Menzerna POWERGLOSS

[03Black1.8t]

I know this is suspose to be designed for a rotary but has anyone tried this on the pc? I have a 6-8oz sample bottle and wanted to see if I could get some better results than the ssr 2.5 i am using not. I also have the IP and FP.

 

[imported_jgv]

PG is a cutting compound, you can use it with a PC at speed of 5-6 and work it very well. Don't compare it with SSR 2.5 as it's more like IP.

 

[brwill2005]

PG is pretty gritty, meaning the abrasives are pretty large. They need the heat of the rotary to properly break them down. Using PG with a PC might produce a lot of marring etc.

 

[03Black1.8t]

PG is a cutting compound, you can use it with a PC at speed of 5-6 and work it very well. Don't compare it with SSR 2.5 as it's more like IP.

i thought it was suspose to be stronger than ssr 2.5? I have used IP with little to no results. i dont know if I was using it improperly or what? I used it on my hood with a 4" spot pad on the entire hood and the streaking horrible. I hate that its a darker grey also because it stains the polish pads so bad too. The best results i have had to date have been with van. moose wax for a polish.

 

[stevet]

PG is pretty gritty, meaning the abrasives are pretty large. They need the heat of the rotary to properly break them down. Using PG with a PC might product a lot of marring etc.

This absolutely incorrect. The abrasives in PG are the same size as IP but there is twice as many. Go to CMA's web site and read up on PG.

 

[stevet]

i thought it was suspose to be stronger than ssr 2.5? I have used IP with little to no results. i dont know if I was using it improperly or what? I used it on my hood with a 4" spot pad on the entire hood and the streaking horrible. I hate that its a darker grey also because it stains the polish pads so bad too. The best results i have had to date have been with van. moose wax for a polish.

IP is MUCH more abrasive than Vanilla Moose.

 

[brwill2005]

Illusion- My statement is not at all incorrect. You should read CMA's info more closely. Here is a quote from their webisite "It contains more aggressive, clustered, milled aluminum oxide particles than used in Menzerna Intensive Polish and it contains twice as many of them"! The fact that the PC cannot generate enough heat to break these abrasives down is also correct.

 

[stevet]

Illusion- My statement is not at all incorrect. You should read CMA's info more closely. Here is a quote from their webisite "It contains more aggressive, clustered, milled aluminum oxide particles than used in Menzerna Intensive Polish and it contains twice as many of them"! The fact that the PC cannot generate enough heat to break these abrasives down is also correct.

No where does it say the abrasives are bigger? They go on to emphasize how little compounding haze is left. They even go as far as to call it an end run around physics. How do you get that the abrasives are large from that? Yes it's recommended to be used with a rotary but so is IP and FP and they work great with a PC.

 

[imported_jgv]

What I meant is that SSR2.5 is more like IP, PG has a lot more abrasives, you can break it down with the PC if you work it at high speeds.

 

[brwill2005]

Look man, I am not going to argue with you. The abrasives may be the same size, but they are clustered together, which makes them bigger. Have you ever felt the texture of PG between your fingers? Compare how PG feels with how IP feels. I guarantee PG feels rougher. You may be able to use it with a PC, but the the heat will not be there to break the clusters into the smaller particles which allow it to finish like a polish. Really think about it, how do you expect PG to cut more than IP if the abrasives are not bigger.

 

[stevet]

Look man, I am not going to argue with you. The abrasives may be the same size, but they are clustered together, which makes them bigger. Have you ever felt the texture of PG between your fingers? Compare how PG feels with how IP feels. I guarantee PG feels rougher. You may be able to use it with a PC, but the the heat will not be there to break the clusters into the smaller particles which allow it to finish like a polish. Really think about it, how do you expect PG to cut more than IP if the abrasives are not bigger.

The concentration of abrasives is more in PG. That means there is MORE of them. It cuts more than IP because there is more abrasives doing work. This isn't rocket science "man".

 

[brwill2005]

There is more of them and they are "clustered" together. If they are clustered together that would make them bigger. The point is, that the PC may not be able to properly break down the clustered abrasives contained in PG. If the clustered abrasives are not properly broken down, PG might not finish out like it is designed to. In IP the abrasives are not clustered together. The article in CMA and on other webistes clearly states that the clustered abrasives are designed to "fracture" with heat. Maybe some other members can add to this discussion.

 

[stevet]

Alright you win. Maybe some of the other members with more sense than you will chime in.

You make a lot of assumptions from what you read on CMA. I don't see anything about larger abrasives.The impression I get is that they are trying to emphasize the concentration of abrasives not the size. Another assumption you make is that you have sense.

 

[brwill2005]

Now you are personally atacking me, and I do not take that lightly. I dont come to this forum to be personally attacked. You obviously are not mature enough to debate a topic sensibly.

 

[brwill2005]

I apologize, I edited my last post. Like I stated, maybe some other members can chime in.

 

[stevet]

There is more of them and they are "clustered" together. If they are clustered together that would make them bigger. The point is, that the PC may not be able to properly break down the clustered abrasives contained in PG. If the clustered abrasives are not properly broken down, PG might not finish out like it is designed to. In IP the abrasives are not clustered together. The article in CMA and on other webistes clearly states that the clustered abrasives are designed to "fracture" with heat. Maybe some other members can add to this discussion.

Clustered to me refers to having many or being concentrated. This does not mean size. Many manufactures put bigger abrasives in there more aggressive compounds and simply say the compound is more aggressive. CMA made a point of emphasizing how many abrasives were in PG and how well it finished because of this. They were trying to make a point of how different the abrasives are in PG compared to other products.

 

[brwill2005]

"It contains more aggressive, clustered, milled aluminum oxide particles than used in Menzerna Intensive Polish and it contains twice as many of them"! This is the last post about this for me. Look at the bold print. It is very obvious if you feel the texture of both products on your hands, that the abrasives in PG are larger. We can agree to disagree.

 

[Rob Tomlin]

Oh, don't stop arguing now, this was just getting good!

 

[stevet]

We can agree to disagree.

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.

 

[joebags]

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.

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.