how to layer wax

Some people have had a problem with more than one coat. Others have not. With 476 I use a thin coat of 845 first helps in removal of 476. Always thin coats of 476.
 
476 can give serious holograms with the 2nd coat. Same for 915. If I were you, I'd get some 845 and use it for subsequent layers (and maybe also the 1st layer, as mentioned earlier).
 
Just wondering. How often do you guys wax your car? If you are going to do it every month; I don't think it is necessary to layer. Just put on a sealant like NXT and it should last more than a month. But of course, you are going have to QD it with the UQD to remove the dust from everyday driving. That would even make the sealant even last longer and water beeds.
 
GS4_Fiend said:
Just wondering. How often do you guys wax your car?
Click to expand...
No more than necessary to keep things slick and beading. I sure don't want to rewax/seal on a monthly basis. A few examples:



Last application (other than the recently redone hood) of 476S went on my DenaliXL late last Summer (and yeah, I drove it all winter). I try to get enough KSG on the MPV to last about a whole year. I refresh the #16 on my wife's A8 maybe every other month at the very most, often far less frequently than that. I don't really drive the others enough to make meaningful comments about their LSPs.



Oh, you mentioned using a QD; the only time I use QDs is after a wash before I dry. I simply *never* touch the paint between washes and I only wash a vehicle when it really needs it.



EDIT: I know, the above is more of my Autopian Heresy :o I used to wash all the time and I'd sometimes refresh wax about weekly; I acted like life was a car show. But there's only so much time and these days I prioritize differently. And honestly, nobody but me could *ever* notice the difference, the vehicles really look just about as good for real-world purposes.
David Fermani said:
That's a 1st. I've never heard of inducing halograms(especially serious ones) from layering wax?
Click to expand...



They aren't holograms in the usual sense, though they can look almost as bad. I use the term "pseudo hologorams" as they're just in the wax, presumably from some kind of solvent action messing up the previously applied wax.



This has only happened for me with 476S, when applying additional layers (never with the first application). It seems to happen randomly, though machine application appears to make it more likely.



I'm still using the same tin of wax and I haven't changed anything about how I use it. I've given this a bit of thought and I'm confident I've considered all the possibilities. I simply cannot figure out why it sometimes happens or how to 100% avoid it :nixweiss



Sometimes I can buff out the problem with a bit of QD on a MF. Other times it's necessary to strip off the 476S and start over. And sometimes it doesn't happen at all. Same vehicle. Same prep. Same wax. Same conditions. Same *everything*. (What the [expletive] could I be missing here :confused: )



Waiting a few weeks between applications and then applying gently, by hand, seems to make the problem least likely to occur. But don't bet your afternoon on it turning out OK.



Fortunately, one layer of 476S protects quite well by itself.



I've heard that applying 845 *over top of* pseudo-hologrammed 476S will either eliminate or at least mask the problem satisfactorily.
 
Accumulator said:
I've heard that applying 845 *over top of* pseudo-hologrammed 476S will either eliminate or at least mask the problem satisfactorily.
Click to expand...



That was my observation (unless someone else has tried it too), but for the record it was 915. Don't know if it matters.
 
hey_i'm_new said:
looks like this isn't a good idea... i guess i will just reapply/strip when i notice a fade in "wax effects"
Click to expand...



layering is not really necessary. it's my experience that it is a "feel good" exercise. it is a waste of tiime/effort in my opinion even though i've done it in the past and may even in the future. :soscared:
 
jimmie jam said:
layering is not really necessary. it's my experience that it is a "feel good" exercise. it is a waste of tiime/effort in my opinion even though i've done it in the past and may even in the future. :soscared:
Click to expand...



It depends how we're defining layering. I think LSPs should *always* be applied twice (i.e., two layers). This ensures even, total coverage. However, any more than that and I would agree that you're probably wasting time and product.



Instead of layering, I just wax frequently--probably more than I need to. For example, I apply PS about once a month, with QD and UQW touch ups in between. I don't consider this layering (just OCD routine maintenance), although some may disagree. Of course, maybe I'm in denial :xyxthumbs
 
Bostonsfavson said:
It depends how we're defining layering. I think LSPs should *always* be applied twice (i.e., two layers). This ensures even, total coverage. However, any more than that and I would agree that you're probably wasting time and product.



Instead of layering, I just wax frequently--probably more than I need to. For example, I apply PS about once a month, with QD and UQW touch ups in between. I don't consider this layering (just OCD routine maintenance), although some may disagree. Of course, maybe I'm in denial :xyxthumbs
Click to expand...



+1



Layering = marketing IMO.
 
jimmie jam said:
layering is not really necessary. it's my experience that it is a "feel good" exercise. it is a waste of tiime/effort in my opinion...
Click to expand...



I always suggest that people try it in a controlled-test manner and see if it works with the LSP in question. Some products absolutely layer (obvious differences in durability/etc. that are clearly in the "months" range) and others don't (no such disernable differences or such minor ones as to not be significant IMO).



Specific to Collinite: The areas I did with 2 or more coats of Collinite (both 845 and 476S) lasted months longer than the areas I only did with one (equalized starting times, etc.).



But the chance of pseudo-holograms is giving me pause these days when it comes to layering 476S. Shouldn't be a problem to do the "layers" so far apart that you're really just rewaxing early as opposed to what we usually think of as "layering".



jimmie jam- Heh heh, I like the way you poked fun at yourself, saying how you sometimes do it even though you think it's basically BS :xyxthumbs You might take some small consolation in this idea: even when a LSP doesn't really layer, doing multiple applications can sometimes still give a nice, if temporary boost in appearance (probably due mostly to oils, carrier agents, etc.). We used to call this "concours waxing", not sure if that term gets used much these days.



hey_i'm_new- If you stay a little ahead of the curve you probably won't need to strip it. Just a gentle claying with something like Sonus green oughta be sufficient prep for the next application.
 
Bostonsfavson said:
It depends how we're defining layering. I think LSPs should *always* be applied twice (i.e., two layers). This ensures even, total coverage.
Click to expand...



yes, depends on what you call "layering". appling twice for complete coverage is not what i consider layering just prudent use of time and effort. depends on what you start with.
 
Accumulator, where are you in NE O? i was born and raised in Warren. YSU alumni. that's where i started using IW845 back in '73. bad winters. :2thumbs:
 
jimmie jam- Hey, I'm not all that far from Warren! Heh heh, yeah.. the winters are really something, good LSP-test conditions :D



Seems like *so* many people from OH move to FLA! And a lot of people I know do the dual-residency thing and spend a whole lot of time down there even if they still think of themselves as Ohio residents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top