Product experimenting...anyone else interested?

R

RAG

New member
I'm planning on conducting product testing over the next 6 months or so on my own vehicle (I'll probably do some testing on customers' vehicles as well). Primarily I'd like to settle some durability questions (at least in my own mind), but I'll also make some appearance observations as well. It would be interesting if other Autopian's conducted similar experiments in other regions and environments - I'm in San Diego, CA were the were is mild (but the salt air reeks havoc in terms of rust specking/contamination).



The idea being that we could try different products on various panels (or various portions of a particular panel) to compare durability (and appearance I suppose). The difficult issue for most of us is resisting the temptation to top, etc. and possibly allowing some panels to be "less protected" than others. In the end (or at the end of each month), I/we could post results on the board. Water beading would/should be the primary indicator, but contamination resistance, slickness, appearance, etc. could also factor into the equation.



I'm planning on quartering off the hood of my Land Cruiser and applying 4 different sealants to test for durability. I'm thinking FMJ, Z-2 Pro, AJ, & EXP for starters. I'm planning on doing a H20/Alcohol wipedown first.



For consistency, it is probably important to confine experiments to a given pannel or side, as it would be valid to compare the hood with the door.



I also want to experiment with how various prep techniques and products affect a sealant's durability, choosing 1 particular sealant for each side of the vehicle. For instance, I could machine polish the entire side of the vehicle, then H20/Alcohol wipedown the fender, do nothing to the front door (presumably leaving the polishing oils on), use Sonus' Paint Cleanser polish on the back door, and then apply AIO to the back panel. Then I could apply a given sealant such as Z2 Pro. The same could be done to the other side, only apply a different sealant.



My roof is basically separated into 5 strips separated by plastic striping. I was thinking I'd choose a sealant or two and test to determine how much longevity is added when multiple coats/layers are applied.



The back panel I wanted to "split" in half, testing the durability between Z2 Pro vs. Z2 Pro over a glaze (RMG)...this debate is bugging me :)



Obviously, there are too many experiments to be conducted by myself alone (though I will be conducting some less intricate experiments on customers' vehicles as well).



Anybody else interested in experimenting on their vehicle?
 
Quite a few members here already do that in terms of using different LSPs on different panels, but not quite to the extent to measure absolute durability in terms of when everything is gone in relativity to the weather.



I'd be interested in your results though.
 
Many of us have already done experiments like this (and continue to do so), but trying to simultaneously compare results in different locations will be impossible. Your ability to determine slickness will be different from my ability to determine slickness, etc., etc.



IMO, beading and gloss are the only truely scientific attributes that can be measured, and then you get people who don't want to follow/believe that, etc.
 
You can borrow my slickness meter. It is a pez despenser and a quarter. I will let you figure out how to use it. :LOLOL



I'd be interested to see the results of this experiment!! Good luck.
 
IMO, the difficulty is really quantitatively judging the appearance or durability. I had one product on my hood, and some weeks later redid half the hood with something else. At first there was a large difference, but now not very much. I guess I'm trying to say that if you quartered your hood, I think you will be able to see larger differences, but may not be able to resolve smaller ones, and therefore not be able to "rank" products exactly.
 
ZaneO said:
IMO, beading and gloss are the only truely scientific attributes that can be measured, and then you get people who don't want to follow/believe that, etc.
Click to expand...



I have to agree. Both are good indications that something is still protecting the paint.



I've done a few cars for the first time where beading was completely non-existant, so when I cleaned them again after waxing, if the paint was still beading, I knew there was protection left.
 
Yes, it will be really hard to rank them in absolute order, and it's hardly a scientific test. However, I am looking for major and noticable differences. For instance, if I can't distinctly tell a difference between applying 1 coat and 3 coats of a particular product, then I won't bother wasting my time (especially on customers' cars). Or if slapping RMG down first for wettnes clearly comprimises durability, then I'll look for something else.



Bottom line - if I can't clearly tell a difference between one product or procedure and another, then I'll save myself the time and money and go for the simplist, least expensive alternatives in the future. And if I can clearly see a difference...great, at least then I'll know what to use (or not to use) when a customer says s/he wants the "longest lasting wax available" applied (for a premium price of course :)



I highly suspect I'm going to have a hard time telling the difference between most of these products, as with the respective preparation procedures. Don't get me wrong, nothing beats proper preparation such as clay, polish, etc.



Thanks everyone. I'll be sure to share my "unscientific" results.
 
If you're interested in durability testing I'd sugggest throwing Duragloss (carquest stores) and Finish Kare products in the mix. My position is that beading is nice but MANY manufacturers claim that their products still protect after the beading subsides. Also many products produce different sized beads. To simply say that large beads means that protection is lacking is to ignore the different charactaristics of the products on the market or is a means of pushing a particular product for suspect reasons. Also some manufacturers CLAIM that the squeek test is more accurate-a point some seem to ignore.
 
wannafbody said:
If you're interested in durability testing I'd sugggest throwing Duragloss (carquest stores) and Finish Kare products in the mix. My position is that beading is nice but MANY manufacturers claim that their products still protect after the beading subsides. Also many products produce different sized beads. To simply say that large beads means that protection is lacking is to ignore the different charactaristics of the products on the market or is a means of pushing a particular product for suspect reasons. Also some manufacturers CLAIM that the squeek test is more accurate-a point some seem to ignore.
Click to expand...



Large beading being a bad thing is relative to the size which the beads began. When they become larger is the indicator to watch.



A "squeek" test has no scientific measurement to it.
 
ZaneO said:
Large beading being a bad thing is relative to the size which the beads began. When they become larger is the indicator to watch.



A "squeek" test has no scientific measurement to it.
Click to expand...





and you know this HOW? Do you work for a manufacturer? Or are you simply posting the company line? Research many manufactureres claims and arrive at your own conclusions-don't be spoon fed all your life.
 
So as not to be spoon fed, please inform me the scientific measurement of a squeek test on paint.



:)



The information you are posting is coming directly from manufacturers. How do you know it's true?
 
It's over at MOL-research it and decide for yourself. BTW I'm not sure why you always attack me on this point. Think of it in these terms. If 1 layer of product A beads for 3 months but actually protects for 6 months and If 1 layer of Zaino actually beads for 6 months chances are that it protects for longer than it beads as well. Maybe it actually protects for 1 year. Realisically nobody stands to lose. The fact that many manufacturers dismiss beading as a definitive standard to me is worth consideration.
 
I'm not trying to attack you, but you constantly cite this test, and you're not able to tell anyone how to quantify it in measureable terms.



It also has nothing to do with Zaino. I judge every product I use chiefly on beading...then slickness, maintain-ability, appearance, etc.
 
ZaneO said:
A "squeek" test has no scientific measurement to it.
Click to expand...



Maybe not measurable but it is a good indication of a lack of protection. Just like a freshly washed plate squeaks.



Personally, I'd look for beading (relative to initial application), gloss, and slickness together and if two of the three are not present, I'd say it is time to add more protection.
 
Scottwax said:
Maybe not measurable but it is a good indication of a lack of protection. Just like a freshly washed plate squeaks.



Personally, I'd look for beading (relative to initial application), gloss, and slickness together and if two of the three are not present, I'd say it is time to add more protection.
Click to expand...



WELL SAID.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top