Anyone take PTG reading on a 2009 A5?

RaskyR1

RaskyR1

Rasky's Auto Detailing
So I had a client stop by tonight for an estimate and the entire car measured in the 155-170 micron range, minus the front fenders, which for some reason both measured in the 90-100 micron range. No signs of a repaint and he's the original owner. Door jambs were reading around 100 microns. I find this really odd and was wondering if anyone else has seen this before?





Thanks,

Rasky
 
I did a new car prep on one a while back and the paint was in the higher range you posted. Don't recall seeing anything out of the norm. It is weird. Contact AUDI? Maybe?
 
Ron Ketcham said:
Most likely some "port repair" was done to the vehicle.
Click to expand...



Definitely not a respray.



I think my PTG is acting up. Working on a new M3 now and the

aluminum hood is reading about 50 micron lower than the steel

Panels. Can anyone confirm if the A5 has aluminum fenders?



Thanks,

Rasky





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
150-170 is high. The half dozen Audis I have metered have been in the 120-140 range.
 
smoknfastlegend said:
what PTG are you using? If the highline, change the batteries and see if that changes anything.
Click to expand...



It is the Highline II. The battery is new. Checking the shims it's accurate on the steel disk but way off on the aluminum one...weird.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
RaskyR1 said:
It is the Highline II. The battery is new. Checking the shims it's accurate on the steel disk but way off on the aluminum one...weird.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...



I had that when I first got the unit and played with it. I recalibrated it and it has worked perfectly.
 
I'd say you're likely looking at a difference in material. I think you're right in thinking the fenders might not be steel. Don't have an A5 around to test, but that's what you're likely looking at. As long as you're not getting crazy readings on the fenders (high and low spots), but rather you're getting consistent readings, I'd say you're good to go.
 
MarcHarris said:
I'd say you're likely looking at a difference in material. I think you're right in thinking the fenders might not be steel. Don't have an A5 around to test, but that's what you're likely looking at. As long as you're not getting crazy readings on the fenders (high and low spots), but rather you're getting consistent readings, I'd say you're good to go.
Click to expand...



That's what I figured too....I think Greg said his Highline was acting up too if I remember correctly. You ever buy that Posi 200 yet Marc? :)
 
RaskyR1 said:
That's what I figured too....I think Greg said his Highline was acting up too if I remember correctly.
Click to expand...



I know that the RS4 has aluminium fenders, and it really comes down to how are these babies painted





RaskyR1 said:
You ever buy that Posi 200 yet Marc? :)
Click to expand...



Don't know what you're talking about.



DSC01409.jpg




5983554496_6ab23e641c_b.jpg
 
MarcHarris said:
I know that the RS4 has aluminium fenders, and it really comes down to how are these babies painted









Don't know what you're talking about.



DSC01409.jpg




5983554496_6ab23e641c_b.jpg
Click to expand...



Lol! Jerk! :)





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Marc, I hate you!



Heck, I bought a highline II a year ago and still havent used it! I tried calibrating it so many times, I am either doing something wrong, or it just doesnt want to work! Maybe Ill get it done tomorrow with a call to the manufacture!
 
toyotaguy- Your experiences sound like mine with my PhaseII, getting perfectly consistent results seems virtually impossible and I'm often ready to chuck it in the trash. Even sent it back to them to have it checked out with minimal improvement :(
 
Accumulator said:
toyotaguy- Your experiences sound like mine with my PhaseII, getting perfectly consistent results seems virtually impossible and I'm often ready to chuck it in the trash. Even sent it back to them to have it checked out with minimal improvement :(
Click to expand...



Are you using your gauge in microns or mils?
 
MarcHarris said:
Are you using your gauge in microns or mils?
Click to expand...



Microns.



I think part of my problem is getting the probe (I have the "probe on a long cable" version) perfectly situated before it tries to take a reading. I'm not all thumbs and I have trouble getting consistent readings even with the calibration media (hence my send-back for a checkup).



I use other people's ETGs with zero issues, always just as easy as could be, so I'm kinda thinking it's not a case of "the poor craftsman blames his tools".



Eh, I could argue that it's already paid for itself, if only by uncovering issues on a few potential purchases, but still....
 
Accumulator said:
Microns.



I think part of my problem is getting the probe (I have the "probe on a long cable" version) perfectly situated before it tries to take a reading. I'm not all thumbs and I have trouble getting consistent readings even with the calibration media (hence my send-back for a checkup).



I use other people's ETGs with zero issues, always just as easy as could be, so I'm kinda thinking it's not a case of "the poor craftsman blames his tools".



Eh, I could argue that it's already paid for itself, if only by uncovering issues on a few potential purchases, but still....
Click to expand...



No worries buddy, keep in mind that you're going to get lots of completely different numbers if you measure in microns rather than mils as there are 25.4 microns in a mil. Switch over to mils if you're worried about having more consistent readings, and you'll find the numbers are much closer together. Rounding a number to the nearest micron will give you much more uneven results than rounding to the nearest tenth of a mil.
 
MarcHarris said:
No worries buddy, keep in mind that you're going to get lots of completely different numbers if you measure in microns rather than mils as there are 25.4 microns in a mil. Switch over to mils if you're worried about having more consistent readings, and you'll find the numbers are much closer together. Rounding a number to the nearest micron will give you much more uneven results than rounding to the nearest tenth of a mil.
Click to expand...



Eh, I always go by (whole) mils, and the ETGs I find easy to use read in mils too. Plus the PhaseII has an averaging function so if the readings are remotely close that'll even things out. But they're *NOT* reasonably close some of the time (sometimes it works perfectly, like somebody threw a "now work properly-switch").



Maybe I wasn't being clear- I meant that taking readings in the *exact same spot* resulted in the varying readings. Six readings in the exact same spot that sometimes vary by dozens of mils.



Switching to microns just made for 1/25th the variance...and we're talking enough diff that anybody'd :think: The readings vary so much that people watching me say "here...let me try it" and then they are all :confused: too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top