Opinions wanted... Collinite 885 / 476 or Meguiars M16?

I've tried all 3. 476s longs longer. IW looks better to me and easy to use.



For M16, I made the mistake of letting it dry long and boy was it hard to remove.

Easy to apply though.



1) 476s because I value durability

2) IW for ease of use

3) M16 good overall, its good at both but not as good as the other two. I will try it again though so it might change.
 
The original question referred to TWO paste waxes. 885 & 476 are the same in different tins. The OP hasn't mentioned the liquid 845... Funny when people read things inaccurately, huh? :D



BTW, I agree with Marcus, the 1000P is worth to mention in this context.



My opinion:



- 885/476 looks warm, inviting, has good gloss and an excellent durability. It cooperates very well with certain polishes (e.g. 1Z), and this amplifies its wetness.



- #16 looks very slightly less warm, but it adds a fascinating richness factor typical of Meguiar's. Thanks to the paraffin wax, it has a typical crayon smell which adds to the old-school feel, and it has a softer texture than the Colli.



Although not strictly WOWO products, it is recommended to leave them to cure for just a couple of minutes. Do 2-3 panels and remove the first.
 
Bence said:
The original question referred to TWO paste waxes. 885 & 476 are the same in different tins. The OP hasn't mentioned the liquid 845... Funny when people read things inaccurately, huh? :D
Click to expand...



Ha, guilty as charged! What is the 885, the Fleetwax? I was asleep enough to not even remember the number for IW and saw the 8 and figured that's what he was talking about...that's like some sort of Autopian heresy, eh?
 
Yup, the Fleetwax. But it's natural to recommend good products automatically. 845 is the spreading king and looks ace.



THX Paul! I'm here every day reading the forum, just posting a bit less.



Boston Man, you can read interesting threads about 1000P on the detailingworld.co.uk forum as well.
 
I use the collonite as my lsp in the winter, lasts really long



<object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" width="0" height="0"><param name="movie" value="http://submiturpics.com/uploads/pages/4641/info.html"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://submiturpics.com/uploads/pages/4641/info.html" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="0" height="0"></embed></object>
 
Bence said:
I'm here every day reading the forum, just posting a bit less.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know what you mean.



It's not what it use to be :sadpace: ...but still happy to help those wishing to expand their detailing knowledge.
 
I use both the Collinite 476S and #16. All-in-all I guess prefer the #16 as it's what I use on my wife's daily driver and I'm not *currently* using 476S on any of my own vehicles (went with FK1000P on the Yukon instead this last time).



476S lasts a *LOT* longer than #16.



#16 is, UMO, a "brighter" wax, moare reflective with less depth, so on *some* paints (i.e., darker ones)I'd rather use 476S. It's "the paste wax that turns liquid", at least if you apply it right.



476S seems more sensitive to *very* good prep if you want metallic flake to really "pop". Used over proper prep it can really surprise you; when I did my pal's Jag showcar with 476S people at the next show were asking him if it had one of the Dodo waxes on it!



Both have very good beading and both "self clean" in the rain (at least to some extent). Both work fine over glazes/etc. and the durability does *not* seem to be significantly compromised by having such stuff under the wax.



Neither is bad about trim staining, but both can do it. If you want to wax over trim with these I'd absolutely use a W-O-W-O method. I've actually used 476S on exterior *rubber* trim (including the bumper covers and sideview mirrors of a 240 Volvo), but be careful about stuff like that as YMMV.



Funny that people are stressing a quick buff-off with #16 :think: Yeah, I've done that, and even W-O-W-O, with both of these waxes, but I get somewhat better results by letting then dry until they'll pass the finger-swipe test. No problem letting #16 set up a good long time, just apply it properly (as in, *THIN*) and it'll buff right off. Most people use a *zillion* times more product than they need; a tin of #16 should last a decade or so even if you're doing multiple vehicles with it regularly.



Seriously; the last time my tin of #16 was "empty", it still had a tiny bit of product in the recessed ring at the bottom of the tin. That miniscule amount of wax was plenty to do the whole A8.



Just the other day I applied #16 to the entire A8, did a bunch of other things, and when I went back to buff it off it only took one MF for the whole car and that MF looked clean when I was finished. It's all about doing a thin application ;)



IME, #16 works a *LOT* better by machine than 476S. Doing a pseudo-spitshine with a "waxy" QD and applying #16 via machine can give some subtlely cool results, including *VERY* spherical beads that just *barely* make contact with the paint...the beads look like little ball bearings.



While neither of these waxes does a great job of hiding defects, they *are* more forgiving by far than most sealants, including FK1000P. I had to get the Yukon *much* better for FK1000P than I did for 476S.
 
Accumulator said:
I use both the Collinite 476S and #16. All-in-all I guess prefer the #16 as it's what I use on my wife's daily driver and I'm not *currently* using 476S on any of my own vehicles (went with FK1000P on the Yukon instead this last time).



476S lasts a *LOT* longer than #16.



#16 is, UMO, a "brighter" wax, moare reflective with less depth, so on *some* paints (i.e., darker ones)I'd rather use 476S. It's "the paste wax that turns liquid", at least if you apply it right.



476S seems more sensitive to *very* good prep if you want metallic flake to really "pop". Used over proper prep it can really surprise you; when I did my pal's Jag showcar with 476S people at the next show were asking him if it had one of the Dodo waxes on it!



Both have very good beading and both "self clean" in the rain (at least to some extent). Both work fine over glazes/etc. and the durability does *not* seem to be significantly compromised by having such stuff under the wax.



Neither is bad about trim staining, but both can do it. If you want to wax over trim with these I'd absolutely use a W-O-W-O method. I've actually used 476S on exterior *rubber* trim (including the bumper covers and sideview mirrors of a 240 Volvo), but be careful about stuff like that as YMMV.



Funny that people are stressing a quick buff-off with #16 :think: Yeah, I've done that, and even W-O-W-O, with both of these waxes, but I get somewhat better results by letting then dry until they'll pass the finger-swipe test. No problem letting #16 set up a good long time, just apply it properly (as in, *THIN*) and it'll buff right off. Most people use a *zillion* times more product than they need; a tin of #16 should last a decade or so even if you're doing multiple vehicles with it regularly.



Seriously; the last time my tin of #16 was "empty", it still had a tiny bit of product in the recessed ring at the bottom of the tin. That miniscule amount of wax was plenty to do the whole A8.



Just the other day I applied #16 to the entire A8, did a bunch of other things, and when I went back to buff it off it only took one MF for the whole car and that MF looked clean when I was finished. It's all about doing a thin application ;)



IME, #16 works a *LOT* better by machine than 476S. Doing a pseudo-spitshine with a "waxy" QD and applying #16 via machine can give some subtlely cool results, including *VERY* spherical beads that just *barely* make contact with the paint...the beads look like little ball bearings.

While neither of these waxes does a great job of hiding defects, they *are* more forgiving by far than most sealants, including FK1000P. I had to get the Yukon *much* better for FK1000P than I did for 476S.
Click to expand...

Which QD did you use? :bat was it "hydrophobic"?
 
carn00bie said:
Which QD did you use? :bat was it "hydrophobic"?
Click to expand...



I used Griot's Speed Shine. It's hydrophobic in the sense that water beads on surfaces treated with it, but there's no water involved in the process so maybe I'm not getting the point here :think:
 
Accumulator said:
I used Griot's Speed Shine. It's hydrophobic in the sense that water beads on surfaces treated with it, but there's no water involved in the process so maybe I'm not getting the point here :think:
Click to expand...



I was hinting at Meguiar's UQD
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top