3M Ultrafina, on a scale of 1-10

[Tony1]

You are an arse because you keep yappin about something like a little pooch and for your information, David Fermani has forgot more about detailing than you will ever learn, assuming you get your head out of your butt and try to listen. Here`s a tip, read this whole thread again and see who looks childish. I`m sure you made a lot of friends calling Autopia BS. If you doubt David, fine - go on, nobody cares about what some wannabe thinks anyway - or did you not get that from the other posters on this?



Now I`m finisihed feeding you little troll.

You are a very sad example of what is wrong with what was a very good forum. You mindlessly believe obvious BS because you like the guy and he has a lot of posts. You call me names for pointing out obvious BS. You call me a troll because I don`t mindlessly follow your "leaders" and call BS when I see it.

[Tony1]

I guess from now on you`rethe Autopia ultimate expert... Nobody has more experience detailing junk scraps than you....

Another stupid comment from the herd. You think going to a scrap yard and getting a old hood or door to bring home and try things on is something to ridicule. What a twit. There was a time that this was actaully recommend on here by people (I got the idea from here). I have seen it recommended for people wanting to learn a rotary. There were many threads where people tried out products on house hold items like washing machines or fridges. They experimented on things an learned the ins and out of products and techniques. Now we have clowns like you ridiculing people for that and just stupidly believing what ever they read like UF having fillers that paint thinner can`t remove.

[Tony1]

I guess from now on you`rethe Autopia ultimate expert... Nobody has more experience detailing junk scraps than you....

You obviously are not.

[Tony1]

I happen to agree with a lot you are saying here. The filling effects most speak of with polishes and glazes is brought far out of proportion in my humble opinion.

That has been a subject of debate forever. What polishes fill and how well. I imagine it will always be that way. Claiming something has fillers that multiple applications of paint thinner can`t remove is just a whole new level of stupidity.

[Tony1]

Now we have many comments from the "me to" squad telling me how they will believe anything their master says even when it`s so obviously crap it`s sickening. None of the so-called experts seem to commenting and there lack of comments says volumes.



On line forums for all their advancements are very simple places really. They are school grounds for adults. If a member posts something that is BS and he is not liked he will be swarmed. If he posts the truth there will be very little comments because he isn`t liked and the crowd won`t post to agree but can`t post to disagree because what he said was the truth.



On the flip side if you are liked and you post BS there will be very few comments since the crowd doesn`t what to speak against you but can`t really support you either. Of course if you are liked and post good info you will get all kinds of support.



So the lack of comments from the "experts" on here about David`s UF claims speaks volumes about what they think. Since he is well liked if they agreed with him they would be supporting him big time. They are posting nothing because they do not agree and don`t want to speak out since they like him. All we have had is some "me to" boys running their yaps but that is to be expected. The veterans would look stupid agreeing so they say nothing. They also don`t want to be seen to be siding with me so they post nothing because I can assure you if they thought I was wrong they would be swarming me big time.

[David Fermani]

UF has more cut than FP II. I can say that with certainty. UF removed marring that FP II didn`t come close to removing.

I did a side by side with UF and FP II on very lightly marred paint and one application of UF cleared up what 3 and 4 applications of FP II would not. Using identical pads and same machine of course. I use it with the PC.

I have been using FPII but recently switched to 3M Ultrafina. I find the Ultrafina to be as light if not lighter than FPII. Works great with the Porter Cable. Wonder why it hasn`t been mentioned in this thread about lightest polish?

You change your mind quite a bit? How much experience do you have polishing paint & how competent are you with a rotary buffer?

3 and 4 applications of a polish that is strong enough to remove 2500 grit scratches didn’t cut as much as 1 step with UF? With a PC too? Sounds like you got some great filling. You’re not only baking, but eating your own BS cake.

As I said I use UF on very light marring so it does remove those defects and that is why I would not see filling.

Explain what your process is to identify filling?

As for using UF after compounding to remove the compounding haze they emphasized in the video UF was not made for that. They repeated several times not to skip the Swirl Remover step after compounding. UF would not remove the compound haze. You say the fillers are good enough to cover any nothing left by the compound and last through multiple paint thinner applications. Wow, if this is true 3M is actually guilty of false advertising IMO not to mention creating one of the most amazing fillers in history.

1st off, this has not only been discussed at length and experimented with by several Body Shops(who use the 3M system day-in, day-out), but also with their Reps. Out of all the Body Shop guys I talk to, hardly any have watched 3M’s video. That tells me something about how these videos don’t always fall into the lap of the real end user they market. Many of these same people think that going from compound to UF with good results is ok. Heck, I’ve even seen BS go from Compound (wool) to Machine Polish (black & blue) and think the finish is final. They think this because it is possible to do it with temporary results. The only thing they care about is reducing time and steps with maximum results. Bottom line, it’s a 3 step system and was designed that way (with a rotary) for a reason. I.E. 3 steps required to make sure that the final finish is swirl free. UF was created to fill the gap (so to speak) that their glazes and polishes left off with prior. I don’t know anyone that uses it to correct anything other than that; especially as an ala carte correction application with a PC.



As far as false advertising, I find it interesting that 3M advertises UF for dark colored paints (per their video). But if the buffer swirls are in dark colored paint, they’re in light colors too. Is that false? If they are so concerned about prescribing a perfect recipe, why not advocate their 3 steps for all finishes? Maybe because they realize that most Body Shops only care about marginal results. They are basically saying that you only need to do 2 steps on light colors, but 3 on darks? Shouldn’t make a difference when the only paint you’re buffing is clear. Not knocking UF or 3M in any way, I like, use and recommend their products regularly.



Instead of focusing your witch hunt effort on presumption, why not try out my findings and report back. I have seen, talked about and had UF fill swirls on fresh paint on several occasions. I’ve seen the come backs at body shops and asked the detailer what steps he did that made the car pass final QC. I know and would be willing to bet that I can go from 3M compound to UF, wipe it with solvent and have no buffer swirls return on-site. Can you? Really try doing it and maybe you won’t be such a skeptic. Until then, your opinion means nothing when it’s based on total presumption. Oh, and when you really try it, do it with a Rotary buffer. Just like the 3M video suggests and how these products are designed to be used with.

[Pats300zx]

Perhaps it`s time that we focus this thread on the product discussion as opposed to the finger pointing and negative attacks on other members.

[Tony1]

You change your mind quite a bit? How much experience do you have polishing paint & how competent are you with a rotary buffer?

3 and 4 applications of a polish that is strong enough to remove 2500 grit scratches didn’t cut as much as 1 step with UF? With a PC too? Sounds like you got some great filling. You’re not only baking, but eating your own BS cake.







Explain what your process is to identify filling?









1st off, this has not only been discussed at length and experimented with by several Body Shops(who use the 3M system day-in, day-out), but also with their Reps. Out of all the Body Shop guys I talk to, hardly any have watched 3M’s video. That tells me something about how these videos don’t always fall into the lap of the real end user they market. Many of these same people think that going from compound to UF with good results is ok. Heck, I’ve even seen BS go from Compound (wool) to Machine Polish (black & blue) and think the finish is final. They think this because it is possible to do it with temporary results. The only thing they care about is reducing time and steps with maximum results. Bottom line, it’s a 3 step system and was designed that way (with a rotary) for a reason. I.E. 3 steps required to make sure that the final finish is swirl free. UF was created to fill the gap (so to speak) that their glazes and polishes left off with prior. I don’t know anyone that uses it to correct anything other than that; especially as an ala carte correction application with a PC.



As far as false advertising, I find it interesting that 3M advertises UF for dark colored paints (per their video). But if the buffer swirls are in dark colored paint, they’re in light colors too. Is that false? If they are so concerned about prescribing a perfect recipe, why not advocate their 3 steps for all finishes? Maybe because they realize that most Body Shops only care about marginal results. They are basically saying that you only need to do 2 steps on light colors, but 3 on darks? Shouldn’t make a difference when the only paint you’re buffing is clear. Not knocking UF or 3M in any way, I like, use and recommend their products regularly.



Instead of focusing your witch hunt effort on presumption, why not try out my findings and report back. I have seen, talked about and had UF fill swirls on fresh paint on several occasions. I’ve seen the come backs at body shops and asked the detailer what steps he did that made the car pass final QC. I know and would be willing to bet that I can go from 3M compound to UF, wipe it with solvent and have no buffer swirls return on-site. Can you? Really try doing it and maybe you won’t be such a skeptic. Until then, your opinion means nothing when it’s based on total presumption. Oh, and when you really try it, do it with a Rotary buffer. Just like the 3M video suggests and how these products are designed to be used with.

Glad your back.



First I see you found my post from a few years ago when I first started using UF. At that point I had just purchased it and I was new to it. I found it to be lighter than FP II when I used it. At that time I had been using FP II for years and had my technique down. I was very comfortable with the polish and knew it`s quirks and limitations. UF I had just started using and was no where near as proficient with it yet. Much practice and tweaking of my technique with UF has changed (obviously) the results I get. My side by side comparisons of UF and FP II now get me different results as you would expect. Interesting that in that thread when I suggested UF was lighter than FPII the people that posted in that thread all disagreed. They said UF was much more aggressive than FPII which I agree with now after becoming more comfortable with the polish. I`m glad you posted that because it proves I`m not the only one that thinks UF has more cut than FP II.



Here is the link to the thread in question. It`s about what polish has the absolute lightest cut. I had forgotten about that thread or I would have posted a link to it earlier to prove there are many others that don`t think UF is so light after all. Thanks David for helping me make my point although I know that was not your intention.

http://www.autopia.org/forum/car-det...htest-cut.html



You ask how I determine if it filled or not. Simple. I use the polish and the marring was gone. I wipe the area down with alcohol and it did not come back. I polish the area again with KAIO and the marring did not come back. It has been months and it some cases more and the marring has not come back. Is that not enough to safely say the marring was removed not filled?



I use UF and FP II with a PC. My cars do not get any defects that need anything close to rotary power to correct. Don`t see what that has to do with anything any ways.



Now we can debate weather UF has some fillers or not. In fact we could debate that about any polish. Menezera claims that their polishes don`t fill and some say they do. Megs says theirs don`t and the oils are trade secrete oils for lubrication. Goes on and on. No big deal to me. Your claim about paint thinner though just takes it to a whole new level. There is no way that any fillers in UF would not be removed by multiple coats of paint thinner. The lack of comments supporting you on that proves I`m not alone. You seem to be liked and you would have tons of support on that if it was believed by others. It is an outrageous claim.



No matter what else is posted in this thread. UF works well for me. It removes more than FP II does and what it removes stays gone after months and years so unless it has indestructible fillers, which your claims about paint thinner seem to suggest, the defects where removed not filled.

[RaskyR1]

Can anyone confirm whether the UK version of UF is different than the US stuff? I have the UK version and would be interested to see how they compare. The UK pads are obviously different so I wouldn`t be surprised if it was.

[RaskyR1]

FWIW, I`ve never tested the filling abilities of UF, simply because I don`t care, but a quick search will show several VERY highly respected detailers mentioning how durable they find the fillers in UF to be.

[Tony1]

FWIW, I`ve never tested the filling abilities of UF, simply because I don`t care, but a quick search will show several VERY highly respected detailers mentioning how durable they find the fillers in UF to be.

Paint thinner durable?

[MichaelM]

Paint thinner durable?

"Paint thinner" is not always the traditional paint thinner you may be used to. I know one of the body shops that I work with has at least three different "thinners" that they use, all are different and of varying strengths. It wouldn`t surprise me in the least that a mild thinner wouldn`t be able to remove some fillers right off the bat.

[RaskyR1]

Paint thinner durable?

I didn`t see anyone mention that, just that they were very durable.



I do recall a topic a while back that discussed filling and something about the use of a solvent but I can`t seem to find it...not sure if it was even about UF either. Paint thinner does seem like a bit of a stretch, but I`ve never actually tried it so I can`t really comment.



At the end of the day, if UF is used correctly one shouldn`t even be concerned with filling.

[gmblack3]

Cut 1.

Fill quality 8.

[Mindflux]

Cut 1.

Fill quality 8.

I was wondering when you`d chime in. I was trying to find the picture you posted of all the filling oils coming off a car after using UF and then washing again. No such luck