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

**madman** · 01-12-2005, 06:59 AM

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** · 01-12-2005, 07:35 AM

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.:up

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.

**DrSauekraut** · 01-12-2005, 08:01 AM

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.

**JustinR32** · 01-12-2005, 08:18 AM

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** · 01-12-2005, 08:27 AM

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

Well done.

**audio1der** · 01-12-2005, 08:49 AM

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** · 01-12-2005, 08:57 AM

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** · 01-12-2005, 09:33 AM

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** · 01-12-2005, 10:29 AM

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.

**madman** · 01-13-2005, 06:33 AM

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.

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.

**DrSauekraut** · 01-13-2005, 08:13 AM

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.

**Big Leegr** · 01-13-2005, 09:24 AM

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)

**tripper_11** · 01-13-2005, 09:34 AM

just to clarify, when I said #16 looks a lot like S100, I only mean appearance of #16 is like S100. they are both reflective. if you`re so keen, you will notice S100 is more reflective than #16 but not really noticeable to the extent you would confuse the looks if you don`t know which is which applied in the different panels.

durability i prefer #16 over S100 as I have said before it`s a hard wax. (thick composition). but again as I`ve said before, I seldom use this wax. even the S100. i don`t like more reflections. i just want depth on silver thus #26.

lastly, let me end this by saying that all these 3 waxes are quality waxes and none is inferior or superior to the other.

further i can`t resist to say this. those who have agreed or disagreed on my observations surely did their own experiments. they`ve seen it first hand right before their very eyes. so i guess i encourage you to do your own experiment. it`s not only challenging. it`s the beauty of our hobby. finding and discovering what these waxes have in store for us!

**TheShinyMama** · 01-13-2005, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by tripper_11

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.:up

:

I couldn`t agree with you more, nice observation by the way, very detailed account of each product.

**Inzane** · 01-13-2005, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by audio1der

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

ROFL!! Reminds me of my first experience with the old school Turtle Wax Hard Shell paste wax about 9 years ago. That really put me off waxing cars for many years (long before I became Autopian-ized of course), regretably.

BTW regarding Meg`s #16, check with local body shop supply stores in your area. If you luck out some might still have some old stock of #16. I got a tin just a month or two ago from a local paint & body shop supply store. They didn`t have it in stock, but through another branch in BC they found some and ordered it in for me. (Only cost me about ~$14-15 CDN too). Failing that, there`s also eshine.ca in Ontario who sells in on their website.