Xylene?

[Steve @ Guru]

Saying that you have used it and it didn't do any damage doesn't mean it won't.

So, I guess none of us can talk about waxes and their qualities, because we're using subjective measurements to evaluate them. Until we all break out the electron microscopes, commission a full study and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a full evaluation, our experiences and observations mean nothing.



Wouldn't your very argument negate the "damage" that you've seen "firsthand" that was caused by someone with a paint thinner?



Selective logic and reasoning is always fun to play with...

I for one will not use anything on a vehicle that has not been proven to not be harmful.

Abrasives have been proven to be harmful. And, you continually ignore the fact that xyene, toloulene, etc are in compounds that you're already most likely using on your cars right now. But, you selectively choose this single product as a "bad apple."

If you have PROOF to dispute their recommendations please feel free to post them and if you do so I will readily agree with your findings if found to be accurate. However, no one is doing that. Speculation about "well it could if you did this or it won't because of this" doesn't answer the question at hand.

So, 3M's information, studies, research, whitepapers, etc are not PROOF? Instead, you're taking an unverifiable claim that was posted on AutoInt's website and treating it as 100% verbatim, indisputable fact? Yikes! That's scary. If you carefully read the claim that they're making, it's clear that they're not sure what has caused the clear coat failure.



But. alas, I digress. I'm trying to reason with deaf ears... I'm gonna go out and give my car it's daily Xylene bath.

 

[Jesstzn]

LOL!!!



Psst! Jesstzn! Wrong account buddy.....

Huh???

 

[DETAILKING]

Looks like some of us have taken this post out of context. I think it is irrelevant if PURE Xylene or similiar will in time damage your clear coat because no products out there are 100% Xylene and none of us are going to give our cars that treatment!



Flash point has nothing to do with the "harshness" of a solvent. All that means is that acetone is more volitile and will evaporate faster.



There are no oils in paint that are depleted that get replenished every time you wax....just the facts. If something will damage your clearcoat chemically, their ain't no wax that will fix that by feeding oils back into the system.....maybe hide it for some time....but not fix it.



The bottoms line is that for reasons already explained the products in question are safe to use on your car. If one doesn't not believe that.....simple...don't use those products.



I don't see any questions that are still left unanswered here......



DK

 

[safetyman2010]

So, I guess none of us can talk about waxes and their qualities, because we're using subjective measurements to evaluate them. Until we all break out the electron microscopes, commission a full study and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a full evaluation, our experiences and observations mean nothing.



Wouldn't your very argument negate the "damage" that you've seen "firsthand" that was caused by someone with a paint thinner?



Selective logic and reasoning is always fun to play with...







Abrasives have been proven to be harmful. And, you continually ignore the fact that xyene, toloulene, etc are in compounds that you're already most likely using on your cars right now. But, you selectively choose this single product as a "bad apple."







So, 3M's information, studies, research, whitepapers, etc are not PROOF? Instead, you're taking an unverifiable claim that was posted on AutoInt's website and treating it as 100% verbatim, indisputable fact? Yikes! That's scary. If you carefully read the claim that they're making, it's clear that they're not sure what has caused the clear coat failure.



But. alas, I digress. I'm trying to reason with deaf ears... I'm gonna go out and give my car it's daily Xylene bath.

You make some valid points. However, from my limited understanding of the make up of waxes, polishes and compounds the amount of solvents invilved in their manufacture is negligible. The solvents purpose in said products are to thin the product enough to make it workable - not to provide any "cleaning" action. You are however incorrect in your assertion that abrasives are harmfull to a vehicles finish. Abrasives are an integral part of any polishing process to correct imperfections in the painted surface. Abrasives are only harmful when use in the wrong situation or by an unqualified or inexperienced user. If you have said studies from 3M I would appreciate seeing them as I honestly want to know the facts here. As for being 100% positive what caused a clear coat to fail - how would you be able to determine with 100% accuracy unless you had care and control of that vehicle 100% of the time. All I see is AI giving several plausible causes for the failure based on the evidence they have - nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Steve @ Guru]

I agree - you've made my points for me, so I think we're on the same page.



Pure xylene, if used improperly may be harmful to a vehicle's finish. The 3M General Purpose Adhesive Remover is not pure Xylene. It contains Xylene.



And, as you indicated, AutoInt suggested that a product that contains Xylene "might" have caused the damage.



So, there's no need to go on a witch hunt for the 3M General Purpose Adhesive Remover. I think we're all on the same page - anything, if used improperly, can cause some sort of a problem. Using 3M's GPAR in the proper manner, should not cause any problems.



Edit:

Oh, and foxtrapper - great information. Very helpful and interesting, thanks for sharing it (I've printed it and filed it for future reference). Thanks again.

 

[imported_Intermezzo]

Abrasives are only harmful when use in the wrong situation......

I agree...and I think the same principle holds true when it comes to 3M's GPAR.



It's not as if 3M advocates using it on your entire car every time you plan on doing a major detail.......which is what 'DetailingDude' over at the vette forum preaches. LoL, now that I think about it, you might faint when you read some of the things he suggests! I wonder if he has any plastic trim left on his car.....

 

[94BlkStang]

Flash point has nothing to do with the "harshness" of a solvent. All that means is that acetone is more volitile and will evaporate faster.

flash point may not be the most relative factor as far as aggressiveness of a solvent goes, but flash point, like you pointed out, will dry quicker which in turn will dull (not necessarily lift) the surface quicker. Acetone will also dissolve resins that Xylene can't, but resins that Xylene can dissolve will most likely be able to be dissolved by Acetone, thus making Acetone a more aggressive solvent. I've worked around these products for over 25 years and we sell to many paint manufacturers on the west coast and work with their formulators. As far as health risks, environmetal issues and voc's etc., that's a whole different subject and has nothing to do with an aggressiveness of a solvent or chemical.

There are no oils in paint that are depleted that get replenished every time you wax....just the facts. If something will damage your clearcoat chemically, their ain't no wax that will fix that by feeding oils back into the system.....maybe hide it for some time....but not fix it.

It's polish that replenishes the oils. Wax just protects the paint. Here is an exerpt from Meguiars website in there Q & A section.



Oxidation was an obvious problem ten years ago because you quickly saw the color on a single-stage finish fade. With today's modern clear coat finishes, oxidation is less obvious, yet it still occurs.



Here is how it happens, the sun dries out the top layer of clear paint, just like it does to a single-stage finish and when this happens, the paints natural oils are lost.



Exposure to inclement weather and frequent washing, (especially with a harsh detergent like dish washing soap), further dries your paint out by leaching the natural oils out of your paint.



As the natural oils are removed, water and other destructive elements begin to attack your finish. If these oils aren't replaced, your clear coat paint will oxidize and the surface will gradually become duller. Although modern paint technology is much more resistant to oxidation, nevertheless, it will oxidize when neglected and/or improperly maintained.



Other wax and polish manufacturers on their websites discuss the topic of how polish replenishes the oils in a paint also.

 

[imported_Intermezzo]

It's polish that replenishes the oils. Wax just protects the paint. Here is an exerpt from Meguiars website in there Q & A section.

His point is that applying an oily product does NOT do anything to 'replenish' the lost oils in modern paints. Doesn't matter if you are referring to waxes or polishes or glazes.



How are you going to add "oil" to a fully catalyzed substrate that has something as hard and inert as ceramics?



Companies will keep marketing the "magic" of their products, never being real about what changes have taken place over the last 20 years in paint chemistry. They will keep on putting out the B/S as long as the products move off the shelf.



My favorite is the way some company call the oils in their polishes "feeding oils". Ha!, I didn't know my car ate. The "oils" are makeup , but do serve one function besides a "marketing of the product". They have solvents and mild polishing qualities that aid in preparing the surface for you final protectant. As far as putting "oils" in the paint, no way! It is chemically impossible to do so, they may lay on top or go down into the porosity of the clears, but are not part of the structure!

 

[Steve @ Guru]

I gotta agree here, too...the notion that a paint "eats" or absorbs anything died back when Whitesnake was on top of the charts, Breakfast Club was in theaters, and we were all wearing pink polo shirts with the collars turned up. (pauses as fond memories fade)



I gotta hand it to them, though - it's a genius marketing ploy. If you simply told people "Use our product because it'll make your car look good." You probably wouldn't sell a whole lot of product.



But...if you create a relationship between the car and something very near and dear to people's hearts (taking care of yourself by bathing, exfoliating, nourishing, and shielding), then you've got emotion and emotion drives sales.



As Intermezzo & DK indicate, paint is dead. It makes no sense how something so durable as to repel chemical reactions (stains, rust, etc) is able to lovingly embrace and absorb oils, etc.



When was the last time your house painter said, "Now, you're gonna have to feed these walls at least twice a month, or they'll fall down."



I do agree that oils work to improve the looks, but they sure don't get absorbed by the paint. "Soft paint" is a problem, not something you strive to achieve.

 

[Maxtorque02]

I gotta agree here, too...the notion that a paint "eats" or absorbs anything died back when Whitesnake was on top of the charts, Breakfast Club was in theaters, and we were all wearing pink polo shirts with the collars turned up. (pauses as fond memories fade)



I gotta hand it to them, though - it's a genius marketing ploy. If you simply told people "Use our product because it'll make your car look good." You probably wouldn't sell a whole lot of product.



But...if you create a relationship between the car and something very near and dear to people's hearts (taking care of yourself by bathing, exfoliating, nourishing, and shielding), then you've got emotion and emotion drives sales.



As Intermezzo & DK indicate, paint is dead. It makes no sense how something so durable as to repel chemical reactions (stains, rust, etc) is able to lovingly embrace and absorb oils, etc.



When was the last time your house painter said, "Now, you're gonna have to feed these walls at least twice a month, or they'll fall down."



I do agree that oils work to improve the looks, but they sure don't get absorbed by the paint. "Soft paint" is a problem, not something you strive to achieve.

It appears you have been able to take this about as far off subject as it can go. Let's not get carried away with over exagerations and false misrepresentation of a persons statement. Bottom line is, I don't think any of us can acurately prove or disprove most of the statements that have been made on this subject.

 

[Jesstzn]

It appears you have been able to take this about as far off subject as it can go. Let's not get carried away with over exagerations and false misrepresentation of a persons statement. Bottom line is, I don't think any of us can acurately prove or disprove most of the statements that have been made on this subject.

^^^ Now that I can agree with .. :bow

 

[imported_Intermezzo]

It appears you have been able to take this about as far off subject as it can go.

Uhm, please re-read the thread very carefully and redirect your statement to the person who actually took this thread off topic. (Hint, it wasn't the Geekster)



Jesstz, perhaps it's time for another 'self-quote'?

 

[rstype]

It appears you have been able to take this about as far off subject as it can go. Let's not get carried away with over exagerations and false misrepresentation of a persons statement. Bottom line is, I don't think any of us can acurately prove or disprove most of the statements that have been made on this subject.

OK, then. What if I told you your beloved Ron Ketcham also agrees that paint cannot be nourished with feeding oils?



EDIT: While we're at it...

Originally posted by Mike Phillips

All paints contain some type of oil. This includes clear coats. Washing with Dawn strips these oils out and in effect dulls the paint and leaves it susceptible to oxidation. When ever you use a Meguiar’s paint care product, you reintroduce a replacement oil for the original oils and thus restore clarity and help to reduce the potential for oxidation.

Heh... how should we start?

 

[Maxtorque02]

Uhm, please re-read the thread very carefully and redirect your statement to the person who actually took this thread off topic. (Hint, it wasn't the Geekster)



Jesstz, perhaps it's time for another 'self-quote'?

I appreciate you responding for the Geekster, and I never said he was responsible for taking the post off subject. I merely mentioned he has taken it off about as far off as it can go.



When was the last time your house painter said, "Now, you're gonna have to feed these walls at least twice a month, or they'll fall down."



House paint and automotive paint and the care for each aren't even closely related. If they were similar, then we wouldn't spend all that time cleaning, polishing and waxing our cars, but if we didn't, the finish would definitely go bad on us. We would just paint and leave it alone until it was time to paint again like we do with our house.



This subjcet seems to have rubbed some the wrong way and the attacks are becoming more rapidly. If the discussion goes on, let's show respect for one another and do this in a cordial manner.:xyxthumbs



Just out of curiousity, what does a polish do? Polish brings out the shine in paint. Isn't it in a sense feeding the top coat to bring out the shine? It's not a clearcoat that dries hard to the surface and leave a shiny finish. It's applied and buffed into the surface.:nixweiss

 

[Maxtorque02]

OK, then. What if I told you your beloved Ron Ketcham also agrees that paint cannot be nourished with feeding oils?

My beloved Ron Ketchum? Where this coming from?I never agreed with the statement about Xylene causing the clearcoat problem. The biggest flaw in his statement was that he said a "product that contained xylene" may have caused the clearcoat to lift. Why he even put Xylene in that statement confuses me. That statement by itself doesn't even say that Xylene caused the problem. For all we know the product could have also contained Methyline Chloride (the agressive solvent in most strippers), which would obviously be the most likely cause for the clearcoat lifting, not Xylene.

 

[forrest@mothers]

I, for one, am growing tired of the dribble going back and forth on this subject



In my opinion, it comes down to semantics, and the literal interpretation of such, i.e.: the "feeding" of oils into the paint. A more correct description would probably be the feeding (poor choice of words, but "dispersion", which more accurate, doesn't sound near as good) of the oils (in a glaze) ONTO the paint surface.



The original comment about Xylene damaging a paint surface included the word "may" :



quote:

Taken from AutoInt's Website



This may be due to improper application of the paint or as is usually the case, the paint has been wiped at one time or another with a solvent such as paint thinner, lacquer thinner or a cleaning solvent such as an over the counter Wax/Grease/Tar Remover which contained xylene in the formula."



As others mentioned, there are more variables in this statement that make it impossible to conclude if it's true or not:



Was Xylene used?

If so, in what %?

Was the paint improperly applied?

Was another degreaser used?



You can argue all these points until the cows come home, but without knowing ALL the facts regarding the paint, its provenance, and that of all the products used on it at one time or another, no one can make a definitive statement one way or another that Xylene does or does not damage paint.



I say let it die.

 

[Jesstzn]

Nah.. no self quotes coming .. they were silly .. and I think as far as silly goes .. this thread has maxed out.



Scroll back , a fellow asks a ligitimate question about Xylene and uses something as a visual reference and that reference just happens to be from "The Dreaded BS Manufacturing Company" and in no time at all it has turned into a Ron Ketchum witch hunt that no one is going to allow to be put to bed.



The worst part is he didn't generate this thread nor is he even allowed in here to defend himself.



I saw originally what created the original Q and it wasn't even 3M products.



Sounds a lot like the President Bush/Sadam/Weapons Of Mass Distruction scenareo.



forrest is right .. let it die.

 

[Steve @ Guru]

Uh, for the record, the house paint thing was a bit of a sarcastic parallel...I guess my humor is lost on some folks.



Fun crowd this place has attracted...can't wait to see what else happens.



...and Forrest, how dare you make a reference to a cow - this ain't "Agri-topia."

 

[Maxtorque02]

Uh, for the record, the house paint thing was a bit of a sarcastic parallel...I guess my humor is lost on some folks.



Fun crowd this place has attracted...can't wait to see what else happens.



...and Forrest, how dare you make a reference to a cow - this ain't "Agri-topia."

Well, for the record, I didn't think you were serious. At least I hope you weren't.

 

[forrest@mothers]

Maybe we can debate the merits of cow patties as a source of fuel, and the unintended distribution of methane gas instead.



Can we all at least agree on that?



I think that would be cowtopia. Agritopia would be a corn/ethanol based discussion forum.



"Uh, yeah, Bubba here. I'm running a mocca brown Gurnsey, 1998 model, with about 42K cuds on it. I keep noticing a lot of methane gas dispersion when I apply 2 coats of alfalfa followed by a topper of hay. It even seems to streak (or is it run?) in the rain, with no beading whatsoever. Got any ideas how I can get a deeper, wetter look on the output without creating a problem should lil' Junior step in it before coming in the ol' barn?"



He who laughs first just got the joke quicker.