Collinite 476S vs. 845

I don't think you'll have an issue putting more collinite on. I'd personally not top it, just because I wouldn't want any solvents in the CG liquid wax to remove any of the collinite. Do you find CG looks significantly better than 476? I find 476 looks pretty ok.
 
CG??? As in chemical guys? I meant Gold Class.



I like the way GC looks. Not great durability but a great look, although IMO, there is very little difference in looks between any of the good LSP's.
 
Gold class is a terrible product, there are a lot of filler oils in it. Sure it hides some defects but did you know it also mars you paint? That soft glow that people says it gives is the diffusion of the light through it's micro marring. It was the worst offender of any lsp I've ever seen using my cd test, try waxing a cd with it and inspecting it under a bright light and you'll see scratches. Try also rubbing it between 2 cd's and you'll feel that it has some very large and very concentrated abrasive particles, larger and more abrasive than even there DC polish line. Doesn't leave a decent finish if you do an ipa wipedown to remove all the fillers it leaves behind.
 
Picus- If you're getting great results with the immediate wipe, I sure wouldn't change anything :D I only quit doing my LSPs that way after Mike Phillips challenged me about it (conceptually speaking). 476S lasts a good long time no matter *how* you apply it.
 
qwertydude said:
Gold class is a terrible product, there are a lot of filler oils in it. Sure it hides some defects but did you know it also mars you paint? That soft glow that people says it gives is the diffusion of the light through it's micro marring..
Click to expand...



The Meg's Trade Secret Oils *can* do some concealing..some people like 'em, others don't (last car I did for somebody else, the owner specifically wanted the "Meguiar's look").



On the abrasives, you're saying that they don't break down/etc.? I don't use GC, don't think I ever have, but I'm surprised to hear a Meguiar's LSP (let alone from their consumer line) would be so abrasive as do damage paint :think:



I can't help but think of 1Z Paint Polish, which, while being a medium-aggressive abrasive polish, can also be thought of as a type of cleaner wax. It has a fair bit of cut but it leaves a nice (waxed) finish. IF the GC is abrasive, I woulda expected it to behave similarly.
 
Yes I'd compare the abrasives in GC to what you find in NuFinish. Here's a quick test I just did.



p9230353us4.jpg




Meg's DC is on top, very fine and consistent particle size and breaks down in a decent amount of time, about 30-45 seconds which is why it leaves such a good finish.



The Meg's Gold Class paste, on the left, has a large particle size, larger than even NuFinish. The density is not as dense as NuFinish but what's there is large and doesn't seem to break down in any reasonable time, especially if doing work by hand which GC users tend to do.



The NuFinish, on the right, has a smaller but more dense particle size than GC, also doesn't break down in any reasonable time but at least leaves a half decent finish. Hey we all know and hate NuFinish right? Than why the love for something as bad for paint as GC? :wall
 
The only thing I can think of is that the CD is MUCH easier to scratch and clear coat or you GC paste is defective or it doesn't occur in the liquid.



I've used it on my wife's CR-V in the past and I have NO scratches or swirls on the car. I just haven't had that experience. As for the concealing... I just don't know.
 
Sorry polycarbonate is much harder than urethane they even make bulletproof glass with polycarbonate, those abrasives are in the liquid too. The only thing that prevents the majority of damage is the amount of lubricating oils, my cd test negates those oils and reveals exactly what type of abrasives are used in a polish or cleaner wax. In this case megs would have done better to put the same abrasives in GC as they have done in DC. But they figure most people who buy GC aren't as critical and don't mind the micro-marring it'll leave behind.



You may not see it at first but after a few weeks you'll notice the swirls return and if it were a pristine finish to start you'll notice that you now have fine swirls. There is nothing wrong with my GC considering this is the first time I've opened it since I got it last year, cd tested it and was shocked. I wouldn't let it touch my car's paint. Oh yeah the liquid has the same abrasives too, I tested my friends bottle of GC just to be sure as I was so shocked at the paste, same results. He then shelved it.



I suggest you try it out yourself. Put a drop between two cd-r's and rub'em together and you'll be horrified at the grit you feel between the cd's. Given the short life of the wax itself and how often it is applied by everyday users to maintain the "just waxed" look I would expect it to do some damage over time kinda like using "rocks in a bottle" NuFinish every month. Bad idea as it thins clear over time. You're better off polishing once every season and using a high quality pure wax as you'll be doing less harm than a wax every couple weeks with GC. And a pure wax like collinite lasts a lot longer than GC. The benefits are way better since a good polishing with a finer polish then followed with a good lsp gives better and longer lasting results than an cleaner wax, especially a low end cleaner wax like GC.
 
qwertydude- Thanks for posting that comparo pic...who woulda thunk it :nixweiss



And yeah, some paints are harder than some CDs and vice-versa, so it's not a perfect, across-the-board test, but it's still informative.
 
Well, I've used it about 4 times on my wife's CR-V over the last 13 months. I was just examining the car this Sunday for swirls (in the sun) and couldn't find any (other than in my rear tail lights).
 
No, he really should. I think it is good and useful information.



Heck, he should rub some on a "test spot" on a car and show them if it is doing this. I really am puzzled by it.
 
I'd be flamed for years for that. Unfortunately science is not very well accepted by the general lot, and is abhorred by fanatics like you find on the meg's site. I find that there are quite a few open minds here. I am purely doing an objective test here and though there are uses for NuFinish I don't find much use for GC. NuFinish is good for severely oxidized finishes and the strong solvent and synthetic protection the NuFinish leaves behind does protect for quite a while so NuFinishing is minimized, GC on the other hand abrades much and lasts a short amount of time. Not a good combination imo.
 
I don't think there is any reason to be blamed for objective findings.



A simple post saying "hey, look at what happened". My first guess is that you'll be told the CD is a bad item to test on. Beyond that, I would imagine they might ask you to send you can of paste to them for a full refund (and test it themselves).



No need for a flame war.
 
qwertydude said:
Sorry polycarbonate is much harder than urethane they even make bulletproof glass with polycarbonate, those abrasives are in the liquid too.
Click to expand...

Polycarbonate may be harder but less scratch-resistant. CDs scartch much easier. IMO, the CD test is bogus. All it demonstrates is whether a product can scratch a CD, not paint. The only benefit of the CD-test is that, if it doesn't scratch a CD it won't scratch paint. Paint responds VERY differently to scratches than polycarbonate.



More likely your application medium is causing the cratches.
 
If you really want to be daring, try rubbing a cd on your paint with only the wax in question to lube them. I guarantee you'll gouge the paint so badly as to make it correctable only by wet sanding. The pad and the oils buffer the abrasives some but that's like saying if I put sand in an oil suspension, and a soft sponge I won't harm my paint. You still will but not as bad as rubbing pure sand. My cd test eliminates the effect of pads and lubricating oils. It lets me get a feel for how polishes behave and why some leave behind gouging when used improperly, or why some don't break down, or why some are good. This test is not irrelevant since it's similar to what chemists use to determine particle size for different purposes, in which case they use a tapered metal board and plate which separate particles based on size.



I've tried it with M105 and what is surprising is that M105 leaves behind almost no damage, and doesn't break down, there a post here called "grits and gravy" that I made and you should give it a look. What I can conclude from that is that it has the finest particle size of any polish currently on the market, yet to cut as well as it does means the particles are very hard and sharp. Also by the feel it's very dense. Since it has the properties of small particle size, extreme sharpness and hardness it means it need less oils to prevent gouging. This in turn translates to a quicker cut because of high particle density but finer finish left behind because of a very small and uniform particle size. This is what makes it revolutionary. All this I can deduce from rubbing two cd's together. This type of investigatory process scares people, especially those in the business because it means I can easily steal their secrets and bust open any fraudulent claims made by them. So I believe it's not irrelevant but can be informative to say the least.
 
qwertydude said:
So I believe it's not irrelevant but can be informative to say the least.
Click to expand...

As I implied, it's not irrelevent, but hardly definitive.



Different abrasives not only have different size/sharpness, but different fracture pressures. Polycarbonate doesn't replicate paint. Simple.



So can't replicate how an abrasive behaves on paint. Also simple.



You still didn't say what medium you're using to apply on to the CD. :)
 
I've got to go along with what Paul is saying for the simple reasons that I stated. I don't have scratches or swirls on the car. I can post some pics of it, but I don't think that will prove anything, since we all know how easily pics can be manipulated.
 
I'm using a CD to apply the wax and polish to a CD. This absolutely will tell me something about the fracture pressure of the abrasive since the buffering effect of lubrication is pretty much eliminated. I don't have the fancy glass plates and pressure meters of the advanced chemists to determine the absolutes but I have good polishes where I can compare the feel of the abrasive particles, which is way more than I can say simply by polishing paint.



DC polish breaks down fairly quickly telling me it has a low fracture pressure so it will leave a fine finish. GC doesn't, neither does NuFinish, but by inspecting the trail of scratches left behind with my jewelers loupe I can make a rough determination of particle size. I can also say that there is also another method to make diminishing abrasives, TW does this in their premium compounds. Take a very hard but very fine abrasive and mix it in with softer but larger abrasive particles and the fine particles will break down the large particles so that the large particles correct defects and the fine particles break the large ones down so it leaves a fine finish.



I'm not saying that what happens on the cd happens to your paint but just saying that GC is not a high quality product and you're better off with NuFinish since it has finer polishing agents and lasts longer. You can't conclude that just by polishing half a hood with each snapping pics and saying look at my hood. You'd never capture the fine micromarring left by each, GC's would be worse but still invisible to most cameras.



The reason why I'm on such a crusade against GC is because a long time ago I was working on a customers black lotus and he was very specific about what wax he liked, GC in this case. I polished his paint to absolute perfection because that's what he asked for, I then proceded to wax his car with the GC he provided and lo and behold it ruined the mirror finish with micro marring that was visible in direct sunlight and through my point source led inspection light. I was using the most gentle microfiber applicator I had at the time and I had to tell him the stuff was junk and he just wouldn't hear it. I highly suggested collinite 845, but when he saw what bottle it came in he nearly freaked out because and I'm quoting "That #$%@ has got to be garbage to come in a bottle like that!" So I waxed and cringed as all my hard work went down the tube.



I'm sure many would say at this point I'm nitpicking but I thought this is what autopians do. I just don't like that there are a lot of people in this business selling snake oils, even the big names have some bad products. There's a lot of marketing BS brainwashing people into believeing that theirs is the latest and greatest and I wish I could be there everytime to debunk the charlatans stealing other's money with inferior products. Unfortunately this is not the case and I'm left saying the sky is falling, but over time GC will cause more paint wear than a decent two step polish and wax with a fine polish and pure wax.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top