Ultrafina...my experiences

R

RAG

New member
Now that I've had Ultrafina for about 4 months, I thought I'd share my findings (sorry fellas for being MIA on this board for the last year or so...just too busy with work, family, etc...but I'm still doing what I do...throwing down on cars every chance I get).



First I should say I've desperately been hoping for a less expensive, American-made polish that can keep pace with the Menzerna 106 series...so I had high hopes for the Ultrafina. Unfortunately, it falls short overall - though it finishes down just as well as the 106, it has no where near the cut. A couple weeks ago, another Autopian and I got together and sanded a panel on my landcruiser with 2000. I then took two white LC pads and polished 10 times (4 passes each) using both 106FF and Ultrafina on different sides of the panel, and though neither completely removed the sanding scratches, the 106FF was close and the Ultrafina was not. Wih that said, the Ultrafina still has some nice attributes in limited dusting, long work time...and best of all, a little goes a long long way.
 
I wouldn't use UF (or 106 for that matter) to remove sand scratches. UF isn't designed to do anything but remove *fine* buffer trails. I would use it after 106 rather that instead of it. It's a great product to ensure that trails won't return even after it appears that the finish is already swirl free.
 
True, UF is a finishing polish...but so is 106FF...in numerous side by side experiments, I have not been able to tell a difference between the two in regards to how well they finish down, though the 106FF simply removes more of the wash-induced swirls.



Regarding the sanding scratches, obviously I would have used wool with a compound if I wanted to remove the sanding scratches. I simply wanted to make the point that 106 is significantly stronger, and yet 106 still finishes down perfectly...I have never had a problem with rotary swirls returning later that I didn't see at the time, but I'd guess that for those that do experience that problem, another light round of 106 or UF would probably remedy the situation.
 
The only real use for Ultrafina is to remove light rotary holograms without adding any of its own. If you are trying to correct more than the light holograms, you need to step up to a more aggressive product. You can remove light defects with Ultrafina and a polishing pad but to ensure a swirl free finish, you need to follow up the polishing pad with the UF blue pad.



Personally, I love the stuff. All my rotary details end with it prior to waxing.
 
I use 106 and 1Z High Gloss Polish by rotary with a finishing pad, and both of them both remove fine scratches and finish out with zero holograms or marring. On most cars, I usually wet sand the entire car with 2000 or 3000 first, but both products remove all scratches and leave a beautiful finish. I haven't used Ultrafina, but except for paint in near-perfect condition, I'd have no need.
 
I think PO85RD would be the better comparison with Ultrafina. 106 should be used after a compound or even after SIP and then use Ultrafina if you want a three or four step process. But 106 can be used as a final finish. PO85RD and Ultrafina really only bring out the gloss and sometimes can correct the slightest of defects.
 
Using UFSE to remove sanding scratches?!?!?!



Ok whatever product "review" you were trying to enlighten us with was thrown out the window when you compared 106FF (polish) to UFSE (FINISHING polish). :doh



UFSE has zero cut and will only remove fine buffer swirls and holograms from my experience. UFSE should be used with a black, blue, red, or gold LC pad (or equivalent FINISHING pad).



106FF does finish down nice but won't remove holograms for me on soft clears (Honda NHBP for example).



UFSE is an excellent product for it's intended purpose. Just want to clarify this because I feel like you're spreading bad info.



If you want to use some 3M product to compare to 106FF you should try 3M's "Finnesse It" polish. Excellent product (although it's expensive). A cheaper option is CG Pro Polish but it dusts more than the more expensive options.
 
You missed the point of the post--if you re-read what RAG wrote, you'll note that his test was to compare the way the two polishes finished out. His observations are that while they both finish identically to his eye, 106 has more cut than UF and can remove some (not all) sanding scratches. So you can finish down some micro-marring with 106, but not with UF. So, overall, he prefers 106 to UF because of that comparo that he did.
 
landcruiser said:
You missed the point of the post--if you re-read what RAG wrote, you'll note that his test was to compare the way the two polishes finished out. His observations are that while they both finish identically to his eye, 106 has more cut than UF and can remove some (not all) sanding scratches. So you can finish down some micro-marring with 106, but not with UF. So, overall, he prefers 106 to UF because of that comparo that he did.
Click to expand...



I didn't miss any point. I re-read the post multiple times scratching my head every time.



The guy is using UFSE with a white pad. 1st mistake.



The guy is using UFSE to remove sanding scratches. 2nd mistake.



He's comparing apples to oranges. Sorry you disagree.



If he's entitled to his opinion and is allowed to spread (in my mind) bad information then I'm entitled to reply with my opinion and dispute his findings.



UFSE has virtually zero cut so it's obviously going to have less cut than 106FF because it's a FINISHING polish. His comparo is FLAWED. His only finding was about the CUT of 106FF versus UFSE since he thought they finished out identical (which btw is not true either but I'm going to leave that alone).
 
ABQDetailer said:
I didn't miss any point. I re-read the post multiple times scratching my head every time.



The guy is using UFSE with a white pad. 1st mistake.



The guy is using UFSE to remove sanding scratches. 2nd mistake.



He's comparing apples to oranges. Sorry you disagree.



If he's entitled to his opinion and is allowed to spread (in my mind) bad information then I'm entitled to reply with my opinion and dispute his findings.



UFSE has virtually zero cut so it's obviously going to have less cut than 106FF because it's a FINISHING polish. His comparo is FLAWED. His only finding was about the CUT of 106FF versus UFSE since he thought they finished out identical (which btw is not true either but I'm going to leave that alone).
Click to expand...



Agree to disagree, but he's addressed the points about sanding marks in his second post. He's NOT spreading bad info, merely commenting on HIS observations with 106 and UF. You don't agree with him and that's fine. It's one data point for consideration, that's all :xyxthumbs
 
IMO, Ryan did a perfect comparison.



which finishes better? which cuts more?



that is the reason for the same pad, same panel, same number of passes, same etc.



in his findings, they finish about the same, but 106 removed more defects. it wasnt about removing 2000 grit scratches.



what it may come down to is you can finish with 106 without having to use ultrafina, therefore saving you time and money. if doing only a two step, you might have better results with "compound/106" compared to "compound/ultrafina".
 
toyotaguy said:
IMO, Ryan did a perfect comparison.



which finishes better? which cuts more?



that is the reason for the same pad, same panel, same number of passes, same etc.



in his findings, they finish about the same, but 106 removed more defects. it wasnt about removing 2000 grit scratches.



what it may come down to is you can finish with 106 without having to use ultrafina, therefore saving you time and money. if doing only a two step, you might have better results with "compound/106" compared to "compound/ultrafina".
Click to expand...



Exactly! Well put Toyota Guy!
 
Is there really any benefit to a pure finishing polish when there are some really good AIO's on the market that do basically the same thing?
 
wannafbody said:
Is there really any benefit to a pure finishing polish when there are some really good AIO's on the market that do basically the same thing?
Click to expand...



In the case of Ultrafina using the Ultrafina pad to remove light holograms, yes. It doesn't leave any holograms of its own so you can finish with a rotary, which IMO, leaves a better looking finish.
 
Scottwax said:
In the case of Ultrafina using the Ultrafina pad to remove light holograms, yes. It doesn't leave any holograms of its own so you can finish with a rotary, which IMO, leaves a better looking finish.
Click to expand...



+1.



Even on the very softest paints out there, UF with a soft zero cut foam pad will finish out completely hologram free.



On hard clears, I agree that 106 has more correcting power, but on medium and soft clears, I'd say it's a tie. At least, that's been my experience. And honestly, I like using UF so much better I'd rather do two applications of UF than one application of 106; you'd end up getting about the same amount of correction, and the UF is easier to use, remove, and (arguably) leaves a better gloss. I've had 106 leave holograms on soft paint, and that's something you just don't have to worry about with UF. UF is the very finest polish I've ever used. Yeah, i still like other finishing polishes for specific uses, but over all, UF is number one in my book.



It's so fast to use... my go to process has been m105 followed with either one or two applications of UF. So far, there's been very few cars that this hasn't worked very well on. Some have required a middle step of SIP or equivalent, but not many.



If it had just a wee bit more correcting ability (along the lines of MIP), it would be the *ultimate* polish in my book. But it's still pretty amazing... it's able to clean up (most of the time) completely after an M105 or M95 compounding, and finish out completely holo free on the very softest of paints. That's an amazing accomplishment for one polish, IMO.



And the fact that you don't have to work it forever to get these results... ever notice that the bottle says to use something like four passes? That's really all you need per application. Yeah, you can continue to work it longer, but the abrasives are done after four passes. Wipe, reapply, do another four if you need to. Personally, each application, I do two passes with pressure, then lighten up for the third, then the weight of the buffer for the fourth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top