M95: Heavy Filling/Masking Potenital Alert

[imported_Picus]

I've used M95 quite a bit. On harder paints it cuts quite well, but I'd never finish with it. I treat it just like 105 in the sense that I will always follow with something like SIP/white and FPII/black etc... On softer paint I noticed it left quite a bit of deeper holograming, which is fine except I can get the same cut with 105 or hi temp extreme or presta 1500 and get less holograms. So ya, I guess the bottom line is if you're compounding heavily and don't want holograms there is no shortcut, you have to use an intermediate cutting step then a finishing step. Of course there are variations on this, but that's pretty much how it is.

 

[imported_rydawg1]

Yea Todd you should of used it with a PC. :doh



Why should you listen to Mike Phillips when you have all of these experts to tell you what to do? :secret



Can someone send me some M95 so I can get done with this Benz in a few hours? :think2

:woot::LOLOL

 

[imported_rydawg1]

I've found under the lights, M95 with Orange CCS/Flex leaves a bit of marring. I resolve this with 106FF but would never be comfortable with finishing down M95 with any pad.



PowerGloss with Blue Pad anyone?

:getdown Gotta love that matte look with the cross hatch cut.:spot

 

[imported_Denzil]

#1-Not all paint reacts the same. So what may not have worked for you, CAN work for someone else.

I think everyone already knows this by now.

#2-The results are real. Take it for what it's worth.

Pictures are pictures... it never truly depicts the true finish of the vehicle no matter what your settings are on your camera.

Todd, are you trying to put me down with this post, or Meguiar's? Cause I thought that was looked down upon here at Autopia

I don't exactly see where in Todd's post he is putting you down nor does he refer to your real name or forum handle. Yet, you've managed to state who you are and make very bold claims only to satisfy your personal ego.



I can tell you right now that the results are real, yes, but probably for a week at best. You simply can't finish down with a compound. It's against the simple law of physics. Feel free to argue but it's useless.

And this wasn't a 1 step process. It was actually 3 steps.....but Todd conveniently forgot to leave that part out.



95 on wool via rotary

95 on black foam via rotary

then 95 on DA





I love it when someone only tells PART of the story to try and make someone else look bad. Good job Todd:2thumbs:

With this quote by itself, it's not Todd that's making you look bad, it's really yourself. I really don't know where you learned to finish with a compound but I can tell you outright that it may work for you but it doesn't work for any of us professional detailers. I guess that's why you're not a pro, are you? :wow:

I'm not advocating anything. Just letting you guys know my position on this. I am not a rep for Meguiar's, nor do I have any affiliation with them other than their products work for me.



Take a look at the pictures, then read your sig...



Nick

Your position on the original post or your position on your work? It seems like it's the latter since your previous posts hold the tone of being offended and personally attacked. Also, using M95 as a finishing polish means you are advocating that we all finish down with M95.

You're right Todd, it's a crappy job on that car



This was a multi step process. Rotary/wool, rotary/foam, then DA/foam. Todd, your results turned out the way they did BECAUSE YOU USED THE PRODUCT WRONG!!! And now you come on here and blame the product?



There is a term we use in the airline industry.....Pilot Error!

I don't think any of us have claimed that your work was crappy but the way you are handling the entire situation is preposterous. Firstly, you're not using the product per Meguiar's directions and somehow yet you're saying Todd, one of Autopia's most respected and skilled detailers, achieved his results due to him using the product wrong. So I presume that rotary/wool, rotary/foam, then DA/foam with M95 is the only way to detail a car huh? That's quite farfetched if I think so.



Blame the product? Sure, if that's what they call it these days. Did you even bother reading the thread title? M95: Heavy Filling/Masking Potential Alert



Maybe you should actually read and think before you post something useful on any forum.

 

[imported_rydawg1]

I think what Todd is trying to say is that 95 will mask the actual defects on certain paints. The whole point of compounding is to actually remove the defects and not mask them up.

He is not talking about compound holograms being masked, but the actual defects that he thought were removed (deep swirls, rids, light etching, etc..)



I know that Megs designed 95 to cut and remove defects without filling or swelling paint, but for some reason it will mask defects instead of removing them on some stupid new paints.



When it comes to paint perfection and correction, you will get 100's of answers of what true actual paint correction is. Some focus on gloss, depth, refletivity, and shine. When it comes to true paint correction, I always focus after the defects, scratches, swirls, marring, etc.... once you have all your steps done and the paint is flawless defect wise, you should have perfect paint with a radiant glow, superb depth, tack sharp reflections, superb gloss, etc... Not once do I ever try to get gloss while correcting, but I always focus after the defects and everything else will follow.

 

[imported_weekendwarrior]

Nick,

Not an attack, but I am curious...Instead of using M95 for all 3 steps, why would you not step down to a different product, more suited for that specific step of the polishing process? It's not like it really saves you any time, as all you have to do is just grab a different bottle? If youprefer Meguiar's, why not M95, then M83, then either M83 or M80 on the PC to final?



Using M95 for each step seems like a builder using a sledge hammer for EVERY step of the home building process. Sure, it could probably be done, but why?

 

[n737nc]

Wow! Talk about getting beat up!



Denzil, You have quite a lot of opinions about me, yet you don't know me at all. Yes I did finish with a compound, and it worked. Whats the problem? I know I'm not using the product per Meguiar's directions, but does that mean it won't work? M105 isn't advertised as being a metal polish, but sometimes it works. Does that mean I shouldn't use it that way? Is it just masking the results? #4 works very well at removing hard water spots from glass, but it's not advertised to do so. So should I stop?



Every car I do, I do a test spot to see whats going to work. When I find a combination of pads/products/tools that work to make the finish look good, I then wipe it down with alcohol to remove any fillers or anything that may mask the results. If after I wipe it down, if there are any imperfections, I start over and find something that does works. M105 and #95 are no different. I wiped them down, and no imperfections were revealed. How is this a bad thing? Yes it is a compound, and yes I used it as a finishing polish. It was then wiped down with alcohol afterward and it revealed no imperfections, so why not use it?



Todd, if you were not trying to insult me by starting this post, then I apologize. I'll be the first to admit that I sometimes get a little hot headed. There are a couple of people here at Autopia that don't like me, and that's fine. I stay away from here for the most part, and try not to start anything. But when I see reference to myself here, I kind of get defensive(I seem to always have to defend myself here), and your original post made reference to me as it was my post you brought up.



I stated that you used the product wrong, and maybe I shouldn't of said that. What I should have said was that we used the product differently, on different vehicles, and achieved different results. You used the product on a black C6, one of the harder paints. You used the product on a DA and made 2 passes with it. It didn't work for you.

I used the product on a 2007 Trailblazer SS, a little bit of a softer paint. I used the product with a rotary with wool, rotary with foam, then a DA. My results were different than yours because we used a different process on different vehicles. So I apologize for saying that you used the product wrong(that was my hot head coming out). We just used the product differently. But we all know that trying to remove paint defects on a C6 Vette, only using a DA is taking the long road no matter what product you're using.



Nick

 

[Pats300zx]

Hey Todd and Nick...



Lets digress from the finger pointing and focus on the discussion of the product.



This thread is NOT going to turn into mess. :thx

 

[Scottwax]

#83 does the same thing. Pull the car out into the sun, let it sit a while and while the swirl removal held, holograms starting appearing all over the paint. #83 by rotary has to be followed by a lighter polish...and #83 isn't nearly as aggressive as #95.

 

[Bigpoppa3346]

Maybe I missed it somewhere, but what exactly returned? The original marring or the new rotary holograms?

 

[wannafbody]

#83 does the same thing. Pull the car out into the sun, let it sit a while and while the swirl removal held, holograms starting appearing all over the paint. #83 by rotary has to be followed by a lighter polish...and #83 isn't nearly as aggressive as #95.

I agree with Scott. If you're using a compound as a finishing polish you aren't doing things correctly. Always use a finishing polish.

 

[imported_Denzil]

n737nc, my post was simply to address your claims and your hot-headed nature (at the time). It really irks me when forum members overreact when a warning for a product is given to benefit all of us only to have someone overreact.



I know I don't know you at all but I do know that finishing with a compound isn't the right way to go about paint correction. Sure finishing with a compound will work at the time but what about weeks or months down the road when the defects reappear. Sure, you can use M105 as a metal polish but it doesn't necessarily mean it is the best product or tool, if you will, for the job. Yet, there are certain things you can get away with and others where you can't with finishing with a compound being one of them.



You really have to keep in mind that IPA wipe-downs never really guarantee a perfectly clean paint surface. They can only do so much as in some cases the polish lubricant (carrier oils, etc.) still remain after IPA wipe-downs. Ok so sure it may look great after your IPA wipe-downs but what about letting the vehicle sit in the sun for a few hours for the carrier oils to dry up? Have you ever tested that?



Please remember that I have no personal grudges against you and I wasn't personally attacking you but rather the way you handled yourself from your previous posts. It seems your head has leveled off fine now so take what others and myself have posted as constructive criticism despite how harsh it may sound. :dance

 

[Eisen Hulk]

Here are my thoughts about this. Let this guy continue doing what he's doing if he feels this is the correct method. His actions will catch up with him, and customers will see the end results.

 

[Bert]

A little off the subject, but don't the majority of polishes/compounds fill even if the manufacturer didn't intend for them to fill in the first place? I sometimes wonder if the lubricating oils in the polishes/compounds lead to filling.

 

[Setec Astronomy]

A little off the subject, but don't the majority of polishes/compounds fill even if the manufacturer didn't intend for them to fill in the first place? I sometimes wonder if the lubricating oils in the polishes/compounds lead to filling.

I think that was the point of the thread.

 

[Todd@RUPES]

Wow! Talk about getting beat up!



Denzil, You have quite a lot of opinions about me, yet you don't know me at all. Yes I did finish with a compound, and it worked. Whats the problem? I know I'm not using the product per Meguiar's directions, but does that mean it won't work? M105 isn't advertised as being a metal polish, but sometimes it works. Does that mean I shouldn't use it that way? Is it just masking the results? #4 works very well at removing hard water spots from glass, but it's not advertised to do so. So should I stop?



Every car I do, I do a test spot to see whats going to work. When I find a combination of pads/products/tools that work to make the finish look good, I then wipe it down with alcohol to remove any fillers or anything that may mask the results. If after I wipe it down, if there are any imperfections, I start over and find something that does works. M105 and #95 are no different. I wiped them down, and no imperfections were revealed. How is this a bad thing? Yes it is a compound, and yes I used it as a finishing polish. It was then wiped down with alcohol afterward and it revealed no imperfections, so why not use it?



Todd, if you were not trying to insult me by starting this post, then I apologize. I'll be the first to admit that I sometimes get a little hot headed. There are a couple of people here at Autopia that don't like me, and that's fine. I stay away from here for the most part, and try not to start anything. But when I see reference to myself here, I kind of get defensive(I seem to always have to defend myself here), and your original post made reference to me as it was my post you brought up.

I stated that you used the product wrong, and maybe I shouldn't of said that. What I should have said was that we used the product differently, on different vehicles, and achieved different results. You used the product on a black C6, one of the harder paints. You used the product on a DA and made 2 passes with it. It didn't work for you.

I used the product on a 2007 Trailblazer SS, a little bit of a softer paint. I used the product with a rotary with wool, rotary with foam, then a DA. My results were different than yours because we used a different process on different vehicles. So I apologize for saying that you used the product wrong(that was my hot head coming out). We just used the product differently. But we all know that trying to remove paint defects on a C6 Vette, only using a DA is taking the long road no matter what product you're using.



Nick

Nick I am sorry as well, and I personally can understand where you where comming from (being upset) which is why I didn't want to react. We all take pride in our work (and we should, otherwise we shouldn't do what we do).



I had zero intention of turning this into a debate but wanted to share an experience that I (and others) have had with M95. Your post only happened to highlight what I see as a potenital problem, but I could/should have made the post with out the reference to your work.



I didn't know Nick Chapman=n737nc, fwiw. Also, please keep in mind, that in my experience that your car looks perfect in the picture and IME there is a good chance it will look perfect 3 months from now. Personally, I have had too many experiences of defect return 2 to 3 months after polishing, that I am overly cautious (if there is such a thing) about finishing paint out to the best of our ability and taking crazy precautions to prevent defect return. I can only speak from my experience and shortcommings...

 

[Todd@RUPES]

A little off the subject, but don't the majority of polishes/compounds fill even if the manufacturer didn't intend for them to fill in the first place? I sometimes wonder if the lubricating oils in the polishes/compounds lead to filling.

Bert I have seen defect return with every polish I have ever used (except certain water based polishes like Z-PC).



I believe that it is a function of the carrier products in the polish, but somebody who is far smarter then I on this has opened my eyes to a different possiblity.

 

[Setec Astronomy]

I believe that it is a function of the carrier products in the polish, but somebody who is far smarter then I on this has opened my eyes to a different possiblity.

But you're going to keep us in suspense?

 

[PresdntialDtail]

But you're going to keep us in suspense?

+1, Todd, did you happen to get my email about the Jaguar E-Type??

 

[Todd@RUPES]

+1, Todd, did you happen to get my email about the Jaguar E-Type??

I just checked my SPAM and it was in there. I see you sent it a couple days ago. I've got to run out now, but I'll hit you up tomorrow, sorry!!



Todd