Comprehensive Gloss Measurement Thread - WaxMode Testing

[Loach]

I’ve used outdated Essence with exceptional results in terms of polishing and filling abilities. Essence+ is the one to worry about. Haha. Thank you for considering to test, I appreciate it.

So I have two 16oz bottles of Essence Plus which separate really quickly in the bottles and I always felt this was a very unstable type of product, and every once in a while I`ll pull one out and give it a good shake. The one that I transferred into a regular 32 oz to get better leverage on the shaking finally had some sort of reaction recently after doing this for a few years, and it actually mixed into a really smooth gelatin texture which no longer separates at all, permanent change, hasn`t diverted back. So whether or not this is good or bad is one thing, but feels like it still works just fine on the paint and I don`t have to shake the living hell out of the bottle before using it!

Now I`ve been shaking the other bottle everyday seeing if the planets will align again for me.

Absolutely fantastic thread - will continue to follow this with great interest.

A well known Youtuber got superb gloss results from TAC systems One Step Master, Moonlight and Shinee Wax. If you had these to hand would make for interesting comparison with something like Gyeon Cancoat.

Cheers! I don`t have any TAC Systems yet, and I`ve been on their site more than a few times with items in the cart over the years and I`ve resisted the temptation. Both Brian at Apex Detail and Jon at Forensic Detailing have seen great gloss boosts out of Shinee Wax so I eventually want to get my hands on Shinee Wax in the future to runs tests with on this panel.

Loach- Could I also add Mckee`s 37 Trademark Extender Spray Wax to the list, I think you might be able to get a sample size from M37? It seems to be a hidden product within the Mckee`s line that few have paid attention to...

I`ll have to double check to see if I have Trademark Extender, I definitely have Fast Wax so I`ll double check tomorrow to see if I have a sample of Trademark.

 

[Loach]

I couldn`t resist this request from Accumulator, I decided to pull out my Zymol Atlantique sample to run another five coat gloss test and cross reference these results with the results from Glasur. Atlantique feels a bit more oily than Glasur, but you`re still able to get a pretty clean wipeoff, and the paint did look great throughout the test. Same process as the previous test with Glasur, but after the final wipe with Prep-All I decided to apply a final application of the wax to check against the first coat. The temperature was pretty consistent, ranging between 80-83°F.

Meter: Rhopoint Novo-Gloss Trio / Calibrated to 93.1GU / 60° Measurement Angle

Pre-Test Measurements
GU: 95.6 - 96.2

Meguiar`s M210 Ultra Pro Finishing Polish:
GU: 95.5 - 96.2
Panel Wipe: Prep-All

Zymol Atlantique
1st Coat GU: 94.2 - 95.5
2nd Coat GU: 92.2 - 93.7 Heavy Wipe GU: 92.7 - 94.1
3rd Coat GU: 90.3 - 93.5 Heavy Wipe GU: 92.0 - 94.3
4th Coat GU: 89.7 - 94.1 Heavy Wipe GU: 92.5 - 94.2
5th Coat GU: 91.5 - 94.1 Heavy Wipe GU: 92.0 - 94.3 New microfiber and fresh side of applicator used.
Damp Microfiber Wipe GU: 93.6 - 95.0
Prep-All Wipe GU: 95.5 - 96.1
Follow up Coat GU: 93.7 - 95.7


You can see that there is a downward trend in measurements after the first coat, but the upper limit levels out with coats 2-5. The "heavy wipe" is overly aggressive, there`s no way I would ever want to put this much pressure down onto the paint outside of testing. If I ever run into a situation where I need to be more aggressive for a cleaner wipe while working with wax, I will reach for a damp microfiber towel as this is a much easier process and this provides a fully clean wipeoff with little effort. The heavy wiping really averages out the readings more effectively than the standard wipeoff. Even though the max limit after the heavy wiping isn`t noticeably impacted, the averages and consistency between the readings is noticeably improved. Same bump up in readings compared to Glasur after the damp microfiber wipe. And again, nearly identical jump up in gloss readings after using Prep-All after the 5th coat compared to how it performed on Glasur.

Overall, if someone told me that they`re noticing a much deeper finish out of multiple coats of a particular wax, I think there`s evidence to support that a change in the finish is very plausible. Whether it`s deeper, wetter, richer, I can understand through this type of testing how one would possibly be observing this. Even though the gloss is reading lower after the first coat, I`m not seeing any noticeable depreciation in the finish from coat to coat.

I like Atlantique, oily which makes it nice and easy to spread, but still providing a clean wipeoff on the first coat. This clean wipe does become a bit more difficult with additional coats, but I didn`t see any unevenness or streaking. Zymol has a very attractive wax formula across the board with their waxes. Decently easy to work with, providing some of the absolute craziest water beading when they`re fresh. But I have had sweating issues in the Florida heat, and I can only imagine that trying to double up on coats would make that tendency for the waxes to sweat even more apparent. I also can`t stand these 2oz sampler jars, makes it an absolute pain to get the applicator loaded up. You try and do the whole car jabbing the sampler container with the pad and that $1,643 price for the 8oz jar starts looking a bit more attractive.

After doing this test I did check into Zymol`s site and saw the 60-90 minute recommended cure for Atlantique. I may rerun this test to abide by that timeframe to see if it does make a difference in the future.

 

[Accumulator]

Loach- AH, thanks! That`s exactly the kind of testing I was thinking of...and Atlantique was a great choice IMO (I even remember that "sweating" issue, one of the reasons I never got serious about the Estate Glazes).

Gee, (technically) lower gloss than the Glasur, huh? But yeah..more to "how it looks" than just the gloss readings.

More idle curiosity- Did you notice any discernible diffs in the appearance between the Atlantique and the Glasur? Just subjectively..."eh, kinda liked that one better" type impressions?

EDIT: I do kinda wonder whether waiting longer might`ve had an impact...the whole user-involvement aspect of the Estate Glazes always seemed off-putting to me, just too much work dependent on careful (visual) evaluation.

 

[Loach]

Loach- AH, thanks! That`s exactly the kind of testing I was thinking of...and Atlantique was a great choice IMO (I even remember that "sweating" issue, one of the reasons I never got serious about the Estate Glazes).

Gee, (technically) lower gloss than the Glasur, huh? But yeah..more to "how it looks" than just the gloss readings.

More idle curiosity- Did you notice any discernible diffs in the appearance between the Atlantique and the Glasur? Just subjectively..."eh, kinda liked that one better" type impressions?

EDIT: I do kinda wonder whether waiting longer might`ve had an impact...the whole user-involvement aspect of the Estate Glazes always seemed off-putting to me, just too much work dependent on careful (visual) evaluation.

The sweating can be a big problem unfortunately, and if Zymol didn`t sweat - it would be a near perfect wax for me. With Ital the sweating wasn`t fixed with a simple wash or rewipe, or ice cold water wipedown after application, it was lasting through the washes which eventually leads to streaking and holograms. I think eventually it will fully outgas but it wouldn`t be my wax of choice if I was detailing professionally on client cars as a show car wax in this kind of heat, I would dread the call back of the wax hazing over. Souveran doesn`t have this issue, but Souveran also doesn`t give that kind of insane hydrophobics that Zymol gives across the board.

Since Atlantique is more oily than Glasur, I would expect it to deliver marginally lower readings. Again, at this kind of level with the panel pretty much approaching maximum gloss, I`m expecting most LSP`s to reduce the measurable gloss to a certain extent. The question is what are the best types of oils that can really burnish and deepen and warm the glow of the finish beyond the pure gloss that is delivered by the abrasive polishing step? And I think Zymol`s quest is switching up the content of the oils and types of oils between their different waxes to try and deliver on minor differences.

My eyes don`t see a difference with how the paint looks between Glasur and Atlantique, but this paint isn`t the best color to be able to showcase any potential differences effectively. I pull them outside in the sun and all I see is GLOW. Very difficult for me to try and detect the nuances at this level. But I do think a difference is possible, even if it`s very slight and no where near worth a $1,500 difference in price. It would be a tough choice for me to select Glasur over Creame for the price as well.

I really wish Zymol wasn`t playing such a heavy pricing game, I would pay a premium for an 8oz jar of Destiny which one of my favorite smelling waxes. Not an $800 premium though.

 

[Accumulator]

Loach- Heh heh..yeah, that *is* a price-to-pay for something that smells nice when the looks are so similar to the cheaper varieties! And there`s just *zero* way I`d ever put up with the sweating/etc. Man...when I finish waxing, I want to be *finished*!

And yeah#2 on Souveran, that`s about as user-friendly as paste waxes get IME, even on trim if you do it right. If you ever test *that* one (or did I miss it?) I`d be curious how it does; it`s maybe the only LSP my wife could always *immediately* spot on her silver Audi.."ah, you used the `white wax` (as she called it) again, I simply *love* how that one looks!". She`d spot it any time I switched that car from/to Souveran...which I quit doing since it meant basically rewaxing at every wash.

If it weren`t so hard to ship stuff these days I`d probably be offering to send some M16 and 476S..two waxes I consider interesting even though the former is gone now. I do have partial tins of both just sitting here going bad (if they ever *really* do..haven`t noticed that happening yet), even found new tins of M16 and the old 3M Showcar Paste Wax that I`d almost put in the Souveran category for ease-of-use (and durability too I`m afraid...but it does look nice).

And hey, I hadn`t thought of the "cold water treatment" for ages! Yeah...used to do that a lot, back in the days when I`d also spit-shine things.

 

[Loach]

Loach- Heh heh..yeah, that *is* a price-to-pay for something that smells nice when the looks are so similar to the cheaper varieties! And there`s just *zero* way I`d ever put up with the sweating/etc. Man...when I finish waxing, I want to be *finished*!

And yeah#2 on Souveran, that`s about as user-friendly as paste waxes get IME, even on trim if you do it right. If you ever test *that* one (or did I miss it?) I`d be curious how it does; it`s maybe the only LSP my wife could always *immediately* spot on her silver Audi.."ah, you used the `white wax` (as she called it) again, I simply *love* how that one looks!". She`d spot it any time I switched that car from/to Souveran...which I quit doing since it meant basically rewaxing at every wash.

If it weren`t so hard to ship stuff these days I`d probably be offering to send some M16 and 476S..two waxes I consider interesting even though the former is gone now. I do have partial tins of both just sitting here going bad (if they ever *really* do..haven`t noticed that happening yet), even found new tins of M16 and the old 3M Showcar Paste Wax that I`d almost put in the Souveran category for ease-of-use (and durability too I`m afraid...but it does look nice).

And hey, I hadn`t thought of the "cold water treatment" for ages! Yeah...used to do that a lot, back in the days when I`d also spit-shine things.

I definitely want to pull Souveran and Zymol Destiny out and put them together in a head to head and do a video on that. Since Pinnacle was formulated with Destiny`s gloss and depth of finish in mind, should be good to finally pull them both out together to see how they look. I`ve done a lot of gloss testing in the past with Souveran and I do usually see a slight decrease in readings because of its oils. 476S I can test as well, I`ve been meaning to do a video on this for years so I can grab measurements when I set it up on the panel for a video.

Should have the results posted later tonight for CarPro Essence and Gyeon Primer.

 

[Loach]

TheMeanGreen requested a gloss session with CarPro Essence, and I figured this would be a good opportunity to show you guys how the curing of certain products can have a measurable increase in the gloss over time. CarPro Essence and Gyeon Primer are fairly similar in function, so I tested Essence on the first day and removed it to test Primer afterwards with very similar results.

Meter: Rhopoint Novo-Gloss Trio / Calibrated to 93.1GU / 60° Measurement Angle


Test Panel Baseline
GU: 94.9 - 95.6
Temperature (°F): 82.7


Sonax Perfect Finish
Post Panel Wipe GU: 95.4 - 96.2
Temperature (°F): 82.7
Panel Wipe: Prep-All
Polisher: Rupes LHR15 MK III
Pad: Rupes Yellow
Polisher Speed: 4
Overlapping Passes: 4
Note: Really clean wipeoff.


CarPro Essence
Post Application GU: 94.8 - 95.5 @ 83.1°F
12 Hour Cure: 95.4 - 96.1 @ 79.8°F
24 Hour Cure: 95.3 - 96.1 @ 84.0°F
Polisher: Rupes LHR15 MK III
Pad: Buff and Shine Black Flat
Polisher Speed: 3.5
Overlapping Passes: 4
Notes: Pretty easy wipeoff, some slight residuals left behind but nothing too heavy looking. Measurable increase in gloss readings after the 12 hour cure, albeit still slight.


Sonax Perfect Finish
Post Panel Wipe GU: 95.4 - 96.1
Temperature (°F): 84.9
Panel Wipe: Prep-All
Polisher: Rupes LHR15 MK III
Pad: Rupes Yellow
Polisher Speed: 4
Overlapping Passes: 4


Gyeon Primer
Post Application GU: 94.6 - 95.4 @ 85.8°F
12 Hour Cure: 95.2 - 96.0 @ 81.3°F
24 Hour Cure: 95.2 - 96.0 @ 82.5°F
Polisher: Rupes LHR15 MK III
Pad: Buff and Shine Black Flat
Polisher Speed: 3.5
Overlapping Passes: 4
Notes: Easy wipeoff, slightly less residuals than Essence. Very similar measurable increase in gloss readings after the 12 hour cure to Essence, no changes from 12-24 hours.


Gyeon Quick Detailer
Post Application GU: 94.8 - 95.5 @ 82.4°F


So we do have about a 0.5GU increase in measurable gloss after a 12 hour cure with both Essence and Primer. This is significant for the glossmeter to detect, but 0.5GU is very slight when it comes to looking at the bigger gloss picture. The fact that these two are able to cure to very similar levels to Perfect Finish though is a bit impressive. I also played around more with Essence and applied multiple applications taking readings in between, doing both a CarPro Eraser wipe afterwards, as well as a follow up wipe with Prep-All. Here are those results:


Sonax Perfect Finish
Post Panel Wipe GU: 95.4 - 96.2
Temperature (°F): 82.2
Panel Wipe: Prep-All
Polisher: Rupes LHR15 MK III
Pad: Rupes Yellow
Polisher Speed: 4
Overlapping Passes: 4


CarPro Essence
Post Application GU: 94.5 - 95.2 @ 83.6°F
Eraser Wipe GU: 95.0 - 95.6 @ 82.4°F
Prep-All Wipe GU: 95.0 - 95.6 @ 82.5°F
Polisher: Rupes LHR15 MK III
Pad: Buff and Shine Black Flat
Polisher Speed: 3.5
Overlapping Passes: 4


CarPro Essence Follow Up
Post Application GU: 94.3 - 95.2 @ 84.3°F
Eraser Wipe GU: 94.7 - 95.5 @ 82.7°F
Prep-All Wipe GU: 94.9 - 95.6 @ 82.7°F
Polisher: Rupes LHR15 MK III
Pad: Buff and Shine Black Flat
Polisher Speed: 3.5
Overlapping Passes: 4


Notice the increase in the post Eraser wipedown, however we`re still not getting to that Sonax Perfect Finish level of gloss ratings even after using Prep-All as a follow up to Eraser. So there`s two scenarios I could see at play here, either the Reflect abrasives in Essence are not finishing down to comparable levels to Perfect Finish, or the built in protection in Essence has bonded well enough to run interference with both Eraser and Prep-All in the short term. Pretty interesting stuff!

There is a measurable decrease in post application gloss readings with Gyeon Quick Detailer, now this doesn`t mean that Gyeon is going to reduce your gloss in every scenario, it just means that the residuals left behind are enough for the meter to detect a decrease on paint that`s this highly polished. That`s the weakness of running gloss testing on a test panel that doesn`t have much room for a measurable increase in gloss to occur. Eventually I will try and move over to repeatable testing of measurable gloss enhancement on panels that have much more room for the gloss to increase.

 

[TheMeanGreen]

Wow, really surprised by the Essence results. Have you thought about running Essence on a black pad, 8mm stroke machine, lower machine speed, and four passes?


By the way, Loach, thank you for all the effort that you have been putting into this thread and your YT video`s, it definitely goes noticed.

 

[Loach]

Wow, really surprised by the Essence results. Have you thought about running Essence on a black pad, 8mm stroke machine, lower machine speed, and four passes?


By the way, Loach, thank you for all the effort that you have been putting into this thread and your YT video`s, it definitely goes noticed.

I can definitely run different throw setups with either the GG6 or G9 to see if the results come out different. Planning on setting up some testing tomorrow with Griot`s Ceramic 3-in-1 Wax with the BOSS polishes for prep. Their Ceramic Wax can be a bit heavy but it actually buffs pretty cleanly into the paint, will be interesting to see how much the curing can have on the gloss readings. Check back in a few days I should have more results!

 

[TheMeanGreen]

I can definitely run different throw setups with either the GG6 or G9 to see if the results come out different. Planning on setting up some testing tomorrow with Griot`s Ceramic 3-in-1 Wax with the BOSS polishes for prep. Their Ceramic Wax can be a bit heavy but it actually buffs pretty cleanly into the paint, will be interesting to see how much the curing can have on the gloss readings. Check back in a few days I should have more results!

Awesome, thank you! Regarding the difference in machine throw, it is my understanding that when we begin to *overwork* Essence, it`s filling capabilities diminish, how that relates to gloss enhancement on a flat panel, I am still trying to figure out. The reason I ask this, is because there have been a couple of instances where I have had semi-trained eyes (without me telling the people what had been done) be able to tell the difference between a jeweled panel using SF+3800 and a panel jeweled with Essence. Somewhere earlier, either in one of your YT video`s or in this thread, you spoke about your test panel getting to the point where it is becoming quite thin, thus maybe hindering results. For the purposes of checking changes in gloss and for the purposes of longevity, have you thought about picking up a panel with rather hard clear coat? Your local high-end independent body shop would love to give you a panel for free as it is one less panel they would have to pay to get rid of.

 

[Accumulator]

Oh boy...Loach, you`re really keeping me interested! Glad you`ll be trying the GG stuff.

I bet the 476S will diminish the gloss significantly...now let`s see if I`m right/wrong

 

[Loach]

Collinite time! I don`t know what it is about the smell of Collinite, but I`m absolutely addicted to it, that can`t be healthy. Accumulator got me hyped up to test these three out and I was definitely curious because I`ve visually seen great gloss out of all of them on the cars that I`ve applied them to. I was running low on Prep-All, so I switched over to CarPro Eraser for the panel wipe in this test.

A little different protocol for this test as well, I decided to apply the waxes after prepping with Menzerna 3800, and I measured the post-application gloss for the wax. Then I did a rinseless wash with McKee`s 37 N-914 Rinseless Wash and reran the measurements. After that, I did an Optimum Power Clean wipe at 1:3 dilution, then washed the panel with N-914 and then polished the paint again with Menzerna 3800 before applying the next wax. This test does not cover wax curing, I can try covering that in a future test with Collinite. I`m only going to list the max gloss reading for the batch, this should make it easier to compare the numbers for the viewers. The temperature of the measurements was consistent between 77-80°F.

Meter: Rhopoint Novo-Gloss Trio / Calibrated to 93.1GU / 60° Measurement Angle

Pre-Test Measurement
Max GU: 96.0


Menzerna 3800
Max GU: 96.1
Panel Wipe: Eraser
Polisher: Rupes LHR15 MK III
Pad: Buff and Shine Blue
Polisher Speed: 3
Overlapping Passes: 4


Collinite 476S
Max GU (Post Application): 95.8
Max GU (Post N-914 Wash): 96.1
Dry Time: 5 Minutes


Menzerna 3800
Max GU: 96.1
Panel Wipe: Eraser
Polisher: Rupes LHR15 MK III
Pad: Buff and Shine Blue
Polisher Speed: 3
Overlapping Passes: 4


Collinite 915
Max GU (Post Application): 95.5
Max GU (Post N-914 Wash): 96.0
Dry Time: 5 Minutes


Menzerna 3800
Max GU: 96.1
Panel Wipe: Eraser
Polisher: Rupes LHR15 MK III
Pad: Buff and Shine Blue
Polisher Speed: 3
Overlapping Passes: 4


Collinite 845
Max GU (Post Application): 95.7
Max GU (Post N-914 Wash): 96.1
Dry Time: 5 Minutes


Very similar results between each product, and also surprisingly high post-application gloss measurements before the wash with N-914 on all of them. 476S gave me the biggest trouble, it didn`t feel quite as slick and it didn`t want to spread as easily compared to 915, the applicator dried out the fastest with it. Also much more inconsistent starburst effect on the paint with 476S compared to both 915 and 845.

It`s a bit hard to explain what that starburst looks like and I can`t capture it with my camera, it goes beyond any oily residuals left behind by waxes. All three of these with a dry time of 5 minutes wiped down really well with little to no oily residuals, which is why the post application readings were likely so high. But that starburst hologram effect on 476S represents an inconsistent drying, if I wait too long to buff it off I`ll have an even bigger problem with it, if you overapply the wax on the paint you`ll have an even bigger problem with it. And they`re resistant to a heavy wipedown with the microfiber when you`re buffing, but it cleaned up after the rinseless wash with N-914.

Collinite 915 seemed like it had a bit more oils which is probably where the very slight lower readings is coming from. 845 is a dream to work with, seemed to be the slickest of the bunch, and definitely the easiest to spread across the sections of the paint in liquid form. The 5 minute dry time that I gave these waxes is debatable, I`ve had some situations where I`ll let 845 sit for 30 minutes and it will be a breeze to wipe off. Other times I`ve gone 15 minutes of dry time and ran into a starburst hologram nightmare. Hands down one of the most inconsistent waxes I`ve ever worked with, but when it`s on the money, it IS the money.

McKee`s N-914 should not be artificially increasing gloss as a result of any lingering polymers, it won`t be able to boost gloss on this paint beyond what I`m getting after the Menzerna 3800 polishing and Prep-All or Eraser wipedowns. Running a rinseless wash shortly after apply the waxes is debatable as well, but generally I can rinse Collinite immediately after applying it and notice awesome hydrophobic performance. Overall, I`d say the clarity of the gloss with Collinite is very good for all three waxes, and they have a very good potential to retain measurable gloss across the board.

I`ve been doing gloss tests with Griot`s Ceramic 3-in-1 Wax over the passed few weeks, but I want to run a few more tests for consistency before releasing some numbers out.

 

[Accumulator]

Loach- Ah, interesting indeed!

I`m scratching my head over the bump achieved with the N-914 (which I know *nothing* about). And I especially noted how it cleared up those issues...hmmm. Note that some RW will *really* mess with Collinite, like...totally ruin it, forcing a redo (BTDT).

No surprise that the 015 seemed oilier/etc., but what *does* surprise me is that you`ve had starburst/pseudo-holograms issues with 476S and 845. I`ve only used pre-VOC versions of the former, but I`ve used both versions of 845 and I`ve never experienced that (which I sure have experienced with other LSPs). Would`ve thought those were utterly foolproof..

Regarding curing/etc., I`ve only noticed (slight) diffs with the 845, which, BTW, always looks "brighter/more reflective" than 476S on the paints I`ve used it on. I actually topped the 845 on my pal`s Jag with 476S just to tone down the "b/c paintjob look" and make it look more like the ss it should be, and yeah, it did work that way. But again, that was pre-VOC stuff...

And now I`m looking forward to seeing how that GG 3-in-1 Ceramic does!

 

[Loach]

Decided to do a quick shootout with Meguiar`s Deep Crystal, M26, and M21 today before setting up the next test with Griot`s Ceramic Wax. Similar protocol to the test yesterday, but I decided to skip the wipedown with Optimum Power Clean on the products before going over with Menzerna 3800. 3800 didn`t seem to have any wipeability issues going directly over Deep Crystal and M26. The temperature for this round of measurements was consistent between 78-81°F.

Meter: Rhopoint Novo-Gloss Trio / Calibrated to 93.1GU / 60° Measurement Angle


Pre-Test Measurement
Max GU: 96.1


Menzerna 3800
Max GU: 96.0
Panel Wipe: Eraser
Polisher: Rupes LHR15 MK III
Pad: Buff and Shine Blue
Polisher Speed: 3
Overlapping Passes: 4


Meguiar`s Deep Crystal Carnauba Wax
Max GU (Post Application): 95.5
Max GU (Post N-914 Wash): 95.9
Dry Time: 5 Minutes


Menzerna 3800
Max GU: 96.0
Panel Wipe: Eraser
Polisher: Rupes LHR15 MK III
Pad: Buff and Shine Blue
Polisher Speed: 3
Overlapping Passes: 4


Meguiar`s M26 Hi-Tech Yellow Wax
Max GU (Post Application): 95.3
Max GU (Post N-914 Wash): 95.9
Dry Time: 10 Minutes


Menzerna 3800
Max GU: 96.0
Panel Wipe: Eraser
Polisher: Rupes LHR15 MK III
Pad: Buff and Shine Blue
Polisher Speed: 3
Overlapping Passes: 4


Meguiar`s M21 Synthetic Sealant 2.0
Max GU (Post Application): 95.2
Max GU (Post N-914 Wash): 95.9
Dry Time: 10 Minutes


Deep Crystal Wax buffed off the cleanest of the bunch with the least amount of oils left behind, likely why it had the highest post application gloss measurements. M26 and M21 took much more wiping to get a cleaner wipeoff with more oils/residuals than Deep Crystal, but they were both still able to buff fairly clean. The rinseless wash with N-914 brought all of them back up to within 0.1GU of the gloss that we were getting with the Menzerna 3800 prep. Still hitting that gloss ceiling from the polishing step, this is why I consider abrasives as the backbone to measurable gloss enhancement.

If someone said they were noticing a difference in the finish between M26 and Deep Crystal, those oils would account for that. The big question is for the guys that can really notice a depth enhancement with waxes that do this because of the oils in the formula, whether or not this enhancement is really only noticeable until the first wash with any regular soap. The hunt for the LSP that can break that abrasive gloss ceiling continues!

 

[Accumulator]

Loach- hey, those were some blasts from the past!

No surprise about the diffs between Deep Crystal (didn`t even know they still make it!) and the M26, but I *am* a little surprised that the M21 muted the gloss more than M26.

I`m starting to wonder whether the N-914 is a bit of a wildcard, seems to boost the gloss of *everything* you use it on. SO...is that "the great gloss-enhancing RW" or what?

 

[Accumulator]

If someone said they were noticing a difference in the finish between M26 and Deep Crystal, those oils would account for that. The big question is for the guys that can really notice a depth enhancement with waxes that do this because of the oils in the formula, whether or not this enhancement is really only noticeable until the first wash with any regular soap.

That`s what some of us have observed with the diffs between Collinite`s 845 and 476S; the diffs are less obvious after the first wash. Would make sense with the M26 too, at least IMO given my (pretty old now..haven`t used it in years) impressions of M26

 

[Loach]

Loach- hey, those were some blasts from the past!

No surprise about the diffs between Deep Crystal (didn`t even know they still make it!) and the M26, but I *am* a little surprised that the M21 muted the gloss more than M26.

I`m starting to wonder whether the N-914 is a bit of a wildcard, seems to boost the gloss of *everything* you use it on. SO...is that "the great gloss-enhancing RW" or what?

So the deal with N-914 is the same phenomenon that I`m going to get with any other basic soap when washing a fresh LSP. Once those unbonded wax oils/residuals are washed away, I will see a clear bump up across the board in gloss measurements, pretty much matching the gloss levels of my polishing step. Since we`re getting a ton of rain right now I`ve opted to do the rinseless wash inside the garage, instead of pulling the panel out to wash with Reset and then pull it back inside and rerun measurements.

This is why trying to categorize the gloss levels of waxes/sealants/coatings is so difficult. Had I did a crazy heavy buff on top of M21 with the microfibers, I would have likely gotten rid of more of the leftover footprint from the unbonded residuals and bumped up the measurements before the wash. But had I just did a super light buff off, the measurements would have read even lower than 95.2GU. The numbers are all related to the aggressiveness of the wipeoff, and for me I buff the LSP down to a point where I would feel comfortable with the finish on a customer car if I was detailing.

The wash afterwards is the ultimate equalizer across the board, it lets me know the actual gloss potential of the LSP when we`ve removed that unbonded film that negatively affects the readings on the glossmeter. The big question though, is am I removing the advantage in the type of look left behind by that specific LSP by washing it and getting rid of those unbonded oils? Or does the wax layer itself after washing the paint still provide an advantage in depth, wetness, warmth compared to an unprotected yet highly polished finish? That`s something the glossmeter won`t tell me.

If I get to a point to where I`m seeing an LSP give me higher gloss measurements after the first wash, compared to the gloss readings after polishing it with the finishing polish and panel wipe, that would be something special. At that point I would have to see if I could pull abrasives out to further refine the paint and then rerun the test to see if the LSP is boosting the measurable gloss across the board compared to what the abrasives can offer. For the same reason if I`m at 96.0GU after using Menzerna 3800, and I put a wax on top and then after the wash it`s only reading 95.0, this would be something special. And it could be good, as in a more durable depth/warmth that lasts beyond the wash, or something bad, as in a permanent actual reduction of visible gloss without added paint depth.

 

[Accumulator]

Loach- Ah, thanks for explaining. Gee, it`s been *forever* since I did a post-LSPing wash; used to do them after waxing way back in the days of single stage but haven`t for decades. Heh heh, by the time I finish waxing I`m ready to quit, not looking for the hours of work that even a quick RW wash would take

Plus, I dunno about washing my FK1000P right after buffing as it takes a while to cure/whatever it does...same with the OCW I use on the A8, it *apparently* takes a day or so to [do whatever it does] since you`re supposed to wait if trying to layer it.

If I get to a point to where I`m seeing an LSP give me higher gloss measurements after the first wash, compared to the gloss readings after polishing it with the finishing polish and panel wipe, that would be something special.

Yes indeed, that`d be something!

 

[Loach]

Let`s test some glazes! For this batch I decided to apply the glazes with a standard yellow foam applicator pad all by hand, rather than with the dual action polisher. The prep polish is Menzerna 3800 on a black Buff and Shine polishing pad. So I`m grabbing the measurements after polishing with 3800 before every glaze, then after applying the glazes, then measuring after the rinseless wash using McKee`s 37 N-914.

The product inside of the Autopia bottle is Poorboy`s World Black Hole Glaze. Prima Amigo we could argue whether this is a glaze as it may contain some lighter abrasives, I personally use it as glaze.

Once again, it`s very reasonable to expect a drop in measurements on this highly polished paint directly after applying and buffing the glazes into the paint. We want them to be leaving something behind, the oils/residuals/remnants of the glazes are a function of how they work and how they can possibly increase paint depth through light diffusion, which causes lower post-application readings. What I`m looking for is something special that really stands out, which is what I believe I`m noticing with Poorboy`s Black Hole after the N-914 wash.


Meter: Rhopoint Novo-Gloss Trio / Calibrated to 93.1GU / 60° Measurement Angle


Pre-Test Measurement
GU: 95.6 - 96.2
Temperature (°F): 85.1


Menzerna 3800
Post Panel Wipe GU: 95.6 - 96.2
Temperature (°F): 86.3
Panel Wipe: CarPro Eraser
Polisher: Rupes LHR15 MK III
Pad: Buff and Shine Black
Polisher Speed: 3
Overlapping Passes: 4
Note: These settings above will remain constant for 3800 for the remainder of the test.


Chemical Guys Glossworkz Glaze
Post-Application GU: 94.6 - 95.2
N-914 Rinseless Wash: 95.3 - 96.0
Temperature (°F): 86.7 / 86.0


Menzerna 3800
Post Panel Wipe GU: 95.5 - 96.2
Temperature (°F): 87.0


Adam`s Brilliant Glaze
Post-Application GU: 94.5 - 95.5
N-914 Rinseless Wash: 95.5 - 96.1
Temperature (°F): 87.4 / 86.9


Menzerna 3800
Post Panel Wipe GU: 95.5 - 96.2
Temperature (°F): 87.4


Poorboy`s World Black Hole Glaze
Post-Application GU: 94.6 - 95.6
N-914 Rinseless Wash: 95.6 - 96.2
Temperature (°F): 87.4 / 86.9
Note: After the wash with N-914, this Black Hole section actually increased the average readings on the panel compared to Menzerna 3800 and CarPro Eraser. Even though both were hitting that 96.2 peak gloss measurement, more measurements with Black Hole after the N-914 wash were hitting that 96.2 reading compared to 3800 + Eraser.


Menzerna 3800
Post Panel Wipe GU: 95.5 - 96.2
Temperature (°F): 88.1


Prima Amigo
Post-Application GU: 94.4 - 95.1
N-914 Rinseless Wash: 95.4 - 96.0
Temperature (°F): 88.7 / 87.9


Menzerna 3800
Post Panel Wipe GU: 95.5 - 96.2
Temperature (°F): 88.7


Meguiar`s M07 Show Car Glaze
Post-Application GU: 93.8 - 95.0
N-914 Rinseless Wash: 94.9 - 95.7
Temperature (°F): 89.0 / 87.6
Note: Significantly more difficult to wipe this off the paint compared to what I`ve seen in the past, this is the latest formula of M07 as well, so I`m going to consider this an outlier and I might retest this at some time in the future. No change in the reading after a second wash with N-914, and no change after wiping with Prep-All!


Menzerna 3800
Post Panel Wipe GU: 95.3 - 96.0
Temperature (°F): 88.7
Note: Notice the slight drop in numbers here compared to the 96.2 peak readings on all earlier passes. Wondering if M07 is still running interference.


Dodo Juice Lime Prime Lite
Post-Application GU: 93.7 - 94.7
N-914 Rinseless Wash: 95.3 - 96.0
Temperature (°F): 89.0 / 87.9
Note: I would not prefer to use Lime Prime Lite without some sort of damp microfiber wipe or a rinseless wash afterwards. This is the type of glaze where the residuals have more of a tendency to cause streaking or temporary holograms behind that are very noticeable in the sun. Wipes off great with the damp microfiber though in separate tests, and N-914 easily cleans everything up as well.


Menzerna 3800
Post Panel Wipe GU: 95.3 - 96.1
Temperature (°F): 88.3


Poorboy`s World Black Hole Glaze (2nd Application)
Post-Application GU: 94.6 - 95.4
N-914 Rinseless Wash: 95.6 - 96.2
Temperature (°F): 88.8 / 87.8
2.5 Hour Remeasure: 95.6 - 96.4!
Temperature (°F): 85.4
Note: Once again, after washing Black Hole with N-914 I`m seeing higher average measurements across the entire section, and a further waiting period of 2.5 hours I was able to remeasure a 0.3 increase in GU above the polishing step with 3800 + Eraser wipedown!


So again, Black Hole appears to be doing something special after the N-914 wash, which is actually raising up the average readings of the measurable gloss on the paint compared to the abrasive polishing step on a consistent basis. I didn`t notice this with any of the other products, which doesn`t mean that they`re not performing well. What I can`t tell with this test is true depth enhancement at this level, which is the primary function of the glazes in the first place.

Some relevant questions are whether or not the glazes are actually surviving the wash with N-914, do they have a natural cure that can improve gloss measurements if I let them sit overnight, does using them with a DA polisher make a difference compared to hand application? The cure and DA polishing will have to be something that I tackle in the future. For now, the results with Black Hole after the wash was exactly something that I was looking for and I`ll focus on testing this more heavily before retesting some of these other glazes.

As a sidenote: Glossworkz, Brilliant Glaze, Amigo, and Black Hole are all a dream to work with. Glossworkz and Brilliant Glaze provided the cleanest wipeoffs, for as much as Glossworkz decreases the measurements yet still wipes off as cleanly as it does, it must be leaving a significant presence and it`s easily been one of my favorite glazes over the years to use before applying paste waxes.

Those of you waiting on the Griot`s Ceramic 3-in-1 Wax, this is doing something special that I haven`t seen before, so I`ve got another cure test running tonight to get more results.

 

[Accumulator]

Loach- Ah, interesting indeed!

Gee, wonder what`s up with the apparently residual effects of the M07 (new formula? they`ve changed it?). Any chance it somehow micormarred the surface? The way it stayed the same after the Prep All...

And of course, yeah...that PB BH + N-914! Gee, I don`t want to proclaim it The Grail, but that`s really something.