meg's polishes and compounds without fillers

rjstaaf said:
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
Click to expand...



I don't really see it that way. Stuff visible under the harshest of lighting conditions is sort of a big deal to some of us :o I admit to being rather purist in my approach.





Personal preference, yep, never disputing that. Just make sure all the products you plan on using are compatible. That's probably the biggest concern if there's a significant one.
 
Bill D said:
I don't really see it that way. Stuff visible under the harshest of lighting conditions is sort of a big deal to some of us :o I admit to being rather purist in my approach.
Click to expand...



What is this statement supposed to mean? Lets climb down off that high horse Bill ;) Defects are no more of a big deal to you than they are to anyone else here.



Define "purist"? Seems more like you simply have different product preferences, that doesn't make your approach more "pure" than anyone elses. :nixweiss
 
Bob,



He he, no high horse here and by no means I am frowning upon anyone who is using products other than those I used as examples in my posts here.I mean the stuff we're discussing is like a "bad" scratch to Autopians is it not? ;)



What I mean by purist is scrutining over each step of the detailing process and doing one's best to understand the process of why the steps work the way they do. It doesn't mean if you don't use a certain brand of polish, understood everyone has their favorites, you can't be meticulous or do an over-the top job.
 
Bill D said:
Bob,



He he, no high horse here and by no means I am frowning upon anyone who is using products other than those I used as examples in my posts here.I mean the stuff we're discussing is like a "bad" scratch to Autopians is it not? ;)



What I mean by purist is scrutining over each step of the detailing process and doing one's best to understand the process of why the steps work the way they do. It doesn't mean if you don't use a certain brand of polish, understood everyone has their favorites, you can't be meticulous or do an over-the top of the job.
Click to expand...



That I can agree with :xyxthumbs
 
rjstaaf said:
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.
Click to expand...



Well, this is one of the things I'm wondering... The black ss paint on my Galaxie still has lots of gross marks from the 1200 wetsanding that the 3m compound and wool bonnet with the pc didn't take out. That's ok though, since I just did a few panels to get started and will finish the whole car in 2500 next spring.



The #7 fills those marks BEAUTIFULLY so you can only see the deepest ones. Obviously #7 is purely a glaze with no abrasive quality, and Meg's eighties and #9 probably don't have near the "filling" properties of #7. I guess that's why it's hard to find one product that "does it all"!!



Jason
 
Anyone ever do a durability test of a sealant ontop of #7, #83, and #80, or is all this talk about stuff left behind just a guess?
 
If you mean fillers left behind, you'll know right away if there were any present with the water:alcohol and/or Prepsol wipe down. I make it a habit to wipe down with the water:alcohol solution at every step right up until I get to the application of the LSPs
 
What i meant was, people talk about bonding issues with fillers and a sealant. Has anyone ever tested this?
 
Personally, I like Meguiars TS oils because they add richness to the paint. I also like to completely remove defects (at least to the extent they can be eliminated) and since #80 and #83 (for example) actually do have some bite to them, plus lay down oils that visibly add depth and richness to the paint, I prefer them.



I realize some people prefer the paint to look as it did when it first rolled out of the paint booth and adding oils to the paint does somewhat change that look but to me it is an improvement. To others, it detracts from the original beauty of the paint. Different strokes.
 
Bill D said:
If you mean fillers left behind, you'll know right away if there were any present with the water:alcohol and/or Prepsol wipe down. I make it a habit to wipe down with the water:alcohol solution at every step right up until I get to the application of the LSPs
Click to expand...



When I detailed my neighbor's car, I started it just after she went out of town but figured I'd finish it up the day she was getting back. It sat for 9 days, including a couple rainy ones with only #80 as protection. After 9 days in the elements and a QEW wash, the paint still looked freshly polished and defect free. Either those TS oils are more durable than I thought, or #80 really did remove the spider swirls and light scratches. :)
 
I believe it when people say #80 , and Meg's polishes in general for that matter, can actually remove defects. I hope it didn't come across that I don't or worse, that I think Meg's is crap or anything like that.
 
I'm do not have either the experience or knowledge of many on this board, but let me share my thoughts on this subject. I have a Jet Black M3 that I purchased new a little over 2 years ago. I do not care how diligent I am, there is no way this paint is going to ever be perfect. With the right light, from the right angle up close enough, you will see paint defects. And I've used numerous polishes and compounds including those that "do not contain any fillers." Nonetheless, my car looks fantastic, and it is iimportant to me that it to look this way for a long time. If it is true that fillers in certain polishes "hides" certain defects, then perhaps I will not to remove as much clearcoat each time I detail. This will allow me to keep this car in "like new" condition longer, if my reasoning is correct.
 
I understand where BillD is coming from (I think :D). Its similar to my thinking.



I don't think anyone is criticizing any product with/without fillers, especially Megs (which I like).



Both the presence and absence of ingredients that conceal/add oils have their merits.



I think the only aspect of fillers/oils that *I* consider a negative, is that when I polish are car *I* would like to know how much of the defect I've actually removed before stopping.



Preferably, I'd like to remove all defects...but if that requires that I make 8 passes with #83, I'd rather not. I'd rather do several passes and let whatever TS oils are left to enhance the finish.



If on the other hand one pass removes all defects, then great. I've achieved the most desirable outcome.



However, how do I know that the surface is blemish free? How do I know that with just one more pass it will be blemish free? How do I know that it will take too much time (if the customer is unwilling to pay) to perfect it and I should move to the next step?



Only by seeing the results without any concealers, and TS oils/fillers interferes with that.
 
Very well said.

If i am charging someone for defect removal, i want to know where i am at. It is hard enough to look at paint and give them an honest price. If i use fillers i always wonder if i got it all and if it is affecting the LSP.
 
These are two different ways of arriving at the same appearance.



I personally do both. I use 83 or 80, then the Menzerna. Then I glaze with 7 or 81, because I love that look and think it makes the car look its best.



My opinion is that some of our preferences for LSPs are less forgiving than others. Me having a red single stage car, I'm a wax guy and my LSP will tolerate trade secret oils, (usually because it's going to be a Meguiar's product ;)). But if I was a hard-core Klasse guy, or a Zman, I'd be all over making sure those swirls were gone, because that hard reflection look can be pretty unforgiving sometimes.



Some products work best this way; some work best that way. The only yardstick is how the car looks. If I fill my swirls, but do it once a week, that's no different than eliminating them once a year, really. The car still looks great. Use no other measure.





Tom
 
Mosca said:
These are two different ways of arriving at the same appearance..................................................................
Click to expand...



:up



Some products work best this way; some work best that way. The only yardstick is how the car looks. If I fill my swirls, but do it once a week, that's no different than eliminating them once a year
Click to expand...



Just don't forget involved washing procedures :o. They really could cut down on the swirls and make the next detail even easier :xyxthumbs
 
Back to the original question. What if any Meg's polishes/compounds are available without "fillers"?



Is it just the low numbered ones recommended for rotary use only?



Jason
 
tripper_11 said:
Accumulator:



The only paint I've worked on are mostly Asian cars.. 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?
Click to expand...



Heh heh, I was away from this thread for a day and just look at all the drama I missed :D



I'm not implying that #80 has "shortcomings", just that it's not a huge favorite of mine. I don't mean to over-empahsize the hiding abilities of the oils, they just gave me an unpleasant surprise. Again, yeah, they *did* conceal some fine stuff that I thought I'd removed. Maybe there aren't "fillers" or "concealing agents" in #80, but I saw what I saw and I attribute it to the Trade Secret Oils or perhaps the "fresh-paint-safe polymer protection" that #80 leaves behind. A different product, such as 3M PI-III RC or MG wouldn't have removed the marring any better, but those products would not have made it *appear as if it were removed* either. So yeah, the Meg's made it "look better", until I went over it with the paint cleaner. Had I just gone over the #80 with my LSP it would've looked better period so maybe my approach was flawed.



I don't know if multiple passes would've removed everything as I only went over the car twice. I suppose so, but trying to do 100% perfect correction on the Audis really calls for a rotary anyhow and I wasn't gonna deal with the masking/sling/other rotary issues. In a few spots I went over some isolated scratches numerous times, but they were just too severe for #80/Cyclo to completely remove.



stiege- Heh heh, you're just *not* getting a straight answer to this huh? Maybe Mike will chime in... but note how we don't even really agree about what a "filler" is! Honestly, for what you're concerned about, I would just use a different product. In fact, that's what I do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top