Scratch X 2.0?

[Detale]

I've seen UC and Swirl X heavily advertised for removing defects via DA polisher for an entire car. However, not much mention of Scratch X 2.0. Is Scratch X 2.0 meant for "spot" defect removal by hand. Doesn't it use the same type of abrasives as UC and SwirlX, and the level of aggressiveness in between the two?

[CHzo6]

Re: Scratch X 2.0?

ScratchX is advertised as more of a "spot" defect remover, but it can be used with a DA polisher.

[meguser2002]

Re: Scratch X 2.0?

Scratch X 2.0 is something that everyone should have in their arsenal... Amazing stuff.

[Bill Davidson]

Re: Scratch X 2.0?


Most aggressive on left to least aggressive on right

http://meguiarsonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40514

[Michael Stoops]

Re: Scratch X 2.0?

Most aggressive on left to least aggressive on right

http://meguiarsonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40514

Keep in mind that there are some vagaries in that image. We'll quote below what we posted in the above mentioned thread regarding this issue:

It is critically important to keep the above in mind, and it bears repeating: in many cases, you can not simply and directly compare the aggressiveness of two different products because they are intended to be used in different ways.

A perfect example of this is shown in one isolated product: M86 So1o Cut & Polish Cream. Is it a heavy cutting compound? Well, when used with the WWHC7 burgundy wool cutting pad on a rotary buffer at 1800 rpm it can pull out 1200 grit sanding marks. Or is it a finishing polish? Well, when used with a WDFF7 diamond cut foam finishing pad on a rotary at 1000 rpm it can beautifully refine a finish to a hologram free, deep, wet shine. How M86 is used makes all the difference in the world.

Taking this example one step further, Mike lists ScratchX 2.0 as being more aggressive than M86, but you would never select ScratchX 2.0 to use on a wool pad at 1800 rpm on a rotary to pull out sanding marks. It is simply not designed for that purpose.

The nature of the abrasives used in a given product (and not all SMAT abrasives are 100% identical, by the way) and the other ingredients used in the "carrier liquid" determine whether a product can even survive being used with an aggressive rotary application, or if they'll be effective at all when used by hand.

Just as so often people tend to over think certain things, we don't want you to over simplify either. Mike Phillips has long referred to the "Art of Paint Polishing" and he's absolutely right; there are an awful lot of variables to consider. Chief among those is the paint itself. But that's a whole 'nother discussion!!

Further, using that image to discern just the relative aggressiveness of UC, ScratchX 2.0 and SwirlX may lead someone to think that UC and ScratchX 2.0 are very close in cut level while SwirlX lags far behind. They are actually more evenly spaced than what you may think looking at this image.

HPaddict, in all honesty some of the difference between these three consumer products is marketing related. Yes, they all use SMAT abrasives in some form or another and they are all closely related to each other. And yes, ScratchX 2.0 can be used on the entire vehicle either by hand or D/A. Where the marketing aspect comes into play is that when an uninformed purchaser (ie, the general consumer as opposed to a detailing enthusiast/MOL member who has faaaar more knowledge about these things ) is looking for a product to remove an isolated defect, they actually want the bottle to say that's what it's for. They won't buy it otherwise. The average consumer isn't necessarily aware that isolated scratches, swirl marks, towel marks, etchings, stains and oxidation all fall into the same category (below surface defects) and are all treated the same way. They don't want/need an "oxidation remove" or a "swirl remover" they need a "scratch remover".

[Detale]

Re: Scratch X 2.0?

Further, using that image to discern just the relative aggressiveness of UC, ScratchX 2.0 and SwirlX may lead someone to think that UC and ScratchX 2.0 are very close in cut level while SwirlX lags far behind. They are actually more evenly spaced than what you may think looking at this image.

HPaddict, in all honesty some of the difference between these three consumer products is marketing related. Yes, they all use SMAT abrasives in some form or another and they are all closely related to each other. And yes, ScratchX 2.0 can be used on the entire vehicle either by hand or D/A. Where the marketing aspect comes into play is that when an uninformed purchaser (ie, the general consumer as opposed to a detailing enthusiast/MOL member who has faaaar more knowledge about these things ) is looking for a product to remove an isolated defect, they actually want the bottle to say that's what it's for. They won't buy it otherwise. The average consumer isn't necessarily aware that isolated scratches, swirl marks, towel marks, etchings, stains and oxidation all fall into the same category (below surface defects) and are all treated the same way. They don't want/need an "oxidation remove" or a "swirl remover" they need a "scratch remover".

Thanks Michael. That really puts things into perspective.