What to use after SMR??

W

WS6Fury

New member
What should I use after SMR'ing a car?



Usually I go straight to carnuba wax. What about everyone else??



How about 3M's glaze? Is this good stuff. i got a bottle, but I may return it. Figured maybe glase the paint, then carnuba it. Or should I do something before the glaze??
 
I use Clearkote's Vanilla Moose between swirl removers and wax. Leaves the paint as wet looking as Meguiars Hand Polish (similar to 3Ms IHG), but much easier to use since the excess wipes off without smearing. It also leaves the paint real slick like S100 SEC/P21S SEPC, but has slightly more cutting power in case any slight scratches or swirls still remain after using an SMR.
 
Fury, I guess that all depends on what your level of satisfaction is....If you like the way it looks after SMR, go with your favorite sealer/wax.....Like Scott said, he prefers the Moosewax brand....(In still waiting on mine Scott, I bought due to your rave reviews!) I currently use BF II, thats what makes me...well, you know...happy ...:bounce
 
WS6Fury said:
What should I use after SMR'ing a car?
Click to expand...
If you're looking for the very best final appearance you can top the SMR with something with a finer abrasive and some fillers such as P21S GEPC and then top that with a glaze that is all filler and no abrasive such as 3M IHG.
 
Just curious what purpose the GEPC would serve after SMR? what would it do for you I guess is the question that I am wondering about?
 
Going from SMR to GEPC to IHG is like going from a low number sandpaper to a high number sandpaper to a burnishing cloth. Each step removes the marks left by the previous step.



SMR has mild abrasives and no filler. GEPC has very mild abrasives and filler & oils, IHG has fillers and oils, but no abrasives.
 
Okay, thanks everyone for the good info!



Now, btw these two items listed in this thread, moose wax, and GEPC, which one should I use after SMR. I want the best overall appearance I can possibly get! Are these two fine polishes somewhat similar, in that I can use a sealer afterwards, then wax?
 
I just returned a bottle of the 3M perfect III polish/Glaze because I found it was very difficult to buff off. It required a great deal of pressure by hand and it still left a greasy like haze on the paint. It was hard to get off.
 
WS6Fury said:
Okay, thanks everyone for the good info!



Now, btw these two items listed in this thread, moose wax, and GEPC, which one should I use after SMR. I want the best overall appearance I can possibly get! Are these two fine polishes somewhat similar, in that I can use a sealer afterwards, then wax?
Click to expand...



I've used both S100 SEC and Vanilla Moose and I prefer Vanilla Moose...which, after talking to Mr. Glass, I have found will protect the paint. It does have protective properties. No wonder it leaves the paint so slick and smooth! You don't have to top it unless you want to!
 
Scottwax said:
I've used both S100 SEC and Vanilla Moose and I prefer Vanilla Moose...which, after talking to Mr. Glass, I have found will protect the paint. It does have protective properties. No wonder it leaves the paint so slick and smooth! You don't have to top it unless you want to!
Click to expand...



Is this something that will negate the use of say Zaino, collinites, or any other good waxes when used in combination with? Or would I have to remove its protective properties first?
 
WS6Fury said:
Oh yeah, is GEPC a polish and glaze? And is Moosewax a polish and glaze? Or are they both just polishes??
Click to expand...



Both are very,very, very mild polishers (cleansers) and glazes. They both perform great. Work into surface until almost completely gone and buff remaining residue to a high gloss. Easy on and easy off. I can not answer which is better because I use a 3-step process Vanilla Moose, 3M IHG followed by P21S GEPC as my final prep.

On my daily drivers I use VM and GEPC by themselves and they work great alone also. I always top with a sealant or wax for added protection.:wavey
 
blkZ28Conv said:
Both are very,very, very mild polishers (cleansers) and glazes. They both perform great. Work into surface until almost completely gone and buff remaining residue to a high gloss. Easy on and easy off. I can not answer which is better because I use a 3-step process Vanilla Moose, 3M IHG followed by P21S GEPC as my final prep.

On my daily drivers I use VM and GEPC by themselves and they work great alone also. I always top with a sealant or wax for added protection.:wavey
Click to expand...



wouldn't IHG be after GEPC? I thought IHG was strictly a hand glaze with no polishing abilities?
 
WS6Fury said:
wouldn't IHG be after GEPC? I thought IHG was strictly a hand glaze with no polishing abilities?
Click to expand...





Technically, IHG has no physical abrasives but it does have solvents that aid with its prepping of a finish. I have performed this task with IHG being the last applied or in the middle. My personal appearance and surface prep goals were met with GEPC being worked into the finish last. I also feared having too much oil remaining on the finish prior to application of my protective sealant and some of these oils are removed by the GEPC which itself has oils but its formulation is not as predominated by oils as an ingredient has in IHG. Also GEPC leaves such a even streak-free finish that any surface unevenness created by IHG is easily rectified.
 
blkZ28Conv- Thanks for clarifying the Vanilla Moose-IHG-GEPC combo. That's something I plan to try out soon and I was wondering just how to go about it, concerned with one product removing the previous one, etc. As the XJS's (terrible) paint thins, glazes become more and more appealing.



I'm guessing that you "work in" the GEPC VERY gently, to avoid removing too much of the underlying glazes, correct? Any other tips on keeping these products complimentary/compatible?
 
A couple of months ago I did some side by side comparisons of 3M SMR, P21S GEPC, and 3M IHG. I put three small scratches on my bumper as a test area and used 10X and 14X loupes to check the effects of the products on the scratches. Cotton balls were used to apply the products and microfiber towels for removal. Only the effect of the products on the scratches was checked as I’m not interested in the amount of residual oils.



SMR easily rounded the edges of its scratch and did not leave any observable filler in the scratch.

GEPC slightly rounded the edges of its scratch and left some filler in the scratch.

IHG did not round the edges of the its scratch and left more filler in the scratch than GEPC.



After the testing I rounded the IHG scratch using SMR, then spritzed the test area with a car shampoo/water solution and wiped it dry, then repeated with a QD. Very little, if any, of the filler was removed. Next I used IHG to completely fill all three scratches, repeated the two step wipe down, and topped with Z-1 and Z-5. No trace of the testing could be seen.



Conclusions:

SMR has very fine abrasives and not fillers.

GEPC has extremely fine abrasives and some fillers.

IHG has no abrasives and more fillers.

As a result of this testing my sequence for doing spot scratch repair is to start with SMR, follow with GEPC to smooth any micro-micro-marring left by the SMR, and finish with IHG to do the final filling.
 
I total agree with Nick T's assessment and experiment. Really nice job Nick :xyxthumbs You are a brave man - self-induced marring :bow



The order in which his conclusion revealed a "filling" method which maximizes surface repair ( SMR) and masking (IHG & GEPC). This experiment also detected the ability of the filler to remain in place even with a mild wash and QD application. Extremely important findings.:xyxthumbs



With that said, I still believe the order of IHG and GEPC is dependant on how the final results will appear and be used. If one has two buckets of water ( fillers) one half full and the other 1/4 full and a trough (scratch) that can hold 3/4 full buckets of water, the order in which one empties the buckets into the trough is not important. The trough would be full.

The variable that I take in account for the determination of the order I use is the final appearance and protectant being applied on top.

One: Final surface appearance must be flawless as possible ( reality denotes otherwise:( ) I want the last cleansing/glazing step to be able to work (polish and fill) toward perfection.



Second: I desire the surface to be as sealant compatible as possible using these prep products without the need to remove the residual oils.



The reason I use IHG in the middle is for its increased filling ability over GEPC. "1/2 filled bucket dumped in tough"

I finish up with GEPC is because this product not only has fillers but more importantly has some polishing ability. The trough is now basically filled by working with the GEPC and its dual actions I am able to increase the filling of the trough by not only adding more fillers but also "cutting" down the height of the trough ( edges).



This is all relative and I believe both method ( order ) are justifiable.



Accumulator

I believe Nick's explaination explains the processes that are occuring and I hope I explained why I use my order ( VM,IHG & GEPC). Also I start the intially glazing with a folder terry cloth ( VM and IHG)( Thanks for the tip ScottWax) and final glaze using foam pad. The terry really works the glazes into the finish and helps with repair. The foam is less aggressive.
 
You’ve just taken up another day of my time Edwin! Now I’m forced to experiment with the sequencing of IHG and GEPC. Enquiring minds must seek the truth!
 
I was just going to ask if I could start with SMR, and finish with GEPC, and on to polishing. (Z1-Z2...)

I have a new car with well cared-for paint, but would like to get rid of swirls- not fill them.

Would the SMR/GEPC be the best 2-step prep, as opposed to SMR/IHG?

(OR would SMR/IHG be better for a swirled but not scratched car?)

3M products are readily available here- I'd have to order the P21S product :-(

T.I.A. (Nick, you're my hero!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top