Lab Sample D

M

Mike_Phillips

Administrator
Here's a picture of a customers car I detailed today using Lab Sample D for a topper.



Rotary buffed using M-09 Swirl Remover 2.0 at 1500 rpm with W-9006 to remove swirls and majority of random, isolated, deeper scratches, (RIDS).



Next, used #83 Dual-Action Cleaner Polish with PC at 5.5 setting and W-8006



Applied two thin coats of Lab Sample D first coat using the PC with a new W-9006 at the 4.0 setting. Then removed using microfiber Ultimate Bonnet on PC at 5.0 setting.



Second coat applied by hand and removed using PC, (same as above).



Started at 8:30am, finished at 4:45pm, took this picture at approximately 5:00pm when the sun had already begun to set. (best I could do, fast as I could go)



This is photo has been resized, but in no other way re-touched.



Here's what I'm talking about...



http://www.showcargarage.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=212
 
Nice Sample!



I'm sure you are going to be asked this, but I may as well post the question....



Explain why you went from a rotary and polish-#9, to a PC and a more agressive cleaner/polish-#DACP? Sounds a bit back assward. :p



Obviously, the rotary will resolve defects faster and better than a PC.



Love to see more results. Looks like a winner on dark finishes!



When you say topper, was #20 under it?



Keep us posted on the Sample "D"!



Regards,

Deanski
 
Mike,

Nice work as usual.



Deanski said:
Explain why you went from a rotary and polish-#9, to a PC and a more agressive cleaner/polish-#DACP? Sounds a bit back assward. :p
Click to expand...



I was going to ask the same question, but you beat me to it. The only reason I could come up with is Meguiars, least abrasive first theory.





Eric
 
Deanski said:
Explain why you went from a rotary and polish-#9, to a PC and a more agressive cleaner/polish-#DACP? Sounds a bit back assward. :p
Click to expand...



Every paint is different. That's why I always perfrom a "Test Spot", in order to see which combinations of Meguiar's products produce the desired result.



Since 1901, Meguiar's has always taught,



"Use the least aggressive product to get the job done"



The primary reason for the above philosophy is to remove the least amount of film build so that the underlying panels will have maximum protection.



My test spot revealed to me a very soft paint, I was able to easily remove a majority of the scratches using our least aggressive products, the W-9006 foam finishing pad, (Ultra Soft), and the #9 Swirl Remover 2.0, (just a little bit less aggressive than #82 Swirl Free Polish).



I did buff with these two products thoroughly, and to completely insure there was no swirl in the finish, I chose to rebuff each panel using the PC, with the #83 Dual-Action Cleaner Polish, and the W-8006 foam cleaning pad. This was an extra step, but a step I felt compelled to perform to deliver the best possible results.



The customer brought me the car in the first place because he wanted the swirls removed. I paid carefull attention to his request to make sure he received what he asked for.



That's why I did what I did.



I could have gotten away without this extra step, but I like to go above and beyond the call of duty and over deliver.







Obviously, the rotary will resolve defects faster and better than a PC.
Click to expand...



Not only will a rotary buffer with the right application materials and chemicals remove defects better and faster, the rotary buffer will bring the surface to a higher gloss compared to working by hand or PC because it offers a greater, "polishing-action".



Love to see more results. Looks like a winner on dark finishes!
Click to expand...



If it works good on black, it's assured to work good on any color.



When you say topper, was #20 under it?
Click to expand...



Semantics. Two thin coats of the same product. I topped my prep work is all I meant, sorry for any confusion. However, I do beleive that #20 would be fine for a base.



Regards,

Deanski
Click to expand...



Thanks for asking! :xyxthumbs
 
Mike Phillips- As I'm considering going back to a rotary for some jobs (after years with just random orbitals), I'd like a little clarification to make sure I'm interpreting this correctly. Sorry if this is just rephrasing Deanski's question.





Mike Phillips said:
..My test spot revealed to me a very soft paint, I was able to easily remove a majority of the scratches using our least aggressive products, the W-9006 foam finishing pad, (Ultra Soft), and the #9 Swirl Remover 2.0, (just a little bit less aggressive than #82 Swirl Free Polish).



I did buff with these two products thoroughly, and to completely insure there was no swirl in the finish, I chose to rebuff each panel using the PC, with the #83 Dual-Action Cleaner Polish, and the W-8006 foam cleaning pad. This was an extra step, but a step I felt compelled to perform to deliver the best possible results.
Click to expand...



Are the following correct or not? And please feel free to expound on any related points in greater detail.



T/F:



The rotary with the W-9006/#9 is more aggressive than the PC with the W-8006/#83 (assuming that the #83 is worked enough to "break down").



Following up the rotary work with the PC/W-8006/#83 would ensure that any rotary-induced "hologram"-style marring is eliminated. Also, using a milder product/pad combo with the PC might NOT be aggressive enough to remove it.





Use of a mild product (such as fully broken-down #83) and the W-8006 will provide a "ready to wax" finish, i.e., the W-8006 in and of itself (and/or the #83) is NOT too "aggressive" for the final polishing step when used with a PC.



Thanks for any clarification you can provide. I'm gradually coming to the conclusion that I might need to go back to using a rotary for all but the most "nearly perfect" finishes, if only to save (a lot of) time.
 
Are the following correct or not? And please feel free to expound on any related points in greater detail.
Click to expand...

The rotary with the W-9006/#9 is more aggressive than the PC with the W-8006/#83 (assuming that the #83 is worked enough to "break down").
Click to expand...



On this paint, yes. That's because of the direct drive action of the rotary buffer which gives it the ability to move small particles of paint dramatically better and faster than the DA. If the paint would have been harder, then neither the W-9006/#9 would have probably worked and I would have probably went to the W-8006/#83 with the rotary.



Following up the rotary work with the PC/W-8006/#83 would ensure that any rotary-induced "hologram"-style marring is eliminated. Also, using a milder product/pad combo with the PC might NOT be aggressive enough to remove it.
Click to expand...



Correctomundo... on this paint. The hardness of a paint varies from car to car, thus the reason I have always stressed the importance of performing a Test Spot.



Use of a mild product (such as fully broken-down #83) and the W-8006 will provide a "ready to wax" finish, i.e., the W-8006 in and of itself (and/or the #83) is NOT too "aggressive" for the final polishing step when used with a PC.
Click to expand...



Yes. Again, at least on this particular paint. A Porsche I recently buffed out had some really soft paint. I found the DA, W-8006/#83 to remove paint easily, but it didn't leave as high of a gloss as the rotary buffer could, (and did).



Thanks for any clarification you can provide. I'm gradually coming to the conclusion that I might need to go back to using a rotary for all but the most "nearly perfect" finishes, if only to save (a lot of) time.
Click to expand...



Your welcome.



The rotary buffer, and the PC, and your hands, are merely tools of the trade. Each has it's best use application. It's nice to have a selection of tools at hand.



Mike
 
Here is a sun reflection shot of the Porsche after cleaning the finish with the rotary buffer, polishing the finish with the PC, and then applying Lab Sample B, (at that time).
 

Attachments

  • g35x 003.jpg
    g35x 003.jpg
    30.9 KB · Views: 296
Are these lab samples consumer or pro products or are you at liberty to say?

Although I'm willing to bet that these cars looked incredible even before the final wax/sealant/glaze.

I wish I could get my hands on a rotary and a car that had any paint to correct. I have no paint left on my BMW!!
 
I can't say.



And while you're right about how the finish looks before this product is applied, this product does take the finish to a higher level like no other product I have ever seen.
 
Hey Mike....



Philip here, thanks for the wonderful job... I'm very impressed.



The car had tons of swirl marks/scratches/dull spots from a horrible wax job that was done at a car wash...



But Mike came to the rescue. Thanks again.
 
Mike Phillips- Thanks for the additional info. And your work really is something to behold.



Your answers do, however, raise a few MORE questions :D And while typing my (real) questions, I came up with another one or two that I'm sure other Autopians are wondering about. Hope I'm not wearing out your keyboard :o



Mike Phillips said:
... A Porsche I recently buffed out had some really soft paint. I found the DA, W-8006/#83 to remove paint easily, but it didn't leave as high of a gloss as the rotary buffer could, (and did)....Here is a sun reflection shot of the Porsche after cleaning the finish with the rotary buffer, polishing the finish with the PC, and then...
Click to expand...



I'm confused about why the ROTARY gets the credit for the high gloss even though the DA was the "final prep step". It would seem to me that the FINAL polishing would be what determines how fine the gloss is. OR [lightbulb comes on] when you say "polish" do you mean something SO non-abrasive (i.e., Meguiar's "pure polish" definition) that all the abrading was done by the rotary?



Am I missing something when it comes to a DA/PC/RO's ability to really "smooth" an already-nearly perfect surface? I can see the rotary being required to work hard and quite marred-up surfaces but for a final step, won't the PC suffice?



*I* would think that someone lacking your expertise with a rotary would almost CERTAINLY need to use the PC to remove the "holograms", and that THAT process would be abrading, if only at a "fine" level. Sorry if I'm splitting hairs here.



The rotary buffer, and the PC, and your hands, are merely tools of the trade. Each has it's best use application. It's nice to have a selection of tools at hand.
Click to expand...



Yeah, at times I sorta KNOW I'm asking the orbitals to do work that they aren't really designed to do.



What is the DISADVANTAGE to using a random orbital to remove heavy marring (besides taking FOREVER)? Since it IS possible to cut through ( remove too much) paint with a PC, why use a rotary?



Guess it's been too long since I've used a rotary, but it seems like the RIGHT PRODUCT (used with the right pad) would provide a "perfect" surface even applied by PC although it might take quite a while.



Thanks again Mike, I'm sure you didn't expect all these Q's when you originally started this thread but it seemed like an OK time to ask.
 
You really ask good questions Accumulator and it makes me think. I like that. :xyxthumbs



It's kind of hard to explain, but I'll try.



The direct drive, rotating action supplied by a rotary, together with a foam pad and the right chemical has a polishing-action, that the PC just cannot come close to.



This polishing action creates an incredibly smooth surface, which is where you get your Gloss.



Once you have created this super smooth surface by abrading the paint, and burnishing, it so to speak, you can continue to polish it at this point with a Dual-Action polisher and not diminish your results, and in some cases, enhance your results, but for the most part, you can never achieve these exact same results with the PC alone.



I have tried different combinations of wool and foam pads using the PC on dull paint to increase the gloss, and it can be done, but it takes so much longer, and never comes close to equally the results from the rotary buffer.



Now, if someone reading this takes a PC to an already, super smooth and high gloss finish, buffs for a few minutes, then wipes off their residue, looks at the results and wonder what I'm talking about?



Remember, your starting with a finish that's already super smooth and glossy finish to start with, which describes most new car finishes.



I'm just drawing from years of experience buffing out a lot of dull and swirled out finishes.



A majority of the cars I have buffed out have been in such bad condition, that if the finish couldn't be saved, it would have to be repainted.



Thus, the reason I I wore the side of my Makita Buffer smooth from years of spending and average of 3-4 hours, constant buffing of a car's finish for just the cleaning step.



The "Polishing Action" of the rotary buffer cannot be equaled, or surpassed by any other means, (at this time).



But I know what your wondering then,



Why go over the finish with the Porter Cable Dual-Action polisher?



Because after you have created a super high gloss surface using the rotary, (now this is key), using the right technique, the right application material and the right chemical, you can further enhance this gloss. At the same time, using the wrong application material, and/or the wrong chemical, you could easily diminish the gloss.



"Polishing paint is an Art Form"



Anybody can wipe on and then remove a coat of wax, you know, like the "Karate Kid", wax-on, wax-off. But to create a swirl-free, flawless finish takes experience and what I call, Knowledge of the 3 P's





What is the DISADVANTAGE to using a random orbital to remove heavy marring (besides taking FOREVER)? Since it IS possible to cut through ( remove too much) paint with a PC, why use a rotary?
Click to expand...




Disadvantage is



* The lack of effective "Polishing, or Burnishing action"

* Takes to much time

* Will not work on hard paints... to hard to move/remove small particles of paint in a controlled method, and leave behind a smooth glossy surface.



On this last one, you can remove paint with an Orbial using a coarse abrasive... but it won't look good when your done.



To a large degree, your point about the only downfall of using a PC being time is correct as long as your starting out on a finish that the defects are fairly shallow, or the paint is fairly soft.



For me, it would drive me insane. I like the speed and the results I can get using a rotary buffer.



I should post a picture of "The Chicken Truck".



Did any of this help?
 
Aagh.......I really got to get and learn to use a rotary. If I do I'm getting that Makita just based on all the great jobs Mike has done. Hope some day can get close to being that good.

:bow
 
Well, looks like Mike hits the nail on the head once again!



You just can't beat the effect from a controlled rotary polish!!



One of these days now you got me thinking... I'm going to break out RO-ZILLA (Makita 9227C) and resolve these swirls once and for all.



Interesting that SFP is just a tad bit more aggressive than #9. The SFP sould really do well with RO-ZILLA.



Going from a polish to a cleaner/polish was what I was questioning. Sure, we all know go minimal first and work up if needed, but if it looks really good with SFP and they are gone, why risk DACP haze or worse? Why not PPC instead? Or burnish out with #81 on a finish pad?



Got more Megs stuff now I HAVE to get that rotary busy! Gallons of DACP/SFP and of coarse, hand polish 32oz! Nice stuff that #81!



Keep us updated as to the product testing and any new technology that improves the end result!



Thanks once again Mike!



Regards,

Deanski
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top