meg's polishes and compounds without fillers

S

stiege

New member
Is there a list somewhere of Meg's polishes and compounds without fillers? I have an opportunity to purchase Meg's full line at 30% off their website's prices and I want to stock up before spring.



The only Meg's products I've used are #16, #26 and #7. I've used 3m for polishes.



Thanks in advance,



Jason
 
I have used 83, 82, 80 and 9, and they all have fillers. I don't think Megs has any without fillers.
 
Yeah, I think that at least they all have the Meguiar's "trade secret oils", which act as fillers to some extent.
 
It's a coincidence I've just started a thread about fillers in MOL before reading this.



I've been using #83 and #80 for some time and have mastered these products using the rotary only (not with a orbital/dual-action). They are my favorites (just like the 3M MG, MenFP).



Meg's concept of "pure polish" is similar to the Autopian concept of a glaze, that is mostly fillers.



And the Autopian concept of fillers = oils. Am I right?



So if #83 and #80 have some TS oils, then it follows that they have fillers. Am i right?



So premise considered, it would seem that #83 and #80 were eliminating the swirls by just hiding them through the process of filling. Am I right?



How then do Autopians reconcile the fact that #83 (Scale 6) and #80 (Scale 5) contain abrasives that "CUTS" the paint to remove the outer layer containing the swirls by "leveling" and the fact that it contains TS oils to fill the swirls, where in fact there's NOTHING to fill because the swirls were CUT already?



Could the gurus educate me?
 
#80 is a 4 on the Meguiar's scale. I believe these products work by BOTH cutting (reducing or removing swirls) AND filling (what's left).
 
Tripper_11- I don't consider the "trade secret oils" to be *exactly the same as fillers, but yeah, IMO they serve the same purpose to some extent. The oils do, in my experience, help conceal some minor imperfections.



Working on a '00 Audi (very hard clear), when I followed #80 with a paint cleaner, it uncovered some marring that had been "hidden". The #80 *had* removed some marring (mechanically/abrasively) but not nearly as much as I'd thought. It's not that it didn't do any correction, it just didn't do as much as it appeared to have done. Had I just gone over the #80 with a wax like #16 it would've looked great (at least until the wax went away). Try it for yourself on anything with very hard paint. If you're *not* working on hard paint, it won't even matter, #80 will just cut off the marred paint *and* leave the shiny oils.
 
Setec Astronomy:



I've overlooked that. Sorry. Was just to emphasize the abrasiveness difference though.



Accumulator:



The only paint I've worked on are mostly Asian cars: Toyota, Mitsubishi, Honda. And some limited experience with MB and BMW. The softest I think is Honda, and the hardest I've worked on the three (dunno if it's hard by Autopian standard) is Toyota (Corolla). For the Honda paints, #80 with the W8000 pad on the ROTARY would mostly do the job. For Toyota, #83 with the same pad on the ROTARY will do (no need for the W7000). They're all 99% swirl-free. But yes, the shiny oils were really apparent. (or they could have filled the 1%)



Am I missing your point? Is it like saying that those minor leftover swirls which weren't eliminated by the abrasives will just be filled?



On a hard clear, what if I try a second pass then another, and so on until, it's 100% optically perfect?



Do you think it is possible? Will that be a good idea to cope with #80 or #83's shortcomings?
 
Just to chime in because this discussion is kind of interesting, Meguiar's compounds, paint cleaners and cleaner/polishes use diminishing abrasives that are embodied in a lubricating film, Meguiar's uses the term buffered abrasives. It is this lubricating film, (of which Meguiar's trade secret polishing oils are only a single component of a complex formula), which lubricates the surface while it's being abraded to prevent heavy scratching and scouring.



You could use some type of abrasive and mix it with solvent or water and cut the finish but the results will not look good, so it kind of defeats the purpose of buffing out the paint, if in fact the purpose of buffing out the paint is to make it look good.



So what is the definition of a filler?



If you remove the ingredients that you classify as fillers, then what can be used to lubricate the surface?



How do you avoid scratching and scouring the surface?



Mike
 
You could use the water:alcohol mix or the Prepsol type product to check and see what defects are still left behind.



I don't get how Menzerna and 3m ( and others) can pull it off without fillers :nixweiss



I don't see anything left behind when I use them and even after using the solutions just to double check, the results are still the same.
 
To a simple layman, an ingredient that hides defects or parts of defects left over after the polishing process. To clarify I mean the Perfect It III RC and MG not the other stuff, especially the SMR and the Glaze.



In my experience the results are "what you see is what you get". If there's no defects present any more, then indeed they are truly are gone. I even did the water:alcohol test /Prep All, results were still the same.



Understandably so much of the results are going to depend on technique.
 
Mike,



Thanks for chiming in, I always enjoy your input. For the purpose of my question, I've defined fillers as something left behind to hide what's left of imperfections that the mechanical action of the abrasives didn't remove.



While I understand the need for certain additives to the abrasive that make it workable, (like Menzerna FPII, I guess) I'm more interested in the additives that "hide" imperfections.



On another note, the reason I ask is that I'm wondering if a super-squeaky clean surface with nothing left behind will accept and retain an LSP better than a surface with a "glaze". Any thoughts on that?



Jason



edit... Bill and I posted almost simultaneously. What he said!
 
That sure seems logical to me. If a chemical,"filler" film of some sort is left behind on a paint surface when a LSP, especially a non cleaning, pure sealant is placed over it, that product has to bond with the filler already on the paint rather than the paint itself as it is intended to do. At least in the case of pure sealants, it seems to be the product's ability to do it's job is hindered if a filler is on the paint.



A concern about fillers is also how long lived they are: Do they easily wash off after a few car washing sessions? Do environmental conditions such as heat diminish them in an unreasonable amount of time?



The issue of polishes that contain fillers which hide existing and remaining paint defects seems to me to be a principal concern for those who use "pure sealant" LSPs and/or are simply "purist" detailers/enthusiasts ( guilty as charged).



It comes down to the philosophy of ( of course the specific paint finish allowing to do so), "Why cover, when you can learn how to properly remove the first time?" Well, at least that's my thinking.



Admittedly,the drawback of this approach is that it often results in complaining about stubborn defects and spending loads and loads of time painstakingly attempting to remove them and taking unprecedented steps to avoiding marring in the first place. All depends on the degree of the disease I suppose :o :D
 
If #83 and #80's oils were just for lubrication purposes (which was in fact what I think before), then all polishes like Menzerna, 3M and others that claim to be non-filling is just a misnomer?



Else, if they are 100% filler-free, their consistency would be that of sand...???



Does it mean that you cannot conclude #80, #83, to contain fillers while the Menzernas and 3M don't? It's either they "ALL" contain fillers or they "ALL" don't?
 
Do the water:alcohol and/or Prepsol wipe and see if the particular polish hid anything left behind.



I'm sure some products even within the same brand's line contain fillers and some do not--take 3m SMR vs. PI III MG for example.



The ingredients other than the abrasives in the other brands may (:nixweiss) allow lubrication as to not scour the finish without filling in defects when using proper techniques of course.
 
I agree with Bill. Don't get me wrong though... I'll still use #7 and #16 on my SS black 1968 Galaxie. It looks awesome, and I can devote more attention to that car than my wife's 2000 Passat which is what this excercise is all about. As a matter of fact, I'm going to finish wetsanding the Galaxie with 2500 and polish it out again this spring.



Currently, I finished the Passsat with FPII, AOI, SG and #16 and it's really hanging in there this harsh Connecticut winter. It lives outside and goes throught the carwash once a week.



Since I can get the Meg's stuff at a pretty good discount, I'm wondering if I should pull the trigger on #9, #82 or #83 or just stick with the 3m and FPII. I don't have the time to do an experiment to see if the lsp's stick better without "fillers".



Although...... wouldn't the AOI strip off anything left on the paint anyway?????? Maybe I've just answered my own question.



Jason
 
With all due respect to Bill D.,



I've done that 50:50 water alcohol test on a scrap hood panel which I polished with #80 using W8000 on a rotary. On that part which I scrub with the solution, it left some very very very minor deterioration in the reflections. I guess the it's the #80's film which has been removed, but at any rate, I have not seen light swirls even on the hallogen. #80 could have successfully eliminated the minor swirls but just left some sort of oil-film (i think the paintable polymers)



My scrap hood had always been polished even before since it's my test panel, so the swirls could have been remove by the #80 or some previous polish I tried.
 
Yep, sounds like the #80 did remove them.



Just to clarify, I don't believe products which contain fillers that are designed to polish out paint defects cannot truly do so without relying solely on the fillers. The water:alcohol or Prepsol wipe should show that. Sounds to me, the fillers/oil will always be left behind though.



Lots of variables including the overall condition of the paint, it's hardness and softness, degree of severity of the defect,polishing technique and machine used, etc. etc will likely determine this result. I just like to double check if I'm using a known filler containing polish. That's my rule of thumb if I'm going to use such a product. I personally prefer a non filling polish overall so I don't have to second guess the results as much.
 
Lets keep things in perspective. The oils left behind aren't going to hide much. At best they may make very light swirls more difficult to see. The way this thread is going it sounds like the oils are capable of hiding scratches that go down to bare metal :D



For me it is a non-issue. With the right lighting you should have no problems seeing and removing even the lightest of swirls, even with the oils on the surface.
 
So that means, it all boils down to personal preference. right?



Oh well! That's the beauty of detailing! lots of products to choose from!



Thanks again, Bill D.:bow
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top