Anyone compared M205 to 3M UF?

[tett]

The 105/205 combo interests me from a two step perspective.



Does 205 finish down as well as UF?



Thanks.



Tett

[termigator]

They`ve been talking about this over at AutoGeek. So far the answer is no. A lot of them are still using UF after going through m205. Apparently they`re finding that m205 doesn`t finish well on the softer paints whereas UF has been better. M205 seems to finish well enough on harder paints though.

[Lumadar]

UF has virtually zero cut, where as M205 offers a relatively substantial amount of cut for a fine polish.



To get M205 to finish out well on extra soft paints you need to adjust your technique to use less pressure, and of course a soft finishing pad.

[PorscheGuy997]

Comparing M205 to Ultrafina is another example of comparing apples to oranges.



M205 does not contain fillers, while Ultrafina does.



The filler in Ultrafina is very durable and will not come off with an IPA wipedown.

[Flashtime]

The filler in Ultrafina is very durable and will not come off with an IPA wipedown.



Where did you get this information?

[Kevin Brown]

Comparing M205 to Ultrafina is another example of comparing apples to oranges.



M205 does not contain fillers, while Ultrafina does.



The filler in Ultrafina is very durable and will not come off with an IPA wipedown.



At this point, I agree with Chris. :dig

We have not brought this up because we both wanted to verify this through thorough testing, but at this time it is pretty well been confirmed in our minds.



There is no doubt that Ultrafina (Ultrafine Polish) is a fantastic product. It is what it is, though.



What is controversial is the claim that Ultrafina has no fillers.

I have seen it leave paint looking perfect, then upon stripping with either naptha or a strong water-based degreaser, there was micro-hazing present still.



I really hope this one does not turn into an online fistfight.

I can`t test much on this because I am slammed with work, and any spare time is being spent working on diagrams and whatnot for "the paper". :work:



There are dozens of autopians using this fine product. Perhaps some of you can test it and post your results?

[Flashtime]

Very interesting and when coming from you KB, i would be inclined to believe it.

I also heard something similar with Menzerna Final Polish(?) by another well

regarded member (now banned).



Could it be that the "fillers" wasn`t necessarily made to hide/fill but, rather,

it has to do with the process itself; trapping solvents/lubricating agents

just beneath the surface. Or somehow the solvents bond with the top most

surface by heat/friction...



I only work on my own paint jobs. And paint does shrink. Solvents evaporate

over a long period of time. And many show car paint jobs - with multiple layers

of base/color and clear - require polishing (again) even after a year; as observed

by others...

[SuperBee364]

I looooove UF, and use it on pretty much every car I do. But yeah, it does fill and conceal defects. However, a post-polishing wash with CW&G followed up with an IPA wipedown (to remove the glossing and rinse agents from the CW&G) works to get rid of the fillers. I do this every time I use a Menz polish, too.



I have yet to find a paint so soft that UF couldn`t finish down nicely.

[Kevin Brown]

...Could it be that the "fillers" wasn`t necessarily made to hide/fill but, rather,

it has to do with the process itself; trapping solvents/lubricating agents

just beneath the surface. Or somehow the solvents bond with the top most

surface by heat/friction...



I would guess that the intent was to create a product that could fill very light swirling so that the body shops could avoid the costly and time consuming problem of comebacks due to buffer holograms. If I recall correctly, Ultrafina is one part of a three part liquid system. If used with the recommended pads and applied as insructed, 3M virtually guarantees no swirls when applied via rotary polisher. That is a big claim, and not one I am disputing.



The reason I wanted to get all my ducks in a row before I mentioned that I believed this fantastic product used very durable fillers is simple...



It is quite a feat to be able to create a product that uses a DURABLE filler on FRESHLY SPRAYED PAINT!



I am not a guy to claim to factually know something when I suspect I have not invested the time into researching or testing the topic at hand.



Reality is that I do not use enough of this product to consider myself an expert (not even to a very small degree).

To be credible, I make it a point to talk about the products I know a lot about, and avoid chiming in regarding products I know little or nothing about.



There are dozens of you out there that know a lot more about Ultrafina compared to me.



This is why these forums are so valuable. Thousands of enthusiasts and professionals join to share legitimate knowledge. Often, things sidetrack and drama raises its ugly head. I try to filter that stuff out.




I only work on my own paint jobs. And paint does shrink. Solvents evaporate over a long period of time. And many show car paint jobs - with multiple layers of base/color and clear - require polishing (again) even after a year; as observed by others...



I 100 % agree with you on this.

A paint job that does not show signs of shrinking is very rare these days.

[byers ford]

I have also found that during the final "spray down" some swirls have "reappeared" as the UltraFina has been removed. For how great the product is, and its ease of use, this is a small price to pay. I use it on many cars I work on, and have never had a bad experience with it. Could there be a better product, absolutely, but does UltraFina do a great job, yes. This just seems like another case of "too each his own".

[gmblack3]

I have also found that during the final "spray down" some swirls have "reappeared" as the UltraFina has been removed. For how great the product is, and its ease of use, this is a small price to pay. I use it on many cars I work on, and have never had a bad experience with it. Could there be a better product, absolutely, but does UltraFina do a great job, yes. This just seems like another case of "too each his own".





As long as each is educated and knows what to expect down the road. :bigups

[RaskyR1]

I played around with UF a little on my car after some talks of M205 not finishing down perfectly. I went over my car (Which was already in very good condition) with M205 via the Flex DA and a W9207 pad. The finish upon inspection looked great! Then I taped off a small secion and hit it with UF on the rotary with the blue 3M pad, and to my surprise it definitely made it look better. Yet, I couldn`t help but think it was filling a little. :nixweiss



EDIT: I`d also add that M205 is much more capable of removing defect than UF. So I`d also agree with the "apples to oranges" comment.

[Flashtime]

I wouldn`t doubt that "fillers" are intentially put in, to do just that. But i doubt that

a manufacturer would admit to it... Or maybe the "filling" can`t be helped at times

due to whatever conditions. Sounds good for now...

[Flashtime]

Maybe M205 should be compared with 3M Swirl Remover... On fresh paint, M205 w/CCS white can remove sanding marks (with some pressure).

[Bert]

I looooove UF, and use it on pretty much every car I do. But yeah, it does fill and conceal defects. However, a post-polishing wash with CW&G followed up with an IPA wipedown (to remove the glossing and rinse agents from the CW&G) works to get rid of the fillers. I do this every time I use a Menz polish, too..



If you give Citrus Wash and Clear a try I bet you could skip the need for the IPA wipedown. CWC seems to me to be a more powerfull cleaner than CWG. When wanting to strip my sealant, I rarely (if ever) need to prespray with TAW to strip the sealant and other crud. It is quite a strong product.




I have yet to find a paint so soft that UF couldn`t finish down nicely.





I thought you preferred PO85RD? Or do you like both?