Junebug
JAFO
Dang it Doc, you beat me to it! I like IP too!
Menzerna Question
- Thread starter sfa500
- Start date
jswift2000
New member
Doc - is that IP alone or finished down with the 87 after? That is one nice shine if thats IP alone - what speed did you use to get IP to finish down so nice?
jswift2000 said:
Sorry, I should have clarified. That is the final result after using IP and 87MC. Though I tell you, even before the 87MC, IP left very little to no haze at all. I used speed 6 on the UDM with IP and 5 with 87 MC. IMO, when people have bad results with it, it is usually because they did not break it down well, they used it in cold weather, or they used a too aggressive pad with it. Check out my post to see all the before and after pics http://autopia.org/forum/click-brag/102683-06-toyota-scion-tc.html
citizen arcane
New member
I have IP and FPII, love the polishes - hate the dusting! Please pass on tips/tricks to keep the dusting down w/ PCs.
Setec Astronomy said:
Absolutely. Let me clarify by saying that I used to regard IP as the best light compound on the market. And it's not to say that you can't remove swirls and get good results using it. However, it uses a smaller number of larger abrasives than SIP, whereas SIP uses a high concentration of higher-grade, smaller abrasives...so IP leaves substantially heavier micromarring via a DA buffer or heavier buffer swirls via a rotary. So bottom line, IP requires more follow-up buffing to remove the remove the micro-marring or buffer swirls than than when SIP is used. For me, time is money and if I can accomplish the same results in less time, I'm all for it. The goal is to have a product that removes defects as quickly as possible relative to the surface condition it leaves behind, and both SIP and 106FF do this very efficiently.
So "yes," I use SIP instead of IP. Also, I can use FPII via a wool pad and remove defects much much faster than IP via a foam pad, yet the buffer swirls left behind are actually less...effectively making IP obsolete for me. I very much like FPII via a wool pad...more so than 106FF because 106FF tends to clog the wool too fast.
Great results. I really do have no use for IP any more, but even if you were paying me full price it isn't worth it for me to package it up and go down to the post office to ship it out. If we ever have a detail day down my way where I don't have to ship the stuff, that would be a different story.
[quote name='detaildoc']RAG, I'll be more than happy to take IP off your hands
(I am not too far from you). Results obtained last week with IP on very soft paint with an orange pad.
QUOTE]
[quote name='detaildoc']RAG, I'll be more than happy to take IP off your hands
(I am not too far from you). Results obtained last week with IP on very soft paint with an orange pad. QUOTE]
Junebug
JAFO
Let's see you're about three thousand miles away from me...nah, doubt I'll be able to drive over! But, let's agree to disagree about IP, the only issue I have is the dust, and I'm getting better cause it dusts less each time. Take care RAG, hope you weren't near the fires we saw on TV a while back.
Junebug
JAFO
PG - haven't tried that, have you tried 3M Extra Cut 3000? I picked up a quart along with the UltrafinaSE the other day. I tried it at a friends shop using his DeWalt and wool, I was impressed.
JuneBug said:
No I haven't, and unfortunately I can't say I've evaluated every product out there. But I've been meaning to give the Extra Cut 3000 a try. To evaluate a compound, I usually take a jet black panel, use the product with a white foam pad and evaluate for how effectively it removes defect and what condition it leaves the surface (or course some compounds leave such heavy buffer swirls that it can be difficult to determine how much of the defects were actually removed); I'll then see if I like its "working properties" when used with wool. Some compounds (like the Meguiars Heavy Cut on up) tend to have unevenly sized abrasives, so you'll have to spend a bunch of extra time final polishing just to remove a few of the deeper/rogue buffer swirls left by the larger abrasives...I try to stay away from this, as it can unnecessarily cause a couple extra hours of polishing.
KaiYenS said:
Depends on what you are trying to do. "Aggressiveness" can be controlled by many factors, including speed, pad, product, and pressure. So there's no real clear cut answer to your questions...depends on the condition of the paint, the color, hardness, etc., as well as what you are trying to do. But in general, you want to use one of the firmer cutting pads for deeper defect removal (along with a strong product and more pressure), and then follow up with with a softer pad, finer product, and less pressure. A white CCS pad with SIP is a decent bet for medium duty work, and the white pad will endure a lot of pressure should you want to get a little more aggressive. If you need something stronger you can use the white or orange pad with a compound first. In the end you can usually finish with a soft pad (like the gray CCS) and 106FF and get good results.