DG info / observation

F

Fallz

New member
I recently did some DG work on my truck and this time I used 601 followed by 105 and didn't like the out come the 601 also states it add's gloss , but I didn't see it happening ( yes I know its so called a bonding agent . I had better results with 101 followed by 105. For my next trick a may try 101 followed by 111 , anyone try or like / dislike that combo ?



The other thing was I received a bottle tire/matte dressing. This stuff is great and the look I've been wanting for my tires and mud flaps for years. Ties are black and matte and drove a week in rain and they still look pretty nice.



ok , just my .02:2thumbs:
 
111 is a step back from 105, IMO, in all aspects, i.e. durability, gloss, beading, etc. You're more than welcome to try for yourself and form your own conclusions though. Who knows, you may find differently. I honestly do not know why they haven't discontinued the 111 with the newer 105 formula. 105 is better all around. I assume it's because they have a dedicated base of customers who have always used 111 and nothing else, and refuse to switch.



The 601 doesn't add much gloss on its own. It is a really subtle thing with PBA. It is similar to Zaino's Z1. Z1 claimed to add gloss as well. Both products do in fact add to the glossy factor, but it is really subtle and takes a pretty good eye to see what's going on. As best I can describe the effect, PBA (and Z1) add a step up in the reflective department...gives an extra reflective sheen that is there, but hard to detect...



Regards,



Mike
 
I've not tried 105 with out the PBA but for me it was incredibly glossy. Do you give it time to cure? I ask this because when I first applied the 105 I stepped back and thought "Is this it?". After an hour or so it really cured up and looked fantastic.
 
I switched over to DG 105 almost exclusively a while ago because it seemed really durable and had a really silky and deep shine. However, recently began to feel like I was missing that reflective (some say "plasticky") shine that some sealants provide. So for kicks I topped 105 with some Optiseal and I feel it definitely changed the look and made it more reflective. Just a preference I guess. It is nice to make subtle changes to look of your finish now and again.
 
I used 105 on my Expedition over the weekend only because I didnt have time for a traditional detail. Had I had time to add a light polish to the regimine, I would have gone with #111. I just wanted some light cleaning and good protection, and thats exactly wht I got. #105 is a great all in one type in my book, with stellar slickness and protection. I feel both 111 and 105 are very similiar in appearance, but I really like the slickness 111 provides. Other find similiar results, and others find opposing results!
 
FAllguy, you should give them a call yourself and discuss nomenclature with them! The only "polish" they actually make (By Autopian standards) is their Pink Buffing Gel. Everything else is either a sealant or sealant with mild cleaners. To my knowlege, 111 is a sealant.
 
My box of 111 says right on it...Cleans...shines and protects in one easy application....so it may have a light cleaner...but it is non abrasive...



also says will remove fine scratches...tree sap...bugs...and tar....without removing clear coat....I have the box right in front of me ....



carrying agents can act as a cleaner....if its solvent based....



Al
 
Al, yeah, i know what it says. But from my experience, "non abrasive" and being able to "remove scratches" makes a product pad dependant. Therefore, its not a polish. I really wish they would adapt their nomenclature to reflect the product lines actual abilities.
 
a.k.a. Patrick said:
Al, yeah, i know what it says. But from my experience, "non abrasive" and being able to "remove scratches" makes a product pad dependant. Therefore, its not a polish. I really wish they would adapt their nomenclature to reflect the product lines actual abilities.
Click to expand...





I agree with you....its not a polish..but any sealant with a solvent base like mineral spirits..or any other petroleum base has a cleaner property to an extent...whether it be very mild to extreme....look at Collinite 845 IW....it will dissolve tar and sap..buts its not classified as a cleaner type product....to me a true cleaner type product will have abrasive and a strong solvent base ....111 is not in that category...but will clean to a point..



AL
 
but any sealant with a solvent base like mineral spirits..or any other petroleum base has a cleaner property to an extent
Click to expand...

Bingo....agreed. Im just stating that as its marketed, "Duragloss CCP (Clear Coat Polish) is a non-abrasive synthetic formula", its just not a polish. Cleaner? Yes, to a degree or two, but not a polish. And again, its Duraglosses nomenclature which is so misguided...
 
AL-53 said:
I agree with you....its not a polish..but any sealant with a solvent base like mineral spirits..or any other petroleum base has a cleaner property to an extent...whether it be very mild to extreme....look at Collinite 845 IW....it will dissolve tar and sap..buts its not classified as a cleaner type product....to me a true cleaner type product will have abrasive and a strong solvent base ....111 is not in that category...but will clean to a point..



AL
Click to expand...



Everyday I learn something new from you Al !! :hifive:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top