The Official: Hardness of Clear thread

I

imported_d00t

New member
As many of us have come to realize, every automakers paint (clear) is generally different types of hardness. We can all agree that honda clear is very soft, and BMW clear is very hard.



After tons of searching on here, I couldn't find a thread that listed what the hardness of each clear, and what people have found to be generally useful on that clear. While I know every paint requires a different routine to use, I think we can all come to the same conclusion that certain makers require more work than others. I'll continue to update the first post as soon as I get more info.



I'll start:



Honda:

Soft Clear

Menzerna SIP or IP



Chime in everyone! I'll update the list as frequently as possible,
 
It would be better if you were more specific. List the exact car you worked on and the softness/hardness of the paint. That way you won't get surprised when a slightly different car has completely different paint.
 
I could do that also. My main reason for posting this is because say I go to detail a toyota? It's not that popular of a detail so I don't automatically think "this is going to require more cut because the clear is generally harder" kind of idea. This is my main reason for starting this is to give a quick reference guide, as well as what products are a general go-to for that type of clear from a certain automaker.



I can make it a lot more specific but I wanted to keep it as general as possible and more of a quick reference guide. Which would everyone prefer? I can change it around to Holden's idea if you all think it'd be more beneficial.
 
d00t said:
This is my main reason for starting this is to give a quick reference guide, as well as what products are a general go-to for that type of clear from a certain automaker.
Click to expand...



I dont think that is a very good idea, seems pointless. Every single car is different, hell every panel could be different. The way people work the product is different, the pad they use, the machine they use, etc. I dont think there is a general go- to for any type of clear.
 
Unfortunately I think it's impossible to nail down which cars are "hard" or "soft", for example, you mentioned we would all agree BMW clear is hard...well, I don't agree entirely. I do agree that *generally* BMW's can be harder to correct than other cars, but some of their cars, in particular late model flat colors, are incredibly soft. There are a number of threads on this forum specifically about jet black e90/e92 BMWs being unbearably soft. I've worked on ~2 dozen of them, 5+ crimson red and 10+ alpine white, and they were all very, very soft.



I really do think if we tried to list which cars have hard or soft clears we would almost have to go over every model of every year of every make, and I still think there would be disagreements.
 
D&D Auto Detail said:
I dont think that is a very good idea, seems pointless. Every single car is different, hell every panel could be different. The way people work the product is different, the pad they use, the machine they use, etc. I dont think there is a general go- to for any type of clear.
Click to expand...



+1



There is a thread like this on AG that is pretty useless, you really can't make generalizations about various manufacturers and paints hardness, it can vary from color to color within the same car maker (BMW is one example of this).
 
Picus said:
Unfortunately I think it's impossible to nail down which cars are "hard" or "soft", for example, you mentioned we would all agree BMW clear is hard...well, I don't agree entirely. I do agree that *generally* BMW's can be harder to correct than other cars, but some of their cars, in particular late model flat colors, are incredibly soft. There are a number of threads on this forum specifically about jet black e90/e92 BMWs being unbearably soft. I've worked on ~2 dozen of them, 5+ crimson red and 10+ alpine white, and they were all very, very soft.



I really do think if we tried to list which cars have hard or soft clears we would almost have to go over every model of every year of every make, and I still think there would be disagreements.
Click to expand...



I buffed an Audi recently and it had the softest paint I had ever touched. So, yeah. You can't generalize by manufacturer.
 
I think this is a good idea. There are generalisations that can be appiled to cars -



From the cars Ive detailed in the last 2 months;



93 Integra Hard

2005 Integra Soft

2002 subura Legacy Hard

2005 Suzuki Lapio Hard

2003 Honda Stepwagon Soft

2006 Honda Hobio Medium

2007 Honda Odyssey Medium



This information could be transferred into an XML format - similar to what I and others did for mobile phones;



WURFL



<maker="Honda" fall_back="" id="Honda">

<model id="Integra">

<range id="TypeR">

<detail name="year" value="94_06"/>

<detail name="paint_depth" value="soft"/>

<detail name="color" value="all"/>

</range>

</model>

</maker>



There will be exceptions to the rule, as mentioned above, but those can be tagged.



For the seasoned pro, maybe this kind of information wont be so useful. but for the rest of us, having knowledge of a car's paint pre-detail will help greatly.
 
Hmm. I guess I've been outbid on this! You guys have all made very good points that I didn't take in to considertation. I guess the only general rule with clear is to test, test, and test some more.



Thanks for the input, I learned some new stuff today ;)
 
Bigpoppa3346 said:
I don't even think it could be a good reference. One person's perception of "hard" could be another's "medium", etc.
Click to expand...





Whilst paint hardness and softness is sometimes subjective, the subjectism comes mostly from not having a standardised barometer to which to measure.



The question of "How hard is the paint on a XXXX car?" is probably one of the most commonly asked question and at the moment is subject to subjective replies.
 
Bigpoppa3346 said:
I don't even think it could be a good reference. One person's perception of "hard" could be another's "medium", etc.
Click to expand...



Yep. Plus theres just way too many factors to consider besides just the info about the car.
 
Plus, temperature and humidity play a role in how the polishes are working, and the swirls could be "light" in appearance, but actually deep in the paint, all affecting ones perception of paint hardness.
 
Well thanks guys! It was definitely worth the effort. I guess it's like when you're in grade school and the teacher gives a subjective manner and there's always that one kid who says "What if xxxx" then the teacher answers "because than THIS would happen" then he raises his hand again and says "BUT WHAT IF *THIS* HAPPENS?"



What it comes down to is people have their own set of opinions on what "is hard" but lets be honest, we all have an idea of what hard is, and it's not that different, but there's too many people here throwing out what ifs to make this kind of thread happen.



Again, all very good what ifs, but just too much variation from one person to another. Was worth a shot though, I suppose..
 
d00t said:
Well thanks guys! It was definitely worth the effort. I guess it's like when you're in grade school and the teacher gives a subjective manner and there's always that one kid who says "What if xxxx" then the teacher answers "because than THIS would happen" then he raises his hand again and says "BUT WHAT IF *THIS* HAPPENS?"



What it comes down to is people have their own set of opinions on what "is hard" but lets be honest, we all have an idea of what hard is, and it's not that different, but there's too many people here throwing out what ifs to make this kind of thread happen.
Click to expand...



That's the point though.



Paint hard/softness isnt subjective, its factual. Ok, its factual with variables, but it isn't dark arts. Its science.



Its just that no collection of people have as of yet made the effort to define the rules by which is should be studied.



Yes, there are variables in the usage of polish; temperature, depth of swirls, etc. But those aspects don't really need definition yet - or the process for defining that has yet to evolve, though it surely will. A rough "ball park" estimation is sufficient.



By apply a schema to what is now mostly considered subjective, then the process begins to become factual.



The same arguments where raised against many similar projects - the mobile phone one was one, 'too many variables' they said. But the arguments are really about whether people can be arsed to submit and maintain the data.
 
SpoiledMan said:
Yeah, I'm with those that say it doesn't work. D&D pretty much sums it up for my thoughts.
Click to expand...



I still think it could form part of a general guide. Don't take it too seriously and it could be really beneficial to you.



Here's my contribution:



2008 Audi TT

Black

Butter Soft



2001 Corvette Z06

Black

Hard



2004 Mazda 3

Blue

Medium-Soft



2006 VW GTI

White

Soft
 
It's like asking if a Z06 is fast. Going from my Integra GS-R, yes it is. Coming from a top fuel dragster it's pretty slow. See how that works? It's going to be different strokes for different folks that have different experiences.
 
SpoiledMan said:
It's like asking if a Z06 is fast. Going from my Integra GS-R, yes it is. Coming from a top fuel dragster it's pretty slow. See how that works? It's going to be different strokes for different folks that have different experiences.
Click to expand...



Hmmm...you're right. Perhaps only rotary users are allowed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top