition of a "swirl remover"). I hear #9 works a lot better by rotary (in the *right* hands) than by other methods. FWIW I don't use mine at all either.
Oh, and I find #80 to be far more aggressive (at least initially) than #9. I remember Mike Philips saying that #80 is incorrectly placed on the Meg's scale; it's initially more abrasive than indicated, though it breaks down quickly. Don't know if they ever corrected the error.
#9 and #82 are very simlar abrasiveness-wise, with #82 being a *little* more abrasive and containing abrasives that are supposed to work "better" on b/c paint.
#9 is designed to remove *very* fine flaws, often after other, more aggressive polishing; such as micromarring left by other products (note that's the technical/professional old-school definition of a "swirl remover"). I hear #9 works a lot better by rotary (in the *right* hands) than by other methods. FWIW I don't use mine at all either.
Oh, and I find #80 to be far more aggressive (at least initially) than #9. I remember Mike Philips saying that #80 is incorrectly placed on the Meg's scale; it's initially more abrasive than indicated, though it breaks down quickly. Don't know if they ever corrected the error.
#9 and #82 are very simlar abrasiveness-wise, with #82 being a *little* more abrasive and containing abrasives that are supposed to work "better" on b/c paint.
imported_The Uncle
New member
Accumulator - as always, you provide a wealth of important details. Since I now own both #9 and #80, I really appreciate the helpful information.
n2_space
New member
Accumulator said:
Could you please elaborate? I see many well respected guys on here going straight to an LSP after #80... I'm curious.
joshcaro
New member
Ive been told it does not leave hazing behind and leaves a nice slick finish that allows you to go straight to your LSP because you dont not need an additional product to clean up the hazing.
imported_The Uncle
New member
I think Accumulator's point is that #80 leaves the surface smooth and ready for application of a product like AIO. A more aggressive polish (like SSR2.5) might leave some haze that has to be corrected with a finishing polish.
JasonD
New member
Exactly. #80 should pretty much be your last step in polishing efforts (not counting AIO or other similar cleaners). If you find you have to go over and over the surface with #80 to get a decent finish, then in my book, you should have started out a little more aggressive. So in reply to:
You are correct that you should always work the least aggressive method to do the job, but if you have to work the finish multiple times with a product that is too mild for the job, wouldn't that be *more* aggressive than just making one single pass with the correct polish? This is why I said if you have to go over the paint multiple times with #80, I would have just made one single pass with #83 and then come behind that with one pass of #80, done deal.
The whole "start off with the least aggressive" method is fine for beginners or someone that isn't completely familiar with their products, but over time you should be able to look at a surface and know exactly what to start out with and skip the *test phase* all together. That being said, if you aren't familiar with your product/s or the surface you are working on, always test a panel with a mild polish just to see where you need to go.
Mr. Clean said:
You are correct that you should always work the least aggressive method to do the job, but if you have to work the finish multiple times with a product that is too mild for the job, wouldn't that be *more* aggressive than just making one single pass with the correct polish? This is why I said if you have to go over the paint multiple times with #80, I would have just made one single pass with #83 and then come behind that with one pass of #80, done deal.
The whole "start off with the least aggressive" method is fine for beginners or someone that isn't completely familiar with their products, but over time you should be able to look at a surface and know exactly what to start out with and skip the *test phase* all together. That being said, if you aren't familiar with your product/s or the surface you are working on, always test a panel with a mild polish just to see where you need to go.
Accumulator
Well-known member
I only stop short of saying that #80 *will* leave a ready-to-wax finish because I have had it leave marring on fairly fresh paint (two/three week old RM brand b/c). Yeah, too fresh for "wax" anyhow, but you know what I mean. The initial "bite" of the #80 left micromarring that didn't go away as the product broke down; the paint was just too soft for something that started out that aggressive. I had to follow up with a *very* mild polish to remove the marrng without inducing more, *new* marring. But this is a very rare occurance to say the least. For practical purposes, #80 leaves a finish that does not require further abrasion.
JDookie said:
My I just add that knowing the target paint and its current thickness would be a great help also.
See Jimmy Buffit's responses here and here. Essentially:
To be absolutely safe, you need a paint thickness gauge because you don't really know how much paint can be safely removed without causing clearcoat failure. But since most of us won't spend big $$$ on one, it's better to use the least aggressive method first - even if it takes a little more time. Better safe than sorry, right?
JasonD
New member
This is all very true, but he is referring to working with a rotary and a wool pad which is *very* different than a PC.
Please don't miss my point. I am not saying to always jump into DACP for just anything. Using your quote as an example, "Modern paint is not designed to be buffed often" which means to me that the less you have to buff on a painted surface to achieve your desired results the better. If you find yourself buffing over and over and over with a mild polish, you could have saved a lot of work and unnecessary surface abuse by using the proper method from the start. That being said, you never know what the *proper method* is going to be. It may be anywhere from #82 (mild) to #83 (wild), this just all depends on your particular situation. I will go on to say that *most* details will only require #80 at the most and will sometimes only require #82, but every now and then you will get a doozy and will need to pull out old #83 to get the job done.
Please don't miss my point. I am not saying to always jump into DACP for just anything. Using your quote as an example, "Modern paint is not designed to be buffed often" which means to me that the less you have to buff on a painted surface to achieve your desired results the better. If you find yourself buffing over and over and over with a mild polish, you could have saved a lot of work and unnecessary surface abuse by using the proper method from the start. That being said, you never know what the *proper method* is going to be. It may be anywhere from #82 (mild) to #83 (wild), this just all depends on your particular situation. I will go on to say that *most* details will only require #80 at the most and will sometimes only require #82, but every now and then you will get a doozy and will need to pull out old #83 to get the job done.
What Jimmy Buffit meant by "Modern paint is not designed to be buffed often" was simply that clearcoat is very thin - meaning there is very, very little to abrade - so you should be more careful.
He's actually saying that you can actually keep buffing as many times as you want as long as you don't remove more than .3mil.
Anyway, I agree with you that the product to use really depends on the target paint, your previous experience with similar paints, your polisher, and your technique.
He's actually saying that you can actually keep buffing as many times as you want as long as you don't remove more than .3mil.
Anyway, I agree with you that the product to use really depends on the target paint, your previous experience with similar paints, your polisher, and your technique.
JasonD
New member
merci said:
Exactly :xyxthumbs
Eliot Ness
Active member
Iâ€â„¢m a supporter of the âہ“least aggressiveâ€Â� method when giving advice on these forums, especially to newer members. Jasonâ€â„¢s recommendation to test a small area first is very good advice. It doesnâ€â„¢t take too long when working a small area to see if the product/pad combo is adequate or if you need to bump up to something more aggressive.
Paint hardness also plays a large roll in product selection, and as Jason mentioned that is something that comes only with time and experience. I recently saw pics (somewhere here very recently) where #80 removed some pretty severe swirls, more severe (at least in the pics) than I thought it (#80) would normally handle. It could be that the paint was softer than most finishes *I* encounter, the lighting may have exaggerated their severity, the oils in #80 hid what remained in the final pics, or a combination of the above.
Since the subject of paint thickness and film removal have come up, here is an excellent thread I found very informative:
http://www.meguiarsonline.com/forum...d=4013&perpage=10&highlight=mils&pagenumber=1
Paint hardness also plays a large roll in product selection, and as Jason mentioned that is something that comes only with time and experience. I recently saw pics (somewhere here very recently) where #80 removed some pretty severe swirls, more severe (at least in the pics) than I thought it (#80) would normally handle. It could be that the paint was softer than most finishes *I* encounter, the lighting may have exaggerated their severity, the oils in #80 hid what remained in the final pics, or a combination of the above.
Since the subject of paint thickness and film removal have come up, here is an excellent thread I found very informative:
http://www.meguiarsonline.com/forum...d=4013&perpage=10&highlight=mils&pagenumber=1
n2_space
New member
Scottwax said:
Wait, I totally mis read that
I read it as #80 was NOT designed for that... which is what made me wonder why not as I know you and others have gone straight to an LSP before after #80... as have I before.