Carnauba comparison: Megs 16, Megs 26, Mother's Step 3

groucho · 01-12-05, 04:59

Please help. In my weekly amateur detailing sprees, I have come to realize that I prefer a carnauba topper on UPP on a daily driver with single stage red paint (no clearcoat). I used to wash, clay, AIO, and UPPx2. But on a whim, I applied some Megs Crystal Step 3 carnauba, and I was awed at the difference. So now, I think I will always carnauba after the sealant.

My Megs Crystal Step 3 is about to be consumed. So, I'm looking for a dependable, reasonably priced, and worthwhile carnauba to take its place.

Am actually focusing my attention on either Megs 16, Megs 26, or Mother's Step 3 Pure Carnauba. I've researched and searched high and low among the threads in Autopia and even in other boards, but somehow I have ended up more confused. That's probably because I haven't come across any direct comparison of the three.

So, which one should I choose? And what advantage does one product have over the other two? And should I choose to use the carnauba to top off a light colored or metallic car, which wax would be best of the three?

Thank you so much for your kind attention.

tripper_11 · 01-12-05, 05:35

reading on these threads and the megs forum and based on my own usage, #26 seemed to darken the paint (depth) while adding gloss, whereas #16 provides more reflection as it adds gloss but not necessarily darken the paint.

#26 is a soft wax thus easy on easy off, whereas the #16 is a hard wax (thickly composed of its chemicals) and thus an old technology and is not easy on easy off. (hard rubbing) thus you may want to apply it as thin as possible to avoid hard rubbing. However, since #16 is a hard wax, I find it more durable and have it bead for 1.5 mos. - 2 mos., but I don't experience this durability on #26.

#26 combines carnauba with some synthetics and resins for filling, whereas #16 is only carnauba.

#16 looks wetter than #26 since the latter is darker (depth) than the former.

#16 looks a lot like S100 whereas #26 looks more like NXT or some other wax that darkens the paint.

#16 is good for light colored cars since it adds more reflections, whereas #26 is good for dark colored cars since it doesn't need more reflections but added gloss and depth.

IMO, Mom's phase 3 is a balance of #16's wet look and reflections and #26's glossy darkening effect. But you don't achieve both extremes.

This is all based on my "subjective" observation on my Silver metallic CR-V. Currently, I used #26 to darken the paint especially the curves. I seldom used my #16 because I'm not fond of more reflections but rather I'm for added depth and I like #26's swirl hiding ability which IMO is similar to NXT's but cheaper.
However some Zaino bottles are in my arsenal just in case the need arises for some extreme detailing!

It's just me...The best of the 3 will always be that which looks best in your own eyes after conducting your own experiment.

EDIT:

The depth which I refer to in #26 is more apparent on the curved portions of the body of the car. #26 darkens this curves since it absorbs light from a different angle, whereas #16 doesn't provide this darkening on the curves.

As previously said, these are just my own observations.

Knockwurst · 01-12-05, 06:01

Agreed . . . #26 does appear to be deeper and darker than #16. Though #16 is more durable and brilliant. Try applying multiple layers of #16 to create more depth.

Mosca · 01-12-05, 06:18

I'd say tripper hit it pretty accurately. They are ALL excellent waxes, btw, and you'd do no worse choosing any one of them.

Tom

Alfisti · 01-12-05, 06:27

Nice comparison, tripper. I think your observations are very accurate, IMO.

Well done.

audio1der · 01-12-05, 06:49

I don't beleive yo umentioned whether you were looking at the liquid or paste versions of those waxes.
A word to the wise; Mothers Step 3 is a nice looking wax, but Meg's #26 (havne't used #16 and can't get it in Canada

) is MUCH easier to buff off, lasts longer and does look better overall.
Mothers step 3 is the hardest wax I've EVER had to buff off. It darn near gave me tennis elbow after 1 car- and that was with a proper light coat :scared
Hope this helps

jfelbab · 01-12-05, 06:57

Just to chime in with my observations.

I own a 1991 Red (SS) MR2. I went through the same deliberations you are and I've gone through the same products and several more looking for my favorite look. #26 gave me what I wanted.

That is, until I used NXT. I look at NXT as the perfect blend of darkening and depth that #26 yields and the highly reflective wet look of #16.

Check out my library for images of the MR2.

As others have mentioned, any of the products mentioned will do a great job. The look we are after is a matter of personal choice so there are no wrong answers. Just as I like sausage, onions, peppers and mushrooms on my pizza, we all have slightly different tastes. In fact we all see colors slightly differently. Suffice it to say, if you prep your vehicle properly, any of the products you mentioned will yield a stunning look.

kartoon · 01-12-05, 07:33

I've used #16 and Mother's 3-step on my wife's car.
To me Mother's looked better but the durabilit just wasn't there. #16 has been going on strong - 3 months and counting.

vapore0n · 01-12-05, 08:29

tom me, #26 is a lot slicker than #16. But it doesnt have the durability #16 has.
1-2 coats have lasted me 4 months and counting.

groucho · 01-13-05, 04:33

tripper, thank you for your detailed comparison. That does give me some enlightenment. And the rest of the guys seem to agree with your observations. And with your words, and the concurrence of many others who have contributed to this thread, I shall mull things over and make a decision.

Quote:

Originally posted by audio1der
I don't beleive yo umentioned whether you were looking at the liquid or paste versions of those waxes.

audiolder, I was quite aware that I did not refer to paste or liquid. That was because I didn't want to complicate my questions. But now that you mention it, what is the advantage of one over the other?

And inevitably, S100 is mentioned in the thread. tripper, S100 is like 16, you say? Which one do you prefer over the other? And is S100 as durable as 16?

Again, thanks for all the answers.

Knockwurst · 01-13-05, 06:13

And is S100 as durable as 16?

#16 is much more durable than S100. I get about 3-4 weeks of protection from S100 and 6-12 weeks from #16.

BigLeegr · 01-13-05, 07:24

Basic difference between paste and liquid is application. Liquid is easier to use via machine application, but paste may also be used this way, just a little more labor intensive (get paste out of can-putty knife or get whole "chunk" out of can- apply it to pad, then go). Liquid is squirt and go.

About the same look/longevity between liquid and paste versions of the same brand. (liquid and paste Souveran are exceptions, though, IMO)