Meguiars 80/83 vs. Optimum Polish/Compound

Nice pictures. If Simple Green didn't remove the fillers, I don't know what will. Glad to know that there's others that suport the use of fillers too.
 
fillers arent a bad thing because who wants to take a finish to a perfect level only to have the customer come back 3 months later for another full detail due to terrible washing techniques...I dont! hence the reason fillers work for the very fine swirls and marring that may exist after the one compounding and one polishing steps (all they paid for)
 
But the problem is that people say that Meg's polishes are mostly fillers. That is completely false. I have done similar tests on many of Meg's so called "fillers" and every time I have found that they remove the marring. I'm not saying that they don't leave oils behind, just that those oils aren't hiding anything.



I have also put #7 on swirled panels and saw no reduction in swirl marks (I saw a greater reduction with NXT or #26) which tells me that Meg's polishes do a crappy job of masking or "filling" swirls to begin with.



Meg's has a reputation around here of being sup par polishes that are loaded with fillers (mostly by people who admit they never use them, then based on thier lack of information claim they are right), and I think its uncalled for because I have never seen to be the case.



If you want heavy "fillers" then use 3m polishes, which hide everything.
 
Don't products that claim to not have fillers remove more clear/paint than ones that have fillers/oils because they burnish the finish to correct it? I could buff a finish dozens if not 100's of times and still not worry about removing a nominal amount of paint. Could you do that with a non-filler polish? Is that why people that use those products carry paint thickness guages?
 
TH0001 said:
Meg's has a reputation around here of being sup par polishes that are loaded with fillers (mostly by people who admit they never use them, then based on thier lack of information claim they are right), and I think its uncalled for because I have never seen to be the case.
Click to expand...



I completely agree. Meguiars 80 series polishes are excellent products. #80 will always be a well used staple of my detailing regiment and to a lesser extent, #83.
 
David Fermani said:
Don't products that claim to not have fillers remove more clear/paint than ones that have fillers/oils because they burnish the finish to correct it? I could buff a finish dozens if not 100's of times and still not worry about removing a nominal amount of paint. Could you do that with a non-filler polish? Is that why people that use those products carry paint thickness guages?
Click to expand...





I think it's a bit of misunderstanding. All polishes (except ZPC) contain lubricating oils-wether solvent based or water based. I've used Megs #9 and it is loaded with filling oils-because it is so mild it fills more than removes. #80 is more aggressive and therefore removes more than it fills. Polishes with oils are OK if you are using a carnauba or synthetic wax that can adhere over the oils or if you do an ISO wipedown. I do question why you would use a product to polish paint that does so little correcting that you could use it 100's of times. For example FP2 is rated to remove 3000 grit sanding scratches-in other words it is very mild but it still corrects defects and doesn't simply fill them.
 
ZPC is completely water based and leaves nothing on the surface. Because of this, there is a little of a learning curve, but it is a gem of a polish once you get to learn it.



David Fermani's point is well taken also. Lets say you have 10 mm of paint thickenss (just for easy math) and your defects are 2 mm deep. To remove these defects you are going to have to shave 2 mm of paint off. Wouldn't it make more sense to remove only 1 mm and let some mild filling mask the rest. You end up with more film build (which clearcoats only have UV protection in the top 1/3) vs removing all 2 mm.
 
TH0001 said:
ZPC is completely water based and leaves nothing on the surface.
Click to expand...



Not so sure about that, it leaves the paint slicker than most medium grade polishes so it stands to reason it must be leaving something behind.



Because of this, there is a little of a learning curve, but it is a gem of a polish once you get to learn it.
Click to expand...



The person I got ZPC from said the same thing but I had no problems just jumping in and using it. Pretty goof proof if you ask me.
 
SpoiledMan said:
Please explain to me just what it is that separates out of ZPC then.
Click to expand...



I don't have a clue what seperates out of ZPC-Sal has posted elsewhere that ZPC contains no oils. You can always call him and ask.
 
Which is going on more then what you have. I mean the irony in your statement is funny, since your telling me something. I guess since you have no clue, and Sal invented the stuff, your opinion is more valid?
 
TH0001 said:
Which is going on more then what you have. I mean the irony in your statement is funny, since your telling me something. I guess since you have no clue, and Sal invented the stuff, your opinion is more valid?
Click to expand...



Reading a bit into nothing? What exactly do you think Spoiledman inferring?
 
Quoting and telling are not the same thing... However you saying implying heavily that water does not feel the same as ZPC and your follow up statement saying that more power to me if I believe it implies heavily that you think don't believe it is a water based product.



Then you tell people not to believe what they are told, which by law, rules out your earlier implication. Fair enough if you are telling me not to listen to you, since I wasn't anyways.



Then again I just ate jello, and the package said it had water. But I never felt water like that before.....
 
TH0001 said:
Quoting and telling are not the same thing... However you saying implying heavily that water does not feel the same as ZPC and your follow up statement saying that more power to me if I believe it implies heavily that you think don't believe it is a water based product.



Then you tell people not to believe what they are told, which by law, rules out your earlier implication. Fair enough if you are telling me not to listen to you, since I wasn't anyways.



Then again I just ate jello, and the package said it had water. But I never felt water like that before.....
Click to expand...





My point is simply don't go through life believing something to be true solely because somebody told you so.



You're right about that Jello. The water is put back into the dehydrated pork byproduct. It's the reason that many that don't eat pork also don't eat Jello.
 
TH0001 said:
Are you serious, he is completely implying that Sal is lying about ZPC.
Click to expand...



Based on what was posted, Sal said ZPC doesn't contain oils. Judging by my own use, that seems believable. But not leaving 'anything' on the surface as someone else claimed? It leaves the paint pretty slick so it seems something is being left behind. Perhaps some level of protection since you can go right to Z2 or Z5 without using ZFX?
 
Possum - the "other" white meat, yummmmmmmmm! Thought you fellas needed a break. Back on the original post - I think (based on using Meg's 84 and OP) that they are both good products and we could do this "less filling" ! "taste great" ! tango 4 ever. Hey, whatever turns your crank, use it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top