Menzerna POWERGLOSS

Illusion said:
Agreed.





I would like to hear how others interpret CMA's description. You can be assured I will be calling Menzerna USA tomorrow and getting the facts from them.
Click to expand...



Not sure what you are looking for, but I would interpret the description to mean it is more aggressive than IP. The fact that the particles are "clustered" and there are twice as many of them, I think the logical inference is that they will have the effect of being larger....and therefore possibly more appropriate for a rotary.



I would be interested in hearing what Menzerna has to say.
 
joebags said:
Well post what they say about using a PC with this stuff. If it is possible then I would like to give the stuff a try on my spoiler. So where can you get a sample of this stuff? I don't want 32 oz of it.
Click to expand...



I use PG, IP, FPII (Micro Polish), and FPI with a PC and get great results. They are my go to polishes and compounds. All four are recommended for Rotary use but work well with the PC. So are others that people use with a PC and get good results. 3M Perfect III RC and MG are two examples.
 
I'm not going to comment on CMA's explanation, but I can give you my experience with the three polishes which I use to use as my main polishes with a PC.



PG is more aggressive, both in function and substance.



Whether its because it contains bigger particles, or smaller ones that are clustered, I don't know. Based on results I'd say its the later. However, PG feels and goes on the surface extremely gritty, unlike IP. It remains gritty for a long time but breaks down enough not to leave marring...but not enough to leave a gloss (thus the name Power GLOSS, and intent)



As far as using it with a PC, PG can be used with a PC with good results. However, a PC can't break it down sufficiently, so you need to finish with IP. When I say "can't break it down sufficiently", I mean that a PC can't generate enough heat to create a result like IP (which is what PG is designed to do). That's why its recommended for rotary use. When used with a rotary you can go from PG to a LSP, or IP to LSP. With a PC you can only go from IP to a LSP.



So in conclusion, in my experience, you can use PG successfully with a PC, but not in the way its intended to finish off. It requires an intermediate step, but that's no biggy.
 
Alfisti said:
I'm not going to comment on CMA's explanation, but I can give you my experience with the three polishes which I use to use as my main polishes with a PC.



PG is more aggressive, both in function and substance.



Whether its because it contains bigger particles, or smaller ones that are clustered, I don't know. Based on results I'd say its the later. However, PG feels and goes on the surface extremely gritty, unlike IP. It remains gritty for a long time but breaks down enough not to leave marring...but not enough to leave a gloss (thus the name Power GLOSS, and intent)



As far as using it with a PC, PG can be used with a PC with good results. However, a PC can't break it down sufficiently, so you need to finish with IP. When I say "can't break it down sufficiently", I mean that a PC can't generate enough heat to create a result like IP (which is what PG is designed to do). That's why its recommended for rotary use. When used with a rotary you can go from PG to a LSP, or IP to LSP. With a PC you can only go from IP to a LSP.



So in conclusion, in my experience, you can use PG successfully with a PC, but not in the way its intended to finish off. It requires an intermediate step, but that's no biggy.
Click to expand...



there you go, i have used PG w/ a PC and have gotten great results...
 
Alfisti said:
I'm not going to comment on CMA's explanation, but I can give you my experience with the three polishes which I use to use as my main polishes with a PC.



PG is more aggressive, both in function and substance.



Whether its because it contains bigger particles, or smaller ones that are clustered, I don't know. Based on results I'd say its the later. However, PG feels and goes on the surface extremely gritty, unlike IP. It remains gritty for a long time but breaks down enough not to leave marring...but not enough to leave a gloss (thus the name Power GLOSS, and intent)



As far as using it with a PC, PG can be used with a PC with good results. However, a PC can't break it down sufficiently, so you need to finish with IP. When I say "can't break it down sufficiently", I mean that a PC can't generate enough heat to create a result like IP (which is what PG is designed to do). That's why its recommended for rotary use. When used with a rotary you can go from PG to a LSP, or IP to LSP. With a PC you can only go from IP to a LSP.



So in conclusion, in my experience, you can use PG successfully with a PC, but not in the way its intended to finish off. It requires an intermediate step, but that's no biggy.
Click to expand...





I agree with your observations with one exception. After PG all I need is FP II to get a ready for LSP finish, I don't need IP.
 
Not to highjack the tread but where can I get a sample of the Powergloss? I don't need nor want 32 oz's of this stuff.



Also please post back after you hear from CMA. I guess if you already have a sample and a PC it can't hurt too much to try it and post your results.
 
Well I phoned CMA and Menzerna USA today to ask about PG.



My first phone call was to CMA. I asked what they where trying to convey in their product description of PG? As I thought they were emphasizing the concentration of the abrasives in PG. They couldn't answer weather they were bigger or not. They said there were twice as many in PG compared to IP.



Phoned Menzerna next. Talked for about 15 min. I asked him why PG is more abrasive than IP. Was it the concentration of abrasive or size? He wanted to know why I wanted to know this and I told him. He laughed hard. He said he couldn't believe the garbage he reads on the on line forums by self titled Menzerna experts. He went on to explain that the abrasives in PG are totally different than IP. They are aluminum oxide and there are 2 1/2 times more abrasives in PG than IP not 2 times more as CMA says. Size was not an issue in what made PG more abrasive. Concentration and type of abrasive are. He went on to explain type but he got pretty technical. Much more chemistry goes into this than you would think. He advised me to stay away from on line car care forums :chuckle:





Just in case any body is interested I asked about the whole FP being reformulated into FPII and Micro polish being relabeled as FP II. FP II is in fact Micro Polish. CMA did ask for a polish that would not dry up like FP was and Menzerna suggested Micro Polish. CMA Markets it as FP II. FP was still available but he says it is now discontinued. I asked about the oils that apparently are in FP II. He said all polishes and compounds have lubricants and FP did to. FP II does not have fillers and does not fill and people who say other wise are totally wrong. I thanked him for his time and info and he advised me again to stay away from the crap on the forums. It's funny the guy from 303 gets a laugh out of the forums to.
 
Good work. I can live with that. See all it took was a good heated debate and determination to prove a point, and we got to the bottom of this mystery. No hard feelings:)
 
JBM said:
Ok, now that that is settled, do we know if it is PC friendly or not?
Click to expand...



Well? I also thought this was the point in making the calls, so was this discussed?





My other question still stands, where can one get a sample of this stuff without buying 32 ozs?
 
Menzerna says that the abrasives need the heat of a rotary to brake down properly. I use the PC and an orange pad on 6 and I get good results. Usually only need FP to follow up.
 
Illusion said:
Menzerna says that the abrasives need the heat of a rotary to brake down properly. I use the PC and an orange pad on 6 and I get good results. Usually only need FP to follow up.
Click to expand...



But what did they say about the SIZE of the abrasives used?



:nixweiss
 
Rob Tomlin said:
But what did they say about the SIZE of the abrasives used?



:nixweiss
Click to expand...



Like I said in my post when I asked about the size he said it wasn't the size but the amount and type. Don't assume that the abrasive has to be bigger to be more aggressive. They can put more of them in the product and that will increase the abrasive level. Also the type of abrasive will increase or decrease the abrasive level. He said type could be what the abrasive is made of and/or shape of the abrasive.



Also as I said Menzerna said you need the heat that a rotary will produce to break down PG properly. Having said that I use with a PC no problem.
 
Illusion said:
Like I said in my post when I asked about the size he said it wasn't the size but the amount and type. Don't assume that the abrasive has to be bigger to be more aggressive. They can put more of them in the product and that will increase the abrasive level. Also the type of abrasive will increase or decrease the abrasive level. He said type could be what the abrasive is made of and/or shape of the abrasive.



Also as I said Menzerna said you need the heat that a rotary will produce to break down PG properly. Having said that I use with a PC no problem.
Click to expand...



Makes sense to me.
 
Has anyone used Powergloss on a dark color car and went right to FP II ? I recently purchased PG, IP and FP II and I'm still playing around with them. I detailed a dark red pickup the other day and used Powergloss followed by Intensive poilsh and then Final Polish II. The truck came out incredible, but I was wondering of the IP in the middle was really necessary? Could I have gone straight to the FP II with out any swirl marks? Thanks!
 
Has anyone used Powergloss on a dark color car and went right to FP II ? I recently purchased PG, IP and FP II and I'm still playing around with them. I detailed a dark red pickup the other day and used Powergloss followed by Intensive poilsh and then Final Polish II. The truck came out incredible, but I was wondering of the IP in the middle was really necessary? Could I have gone straight to the FP II with out any swirl marks? Thanks!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top