Scratch-X is too weak, it's ok for UC?

[Lelevt]

Hi, is the first time I write here, I'm Italian so sorry for my bad English.
5 months ago I bought a 3 year old used car with a lot of little scratches and swirls, probably caused by the brushes of a lot of automatic car washing. The color is a flat red, I think is a mono-stage paint.

I clayed the car and then I started to work by hand with a light polish, not a Meguiar's product but was a good one. The car turned a lot better, but the scratches were all there.

I then bought a Scratch-X (not the 2.0 that wasn't available yet) and started one part at a time and I found that the product was effective but with 3-4 passes of an incredible amount of mechanical action concentrated in a in very small area!!.
This is not possible to do to the entire car, it will broke my arms!! I then passed over the entire car but only once and without an extreme mechanical action. The result is an improvement but wasn't good as I expected becase the little scratches are always visible.

Now I knew of the new incredible "Ultimate Compound" that is a more aggressive product, do you think that it will bring to me a perfect result working by hand?
Also consider that here in Italy Meguiar's product cost the TRIPLE than in the U.S., a Scratch-X costs the equivalent of 23 dollars and the same I think the UC... so I have to be very careful in buying the right product.

I have a friend of mine with a rotoorbital polishing machine that could borrow me, but I prefer doing by hand, also because I don't know wich kind of pad has to be used.

Thank you very much

[Fischer]

Re: Scratch-X is too weak, it's ok for UC?

Welcome to the forums.

What are you using to apply Scratch X? Could you possibly provide pictures of the paint?
Using UC most likely wont provide a perfect result by hand application but there are still alot of factors that needs to be added into the equation. Year of the car, color, make, is it the factory paint or been repainted? etc.

And when you say "rotoorbital" you mean rotary or something else?

[Lelevt]

Re: Scratch-X is too weak, it's ok for UC?

I'm using a foam applicator, not the original Meguiar's but something similar, a thin foam, and a cotton cloth to remove, I'm very careful in not doing scratches by myself with dirt.

The car is a 2006 Renault Clio, of course in the USA they don't even exist, color is flat RED.

The polishing machine is a "random orbital", in fact is something similar to a "dual action" not a rotary in the sense of machine thas simply spins.
This is the machine: *Link swapped with a picture, Mark Kleis

I'll try to take a picture and to post, now the light is low.

[Lelevt]

Re: Scratch-X is too weak, it's ok for UC?

Here are 2 images, is very hard to show these scratches on camera, the dots is just a little stupid rainfall dried that ruined my finishing work of Sunday

[Markus Kleis]

Re: Scratch-X is too weak, it's ok for UC?

Hi Lelevt,

A couple things to address for you: the orbital buffer you posted is good for spreading wax and removing wax, and that is about it. You will remove defects more effectively by hand than with that machine.

As for the scratches, they do not look very deep, and it doesn't look that bad. Ultimate Compound would most likely remove what is left, but if you really want to play it safe then your best bet would be to order some M105. M105 is stronger, so at the very least you might be able to use a little less force and still remove the defects.

One thing I did notice was that the scratches were in straight lines- something not normal at all from washing scratches.

Do you use a water blade for drying? Or does the car go through drive-thru washes?

[Lelevt]

Re: Scratch-X is too weak, it's ok for UC?

Thank you, Mark, I bought the car used without knowing the previus owner, i suppose the car was washed many times in the kind of "drive-thru washes" you mentioned, because her in Italy are very popular and for 90% of the people it's the only known way of washing a car.
Something like this, with spinning big brushes that leave thousands of scratches, and the people don't even know, and the drying process is done with powerful air blade.


Now the car is mine and it will never get that kind of washing.

Regarding the machine, it revs at 3000rpm, it is not enough for polishing? Of course a different pad has to be used. But it doesn't matter, I will do by hand.

Thank you very much, now I will decide to buy an UC or a M105, is the application the same, with a foam application pad?

[Eddie6th]

Re: Scratch-X is too weak, it's ok for UC?

Hi Lev and welcome to MOL.I see you've got some M105.What region of Italy are you in?I'm looking for these products.

[the_invisible]

Re: Scratch-X is too weak, it's ok for UC?

Thank you, Mark, I bought the car used without knowing the previus owner, i suppose the car was washed many times in the kind of "drive-thru washes" you mentioned, because her in Italy are very popular and for 90% of the people it's the only known way of washing a car.
Something like this, with spinning big brushes that leave thousands of scratches, and the people don't even know, and the drying process is done with powerful air blade.


Now the car is mine and it will never get that kind of washing.

Regarding the machine, it revs at 3000rpm, it is not enough for polishing? Of course a different pad has to be used. But it doesn't matter, I will do by hand.

Thank you very much, now I will decide to buy an UC or a M105, is the application the same, with a foam application pad?

Hello,

MANY people on detailing forums have some sort of misconception about random orbital buffers. While orbital buffers are mostly known for their safety nature in apply waxes, some are advertised as a polisher for use with paint polishes. Around 15 years ago, before dual actions were even popular, powerful orbital buffers were what many detailers used for light duty jobs.

I personally own a 10" 3300rpm orbital buffer from more than 15 years ago. I let my son practice with it with UC and SwirlX before allowing him to proceed using my 7424. The orbital buffer did an impressive job with the proper foam and 100% cotton applicator. It worked slowly, but I still find it adequate in removing swirls and scratches. You can pick up a powerful orbital buffer for under $25 these days. I can tell you right now that if you get an orbital buffer that is rated at above 3000rpm, you will achieve very good results without tiring yourself. If you believe that an orbital buffer would not do its job, there are always foam hand applicators that are disposable at $1 each. Otherwise go knock yourself out and get a Porter Cable 7424.

I find that most of the people who make umbrella statements about orbital buffers are people who don't own an orbital buffer. A lot of my son's friends call themselves professionals by owning tools like the G110 or the 7424. Without attaining knowledge about these tools, they immediately went to work on their Porsche Cayman and M3. One of my son's friends even burnt a section on his IS350 at just the 4th setting on his 7424 using M205. These kids asked my son why they create more swirls than they eliminate them. That just goes to prove that it's not so much about the tools you use. Don't get me wrong, I highly recommend the 7424 for anybody who is serious about detailing. A powerful random orbital is more than just a wax appliactor. Don't let anybody tell you otherwise.

[Eddie6th]

Re: Scratch-X is too weak, it's ok for UC?

Hello,

MANY people on detailing forums have some sort of misconception about random orbital buffers. While orbital buffers are mostly known for their safety nature in apply waxes, some are advertised as a polisher for use with paint polishes. Around 15 years ago, before dual actions were even popular, powerful orbital buffers were what many detailers used for light duty jobs.

I personally own a 10" 3300rpm orbital buffer from more than 15 years ago. I let my son practice with it with UC and SwirlX before allowing him to proceed using my 7424. The orbital buffer did an impressive job with the proper foam and 100% cotton applicator. It worked slowly, but I still find it adequate in removing swirls and scratches. You can pick up a powerful orbital buffer for under $25 these days. I can tell you right now that if you get an orbital buffer that is rated at above 3000rpm, you will achieve very good results without tiring yourself. If you believe that an orbital buffer would not do its job, there are always foam hand applicators that are disposable at $1 each. Otherwise go knock yourself out and get a Porter Cable 7424.

I find that most of the people who make umbrella statements about orbital buffers are people who don't own an orbital buffer. A lot of my son's friends call themselves professionals by owning tools like the G110 or the 7424. Without attaining knowledge about these tools, they immediately went to work on their Porsche Cayman and M3. One of my son's friends even burnt a section on his IS350 at just the 4th setting on his 7424 using M205. These kids asked my son why they create more swirls than they eliminate them. That just goes to prove that it's not so much about the tools you use. Don't get me wrong, I highly recommend the 7424 for anybody who is serious about detailing. A powerful random orbital is more than just a wax appliactor. Don't let anybody tell you otherwise.

I have to agree with you on that.I don't own one,but at the local bodyshop that's what they use aswell,and they do cut.It depends on what work they are doing and the softness of the paint.They use a rotary and DA for most work,but they do have their uses.That particular orbital is much more expensive than the the ones found in DIY stores.So that is a good point.

[Markus Kleis]

Re: Scratch-X is too weak, it's ok for UC?

Hello,

MANY people on detailing forums have some sort of misconception about random orbital buffers. While orbital buffers are mostly known for their safety nature in apply waxes, some are advertised as a polisher for use with paint polishes. Around 15 years ago, before dual actions were even popular, powerful orbital buffers were what many detailers used for light duty jobs.

I personally own a 10" 3300rpm orbital buffer from more than 15 years ago. I let my son practice with it with UC and SwirlX before allowing him to proceed using my 7424. The orbital buffer did an impressive job with the proper foam and 100% cotton applicator. It worked slowly, but I still find it adequate in removing swirls and scratches. You can pick up a powerful orbital buffer for under $25 these days. I can tell you right now that if you get an orbital buffer that is rated at above 3000rpm, you will achieve very good results without tiring yourself. If you believe that an orbital buffer would not do its job, there are always foam hand applicators that are disposable at $1 each. Otherwise go knock yourself out and get a Porter Cable 7424.

I find that most of the people who make umbrella statements about orbital buffers are people who don't own an orbital buffer. A lot of my son's friends call themselves professionals by owning tools like the G110 or the 7424. Without attaining knowledge about these tools, they immediately went to work on their Porsche Cayman and M3. One of my son's friends even burnt a section on his IS350 at just the 4th setting on his 7424 using M205. These kids asked my son why they create more swirls than they eliminate them. That just goes to prove that it's not so much about the tools you use. Don't get me wrong, I highly recommend the 7424 for anybody who is serious about detailing. A powerful random orbital is more than just a wax appliactor. Don't let anybody tell you otherwise.

Well you certainly couldn't be referring to me and my 10 inch Craftsman random orbital that I started using when I was 16

I applaud you for taking the time to work with an orbital, which by the way is listed as a possible application method on the bottles of the new M105. I realize that- but I also realize that 9 times out of 10 (being generous here) you will remove defects that require M105 in the first place much faster and more effectively by hand.

I know this from personal experience, and also from what I learned from the man himself, Mike Phillips.

Quoting Mike, "Orbital buffers like the one you have are only good for spreading out a layer of wax, not remove defects whether they be swirls, scratches or sanding marks. If fact your hand has more power to remove defects out of a clear coat finish than an orbital buffer."

Of course Mike realizes that with enough time and passes even an orbital could remove defects, BUT, it isn't a time effective method compared to the hand.

[Underdawg736]

Re: Scratch-X is too weak, it's ok for UC?

Great posts! I guess the best way to describe the DA is that it's a RO and rotory hybrid meaning that it osculates and spins at the same time. I've to this day...which will change today...have never used a machine polisher, but I've seen the RO make corrections (see CumminsCrazed detail of his truck http://meguiarsonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33664). I guess it depends on what kind of RO you have and what your technique is which will ultimately decide what kind of outcome you'll have.

So how does one burn paint useing a 7424?