Turtle Wax Seal and Shine vs IGL Premier

[rlmccarty2000]

Coatings=Crack suggested a showdown between one of my favorite long lasting spray on sealant toppers, IGL Premier and the new kid on the block Turtle Wax Seal and Shine. It just so happens my son has been “exercising” my mothers car and it needed some love. It wasn’t in too bad of shape as I had coated and corrected it about 4 years ago. The coating (PBL Paint Coating) died right at the 2 year mark.

Here is the victim. The pictures make it look better than it actually was.

Gave it a wash with McKees 914, removed some pine tar with CarPro Tar-x and looks better. Also did a quick clay job to smooth out the paint.


Corrected the paint with Rupes rotary, HD One, and Rupes UHS Pad.

Checked my work with my gloss meter. It averaged 92.5 GU after polishing. Used CarPro Eraser for my final prep wipe.


Applied TWS&S to the right half of the hood. It went on pretty nice. Dragged a little at first and as I buffed it got nice and slick.



Applied IGL Premier to the left side and checked the gloss.


I had a third product to test and used it on the left hand side crease. I’ll reveal the product if it holds up. It is supposed to sheet instead of bead.


The final product with all three toppers applied. Looks pretty darn good.


You may be wondering what the gloss meter read with TW S&S.

Uh-oh. My gloss meter read no better than 80.2 everywhere I measured. Down from 92/93. The IGL and the mystery product both stayed in the 92/93 range. At first I thought I did something wrong for the gloss to drop that significantly, but I checked and rechecked and then checked again.

Our eyes may fool us but the gloss meter does not lie, it is what it is. IGL Premier beats TW S&S head to head on gloss. I can check it tomorrow after it cures (if it needs to cure).

I’ll try to get some beading shots tomorrow if possible. I like to give these things 24 hours to cure before it spray them with water. I don’t know if it is really necessary, but it doesn’t hurt.

Ok Coatings=Crack this is my unbiased review. I can check back in a few months to check the durability of TW S&S. I already know that I will get around 5 months from IGL Premier, but based on my gloss meter readings I will happily spend a few more shekels to keep my gloss levels as high as possible as a true Autopian .

Hope you enjoyed the showdown. Accumulator did you read this one, lol?






Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Accumulator]

Coatings=Crack suggested a showdown between one of my favorite long lasting spray on sealant toppers, IGL Premier and the new kid on the block Turtle Wax Seal and Shine...

Aha!

...Hope you enjoyed the showdown. Accumulator did you read this one, lol?

Yes indeed, and check my posting time/date! I just *KNEW* there was some reason to log back on (and so late in the afternoon for me!), and I guess this was it

Thanks for the comparo, which was, of course, up to your usual high standards.

[acuRAS82]

The low gloss readings for TW SNS might be in part to the carnauba in it, but I would guess the carnauba content is really low... so, I’m just throwing out ideas that may be false.

[rlmccarty2000]

I have no idea why the gloss readings are low. It doesn’t look bad at all, but we fight to get the best gloss we can out of our products. I’d TW S&S holds up like some of the youtubers say it’s still a very good product for your daily driver, just not show car quality. Like TW Paste vs Souveran.

[Coatings=crack]

Thank you sir. Much appreciated! I agree visually probably very close but as an Autopian I would gladly pay the premium for the difference on my car.

Probably woulda been my new go to as use to use only over the counters. Is it wierd I wish I woulda never found AG but really glad I did?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[KBsToy]

My Thanks also...Like you said we all go for the gloss
Something to think about when Autopia or AG does a good sale.

[acuRAS82]

Is it wierd I wish I woulda never found AG but really glad I did?

Not weird, it probably explains most of us... as long as you enjoy it, it’s all good.

[tom p.]

Very cool. I like that meter!

[rlmccarty2000]

I’m pretty excited about the meter too. For years I’ve said stuff like “that looks nice”, now I can quantify it. I always wondered if clean polished paint was glossier than when LSP was applied. Now I know different LSPs provide different gloss numbers. It surprised me that a drop of 12GU was not really apparent to my eyes though. I imagine it it best to start off as high as possible so over time as the LSP ages you don’t notice the gloss drop as much.

[Swanicyouth]

https://youtu.be/N1-RtlpIAzU

I think gloss meters are finicky like PTGs. This guy had a different result.

[Coatings=crack]

https://youtu.be/N1-RtlpIAzU

I think gloss meters are finicky like PTGs. This guy had a different result.

Just like product use..... lol results may vary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rlmccarty2000]

https://youtu.be/N1-RtlpIAzU

I think gloss meters are finicky like PTGs. This guy had a different result.

That is is an excellent video. The gauge I have is an older model I picked up off eBay (no way I was paying $2K). It seems to do its job well. I took three readings of the TW S&S and they were all down from 92/93 to 80/81. No major drop offs with either of the other 2 products I used and measured. Now you’ve got me thinking I was not able to wipe off enough TW S&S residue. I gave it a normal wipe down and buffed it lightly. I did not rub it as hard as the guy in the video. I’ll go back and scrub harder and see if I can raise the GUs, but like the guy said, you can remove the product by rubbing too hard and instill marks. It was a surprise when the numbers dropped so low. I pretty much did the same steps a the guy in the video just with different products. I been thinking about using Prep-all instead of Eraser.

[Loach]

That is is an excellent video. The gauge I have is an older model I picked up off eBay (no way I was paying $2K). It seems to do its job well. I took three readings of the TW S&S and they were all down from 92/93 to 80/81. No major drop offs with either of the other 2 products I used and measured. Now you’ve got me thinking I was not able to wipe off enough TW S&S residue. I gave it a normal wipe down and buffed it lightly. I did not rub it as hard as the guy in the video. I’ll go back and scrub harder and see if I can raise the GUs, but like the guy said, you can remove the product by rubbing too hard and instill marks. It was a surprise when the numbers dropped so low. I pretty much did the same steps a the guy in the video just with different products. I been thinking about using Prep-all instead of Eraser.

Yesterday I was doing the voiceover for the video when I saw your thread go up, crazy timing! The video isn`t a direct response to your results, although some of the topics I touched on will be relevant to what you`re noticing. It is a caution for any manufacturer to attempt to use a gloss meter to paint a black and white picture of performance with regards to gloss enhancement of individual products, without the viewer understanding the variables that affect measurements.

Your older meter I`m pretty sure was in the $2000+ range when it was new, which is still a very accurate meter. I have the non-haze version of it, which was working for a while after I picked it up before it died out on me. It was a great meter too because these newer ones take more time to spit the gloss results out, the older models were practically instant readings.



You should notice a boost in the gloss readings after the first wash with N-914. The example that I did with the heavy buffing, to me this highlights that my first post-application measurements with the meter is practically irrelevant for certain products. If a manufacturer took one of their sealants, put it up against a competing sealant known to be much heavier and ran side by side gloss testing, it would be very easy for them to paint a picture of performance that at first glance is indisputable. But the wipeability of a product in the short term does not paint a full picture of the product`s actual gloss performance.

Another topic is take Pinnacle Souveran as a hypothetical example. I put it on the paint before a car show, and I`ve reduced the gloss based on the measurements. However, after the show the next day I go out to wash the paint and the gloss readings are back up. But to me, the paint looked better the previous day during the show. The meter tells me I`ve removed the impact of the oils left behind that may be responsible for giving Souveran its advantage in appearance subjectively. Now as a tester, what reading should I report to the viewer? The post-application reading of Souveran where the measurement was lower than the pre-wax readings, the result of which is partially dependent on how much effort I put into buffing it off the paint? Or the higher post-wash readings which no longer necessarily represents the advantages in appearance that Souveran has over other products subjectively? This is a dilemma in gloss measurement testing.

[rlmccarty2000]

Yesterday I was doing the voiceover for the video when I saw your thread go up, crazy timing! The video isn`t a direct response to your results, although some of the topics I touched on will be relevant to what you`re noticing. It is a caution for any manufacturer to attempt to use a gloss meter to paint a black and white picture of performance with regards to gloss enhancement of individual products, without the viewer understanding the variables that affect measurements.

Your older meter I`m pretty sure was in the $2000+ range when it was new, which is still a very accurate meter. I have the non-haze version of it, which was working for a while after I picked it up before it died out on me. It was a great meter too because these newer ones take more time to spit the gloss results out, the older models were practically instant readings.



You should notice a boost in the gloss readings after the first wash with N-914. The example that I did with the heavy buffing, to me this highlights that my first post-application measurements with the meter is practically irrelevant for certain products. If a manufacturer took one of their sealants, put it up against a competing sealant known to be much heavier and ran side by side gloss testing, it would be very easy for them to paint a picture of performance that at first glance is indisputable. But the wipeability of a product in the short term does not paint a full picture of the product`s actual gloss performance.

Another topic is take Pinnacle Souveran as a hypothetical example. I put it on the paint before a car show, and I`ve reduced the gloss based on the measurements. However, after the show the next day I go out to wash the paint and the gloss readings are back up. But to me, the paint looked better the previous day during the show. The meter tells me I`ve removed the impact of the oils left behind that may be responsible for giving Souveran its advantage in appearance subjectively. Now as a tester, what reading should I report to the viewer? The post-application reading of Souveran where the measurement was lower than the pre-wax readings, the result of which is partially dependent on how much effort I put into buffing it off the paint? Or the higher post-wash readings which no longer necessarily represents the advantages in appearance that Souveran has over other products subjectively? This is a dilemma in gloss measurement testing.

I watched the video and didn’t realize it was one of yours or I would have pmed you for assistance. I wiped both sides the same way, even with the same make of towel. I try to keep all the variables exactly the same as I never want to pass on incorrect information.

If you are getting those number then I didn’t do a good enough job of wiping the product off of the surface, which is kind of amazing to me considering the amount of wiping I did. I’ve got to give TW S&S another shot and see if I can get those GU numbers up.

Quick question about the gloss meter. I’ve heard they go bad fairly easy, do you know why? If it does go bad will the manufacturer repair the machine? I would have loved to get the newest version, but it was way out of my cost category. I mainly wanted it for quality control during the correction phase. Using it to play with LSPs is a nice plus. I hope to redo my testing of toppers and chart gloss measurements. This first comparison was a good learning experience and it gives even more importance to protect wipe off than I expected. I’m still stunned that a better wipe down might have increased the gloss level that much.

Great video by the way.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Loach]

I watched the video and didn’t realize it was one of yours or I would have pmed you for assistance. I wiped both sides the same way, even with the same make of towel. I try to keep all the variables exactly the same as I never want to pass on incorrect information.

If you are getting those number then I didn’t do a good enough job of wiping the product off of the surface, which is kind of amazing to me considering the amount of wiping I did. I’ve got to give TW S&S another shot and see if I can get those GU numbers up.

Quick question about the gloss meter. I’ve heard they go bad fairly easy, do you know why? If it does go bad will the manufacturer repair the machine? I would have loved to get the newest version, but it was way out of my cost category. I mainly wanted it for quality control during the correction phase. Using it to play with LSPs is a nice plus. I hope to redo my testing of toppers and chart gloss measurements. This first comparison was a good learning experience and it gives even more importance to protect wipe off than I expected. I’m still stunned that a better wipe down might have increased the gloss level that much.

Great video by the way.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

On your meter, as long as it`s giving consistent readings on the calibration tile, then it should be good to go. When the meter is throwing out a large range of +/- results on the calibration tile in the same test session, then this could be the result of faulty component, possibly low/dying battery or a failing bulb/lamp assembly, or dirty lens that just needs to be cleaned. Based on the calibration certificates that were included with my meters, QC teams were expected to send these out for recalibration/certification services on a yearly basis to maintain ISO/ASTM standards. One center based in Canada I believe quoted me $200USD for the service, and then an hourly fee of around $85/hr for a technician to work on services outside of the standard re-certification process, like replacing the rechargeable battery, and the cost of the parts. For the old meters, the battery is going to be the main issue since most of the ones that I`ve seen were using rechargeable batteries and these will always go bad eventually.

One thing to be mindful of is surface temperature is going to have an impact on readings as well, the paint temperature was at 95F when I was measuring for the video and I was peaking around 96.1GU post polishing with Menzerna 3800. Come out today with surface temperatures around 81F, we`re back up to 97GU+ range with Menzerna 3800. The calibration tile should be able to account for this so long as it`s around the same temperature as the surface you`re working on when you check. But don`t be surprised to be measuring at one point during the day, and then checking later when the temperatures go up/down and all of sudden your calibration tile is spitting out a new base number, it`s likely temperature related.

I`m definitely looking forward to your results and ongoing tests. I haven`t reached out to other product testers in terms of their gloss measurement observations, so it will be good feedback to see if you`re noticing the same or different variables that could impact the results in your own tests.