3M Ultrafina, on a scale of 1-10
- Thread starter BluBrett
- Start date
- Status
Junebug
JAFO
Never tried with a PC or Flex, but it makes a rotary soooo easy to use! Almost wish I had kept mine just to use Ultrafina, but I can get results with 105 and Menzerna 203 that are good enough for the clients I have.
JuneBug said:
It's not just the nice finish that matters to me. It's using a product that is no more aggressive than it has to be. There a lot of polishes that finish out nice put remove way more clear than is needed in the process. Too many on here only seem to care about the final finish. Why remove more clear than needed.
MichaelM said:
Why would I? It's moronically obvious that if using identical pads and machines on the same paint on the same panel and the only difference is the product used, the product that removes the most marring in one application is the most aggressive. In my testing it was UF over FP II.
Junebug
JAFO
With M105 you stop when the defect is gone - ok, and IMHO, only keep polishing if you have a client that will pay for it, then grab ultrafina or 85rd. Mike Phillips did an experiment where they used wool pads and some rocks in the bottle compound and showed via a paint guage how friggin hard you would have to buff to remove a little bit of clear.
David Fermani
Forza Auto Salon
Anthony A said:
Anthony A said:
Ultrafina = Ultra-Filler. It WILL and DOES fill (chemically). I've discussed this with 3 3M reps and they seem to agree. Body shops everywhere are avoiding their 3 step process and going from Compound to UF with decent results (temporarily). That's because it has great long lasting fillers. It does and will wear off slowing bringing back the wool pad/compound marring in these applications. Any time it removes more than light/faint buffer trails(especially with a finishing pad) it is most likely filling. It's not designed to do anything more than that. Take some UF and rub it between 2 pieces of celophane. You'll notice it hardly has any abrasives. Do the same with FPII & PO85 and you'll see the difference. You can buff a car with UF many dozen times and probably not remove a micron or 2 of paint.
JuneBug said:
Car Care Forums: Meguiar's Online - View Single Post - How much paint are you removing.
This shows a wool pad and diamond cut dropped the paint thickness .1ml after a wet sanding (readings taken before/after wet sanding and after compounding)
That's not a TON of clear coat, but I guess when you can remove 'up to' .5ml safely you could in theory compound your car with wool/diamond cut 5 times before you would have to start worrying about the clear. That's also assuming the clear is the same thickness throughout the vehicle.
*Edit: numbers changed for WHOOPSIES.
JuneBug said:
Whats any of that have to do with with UF being more aggressive than FP II? Thats really the only point I'm making in this thread. I have found UF to be more aggressive than FP II. Both are light finishing polishes but UF has more cut.
As for how hard it it to remove clear. I have hit base coat by hand and PC and I wasn't going crazy at it either. If I can remove all defects in one application the product is too aggressive. It removed all the defects and than some which is more than I need. I want it to remove most of them and than I step down and finish with a lighter Polish. This way I have removed just enough clear to fix the problem and no more.
David Fermani
Forza Auto Salon
Anthony A said:
I did a brand new Vette last weekend that had light rids. I initially tried 85rd and white pad(2 attempts) and it corrected about 60-70% of them and made the paint really glossy. I stepped right up to M105/Orange LC and it gave me 100% correction. (I then followed with 85rd). I seriously doubt I jeapordized the longevity of the clear one bit.
Setec Astronomy
Well-known member
Mindflux said:
I think you have your decimal point in the wrong place, Fluxy. The compounding took off .1 mil, so you could do that 5 times before you got to .5 mil. It should also be mentioned that compounding a wetsanded surface might give different results than compounding an unsanded surface (the wetsanded surface should theoretically cut faster since it has less material there due to the hills and valleys of the sand scratches).
David Fermani said:
Interesting. 3M releases UF and makes a big deal about it not having any fillers and that it removes the defects not fills them. As I said the video that came out with the polish emphasized this point. Now you say the product does have fillers and is in fact an Ultra Filler. Thats one extreme to the next. Absolutely no filling to an extreme filler. If that is in fact true 3M massively screwed up. They are not just wrong but they couldn't be more wrong in their product description. Pretty big screw up form a quality company like 3M. A screw up that would get more attention if it were true.
Any ways I have never experienced filling with UF. I use it to remove very minor marring I get that FP II doesn't remove. The marring I occasionally get is very minor. It doesn't come back after UF and in fact it doesn't reappear with an alcohol wipe down either so I don't know what to tell you except it doesn't fill for me and it does have more cut than FP II for sure.
Setec Astronomy
Well-known member
Mindflux said:
No, we're talking 0.1 mil. My math isn't that bad; 4.0 to 3.9 is 0.1.
David Fermani
Forza Auto Salon
Anthony A said:
Please understand Anthony that 3M (Aftermarket BS Division) doesn't really concentrate on marketing and developing their products outside of their own product line parameters. They developed thier Perfect-It 3000 system be used as a 3 step system for Body Shops. UF is designed to be used as the final step after compounding and primary polishing refinement. It will remove light buffer trails induced by their middle polishing step polish/pad. It isn't designed to be used directly following the wool pad/compound step. I've seen it gloss out and fill this abrasion level many times on black and dark colored paints. Even after a couple paint thinner wipe downs. The thing is the fillers that they use in UF are very durable(which is great), but eventually they will and do wear off. Next time you are compounding and creating noticeable halograms just try it. Go to Uf with a soft or medium foam pad and see how well it looks and how long it lasts. My point is that UF *can* fill when used outside of it's intended parameters. If it didn't they would have made a 2 step system for polishing out 3000 grit sand scratches instead.
David Fermani said:
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.
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.
- Status