I've been starting with SIP on the very neglected exteriors and it seems to work decently well for use with a PC, but it takes 2-3x passes to get the majority of the defects out of hard cc'ed cars. I was wondering if OHC would help save some time or if it's not worth the changeover. Any thoughts/experiences/comparisons are appreciated.
OHC or SIP for starting out on exteriors in rough shape?
- Thread starter BuffMe
- Start date
2 or 3 passes of SIP?
You'll need something 2 or 3 times stronger if you want to remove the defects in one pass.
In my opinion Meguiars M105 will suit and should remove the defects in a single pass. M105 is rotary only so you will need smaller 5inch or 4inch pads to increase the cutting power of your buffer.
Quite a few details have had success with M105 and a random orbital buffer.
I'd go as far as saying its the best random orbital compound for heavy defect removal. Most of the other heavy compounds leave the surface heavily marred as the diminishing abrasives cannot break down with the weak random orbital action. M105 has non diminishing abrasives with a 5.5inch cutting pad it will power through heavy swirls and light scratches and save hours of buffing.
You'll need something 2 or 3 times stronger if you want to remove the defects in one pass.
In my opinion Meguiars M105 will suit and should remove the defects in a single pass. M105 is rotary only so you will need smaller 5inch or 4inch pads to increase the cutting power of your buffer.
Quite a few details have had success with M105 and a random orbital buffer.
I'd go as far as saying its the best random orbital compound for heavy defect removal. Most of the other heavy compounds leave the surface heavily marred as the diminishing abrasives cannot break down with the weak random orbital action. M105 has non diminishing abrasives with a 5.5inch cutting pad it will power through heavy swirls and light scratches and save hours of buffing.
I agree, if you are using a PC, #105 will probably be your best bet on hard clears with lots of defects...and #105 actually works well by hand for spot defect removal. I haven't use #105 myself with a PC or UDM, but my Meguiars distributor said they played around with #105 and the new Meguiars DA buffer (G110?) and with a burgandy cutting pad, they were able to quickly remove 1500 grit sanding marks.
With the rotary, I really like Optimum Compound. Decent defect removal and minimal holograms.
With the rotary, I really like Optimum Compound. Decent defect removal and minimal holograms.
TTWAGN said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't using a smaller (in circumference) pad, decrease the effectiveness, as the farther you move from the center the faster the pad is rotating at any given point in time? So, larger pads would have better effect because more of the pad is spinning faster? Or is it some other aspect of moving to a smaller pad that makes it more effective?
SuperBee364
New member
Smaller pads allow you to increase the pressure on a PC/UDM without bogging down the motor. You need more pressure without slowing the speed down. Smaller pads will definitely give you more correcting power than big ones on a PC/UDM style (DA) machine.
SuperBee364
New member
Scottwax said:
That is Really good to hear... Well, and the part about being able to use 105 with a PC, too. It's about time someone came out with a product that makes correcting paint with a DA machine less painful.
wannafbody
wannafbody
I'd use M105 or 3m 3000 RC on a 4 inch cutting pad.
Scottwax said:
Also, as an FYI for comparative purposes, SIP/orange easily removes 2000 sanding marks as well. I haven't tried any rougher grit, but don't think it would be a problem either, considering how easily it takes the 2000's out. So, my transitivity, I get a feeling M105 will give me the little bit of extra cut I'm looking for to tide me over until I reach the breaking point and pick up a rotary (I'm very close).