Best AIO for single stage paint

A

AbGilley89

New member
I have a taffeta white accord and it had some fairly moderate swirls that I want to get rid of for good. I have tried Meg M205 but it was not abrasive enough. I was looking at getting either Megs D151 or Menzerna Power Finish. But when I was looking at reviews for the Power Finish it kept mentioning clear coated paint. Would it be safe to use on single stage as well? Or should i go with the D151 or some other product? I dont want to do multiple stages and I could care less if it has a LSP I will put Colli 845 on afterwards.
 
I'd just go with M105 or Ultimate Compound. D151 if you really refuse to do multiple stages, however you'll end up spending more time with D151 than you would with two quick passes of 105/205 and you'll have less cut.
 
Well, if 205 isn't cutting it, then thats the next step. As always, find a good test area, find a procedure that works, then do the whole car.
 
I have Honda Milano Red single stage paint on my 2009 car.



Tried a few diff products but my super-soft single stage paint only liked Menzerna's IP/PO85RD and Gtechniq's P1.



Z-PC and M205 left lots of hazing which really surprised me.



Will never buy a new car again that has ss paint.
 
I think I am going to try some PB SSR 2.5 first then might move up from there. I agree jmsc if I knew it was a single stage before I purchases the car, I would have gotten another color, but at the time I knew nothing about detailing :tape:
 
AbGilley89 said:
Ok I could do that I was just afraid that the 105 would be to abrasive for single stage paint.
Click to expand...



I think people are missing the "white" part.....*WHITE* single stage is usually *VERY* hard, in some cases it's as hard as automotive paint gets.



No way would I bother trying PB SSR 2.5, I'd go right to M105 or at least Optimum's Hyper Compound, which a) is incredibly user-friendly compared to M105, b) is very mild for a "compound", maybe too mild by my standards but probably OK by yours, and c) finishes out quite nicely on white (though I'd do a follow-up).



Eh, I've used more aggressive stuff than M105 on single stage, and it wasn't rock-hard white paint either. For that matter, in some ways I'd rather risk overdoing it on single stage than on b/c due to the different types of issues if you cut too much.
 
Optimum Hyper Polish works amazingly well on single stage paints, cleans up the oxidation faster than even Meguiars 80 series polishes. Really surprising to me since OHP was not developed with single stage paint in mind.
 
Thanks for your replies I will look into Hyper Polish, I have used the Opti-Seal before and love the results even though I am still amazed at how it works.
 
After doing some research on the Hyper Polish and Hyper Compound I am very impressed with both. But not sure which one to get maybe both? I don't have oxidation in the paint just fairly moderate swirls. I already have some 205 but after seeing these products I would gladly get rid of it. :tongue2:
 
jmsc said:
I have Honda Milano Red single stage paint on my 2009 car.



Tried a few diff products but my super-soft single stage paint only liked Menzerna's IP/PO85RD and Gtechniq's P1.



Z-PC and M205 left lots of hazing which really surprised me.



Will never buy a new car again that has ss paint.
Click to expand...



I think Single stage paint is by far better than clear coat, because single stage paint never gets clear coat failure. My father has a 1972 Suburban with single stage paint that has always been outside, and largely neglected, and yet, when detailed, still looks respectable. No clear coat paint would look that good. Any clear coat paint job would have failed in 15 years unprotected. This thing is going on 4o years and still has color. Faded to primer in some spots, but still looks like rich color when waxed. Single stage paint was made when cars were meant to last.



Clear coat paint was made for people who expect to replace their car in 5-10 years, and like a shiny car with as little effort as possible until then.

Clear coat paint is disposable paint for disposable cars. Clear coat failure proves that base coat clear coat was a dumb invention, because it can't be fixed.



With single stage, when the color fades, just polish off a layer and it's like brand new. You can also use Meg's #7 to revitalize single stage paint without removing much. Single stage paint also doesn't show swirls anywhere near as bad as clear coat, and is much easier to touch up. Most single stages can be worked easily by hand, too. Just use the right polish and the right pad. Single stage paint is paint meant to last for cars meant to last
 
Blackthornone- I'm a big fan of (high quality) single stage too, at least on certain cars. But I wouldn't go so far as to say it's categorically *better* than b/c. Early b/c was pretty bad though, no question about that!
 
Accumulator said:
Blackthornone- I'm a big fan of (high quality) single stage too, at least on certain cars. But I wouldn't go so far as to say it's categorically *better* than b/c. Early b/c was pretty bad though, no question about that!
Click to expand...

In terms of solid colors, I think that single stage is categorically better. It looks richer and you can see the color better. B/c looks like it's wrapped in plastic, or laminated with plastic. Basically, b/c looks very plasticky and cheap to me. Single stage looks rich, like porcelain.

When it comes to metallics and pearls, or chrome paint, for example, THEN b/c is of value IMO. The clear acts to catch the light better so that the metallic sparkles more. Plus, metallic paint is impossible to match perfectly, so if you are lucky, only the clear will be scratched or chipped, and you can then simply repair the clear layer, leaving the metallic layer perfectly intact.

On older cars in particular, I think b/c looks totally wrong, especially on sold colors, like red. On silver, it is not so bad, because I have always felt that silver needs some help to make it sparkle more. In the mid 80's, I saw a silver 57 Chevy with clear coat on it, and I have to admit, it really looked great. It was a cut above. At that time, clear coat was very scarce.



When you say that early b/c was bad, are you saying that newer b/c is much more resistant to clearcoat failure?
 
I am getting ready to order some of the Optimum Hyper Compound it looks like great stuff and just finish it off with M205. Do I need to do a IPA wipe down after the M205 before LSP? Or even after the Hyper Compound before the M205?:buffing:
 
The only time you need a IPA wipe down is if your applying a sealant or one of the new coatings available. Nuba can go right over a polished surface......
 
You can do the IPA wipedown to see if the polish really got all of the defects out of the paint Standard procedure for me.
 
Eh, I don't think you and I *really* are in as much disagreement as one might think :D



Blackthornone said:
In terms of solid colors, I think that single stage is categorically better. It looks richer and you can see the color better. B/c looks like it's wrapped in plastic, or laminated with plastic. Basically, b/c looks very plasticky and cheap to me. Single stage looks rich, like porcelain..
Click to expand...



Yeah, I agree :xyxthumbs I can kinda like b/c white on certain vehicles though but even then I prefer ss white others. And I also have a real softspot for single stage *metallics* but again, only on certain vehcles (like my Jag :D ).





When it comes to metallics and pearls, or chrome paint, for example, THEN b/c is of value IMO. The clear acts to catch the light better so that the metallic sparkles more. Plus, metallic paint is impossible to match perfectly, so if you are lucky, only the clear will be scratched or chipped, and you can then simply repair the clear layer, leaving the metallic layer perfectly intact.
Click to expand...



Yeah, b/c looks nice with certain metallics on "modern cars". But I gotta say I've had some great luck with my painters matching metallics (both b/c and ss). Always a crap-shoot though, but I've had a dozen or so jobs where you absolutely couldn't see a diff, even after years of "aging". Of course, that's a dozen good ones out of many more tries!



Pearls *are* almost impossible to match! Especially, IME, pearl white.



On older cars in particular, I think b/c looks totally wrong, especially on sold colors, like red. On silver, it is not so bad, because I have always felt that silver needs some help to make it sparkle more. In the mid 80's, I saw a silver 57 Chevy with clear coat on it, and I have to admit, it really looked great. It was a cut above. At that time, clear coat was very scarce.
Click to expand...



Yeah, though I even prefer ss metallics on old cars. My Jag is "Rhodium metallic" sorta a metallic gray that most people would call a medium and I simply *LOVE* how it looks on that particular car. My pal Bob's '60 MKII (the one in the "Collinte vs. Dodo" story) looks so wrong to me in dark blue metallic b/c that I do everything possible to make it look like ss without simply making it look "dull". He tried to tell me how "b/c is better" but I was all :nono No way I believe that on an old-timey showcar :grinno:



There's a metallic '70 Dodge Challenger in my area that was redone to a high standard with b/c and while it was *VERY* good work, to me it simply looks all wrong. Exactly that "cheap plastic" thing you mentioned. We had a lot of ss metallic MOPARs in my family back in the day, and it's a very special look that I still love.



When you say that early b/c was bad, are you saying that newer b/c is much more resistant to clearcoat failure?
Click to expand...



Yeah, exactly. Old b/c used to fail just as fast as cheapie ss, or even faster especially if people abraded it (the old "don't compound b/c!" thing came from that). Even on good cars like my mid-'80s Benzes they used soft lacquer-based stuff and put it on very thin. The early GM b/c used to fail all the time, one reason why so many Buick GNs got repainted while still pretty new.



These days, in my area, you see all kinds of horribly neglected cars that have zero obvious cc failure. It was a pretty sudden change, like the b/c from 15-20 years ago suddenly got a whole lot more durable than it had been before. Now most of the failure I see is from where I suspect somebody got all aggressive about correcting it (and then it got neglected again).
 
Accumulator said:
Eh, I don't think you and I *really* are in as much disagreement as one might think :D







Yeah, I agree :xyxthumbs I can kinda like b/c white on certain vehicles though but even then I prefer ss white others. And I also have a real softspot for single stage *metallics* but again, only on certain vehcles (like my Jag :D ).









Yeah, b/c looks nice with certain metallics on "modern cars". But I gotta say I've had some great luck with my painters matching metallics (both b/c and ss). Always a crap-shoot though, but I've had a dozen or so jobs where you absolutely couldn't see a diff, even after years of "aging". Of course, that's a dozen good ones out of many more tries!



Pearls *are* almost impossible to match! Especially, IME, pearl white.







Yeah, though I even prefer ss metallics on old cars. My Jag is "Rhodium metallic" sorta a metallic gray that most people would call a medium and I simply *LOVE* how it looks on that particular car. My pal Bob's '60 MKII (the one in the "Collinte vs. Dodo" story) looks so wrong to me in dark blue metallic b/c that I do everything possible to make it look like ss without simply making it look "dull". He tried to tell me how "b/c is better" but I was all :nono No way I believe that on an old-timey showcar :grinno:



There's a metallic '70 Dodge Challenger in my area that was redone to a high standard with b/c and while it was *VERY* good work, to me it simply looks all wrong. Exactly that "cheap plastic" thing you mentioned. We had a lot of ss metallic MOPARs in my family back in the day, and it's a very special look that I still love.







Yeah, exactly. Old b/c used to fail just as fast as cheapie ss, or even faster especially if people abraded it (the old "don't compound b/c!" thing came from that). Even on good cars like my mid-'80s Benzes they used soft lacquer-based stuff and put it on very thin. The early GM b/c used to fail all the time, one reason why so many Buick GNs got repainted while still pretty new.



These days, in my area, you see all kinds of horribly neglected cars that have zero obvious cc failure. It was a pretty sudden change, like the b/c from 15-20 years ago suddenly got a whole lot more durable than it had been before. Now most of the failure I see is from where I suspect somebody got all aggressive about correcting it (and then it got neglected again).
Click to expand...



We are in agreement!
 
AbGilley89 said:
I am getting ready to order some of the Optimum Hyper Compound it looks like great stuff and just finish it off with M205. Do I need to do a IPA wipe down after the M205 before LSP? Or even after the Hyper Compound before the M205?:buffing:
Click to expand...



That OHC/M205 combo works well if/when the paint isn't really hard (hard enough that you oughta use M105 instead).



The oils from M205 can be problematic even if you're not worried about concealing or LSP bonding; they can cause pseudo-holograms that look really awful in certain light. IPA isn't always enough to get those oils off/out of the paint either, I've done countless IPA wipes and still had to get out some PrepWash to finally remove everything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top