FK FX-100 vs Optimum Wax

I

imported_TheFiveO1

New member
Okay...let's keep this civilized. For those that have tried the two waxes/sealants...any preferences? I am hooked on FK but if OCW gives same results, may stock up with it as well. Thanks for your opinions :hifive:
 
Like them both too. From my weary eyes, FX-100 gives a hard candy look and OCW gives a nice shimmery look. I've felt that OCW consealed fine scratches better on my dark car. It's interesting to note that when I apply either product on rubber trim and plastic bumpers, FX-100 seems to darken it and OCW had no effect. I also think FX-100 requires a bit more work, as I need to follow with a final wipe down and I usually don't need to with OCW.



I find myself using FX-100 more because, my new suv has alot of unpainted plastic bumpers and fenders. I can use one product for both my paint and trim. I just like the way it makes the trim look. My previous car was dark and had almost no trim, so OCW was the ticket.



I've seen a gallon of OCW as low as $29. Don't know about the shipping.
 
The longevity of OCW is definitely better if that's a concern. I have also found FX-100 to be finicky. Ultimately, just lightly rubbing it into the finish until it "melts" is the ticket.

To me, FX-100 is more of a "top up" similar to Z8 while OCW is a true LSP.
 
Well FX100 is a better value. OCW is not cheap for a not very big bottle while the FX100 is a very large quantity at the same price. I use FX100 on my wheels after a wash ocassionaly and it leaves a nice instant gloss with no riks of not buffing out a missed hazy spot. On paint since it has carbauba bits it has to be worked in with a slightly bit more rubbing.



I use FX100 on paint now mostly to seal each layer of paste wax when I do my seasonal layering.

I'll use my OCW spray post wash with my usual 425 chaser to restore the anti static barrier.
 
racingbeat said:
Well FX100 is a better value. OCW is not cheap for a not very big bottle while the FX100 is a very large quantity at the same price.
Click to expand...



:nixweiss By the gallon, OCW is a really good value. Around double the price of the small bottle if I remember right.
 
Well, the customers seem to like FX100 on there cars vs. OCW.



I have dark colored cars with lots of metalic and for my eyes, fx100 wins. And for me its no harder

to apply than OCW. Just spray and rub till gone. In fact with OCW, I have had minor occurances of streaking. Especially in the winter for some reason.



Having said all that....OCW does have a place in my arsenal. Oh, try OCW after washing your car but prior to drying. Leaves a nice finish.
 
I like the FX100, and its great for dark metallics. Really makes them pop.



It can be a little finicky if used in the sun or you use a touch too much. Nothing a quick rub or mist of 425 won't fix though.



OCW seems to be the ticket for whites and silvers/light metallics, and I think it also wins for durabilty. Works better as a stand alone, wheras FX100 works well as a touch up/base supplement.
 
racingbeat said:
Well FX100 is a better value. OCW is not cheap for a not very big bottle while the FX100 is a very large quantity at the same price. I use FX100 on my wheels after a wash ocassionaly and it leaves a nice instant gloss with no riks of not buffing out a missed hazy spot. On paint since it has carbauba bits it has to be worked in with a slightly bit more rubbing.



I use FX100 on paint now mostly to seal each layer of paste wax when I do my seasonal layering.

I'll use my OCW spray post wash with my usual 425 chaser to restore the anti static barrier.
Click to expand...



Well the small OCW bottle is pricey but gallon size is not a bad deal (29 dollars for a gallong and free shipping - if you know where to buy).
 
Damn that is a good deal I would have gone for that instead. But OCW is not a quick detailer so at one or two applications a month it should last a whole year. I think the OCW durability is much better than FX100. I wouldn't really classify as the same type of detailing product. I'd say Aqua Wax and OCW are more similar , and FX100 and something like Werkstatt Carnauab Gloss are similar.
 
I have both. Bought FX100 first. The thing I like about it is that it has an immediate look of being "on". Another big plus is that it gives more depth to the paint and darkens it a bit (my car is red) similar to the way carnaubas do. The negatives are the same as others have mentioned; it is definitely not very user-friendly. It streaks and is very easy to over-apply. Another thing is its terrible separation issue. My bottle sits for barely 20 minutes before all the wax rises to the top.



OCW on the other hand, is very user-friendly and seems impossible to over-apply. It also gives an eye-popping shimmer to the paint; very "synthetic-y". I can't help but gawk at the look, especially in the shade; it is incredibly intense.



So all in all, OCW definitely wins. But keep in mind that both give different results.



I am thinking of trying Scott's trick of mixing AJT 50/50 with OCW :think2
 
ManiZ said:
So all in all, OCW definitely wins. But keep in mind that both give different results.



I am thinking of trying Scott's trick of mixing AJT 50/50 with OCW :think2
Click to expand...



I think its Carnauba Jett and OCW, not AJT/OCW.



AJT goes on very very easy, no need to mix it with OCW at all.



They also make Carnauba Gloss which probably produces the same look

as the OCW/CJ mix.
 
JW's 'Glos' line consists of QDs while the 'Jett' is of waxes, both spray and liquid, as you know. From some of his recent posts, Scott does combine AJT and OCW, but I would think that is for the "double whammy" bright look of the two, and not for applicability concerns with either.
 
i think ScottWax said Carnauba Jett was a bit lumpy hence the mixing of OCW.

He also said it was another posters (Cobra?) "mixology".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top