SSR2.5 vs. IP - The Showdown (w/pix!)

BillyBarou said:
Sure it's a bit hazier in the photo, but how do we know that is not due to some chemical reaction between the wipedown chemical and the SSR? I have used several QDs after an SSR2.5 polishing and have never seen haze that bad...
Click to expand...



The only chemical reaction is the fillers being removed to reveal the true surface. :wall
 
I gotta go to sleep now...maybe what I will do is my own test and do before after on swirl mark removal by SSR2.5 on a black panel car. I have one in mind, a friend's car which had a rough trip through a dealer "wash".



Just trying to get to the bottom of it.



Here's one final thing to consider. If the haze was indicative of extra surface imperfections then the Metabo box shot of SSR2.5 would not have looked as sharp.
 
Well, all panels were followed up with FP2 to remove any micromarring... but this may have been a flawed process to begin with, considering the condition of this car that is essentially rusting down, exposed to the elements 24/7...



The remaining scratches are indeed deep - too deep to safely remove.



Tell ya what... I'll do the test again (and append these PC shots to my initial post), as I'll admit the lighting isn't identical between the two SSR shots shown and the underlying surface isn't great to begin with. I'll find another black car that has *decent* paint underneath any average swirl marks. This car is really deserving of a repaint.



I do know that in indirect sun (daylight) all of the panels look nearly identical, but the power of the rotary is obvious.
 
Well, I just mentioned it because you brought up wetsanding. I recently wetsanded my entire hood and front bumper (you can see the befores/afters here http://autopia.org/forum/showthread.php?t=61821) and originally tried to polish the sanding marks out with SSR2.5, it took 3 passes but eventually I go them all out (via PC, btw), but after a week or so I noticed some of the deeper marks were re-appearing, so to speak. That's actually why I posted originally in this thread, because having read your post I kind of found myself nodding. I polished afterwards with optimum compound (sorry, no pg, ip, or fp on hand) and so far (been about 3 weeks) I haven't seen any re-appearing marring. Could be I just didn't wipe off the 2.5 well enough the first time or the OCP finished what the 2.5 started, so it's by no means a condemnation of SSR2.5.



I do like the SSR series, but personally like other polishes a little better if only for their lack of dusting, something the SSR's seem to do quite a bit. That's just me though. Oh, and I absolutely *love* Poorboys LSP products. :)
 
You mean just use like a cutting pad and SSR3 right on top of the blobs? No, I didn't, although that might work, I'm just not sure how. You would have to put a lot of pressure on the PC to diminish the blob, and doing that may cause the touchup to come right out. When I was polishing after wetsanding two of the touchups popped out and I had to re-do them, so you have to work pretty gingerly around them even if they've dried for awhile (I let mine dry for 2 days before I wetsanded). I guess two of 60 isn't bad, but you see what I mean. Maybe next time I do a chip repair I will try that out, it's worth a shot if only to save time.
 
During the detail I did today I thought I would try a ssr2.5 test. The following pics are of the hood where I used ssr2.5 on a small section. the first pic shows the hood without polishing. The second pic is with ssr 2.5 followed by three iso wipe downs. The third pic is a closer shot of the result. Sorry the pics are not better as I didn't notice till later, but this still shows the result. Now there are still some deeper marks left in the pics which I later took out with ssr 3, but everything that ssr 2.5 took out did not return after the iso wipedown. Hope this helps clear things up a little.



114-1474_IMG.JPG




114-1475_IMG.JPG




114-1477_IMG.JPG
 
To come to a conclusion on your test there is the need to see the picture after polishing but before the wipe down as well as after the wipe down. I do appreciate you doing this.:)



It still doesn't change the fact that there are fillers there that have the ability to cover the true condition of the surface. Yes a wipe down will show the clean surface but that's another step that shouldn't be necessary.
 
SpoiledMan said:
To come to a conclusion on your test there is the need to see the picture after polishing but before the wipe down as well as after the wipe down. I do appreciate you doing this.:)



It still doesn't change the fact that there are fillers there that have the ability to cover the true condition of the surface. Yes a wipe down will show the clean surface but that's another step that shouldn't be necessary.
Click to expand...



Your right I should have included that pic, but I didn't because the iso wipedown didn't make any difference after the first, second or third wipedown. As far as the fillers go you may be right. If you only polish briefly not allowing the polish to do is't job, then if there are fillers in this polish I suppose they may hide some very mild swirls. If you work the polish as intended, I don't think this is an issue. What I think is more of an issue is all that god d#@ dusting. For this reason alone I have ordered Optimum polish.
 
DSVWGLI said:
What I think is more of an issue is all that god d#@ dusting. For this reason alone I have ordered Optimum polish.
Click to expand...



Yes. That is really my only gripe with the SSR series. 2.5 and 3 in particular seem to dust up a storm. I like the way they work, but there are comparable products that don't dust, which does it for me. Have fun with that Optimum.
 
Now there are still some deeper marks left in the pics which I later took out with ssr 3, but everything that ssr 2.5 took out did not return after the iso wipedown. Hope this helps clear things up a little.
Click to expand...



Thanks DSVWGLI. I think this is good proof that SSR2.5 does in fact polish using diminishing abrasives and does not have fillers as I argued.



Dusting only is bad if you use too much product. In my experience DACP and the Menzerna line create much more dust. I've not tried Optimum yet but 2.5 has been so good on my details I don't feel a big need to experiment.
 
BillyBarou said:
Thanks DSVWGLI. I think this is good proof that SSR2.5 does in fact polish using diminishing abrasives and does not have fillers as I argued.



Dusting only is bad if you use too much product. In my experience DACP and the Menzerna line create much more dust. I've not tried Optimum yet but 2.5 has been so good on my details I don't feel a big need to experiment.
Click to expand...



The fact that you can stop polishing before the surface is swirl free AND wipe away product and the surface still APPEARS to be swirl free BUT could reappear after a wipe down means that there ARE fillers in the product. It does have diminishing abrasives BUT it ALSO has fillers. If it didn't have fillers any swirling that had not been removed when polishing would show up without a wipe down.



I'm not product bashing but it has been shown and experienced that this product has some good filling ability. Take it for what it's worth and move on. I had to do work for free yesterday after using 2.5 to "remove" some swirling that reappeared. I used Optimum and there was NO dusting and the product was just as easy to use as any of the SSR's. The cost of Optimum puts much of what is available to shame.



Billy, I don't recommend spending a bunch of money on everything new that comes out but this is a case where you might want to experiment. Optimum is head and shoulders above the SSR's. Take this from a guy that has more than a gallon of SSR 2 and 2.5 collecting dust. Any takers???
 
SSRs do NOT have fillers. SpoiledMan, why are you on a mission to hurt Poorboys reputation with baseless accusations? The pictures clearly show the SSRs are doing their job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top