Collinite ordering products ......

Rob Tomlin said:
.. Technically Finish Kare does *not* call FK 1000p a "wax". They call it a "Synthetic Paste Wax", which is exactly what it is..
Click to expand...



My older tin just says "High Temp Paste Wax".



Eh, we're getting into minor semantic issues here, and my $0.02 is that *I* would prefer that they call it a "sealant" instead of [any kind of] wax.



But they don't care what I'd prefer (and I bet plenty of other people don't either :chuckle: ) and can call their stuff whatever they want.



*I* think of "waxes" as natural products and "sealants" as synthetic ones, but that's just me. This is sorta like my :argue about how Meguiar's uses certain words. OK, whatever....
 
Well, I do agree that if it just says "High Temp Paste Wax" on those other cans, it is misleading. Like I said, my can says "Synthetic Paste Wax" which is not misleading at all imo.
 
Rob Tomlin- Yeah, the other tin I have sounds a lot more accurate; the "synthetic" is a nice addition. But eh...I bet I'm the only person who cares.



IIRC the tin that left that out on the top label *does* say something like that on the back, but the print is so small that I couldn't make it out and I wasn't sufficiently curious to get out some optics. When I first got it (it was a freebie sample), I didn't bother reading the back label then either, and it just sat around on the shelf for a while because I thought "eh, I couldn't care less about another new paste wax". Yeah, that was *my* fault, but the label did factor in to my (faulty) reasoning.
 
Well, after experimenting/using the Collinite 915 I think I have made an early verdict/judgment call. While I would say that this wax actually seems to be underrated in terms of looks (it looks great) and the beading is pretty amazing, in my opinion the increased dust attraction vs a sealant (BWD in this case) is noticeable enough to me that I can't recommend the product.



I am not going to call it a dust "magnet" like some waxes can be, but there is enough of an increase in dust that it negates its potential strengths in my opinion.



I'm trying the IW 845 now. This stuff went on easy, but didn't remove nearly as easy as I had been led to believe..
 
Rob Tomlin said:
I'm trying the IW 845 now. This stuff went on easy, but didn't remove nearly as easy as I had been led to believe..
Click to expand...



Heh heh, yet another YMMV situation, huh? This one does sorta surprise me as I did a coat of 845 (via PC with Griot's red foam wax pad) recently and it was really about as easy as LSPing can be (right up there with Souveran/etc.).



What did you do to the surface before the 845?



I'm assuming you did a nice thin application (as per most any LSP).



I'm almost afraid to post this, lest I jinx things ;) but I'd expect the 845 to be better than the 915 when it comes to dust attraction. The M3 has been sitting in my shop for months and the 845 on it doesn't seem to be attracting an appreciable amount of dust...nothing dramatically different from the Fk1000Ped Yukon parked next to it. Well, at least not that I can tell.
 
Rob Tomlin said:
Well, after experimenting/using the Collinite 915 I think I have made an early verdict/judgment call. While I would say that this wax actually seems to be underrated in terms of looks (it looks great) and the beading is pretty amazing, in my opinion the increased dust attraction vs a sealant (BWD in this case) is noticeable enough to me that I can't recommend the product.



I am not going to call it a dust "magnet" like some waxes can be, but there is enough of an increase in dust that it negates its potential strengths in my opinion.



I'm trying the IW 845 now. This stuff went on easy, but didn't remove nearly as easy as I had been led to believe..
Click to expand...



Really? I've never experienced a dust "attraction" problem with any of the Collinite waxes.
 
Could the dust attraction be from static bulid up due to buffing the wax off? I bet you will not have a dust problem if you gave the car a quick wash.
 
Strokin04 said:
Could the dust attraction be from static bulid up due to buffing the wax off? I bet you will not have a dust problem if you gave the car a quick wash.
Click to expand...



That's what I was hoping too, but it didn't happen.



Believe me, I was not going to make *that* quick of a judgment on the dust attraction. Not only have a washed the car since application, I also used FK 425 on it. There is still noticeably more dust than the portion of the vehicle with BWD on it.
 
Rob Tomlin said:
That's what I was hoping too, but it didn't happen.



Believe me, I was not going to make *that* quick of a judgment on the dust attraction. Not only have a washed the car since application, I also used FK 425 on it. There is still noticeably more dust than the portion of the vehicle with BWD on it.
Click to expand...



I might need to try some BWD because dust is a huge problem where I live. Thanks for the feedback!!!
 
Well, heck, I now have to reconsider my findings regarding the 915 and dust attraction. Why? I was looking at the roof of my wifes Mazda 5 today, and man, there is no doubt at all that there is *significantly* more dust on it than is on the hood (roof = 015, hood = BWD). So why do I need to reconsider my findings? Because the *glass sunroof* also had *lots* of dust on it. The glass was not waxed.



So, it is possible that the roof simply attracts more dust than the hood, and this might be the case even if it had BWD on it.



I just don't remember noticing this before though, and it seems like something that I would have noticed.



I know that the back of the car always has more dust, as that's where the aerodynamics push all the dust.



I'm just going to make this easy on myself and apply some 915 to part of the hood so I can compare side by side and do it right.



Hope I didn't lose too much credibility on this one! :o
 
Setec Astronomy said:
Doesn't the topping with BWD with OCW make it an apples to oranges comparison unless you top the 915 with OCW as well?
Click to expand...



Arguably, yes it does, which is why I specifically mentioned that I was using OCW on the BWD before. I should have done that in my last post too.



I don't know why I hadn't got around to topping the 915 with OCW. That would be interesting to see if it makes a difference.
 
Rob Tomlin said:
That's what I was hoping too, but it didn't happen.



Believe me, I was not going to make *that* quick of a judgment on the dust attraction. Not only have a washed the car since application, I also used FK 425 on it. There is still noticeably more dust than the portion of the vehicle with BWD on it.
Click to expand...



Any change with the dusting factor for you? I just put a coat of 845 on my DD and love the ease of use and looks I get on silver.
 
Strokin04 said:
Any change with the dusting factor for you? I just put a coat of 845 on my DD and love the ease of use and looks I get on silver.
Click to expand...



Thanks for asking, as I was meaning to update today.



I masked off a 7" x 7" area on the hood, IPA'd it a few times, and applied 915. It's been 4 days, and so far, I really don't notice much, if any, difference in dust attraction.



My early conclusion is that the roof of the car simply attracts/accumulates more dust than the hood. I'm just not sure why I hadn't noticed that before. :think:



Then again, maybe a 7 x 7 section is too small to really notice a difference?
 
Oklahoma is so dry and dusty that I find no matter what I use my cars get dusty. Even using anti-static QD's like FK425 did nothing to help me out. Good to hear the 915 is working out.
 
Rob Tomlin said:
Have you done a direct comparison to a sealant on the same car?
Click to expand...





Only to the extent that on my Mini I use 915 on the white top and Z-2 on the body. Just never noticed any particular problem with dust attraction and I've been using Collinite for a long time on lots of different vehicles. I don't live in a dry/dusty area though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top