blkZ28Conv said:
Interesting findings Intermezzo.
4DSC
Tweaking the polymer content could possibly decrease the friction coefficent and lead to less abrasion to the CD. So polymer tweaking is not a misnomer for what was done to the new BF. Let's remember that what may abride a CD may not be abrasive to a car's finish. Such a product would be considered non-abrasive for it proper usage. CMA nor BF stated that BF was non-abrasive when applied to a CD. I have applied the original BF to a non-clearcoated hidden area on one of my cars. No color on applicator. This tells me that BF1 was non-abrasive to my car's finish.So to imply that something else was going on or that someone was trying to mis-represent the revision of their product is ill-conceived and without basis. Let's face it, if the original formula of BF was found to be abrasive and the new new not so. Would it not be to CMA's benefit to stress this point.:nixweiss . If this characteristic never existed beyond the CD test than no need to address.
Until someone points out that a CD's finish is a true example of a vehicle's paint finish in hardness, this test is only good for absolute characteristics of a product. Otherwise this CD test is useless for a products usage in the real world.. a car's finish.
JMO:wavey
I found out this weekend that the CD Test has validity in the real world. My Blaze Red Mazda has 2 types of paint due to an accident that replaced one fender and hood (base + clearcoat), and the remainder of the vehicle (conventional). When I bought it, the original finish was heavily oxidized and I have worried about getting adequate protection on it since.
About 5 weeks ago I did a Blackfire treatment of the roof by applying 2 coats of the Blackfire Gloss Enhancing Polish, and 3 coats of the original Blackfire Paint Protectant that I had purchased last August. I was not surprised when the Polish brought up color, but was somewhat surprized when color came up on this conventional coat. I was really disappointed 2 weeks later when I put on one more coat. The applicator definitely turned a bright red.
I had similar issues whenever I used liquid Carnaubas. But in retrospect it was stronger staining and left me questioning about using the product in the future. I contacted CMA technical support I was assured that this was normal for red finishes, and to be expected.
I really liked the look of Blackfire however, and so when the newest version came out I ordered it. This weekend I got the opportunity to try it on this car I did so with astonishing results. I did the hood first and since it had a clearcoat nothing unusual happened. I was astonished however when I did the roof and trunk AND ABSOLUTELY NO COLOR CAME UP.
The applicator use was interesting. I used the foam pad supplied by CMA to put on the original Paint Protectant and a microfiber pad. Even though I washed it by hand at least 5 times and twice in the washing machine. Both pads still showed up with lots of red. When I put the product on the hood and trunk not only was there no color transferred to the pad, but it cleaned out the red in the microfiber pad completely and the yellow foam pad is now slightly blue.
It was so clean that I used the same pads on my white Subaru.
On this vehicle the only thing would not stain an applicator pad was Carnauba Paste Waxes. I was greatly relieved when new Blackfire did the same.
I'm still checking durability, but for now, three cheers for the new Blackfire.
