One Step above Meg's #83 - Different Product or Different Pad??

[dschribs]

What should I use to get out scratches I can't remove with #83 (DACP)?? Should I step up to a more agressive pad or possibly a more agressive product?

At this point I'm practicing with my new PC on a black fender taken off a wrecked Ford F-150 (I know..alot easier than doing the whole truck). I used the following procedure. Clay>#83>#82>#81>NXT. I used the W-8006 Polishing pad for the #83. All the swirls are gone and it looks great but there are still some scratches that this procedure didn't remove. What is left is scratches, not swirl marks.

What should I do here??
-Different product
-Different pad
OR
- Work the #83 a few more times ( I used #83 twice over the whole panel)

Thanks!!!

[Mike Phillips]

Re: One Step above Meg's #83 - Different Product or Different Pad??

Originally posted by describes
What should I use to get out scratches I can't remove with #83 (DACP)?? Should I step up to a more aggressive pad or possibly a more aggressive product?

At this point I'm practicing with my new PC on a black fender taken off a wrecked Ford F-150 (I know..alot easier than doing the whole truck). I used the following procedure. Clay>#83>#82>#81>NXT. I used the W-8006 Polishing pad for the #83. All the swirls are gone and it looks great but there are still some scratches that this procedure didn't remove. What is left is scratches, not swirl marks.

What should I do here??
-Different product
-Different pad
OR
- Work the #83 a few more times ( I used #83 twice over the whole panel)

Thanks!!!

Hi dschribs,

It sounds like you may be asking more from the dual action polisher than it is capable of doing. After cleaning the surface with the above process, you have successfully removed all of the lighter scratches and now only the deeper ones remain. To remove these random, isolated, deeper scratches, (RIDS), you need to use a tool that is capable of removing more paint without dulling the surface at the same time, this would be the rotary buffer and a compound like the #84 Compound Power Cleaner.

I encourage you to read through this thread to learn through another persons very similar experience and some of the replies in to his situation in this thread.

PC+83 not "cutting" it!

Hope this helps...

Mike

[dschribs]

Thanks for the link Mike! Good info

So basically, DACP with the polishing pad is the most agressive combo that you can use with a PC?? What about trying to step up the action of the DACP with a cutting pad from Meg's or some other manufacturer then following that with #83 or #80 on a polishing pad to remove any haze?

[Mike Phillips]

Originally posted by describes
Thanks for the link Mike! Good info

So basically, DACP with the polishing pad is the most aggressive combo that you can use with a PC?? What about trying to step up the action of the DACP with a cutting pad from Meg's or some other manufacturer then following that with #83 or #80 on a polishing pad to remove any haze?

Meguiar's never recommends using a cutting pad on the dual action polisher. It will tend to haze the finish to the degree that most people cannot recover from. This same pad on a rotary buffer will result in a clear, high gloss finish. It all has to do with the polishing action of these two different machines.

Mike

[dschribs]

Thanks Mike
Just to clarify - a polishing pad with DACP is the most aggressive combo with a PC. Correct?

[Rick]

Yes 83 on a polishing (yellow) pad is the most aggressive you can get with the porter cable. Anything above and beyond that requires a rotary buffer. And sometimes it's better to just live with deep scratches. I know I've got a few, it all depends on how deep they are.

[Tim Lingor]

I Agree with Rick.

Going after every scratch could make your BC/CC quite thin. On a daily driver, this could mean trouble!


Tim

[alanceperson]

dscribs any chance of getting some pics on of the scratchs.

[Mike Phillips]

Originally posted by dschribs
Thanks Mike
Just to clarify - a polishing pad with DACP is the most aggressive combo with a PC. Correct?

Yes.

Mike