#80 and #9

[WAZIT01]

Do you think applying #9 after #80 will remove more swirl marks

[gearhead]

#80 should remove all except deeper swirls and scratches. #9 is milder than #80 so won`t do much after #80. Anything left after #80 needs DACP or SSR2.5.

[JasonD]

I will partly answer your question, but then add another question to it.



Yes, it will remove more swirl marks, but probably not any more than if you were to just polish the whole car again with #80.



#80 is a 4 on Meg`s aggressiveness scale, and #9 is a 3. They are very close.



That being said, what is the difference between #9 and #82? They are both rated a level 3 polish.



One more thing to add, if you didn`t get everything out with #80, then you probably should have started out more aggressive. I would have started out with #83 before progressing to #80. That would have given you a better finish with less effort.

[Mr. Clean]

Originally posted by JDookie

...if you didn`t get everything out with #80, then you probably should have started out more aggressive. I would have started out with #83 before progressing to #80.



This thinking seems contrary to the more accepted theory of starting out with the least aggressive product and advancing to more agressive only if necessary. Except for the worst cases I would much prefer to start with #80 or similar product before moving to #83. I would also opt for a second pass with #80 before stepping up in terms of aggressiveness.



As for the #9 product, I don`t get it. It doesn`t seem to perform well as a "correcting polish" or as a "gloss polish". I have a bottle that will probably last me forever at the rate I pick it up. :o

[Accumulator]

I`d remove all the marring with the #80, even if it takes multiple passes. If you want to use the #9 afterwards for a final polish it might improve things a little more (more gloss) but then again it might not. #80 is designed to leave a ready-to-wax finish anyhow.



#9 is designed to remove *very* fine flaws, often after other, more aggressive polishing; such as micromarring left by other products (note that`s the technical/professional old-school definition of a "swirl remover"). I hear #9 works a lot better by rotary (in the *right* hands) than by other methods. FWIW I don`t use mine at all either.



Oh, and I find #80 to be far more aggressive (at least initially) than #9. I remember Mike Philips saying that #80 is incorrectly placed on the Meg`s scale; it`s initially more abrasive than indicated, though it breaks down quickly. Don`t know if they ever corrected the error.



#9 and #82 are very simlar abrasiveness-wise, with #82 being a *little* more abrasive and containing abrasives that are supposed to work "better" on b/c paint.

[imported_The Uncle]

Accumulator - as always, you provide a wealth of important details. Since I now own both #9 and #80, I really appreciate the helpful information.

[n2_space]

Originally posted by Accumulator

#80 is designed to leave a ready-to-wax finish anyhow.





Could you please elaborate? I see many well respected guys on here going straight to an LSP after #80... I`m curious.

[joshcaro]

Ive been told it does not leave hazing behind and leaves a nice slick finish that allows you to go straight to your LSP because you dont not need an additional product to clean up the hazing.

[imported_The Uncle]

I think Accumulator`s point is that #80 leaves the surface smooth and ready for application of a product like AIO. A more aggressive polish (like SSR2.5) might leave some haze that has to be corrected with a finishing polish.

[gearhead]

Just used #80 for first time this past weekend on soft SS black paint. It does not leave behind marring (SSR2.5 did) or at least marring that was visible through the filler oils that it leaves behind. Surface was very smooth and wet looking and I applied CMW right after.

[JasonD]

Exactly. #80 should pretty much be your last step in polishing efforts (not counting AIO or other similar cleaners). If you find you have to go over and over the surface with #80 to get a decent finish, then in my book, you should have started out a little more aggressive. So in reply to:




Originally posted by Mr. Clean

This thinking seems contrary to the more accepted theory of starting out with the least aggressive product and advancing to more agressive only if necessary. Except for the worst cases I would much prefer to start with #80 or similar product before moving to #83. I would also opt for a second pass with #80 before stepping up in terms of aggressiveness.



You are correct that you should always work the least aggressive method to do the job, but if you have to work the finish multiple times with a product that is too mild for the job, wouldn`t that be *more* aggressive than just making one single pass with the correct polish? This is why I said if you have to go over the paint multiple times with #80, I would have just made one single pass with #83 and then come behind that with one pass of #80, done deal.



The whole "start off with the least aggressive" method is fine for beginners or someone that isn`t completely familiar with their products, but over time you should be able to look at a surface and know exactly what to start out with and skip the *test phase* all together. That being said, if you aren`t familiar with your product/s or the surface you are working on, always test a panel with a mild polish just to see where you need to go.

[Accumulator]

I only stop short of saying that #80 *will* leave a ready-to-wax finish because I have had it leave marring on fairly fresh paint (two/three week old RM brand b/c). Yeah, too fresh for "wax" anyhow, but you know what I mean. The initial "bite" of the #80 left micromarring that didn`t go away as the product broke down; the paint was just too soft for something that started out that aggressive. I had to follow up with a *very* mild polish to remove the marrng without inducing more, *new* marring. But this is a very rare occurance to say the least. For practical purposes, #80 leaves a finish that does not require further abrasion.

[spotpad]

Originally posted by JDookie

The whole "start off with the least aggressive" method is fine for beginners or someone that isn`t completely familiar with their products, but over time you should be able to look at a surface and know exactly what to start out with and skip the *test phase* all together. That being said, if you aren`t familiar with your product/s or the surface you are working on, always test a panel with a mild polish just to see where you need to go.



My I just add that knowing the target paint and its current thickness would be a great help also.



See Jimmy Buffit`s responses here (http://autopia.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30479) and here (http://autopia.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32793). Essentially:




Modern paint is not designed to be buffed often Products like M`s DACP will remove .3 mil when completely applied with a wool pad. That is the max that should EVER be removed. The molecules of the outermost `skin` of the clear are the most tightly compacted, and have the most UV protection. Remove any more than that and, over time, you`ll begin to see clearcoat failure as the UV protection fades and dullness sets in. BTW, two layers of a celophane cigarette wrapper are about .3 mil thick. Always use the least aggressive polish to get the job done. Jim



To be absolutely safe, you need a paint thickness gauge because you don`t really know how much paint can be safely removed without causing clearcoat failure. But since most of us won`t spend big $$$ on one, it`s better to use the least aggressive method first - even if it takes a little more time. Better safe than sorry, right? ;)

[JasonD]

This is all very true, but he is referring to working with a rotary and a wool pad which is *very* different than a PC.



Please don`t miss my point. I am not saying to always jump into DACP for just anything. Using your quote as an example, "Modern paint is not designed to be buffed often" which means to me that the less you have to buff on a painted surface to achieve your desired results the better. If you find yourself buffing over and over and over with a mild polish, you could have saved a lot of work and unnecessary surface abuse by using the proper method from the start. That being said, you never know what the *proper method* is going to be. It may be anywhere from #82 (mild) to #83 (wild), this just all depends on your particular situation. I will go on to say that *most* details will only require #80 at the most and will sometimes only require #82, but every now and then you will get a doozy and will need to pull out old #83 to get the job done.

[spotpad]

What Jimmy Buffit meant by "Modern paint is not designed to be buffed often" was simply that clearcoat is very thin - meaning there is very, very little to abrade - so you should be more careful.



He`s actually saying that you can actually keep buffing as many times as you want as long as you don`t remove more than .3mil.



Anyway, I agree with you that the product to use really depends on the target paint, your previous experience with similar paints, your polisher, and your technique.