Stubborn Water Etching

[eddyt]

Hey everyone, new here. Recently got into detailing and already hooked! So I've been having difficulties with these stubborn etchings left by waterspots (see photo). I've done about 2-3 passes of UC using an DA polisher and they don't seem to be going away anytime soon. What now? The car is around four years old and I've washed and clay barred the car before this.

Thanks in advance!

[Nick Winn]

Re: Stubborn Water Etching

Hey Eddyt,

What pad were you using? Ultimate Compound is a great "tool in the tool box" but there are many times when a more aggressive compound or combination is needed for more stubborn defects. If you have done 2 - 3 passes with Ultimate Compound using moderate to heavy pressure, at this point we would recommend using a more aggressive combination. At this point many would reach for or we would recommend our M105 Ultra Cut Compound or our DA Microfiber Correction System.

[eddyt]

Re: Stubborn Water Etching

Hi Nick, thanks for the suggestion, I was using the original yellow foam pad. Does the 105 leave finer scratches which will need to be buffed out later with UC?

[Mr. Slick]

Re: Stubborn Water Etching

Hi Nick, thanks for the suggestion, I was using the original yellow foam pad. Does the 105 leave finer scratches which will need to be buffed out later with UC?

Actually I use 105 all the time. It doesn't scratch it. It almost looks good enough to wax. After 105 you just use 205 finishing polish.

[The Guz]

Re: Stubborn Water Etching

Hi Nick, thanks for the suggestion, I was using the original yellow foam pad. Does the 105 leave finer scratches which will need to be buffed out later with UC?

If you see what is referred to as micro marring or DA haze, a polish like M205 or ultimate polish will take care of that.

[Top Gear]

Re: Stubborn Water Etching

Personally, I doubt M105 will make a difference over the excellent UC, as the one is based on the other. One approach is to jump a whole step more aggressive with M101 or M100 on an MF pad. Another approach is to jump several steps more aggressive by very carefully wet-sanding the area using 3000-grit and quik detailer or water. You can also do both, as I have done. Lastly, you could also just coat the area with polish and wax to kinda hide it, and then re-correct that area more often, hoping the etchings will fade over time. The point here is that there are some defects that are well beyond UC/M105, especially on foam pads, and doubly so on hard paint. However, 2-3 passes as you say, is just a "test pass" in my experience. In some areas, I've done many dozens of passes with MF and UC or D300, all to no avail, hence the M101, which eliminated much of that work, and wet-sanding, which eliminated all of it. Yet, seeing an area like that fail to yield to your DA work is one of the greatest lessons, as you can see how little damage you're doing with a DA.

[Michael Stoops]

Re: Stubborn Water Etching

Personally, I doubt M105 will make a difference over the excellent UC, as the one is based on the other. One approach is to jump a whole step more aggressive with M101 or M100 on an MF pad.

For the record, while UC is indeed based on M105 and it makes use of the same abrasive set, it does not contain anywhere near the abrasive load of M105 and therefore is a noticeable step down in aggressiveness. Switching to microfiber discs with any SMAT abrasive Mirror Glaze compound is indeed a huge step up in aggressiveness, and may well be the best solution for really stubborn etching or other severe below surface defects. Most of the really high end pros that I deal with will reach for M101 in those situations for the outright speed of defect removal it offers, which is due to the extremely heavy abrasive load found in M101 (among other formulation considerations). Those same guys almost always tell me that while they love the long buffing cycle of M100, they wish it would cut as fast as M105. Personally, I think those two are very close in overall cutting ability, with a slight nod to M105, but M100 usually provides that longer buffing cycle and less dust when used on microfiber discs via DA. Remember that none of these three Mirror Glaze compounds were ever intended to be used in a microfiber/DA setting, but the versatile nature of the SMAT technology contained in them means that they all can be incredibly effective when used that way. The user experience may vary from the original design intent (ie changes to buffing cycle, amount of dust, etc) when used outside their design parameters, but that's almost always an insignificant factor for most detailers. By the way, the high level of cut provided by microfiber discs is primarily in the design of the microfiber filaments for the disc; we are simply able to carry a much greater load of compound, and therefore a much greater abrasive load, than possible with foam.

Having said all that, looking at the OP's comments regarding pad used, it may well be that he's just not getting quite aggressive enough with what he already has on hand, and we'd like to see him swap to a foam cutting disc and maybe ramp up the tool speed a bit more before going out and purchasing all new pads and liquids. We'd rather see him really dial in his technique rather than simply using more aggressive products to overcome a technique deficiency that he might have as a fairly new user. We see this very often with new and new-ish users of the DA. One of us here at Meguiar's is able to achieve a great result with a given product/pad combo and then the new user struggles with the same combo. It's all a technique thing because, quite frankly, if I or Nick can get a killer result with, say, UC and a burgundy foam cutting disc on your car, there is no reason whatsoever why you can't do the exact same thing. All we have on you is more experience and a refined technique. If you merely step up to really aggressive product mixes you end using those as more of a crutch to overcome a lack of technique, and that is not how we want to see people approach paint polishing.

[eddyt]

Re: Stubborn Water Etching

Thanks everyone. Ultimately decided against going out buying the 105 - its around $60 for a small bottle here down under. I did a bit more work applying more pressure and speed and smaller sections and the marks seem to be fading. They don't look like they are going to disappear completely but I'm more or less satisfied with the result.

[Top Gear]

Re: Stubborn Water Etching

..It's all a technique thing because, quite frankly, if I or Nick can get a killer result with, say, UC and a burgundy foam cutting disc on your car, there is no reason whatsoever why you can't do the exact same thing...

Ha! Having tried it many times, I'd be absolutely astounded if you got real results on something like buffer trails or RIDS or sanding marks on my hard paint with UC and a burgundy Soft Buff foam pad

Seriously, though, M105 over UC may have more of an "abrasive load", whatever that means, but it's simply not different enough from UC to constitute a major difference in cut. I'm not interested in minor differences in cut or partial steps, and I don't have the luxury of comparing 5 or 10 different compound and pad combinations for a given defect. Like most customers, I only have so much daylight, budget, and energy to spare, and I just need something that works, not a list of overwhelmingly incremental product combos. I assume all of your products are great, but can M105 really be so wildly different from UC if UC doesn't work on a given defect? I doubt it.

For another example, we've compared D300 to M105 before, and it seems like D300 is usually described as similarly aggressive as M105, although you've said D300 may sit in between UC and M105, yet I've heard many variations in different threads from different pros. I doubt there's a notable difference in cut among the 3 in the real world, because I've used D300 and UC back-to-back on the same defects on the same paint using two of the same pads, and I couldn't tell the difference in abrasion between them. However, comparing M101 to either of those was like a night and day, knock your socks off difference - again, in terms of cut on difficult defects. I'd pick D300 over UC/M105 because of its beautiful finish and being part of DAMF, but cut-for-cut it was impossible to separate UC and D300. Since D300 may sit at or near M105 (depending on the thread and who's arguing)...well, suffice to say, the difference in pure cut alone on MF among UC and M105 must be very academic indeed. As for dust, I'm not sure how to non-subjectively measure dust levels when all the compounds I've ever used make lots of dust and require cleanup.

As for technique vs pure aggression, that was not my point, nor is it an either/or, anyway. One can develop DA techniques, as well as avoid wasted time and money on products that are too weak for the various problems at hand for a given paint. That was the lesson, the technique, I learned, using UC on foam on very hard paint. I'm sure Meguiar's isn't expecting us to be happy endlessly compounding using a combo that isn't cutting the defect on a particular paint. The OP's picture looks a lot like spots I've had, and so I suspected the OP's paint might be on the hard side, in which case, UC/M105 on foam is more like torture than technique.

[HCAD]

Re: Stubborn Water Etching

Just to throw another hat in the ring here, I find #105 noticeably stronger than D300. I haven't used Ultimate Compound so I can't comment. With D300, which I love using, I'm used to a 75% correction on first pass. With #105, when the customer demands closer to perfection, I plan on getting 85-90% correction. Not a big percentage difference I know, but, the last 5-15% of clarity is worth paying for!

To the original poster, eddyt, I ask, is the removal of every defect as important as paint longevity? Multiple passes with stronger and stronger polishes will without question reduce your clear coat. Are you planning to keep this car in the garage, pampered like a show car? Or is it a daily driver? It IS possible that the defects are beyond sensible repair, for a daily driver.