P3000 Ultrafina vs PIII Ultrafina

A

Alfisti

Active member
What's the difference? :nixweiss



3M Perfect-it III Ultrafina SE Polish #50383 32 oz



yhst-19076222300531_2008_8131116




3M Perfect-It 3000 Ultrafina SE Swirl Remover #06068 32 oz



yhst-19076222300531_2005_11046937
 
I'm curious to see the answers for this as well, Paul. I have the #06068 Ultrafina, and I'm wondering if this is just a product # change, instead of a new formula.
 
You may be right. I did a search on 3M's site and PIII only came up in UK docs. But why would Pakshak sell both with a $10 difference? :confused:
 
I dunno. I was trying to figure that out before I bought my first batch of UF, too. I posted here with the 06068 part number, and was told that was the right one, so that's the one I bought.



The more I use UF, the more I love the stuff. If 3M ever screws around with it's formulation, I'm gonna be one pissed-off Supe.
 
To cover his costs? :think:



I honestly have no idea, Paul.



Alfisti said:
You may be right. I did a search on 3M's site and PIII only came up in UK docs. But why would Pakshak sell both with a $10 difference? :confused:
Click to expand...
 
Hey, Supe. I'll be trying out the UF for the first time this weekend on my buddy's black 2002 Accord (That's in REALLY bad shape). I think I may be borrowing Eliot Ness' (John) Metabo for the job, so I wanted to see what you were using it with to jewel. I may be mistaken, but don't you use a red pad with that?



SuperBee364 said:
I dunno. I was trying to figure that out before I bought my first batch of UF, too. I posted here with the 06068 part number, and was told that was the right one, so that's the one I bought.



The more I use UF, the more I love the stuff. If 3M ever screws around with it's formulation, I'm gonna be one pissed-off Supe.
Click to expand...
 
Alfisti said:
You may be right. I did a search on 3M's site and PIII only came up in UK docs. But why would Pakshak sell both with a $10 difference? :confused:
Click to expand...



The one with the blue top(PIII) is the UK version. The other with Nascar(P3000) is the US version. He also has the 6 inch pads that are only sold in the UK the US are 8.
 
EisenHulk said:
Hey, Supe. I'll be trying out the UF for the first time this weekend on my buddy's black 2002 Accord (That's in REALLY bad shape). I think I may be borrowing Eliot Ness' (John) Metabo for the job, so I wanted to see what you were using it with to jewel. I may be mistaken, but don't you use a red pad with that?
Click to expand...



Casey, you're gonna love it. Yeah, my pad of choice for *jeweling* with UF is the red wave finishing foam. The softest paint I've ever worked on is the Bentley that Greg and I slaved over the other day. Even on soft Bentley paint, the red wave foam and UF finished down *flawlessly*. (This was the first time I'd had an opportunity to use UF on really soft paint.) We poured over that car in direct sun looking for grams after UF/red and didn't find *any*. It should be just the ticket for that soft Honda paint, too. On harder paints, I like it with the finishing wool, of course, :) but Honda is just too soft for that. Keep the RPM's in the 1k-1.2k range, too. Any faster, and you could end up with grams. Not to mention UF sling all over the neighborhood.



EisenHulk said:
Crazy Aussies...first their toilets flow counterclockwise and now this. Hahahaha.:2thumbs:
Click to expand...
Now that there's just *funny*! :D
 
Wonder what *functional* differences there might be between the two versions :think:



If the UK one were non-VOC-compliant I wouldn't expect PakShack to offer it for US sale.



Of course, for me, well... my fondness for the PI-III line makes me kneejerk in favor of that version :D



SuperBee364- You make the UF sound downright Accumlator-proof with regard to holograms! I take it it's *better* in that regard than 1Z HG? Not that you guys are gonna get me to forgo my Cyclos in favor of more rotary work any time soon ;)
 
Accumulator said:
Wonder what *functional* differences there might be between the two versions :think:



If the UK one were non-VOC-compliant I wouldn't expect PakShack to offer it for US sale.



Of course, for me, well... my fondness for the PI-III line makes me kneejerk in favor of that version :D



SuperBee364- You make the UF sound downright Accumlator-proof with regard to holograms! I take it it's *better* in that regard than 1Z HG? Not that you guys are gonna get me to forgo my Cyclos in favor of more rotary work any time soon ;)
Click to expand...



Little info sent to me from 3M - Detailing Bliss Forum
 
Accumulator said:
Wonder what *functional* differences there might be between the two versions :think:



If the UK one were non-VOC-compliant I wouldn't expect PakShack to offer it for US sale.



Of course, for me, well... my fondness for the PI-III line makes me kneejerk in favor of that version :D



SuperBee364- You make the UF sound downright Accumlator-proof with regard to holograms! I take it it's *better* in that regard than 1Z HG? Not that you guys are gonna get me to forgo my Cyclos in favor of more rotary work any time soon ;)
Click to expand...



LOL, you *may* just change your tune if you try the UF with a red finishing pad on the rotary. Even on butter soft paint you can finish out holo-free. FPII with the red pad would be hard to get grams with, too. Even those ever-so-slight, very-hard-to-see-unless-you're-Accumulator grams don't stand a chance. ;)
 
That comparison of the MSDS makes 'em sound indentical to me, and again, I just don't see PakShack violating VOC regs, let alone over something like this. Heh heh, guess that $10 surcharge for the PI-III is just an idiot-tax for people like me who prefer seeing "PI-III" over someting NASCAR related :D



SuperBee364- I hear you, but remember that I *like* using the Cyclos while I merely tolerate using the rotaries ;)



And I don't see the FPII having enough cut to remove holograms on the cars I'd rotary with it (e.g., the Audis). Might use it with the RO/DA on the old ss cars to gloss 'em up a little without taking off much paint though.



So the UF *is* more idiot-proof via rotary than the 1Z HG?
 
Accumulator said:
That comparison of the MSDS makes 'em sound indentical to me, and again, I just don't see PakShack violating VOC regs, let alone over something like this. Heh heh, guess that $10 surcharge for the PI-III is just an idiot-tax for people like me who prefer seeing "PI-III" over someting NASCAR related :D



SuperBee364- I hear you, but remember that I *like* using the Cyclos while I merely tolerate using the rotaries ;)



And I don't see the FPII having enough cut to remove holograms on the cars I'd rotary with it (e.g., the Audis). Might use it with the RO/DA on the old ss cars to gloss 'em up a little without taking off much paint though.



So the UF *is* more idiot-proof via rotary than the 1Z HG?
Click to expand...



I wish I could give a definitive answer to that, but I haven't used the 1Z HG on paint *that* soft. The softest I've used HG on was an Infinity, and I had no holo problems with it on that car... I think I'll take some HG with me to try on the Bentley when we finish it up next Monday.
 
SuperBee364 said:
I wish I could give a definitive answer to that, but I haven't used the 1Z HG on paint *that* soft. The softest I've used HG on was an Infinity, and I had no holo problems with it on that car....
Click to expand...



Well, it wouldn't be any surprise if you were a lot better with the rotary than I am, and that covers a lot of ground YMMV-wise ;)



And I still need to look into my wobbly spindle thing.
 
Thanks, Supe!!!



I'll be using a red CCS pad, so I'm wondering is there difference between the CCS and the wave? I presume that there isn't, but one never knows.



I am really excited about working on this car. My buddy takes pretty good care of it, but once I put it under the halogens, he nearly passed out. Would make a very nice C & B.



Thanks again for info, Bee.



SuperBee364 said:
Casey, you're gonna love it. Yeah, my pad of choice for *jeweling* with UF is the red wave finishing foam. The softest paint I've ever worked on is the Bentley that Greg and I slaved over the other day. Even on soft Bentley paint, the red wave foam and UF finished down *flawlessly*. (This was the first time I'd had an opportunity to use UF on really soft paint.) We poured over that car in direct sun looking for grams after UF/red and didn't find *any*. It should be just the ticket for that soft Honda paint, too. On harder paints, I like it with the finishing wool, of course, :) but Honda is just too soft for that. Keep the RPM's in the 1k-1.2k range, too. Any faster, and you could end up with grams. Not to mention UF sling all over the neighborhood.



Now that there's just *funny*! :D
Click to expand...
 
EisenHulk said:
Thanks, Supe!!!



I'll be using a red CCS pad, so I'm wondering is there difference between the CCS and the wave? I presume that there isn't, but one never knows.



I am really excited about working on this car. My buddy takes pretty good care of it, but once I put it under the halogens, he nearly passed out. Would make a very nice C & B.



Thanks again for info, Bee.
Click to expand...



The only difference that I'm aware of is that the wave foam runs a bit cooler. I'm so gun shy with heat and foam pads, that I'll take a few degrees cooler wherever I can.



Also, Greg and I were very surprised at how well the red/UF comibination cleaned up after the mess the 105 left. The paint was sooooo soft, there was no need for an intermediate step; going straight to UF/red cleaned up the mess and left us a gorgeous finish. Honda paint is soft, but i don't know if it's soft enough to pull the same two-step process off. It *might* be, depending on how well you get the 95 to finish down. Looking forward to your CnB on it, Casey!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top