Collinite 476S vs. 845

[Accumulator]

... 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.. it's not irrelevent, but hardly definitive.

Eh, I wouldn't go so far as to say it's "bogus", but yeah, IMO it's generally one of those possibly excessive, "erring on the side of caution" things. But I suppose people with stupid-soft clear might have a different opinion about its relevance



Stuff that'll scratch a CD doesn't always mar my Audis, so I can see both viewpoints.

 

[NSXTASY]

I certainly wouldn't want to use a wax if it can scratch a CD *runs down with CDs to wax stash*.



Gold Class is junk anyway.

 

[imported_User Name]

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're the first person I've ever heard this from. Don't you think if this was the norm the pros at Megs would say something? Why keep a product on the shelf that causes damage?



If they wanted, they could simply fill GC bottles with NXT 2.0 and add a different scent and nobody would know.

 

[qwertydude]

It may be the case but then again if that kind of thinking were prevalent then Zymol would discontinue it's cleaner wax, plus NXT is expensive. Instead they use Gold Class as an upgrade to really cheap otc's when the average person sees the slight improvement in a bad finish that GC can do they may purchase better megs products. GC seems to "restore" bad finishes ok, and is probably geared to those who are happy with waxing once a year since it will offer improvement but is nowhere near good enough for those who wax more often, recreational waxers if you will. Those types are better served with a good polish and pure wax. As these waxes are layerable which can hide defects better and the polish step actually can correct without marring.

 

[imported_Picus]

I do think CD's generally scratch easier than paint, but even so if a product is doing that to a CD odds are I won't use it on my paint. Then again I am sure I have some microfibers which would scratch a CD. In any event, I was never really super impressed by the look of GC so it doesn't make much difference to me. If I was going to top 467S I'd probably just use OCW.