Spit Shining with a PC?

M

mikebai1990

New member
Is it possible to perform spit shining with a PC? Now that I have a PC, I'm constantly thinking about all the new things I can finally do with it.



Usually spit shining is using water to freeze the prior layer of wax so a new layer of wax can be layered onto the paint. Since the PC can apply waxes so thinly, do you guys think the PC will do a better and faster job when spit shining a car? One of the possible problems that I am worried about is that the PC will either 1)Turn so fast that the underlaying wax is disturbed and/or 2)Create extra heat which may also disturb the layer of wax underneath.



What do you guys think?
 
I always consider this to be a "pseudo spit-shining" when I do it because I'm not trying to accomplish *quite* the same thing as with a regular spit shine (where the objective is to apply numerous coats of wax at one session). I dunno if it'd work to *do* a "genuine spitshine" with the PC but I kinda doubt it because of the somewhat aggessive "scrubbing" action that is generally effected by the machine (even with gentle finishing pads)- just what you were concerned about. So maybe I'm coming at this from a completely different angle than what you're interested in :nixweiss



What I *do* do is to spray a little QD on the panel and then wax using the PC/Cyclo, working the wax until it's basically gone..just like the idea behind spitshining. Difference is that I stop after one "coat" and buff off the minimal wax residue (usually using the machine with a MF bonnet) after I've done the whole car. With a real spit shine I'd do one area over and over and over then move on to the next area.



I've found this does a few things (compared with "normal" waxing via machine):

-the finish appears *slightly* better, but I can't really put a label on what's better about it :o

-the beads are more spherical than normal and roll off better

-the wax seems to be a *little* less durable than when applied via normal methods



This last one, the slight durability hit, is what's kept me from trying to do more applications in one session; I doubt that it'd work well enough to justify the added work. Well, there's also my general disinclination to spend more time on the whole thing instead of saying "good enough" :o



All-in-all the differences, both pro and con, are pretty minimal, but I like doing it this way so I end up using this "pseudo spitshine" method on my wife's A8 almost every time. I usually use #16 for the wax and Griot's SpeedShine for the spit. Using chilled distilled water might make some difference, but I've never tried it with the machines.
 
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I've read of your "pseudo spitshine" method and that's where I learned and decided to try out your method. I also like it because it seems to lubricate the surface better and offers less resistance when I'm applying the wax by hand. Because of this, I was able to finish a waxing session in less time.



Since I don't mind as much for the looks as the durability and I now have a PC, I might be going back to a regular waxing (no QD) with my Collinite 476S. The PC should make my waxing process much faster and probably enjoyable.
 
mikebai1990 said:
Since I don't mind as much for the looks as the durability and I now have a PC, I might be going back to a regular waxing (no QD) with my Collinite 476S. The PC should make my waxing process much faster and probably enjoyable.
Click to expand...



Yeah, the PC does, at least IMO, make it more enjoyable..heh heh, almost as enjoyable as with a Cyclo (sorry, couldn't resist :o ). I wonder if there'd be a durability compromise with the 476S :think: I only noticed that with the #16. For some reason I never tried the pseudo-spitshine with 476S, at least not that I can recall.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top