FX 100 vs AW

I like the FX100 topped with FK425. Had a dramatic example of the anti-static properties of 425 early this year during some of our fierce, dry Santa Ana winds here in So Cal. Got a nice big bird "dump" on my hood. I liberally sprayed some 425 on the spot, let it dwell for a bit, then gently wiped it off. I had forgotten about it until later in the week, when I saw how much cleaner the wiped down area was.



I too like it on wheels FX100 (with 1000P underneath). As far as FK's QDs go, I tend to use 146 more than 425 because of its cleaning ability.
 
Accumulator,



I would imagine that you would have to put on quite a few applications to see any effects of layering the FX 100 alone. I have tried 3 applications (about 1 per week) and did not notice a difference, though slickness remained EXCELLENT during those three weeks.



I have used 425 over FX 100, but only for cleaning up fingerprints or very light dusting. No issues to report, though there was a difference in the feel of the paint from the QD side vs. just the FX 100.



FX 100 worked fine over the 5050 and Pink Wax, though I have only used this combo once each.



Normally, I find the product to very neutral in appearance. The benefit would be to those who like to enhance whatever they are applying it over and keeping the finish nice and slick.



I usually use FX 100 as a booster for the 2x1000P underneath after every wash, or at least every other wash. This combination has helped tremendously with the prevention of waterspotting and contaminant retention in the paint. My car sits outside during the weekdays going through numerous cycles of light showers and intense sunshine.



On my wife's car, I've been using it as a standalone for about a month with applications done about once every week and a half. IMO, it holds up well against water etching, but not against bird bombs.
 
Accumulator,



I like the FX-100 very much. It is very sensitive to application, so it hates when you overapply it (very easy), so the general advice is to use just half trigger pull per panel. If the towel gets saturated, you can go on using it alone. Generally, it is the best method to use it. Fold the towel into a quarter, spritz the FX-100 2-3 times and apply it to the panel, wiping it until disappears. It behaves quite like a WOWA sealant, so you won't have any residue to remove. Using it this way, it can be applied under the scorching sun, but you have to wipe it quickly. The normal spritz on the panel method can often cause cloudy smearing, and I never let it haze.



But when you apply it on a towel, the results are exceptional. It looks warmer than 425 - due to its "organic wax" content, but at least as glossy and even slicker.
 
Bence and BigHonu- Thanks for the additional info. I might have to try the FX100...*before* I run out of all the current QDs. I'm still trying to resist the tempation though :D



That's sorta what happened when I decided to try FK425, and I hardly use my other QDs since I got that.
 
On a NUBA I think FX 100 adds a lot of shine and reflectivity. But to me takes away some of the depth of the look. I still use it.
 
I use AW and FX100. To me, FX100 looks wetter, glossier, albeit not (ultimately) as shiny as AW. AW also has a certain clarity of shine, if you will, that makes FX100 look slightly muted in comparison. Really, I like them both, but I reach for FX100 more often.
 
I *think* I know what everybody's saying...but the difference(s) between "glossy" and "shiny" sorta elude me. It's not just me either ;) my one dictionary uses them as synonyms :nixweiss
 
Accumulator said:
I *think* I know what everybody's saying...but the difference(s) between "glossy" and "shiny" sorta elude me. It's not just me either ;) my one dictionary uses them as synonyms :nixweiss
Click to expand...



[blush]Sorry about that.[/blush] Has anybody ever put together a detailing dictionary of subjective descriptors?



To explain the comment I posted earlier, I was trying to say that IME AW has a brighter, more reflective presentation, where as FX100 doesn't look immediately as reflective, but its gloss is deeper and ultimately just as shiny. It's like listening to two pairs of high quality loudspeakers, one of which has a slightly laid back presentation compared to the other. While at first listen it may seem like the laid back speaker is missing some highs, after one's ears acclimate to the sound, one finds it's all there and more. I hope that made sense.
 
FJF- Yeah, I'm pretty sure I know what you mean. I bet I'd like the FK FX100 better on the Jag and the AW better on the minivan, for instance (both silver)...but then MDRX8 thinks it takes away a little depth so who knows :nixweiss



And I certainly sympathize with trying to express this subtle and subjective stuff in a way that makes sense to others :D
 
As I use the FX-100 mainly on dark cars, I've never felt that it lacks depth... Just the opposite, actually. The only difference is/could be that these cars don't have such heavy Souverän layers as MDRX's RX8 has.
 
Could somebody m
Code:
ix the two together and let us know what's its like?

I don't have FX 100 yet
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top