M95: Heavy Filling/Masking Potenital Alert

**Todd@RUPES** · 09-29-2008, 05:51 PM

Just thought I would post up...

Black C6 Corvette with heavy, deep swirling. M95 and an LC Yellow Pad reduced swirling by 90-95 percet with some deep rids remaining after two passes. I was very impressed with the finish left behind (too impressed). I wiped the car down with prep-sol x2 and alcohol and saw VERY light returning of some pad marring.

I pulled it out in the sun and let it sit for 2 hours....

The results where horrific as the paint regressed in the sun to the point of looking absolutely terrible. FWIW, Rydawg had warned me of this months ago.

I just read a review on MOL and it scared me as M95 made the paint go from horrid to nice, but unforutnately I think that in 2 months the paint (based on my experience and the poster stating that it is "M80 on steroids") will look terrible. Apparently the OP stated that on a DA the paint looked flawless. Given my experience with this product, that seems to be a reasonable assumption, but I would guess in 2 months time it will look very hacked up.

Take it FWIW, I just don`t want to see anybody get burned by thinking they are producing quality results. Remember it is a compound with a cut rating of 12, so please finish it with correct procedure.

**Junebug** · 09-29-2008, 06:07 PM

I don`t get how anybody can do a one step with 95? Maybe 84 but 95? nah, definitely needs a polishing step.

**David Fermani** · 09-29-2008, 06:13 PM

Originally Posted by TH0001

Remember it is a compound with a cut rating of 12, so please finish it with correct procedure.

:tribe:

X 1000

**Holden_C04** · 09-29-2008, 06:23 PM

IMO compounds should always be followed up with a polish, even M105. Nevertheless, perhaps M95 requires a different polishing procedure than the one you were using?

**Holden_C04** · 09-29-2008, 06:24 PM

Was that a flat yellow pad or a ccs yellow pad?

**n737nc** · 09-29-2008, 06:37 PM

#1-Not all paint reacts the same. So what may not have worked for you, CAN work for someone else.

#2-The results are real. Take it for what it`s worth.

Holden, this was used with a new washable Meguiar`s yellow pad. Not a CCS pad.

Todd, are you trying to put me down with this post, or Meguiar`s? Cause I thought that was looked down upon here at Autopia

**n737nc** · 09-29-2008, 06:54 PM

Originally Posted by JuneBug

I don`t get how anybody can do a one step with 95? Maybe 84 but 95? nah, definitely needs a polishing step.

And this wasn`t a 1 step process. It was actually 3 steps.....but Todd conveniently forgot to leave that part out.

95 on wool via rotary

95 on black foam via rotary

then 95 on DA

I love it when someone only tells PART of the story to try and make someone else look bad. Good job Todd:2thumbs:

**n737nc** · 09-29-2008, 06:56 PM

Here are the before after pictures Todd was referring to...

**Lumadar** · 09-29-2008, 07:01 PM

Originally Posted by TH0001

Just thought I would post up...

Black C6 Corvette with heavy, deep swirling. M95 and an LC Yellow Pad reduced swirling by 90-95 percet with some deep rids remaining after two passes. I was very impressed with the finish left behind (too impressed). I wiped the car down with prep-sol x2 and alcohol and saw VERY light returning of some pad marring.

I pulled it out in the sun and let it sit for 2 hours....

The results where horrific as the paint regressed in the sun to the point of looking absolutely terrible. FWIW, Rydawg had warned me of this months ago.

I just read a review on MOL and it scared me as M95 made the paint go from horrid to nice, but unforutnately I think that in 2 months the paint (based on my experience and the poster stating that it is "M80 on steroids") will look terrible. Apparently the OP stated that on a DA the paint looked flawless. Given my experience with this product, that seems to be a reasonable assumption, but I would guess in 2 months time it will look very hacked up.

Take it FWIW, I just don`t want to see anybody get burned by thinking they are producing quality results. Remember it is a compound with a cut rating of 12, so please finish it with correct procedure.

You did a 1 step with a Lake Country Yellow pad? :shocked

I read the thread you were referring to, and I read your thread. The ONLY thing they had in common was #95...every other possible variable was different.

Although I am sure your intentions are good (Giving fair warning) I think you also need to be careful about fairness in your assessment. It struck me as incredibly "apples and oranges" and not even close to fair.

You didn`t use the same pads, process, or paint as the other user and yet you are making claims as to what their car will look like? that seems a bit far reaching IMO.

**Todd@RUPES** · 09-29-2008, 07:13 PM

Originally Posted by Lumadar

You did a 1 step with a Lake Country Yellow pad? :shocked

I read the thread you were referring to, and I read your thread. The ONLY thing they had in common was #95...every other possible variable was different.

Apples and oranges anyone?

I think you missed my point. My point is that M95 will can leave the paint looking nice but it is a compound with a cut of 12. Even numerous wipedowns with different products failed to reveal the true nature of the paint. However a couple of hours in the sun quickly showed that M95 can/will mask its defects, and quite heavily.

I`m not saying that this happens all the time, but the potenital is there. I know that it isn`t designed as a "filler" nor does it have "fillers" in it, but this is a side effect of the products used as carriers in the polish. Various reasons and factors can cause masking issues, and M95`s seems particularly stubborn.

So all I am saying is that M95 has the potential to fill/mask/whatever.

**Lumadar** · 09-29-2008, 07:18 PM

Originally Posted by TH0001

I think you missed my point. My point is that M95 will can leave the paint looking nice but it is a compound with a cut of 12. Even numerous wipedowns with different products failed to reveal the true nature of the paint. However a couple of hours in the sun quickly showed that M95 can/will mask its defects, and quite heavily.

I`m not saying that this happens all the time, but the potenital is there. I know that it isn`t designed as a "filler" nor does it have "fillers" in it, but this is a side effect of the products used as carriers in the polish. Various reasons and factors can cause masking issues, and M95`s seems particularly stubborn.

So all I am saying is that M95 has the potential to fill/mask/whatever.

Gotcha. Well, M95 is probably high in oils as it has a very long working time (reportedly) so that *might* be what you experienced.

What boggles me is that you say you did a wipe down and it still looked fine, and only after sitting in the sun did it start to show? That`s odd.

Do you have a DA, and Meguiar`s pads available? I would be curious to see what your final results would be attempting to recreate the full scenario that you made a reference to and reporting back.

I`m sure we would all like to see that :xyxthumbs

**David Fermani** · 09-29-2008, 07:21 PM

Originally Posted by n737nc

And this wasn`t a 1 step process. It was actually 3 steps.....

95 on wool via rotary

95 on black foam via rotary

then 95 on DA

So, you`re advocating using a compound as a multi-process finishing polish? Is this something that Meg`s endorces too? I have a hard time believing that this is possible without the help of some great fillers (oils). I think it`s wishful thinking to believe an abrasive product can cut that good/quick AND leave the finish that nice. Isn`t there a reason Meg`s recommends it being used with a rotary (matched with a wool pad I believe) and not a DA? Maybe the DA aids in masking the defects by not breaking down the carrier oils like a rotary does? Again, I`m interested to know what Meg`s position on this is?

**Todd@RUPES** · 09-29-2008, 07:22 PM

Originally Posted by n737nc

#1-Not all paint reacts the same. So what may not have worked for you, CAN work for someone else.

#2-The results are real. Take it for what it`s worth.

Holden, this was used with a new washable Meguiar`s yellow pad. Not a CCS pad.

Todd, are you trying to put me down with this post, or Meguiar`s? Cause I thought that was looked down upon here at Autopia

]#1-Not all paint reacts the same. So what may not have worked for you, CAN work for someone else.

Absolutely

#2-The results are real. Take it for what it`s worth.

Nick, please elaborate on what steps you took to ensure this? As I said, even wipedowns with solvents and alcohol did not reveal to true nature of the paint. Only several hours in the sun.

If I didn`t have the luxury to pull it out in the sun I would have proceded to meduim polish and final polish. Several weeks or months later the car would have likely had a return of the defects.

Todd, are you trying to put me down with this post, or Meguiar`s? Cause I thought that was looked down upon here at Autopia

Nick I wouldn`t try to put you down because I don`t know you. I didn`t mention your name because it wasn`t important, because it wasn`t about you. It was about the fact somebody used a DA to finish M95, and there is a reason that Meguiars doesn`t recommend this. The pictures are impressive, but likely (in my experience testing products over and over) that is not the true result.

As far as putting down Meguiars? I guess every product manufacturer (including ones I use often) must feel I put them down often. I like most of Meguiars professional line products (not their consumer stuff for the most part). I am only sharing my experience.

**n737nc** · 09-29-2008, 07:24 PM

I`m not advocating anything. Just letting you guys know my position on this. I am not a rep for Meguiar`s, nor do I have any affiliation with them other than their products work for me.

Take a look at the pictures, then read your sig...

Nick

**n737nc** · 09-29-2008, 07:28 PM

You`re right Todd, it`s a crappy job on that car

This was a multi step process. Rotary/wool, rotary/foam, then DA/foam. Todd, your results turned out the way they did BECAUSE YOU USED THE PRODUCT WRONG!!! And now you come on here and blame the product?

There is a term we use in the airline industry.....Pilot Error!