Recommended product for removing pore embedded contaminants

[scoutfai]

My car has is swirl free already and it is just normal maintenance for now.
Once in a month I wax it. Before I wax, I will do the usual claying. Now I wish to add one more step since I got my DA machine, that is to remove the pore embedded contaminant that claying alone cannot remove.
My objective here is to not remove any clear coat at all (or as little as possible), as I planning to do this once a month (every time before waxing). All I want is to remove the dirty stuff that claying alone is not possible to remove.

I have been researching on what product and pad combination best suited for this purpose. I am able to purchase both consumer or professional range of product from Meguiar's. I have Lake Country orange, white, black and blue flat pad. Basically I am looking for a pre-wax paint cleaner, nonabrasive kind of product.

The 1st product come in my mind is the Meguiar's Cleaner Wax with LC black pad. But the more I think about how cleaner wax capable of removing fine swirl, the more I concern about its abrasiveness. Then I came across a thread where people comparing different Meguiar's product abrasiveness and SwirlX is put at a lesser aggressive level than cleaner wax. I also think about Ultimate Polish but I wonder does it has any ability to clean at all.

I have some questions:

1) Is Meguiar's Cleaner Wax has any abrasive at all? Does it cut through clear coat when used by DA?

2) I read again the instruction on the bottle of my SwirlX, it says nonabrasive. Is this literally means it has no cutting ability at all (which I doubt, how can it removes swirl without cutting)?

3) Which combination of product and pad best suited for my purpose using a DA machine? A traditional 8mm throw DA machine. Professional range product can be recommended.

4) Meguiar's Cleaner Wax and SwirlX, which one is more aggressive?

[C8N]

Re: Recommended product for removing pore embedded contaminants

What are you seeing that clay is not removing?

[scoutfai]

Re: Recommended product for removing pore embedded contaminants

No I do not think I am able to see it, not because it is not there but because the whole car is covered by it so human eyes just cannot differentiate.
Try have a look at the following thread from another forum:

http://www.autogeekonline.net/forum/auto-detailing-101/56794-how-remove-stains-embedded-dirt-out-paint.html

Unfortunately the products used in the thread are not available in my place. However Meguiar's products are easily available here. But it is just that there is no Meguiar's product that specifically printed "paint cleanser" on the bottle so it makes me hard to choose which one suitable for this purpose.

[Michael Stoops]

Re: Recommended product for removing pore embedded contaminants

Paint cleaning can be accomplished via two distinct methods - chemical or abrasive. It's great that you want to start addressing the embedded dirt that accumulates over time and can dull down lighter colored cars. If your plan really is to do this once a month (although that may be a bit overkill, to be honest) then it obviously makes sense to use the least aggressive process that will accomplish the task. And that process is just that: a process. It's not about just the aggressiveness of the product itself, but also that of the pad and the tool being used, as well as how it's being used.

With that in mind, a regular application of our consumer Cleaner Wax (A12) done with a foam finishing pad at speed 4 on a traditional DA should be more than sufficient to clean the paint prior to applying another wax. This approach will be very mild to the paint and can safely be done every month. Further, doing so every month will dramatically reduce the amount of dirt accumulating in the pores of the paint, which means you never really need to get very aggressive anyway. Sort of a win-win, really. In reality, however, you shouldn't have to do this more than perhaps 3 or 4 times per year; just do your usual claying and waxing as you see fit.

With regard to the abrasive characteristics of Cleaner Wax and SwirlX, the latter is actually more aggressive, and can be made even moreso with an aggressive pad and higher tool speed/pressure. SwirlX uses a high tech SMAT abrasive that will continue to cut rather than quickly break down. Cleaner Wax, on the other hand, is very mild in comparison. As for the "non abrasive" comment on the bottle, that really refers to the fact that the product won't scour the paint like some older style formulations on the market can. You may have noticed that we prefer to use the term "aggressive" when speaking of the relative cutting ability of various products in our line. For example, we'll say that M105 is more "aggressive" than M205, not that it's more "abrasive". The term "abrasive" conjures up visions of something scratching the paint, while "aggressive" is a relative term that deals with cutting ability. This is why we call SwirlX "non abrasive". Make sense?

[scoutfai]

Re: Recommended product for removing pore embedded contaminants

Paint cleaning can be accomplished via two distinct methods - chemical or abrasive. It's great that you want to start addressing the embedded dirt that accumulates over time and can dull down lighter colored cars. If your plan really is to do this once a month (although that may be a bit overkill, to be honest) then it obviously makes sense to use the least aggressive process that will accomplish the task. And that process is just that: a process. It's not ........

Thanks Sir for the reply.
I agree it sounds overkill. That is because I pass through several road side construction area and it is always raining here. So the dirt film kind of build up in just 1 day after I wash the car. I shall see how much dirt I can pull out at the 1st time, and then a month later, how much again coming out from the paint. I think from there I should be able to know conclusively how frequent I should do this process.

Yes the explanation for the "nonabrasive" term printed on the SwirlX make a lot of sense.

Some questions.

1) Can I know is Cleaner Wax achieves the cleaning action through chemical, or abrasive technology (SMAT or diminishing abrasive), or a combination of both?

2) My plan is to do this paint cleaning process then apply a LSP, should be Ultimate Wax most of the time. If I was to use Cleaner Wax for the paint cleaning process, since Cleaner Wax will leave the surface with a layer of wax, that should mean my LSP will be applied on top of this layer of wax, will this poses any disadvantage in term of durability of the LSP?

3) If I want to put some pure polish oil (like Meguiar's Ultimate Polish or the Mirror Glaze M07 Show Car Glaze) prior to the LSP, should I do this before the paint cleaning with Cleaner Wax or after?

[Michael Stoops]

Re: Recommended product for removing pore embedded contaminants

Responses to your questions are in red below:

1) Can I know is Clseaner Wax achieves the cleaning action through chemical, or abrasive technology (SMAT or diminishing abrasive), or a combination of both?
It's a combination of chemical and diminishing abrasive
2) My plan is to do this paint cleaning process then apply a LSP, should be Ultimate Wax most of the time. If I was to use Cleaner Wax for the paint cleaning process, since Cleaner Wax will leave the surface with a layer of wax, that should mean my LSP will be applied on top of this layer of wax, will this poses any disadvantage in term of durability of the LSP?
You should have no problems applying Ultimate Wax on top of Cleaner Wax - it's actually a pretty common practice.
3) If I want to put some pure polish oil (like Meguiar's Ultimate Polish or the Mirror Glaze M07 Show Car Glaze) prior to the LSP, should I do this before the paint cleaning with Cleaner Wax or after?

If you choose to introduce a polish into this mix, then it should go between the Cleaner Wax and Ultimate. Using a cleaner wax after applying the polish will just remove the polish. However, you may find that Ultimate Polish will make a fine substitute for Cleaner Wax and you can then just top with Ultimate. The testing you mentioned should tell you this soon enough.