nxt and carnuba
#46
#47
#48
#49
#50
Is the main purpose of the NXT 2.0 first for protection/longevity? I understand the Megs #26 or Gold Class Carnauba gives it a deep look...but would waxing with just #26 or GC give the same look without as much protection? Or does the 2.0 actually add something to the appearance?
I started using NXT and liked it but then topped it with #26 to see if would look better...and it did. But I have not tried #26 by itself.
Last edited by dkstone05; 05-16-2008 at 10:42 AM.
#51
Is the main purpose of the NXT 2.0 first for protection/longevity? I understand the Megs #26 or Gold Class Carnauba gives it a deep look...but would waxing with just #26 or GC give the same look without as much protection? Or does the 2.0 actually add something to the appearance?
First of all, appearance is in the eyes of the beholder; it's very subjective. That said, what I'm going to say on appearance is simply an opinion of mine...
I think that NXT, by itself, doesn't yield a very deep and wet shine. Rather, it gets very very glossy and is more of a ultra polished mirrorized item verus a warm, deep, wet look. Again, an opinion...
As for the reason in NXT first, you're spot on with your assumption...
NXT is a much more durable product than many of the carnauba-based waxes out there on the market and, as such, it's kind of more of a last line of defense. What topping a synthetic or a sealant type of product with a carnauba-based product does is re-add that warmth and depth to the paint (espeically dark colors). Additionally, it'll obviously add a tidbit of additional protection that will still take a beating.
Again, it's all a matter of opinion on looks...
What most won't argue is that a synthetic will outlast the carnauba.
#52
What you're assuming is correct in that an abrasive polish would be needed to remove the swirls that you're describing but, what we don't know - sight unseen - is the level of swirls that you're going to try to be removing (by hand, I believe).
So, about those pictures of the swirls.......
-RP-
#54
Sorry... at work and got side tracked (You mean I'm supposed to work on environmental due diligence for a property divestiture rather than post online?! Who made that rule? LOL! I want a new job! LOLOL)
I kind of answered it earlier...
The idea of 'bonding' is one that is WIDELY debated in the automotive finish industry as well as the automotive finish protection industry. While some will swear that it will form either an electrical or similar bond with the paint, others will say that it's simply the molecules of the same product joining hands (bonding) over the paint and 'wrapping' the paint in a protective layer. There are other schools of thought on this as well...
I'm not smart enough to distinguish between the two nor am I a chemist but, what I can relate back to are my own observations and knowing how I detailed a car and what it looks like a varying stages during the degradation period after it leaves the initial detail as some will appear fairly quickly after leaving (they just love that showroom shine) whereas others won't show back up for months (speaking of which, where's Shannon!? -- you've been talking about getting that truck back in for months now! )...
Either way, I rarely see a huge variance on a vehicle that is a 6 hour cure versus one that I allow to go 18 (if I have that type of time to allow for it to happen). So, based upon that observation, I'd have to call a spade a spade and say that there's quite a bit of hype in the entire bonding thing...
Your experiences with #21 are similar to what others have described even letting it set up for hours on end (based on my reading). I've not personally ever had a tremendous problem with #21 (I'm tinkering with the 2.0 version now but really can't discern a huge difference). I think it's a pretty solid product but, in my eyes, it may fall short of it's bigger brother, #20. (as always, my opinion).
I'm rambling... sorry...
I just think that there's some hype to it. There was a reason that Meg's said to let it cure from the start which started the entire 'let it cure' craze. Lest we forget that MPPP was a semi-synthetic product and there was never a chirp of 'bonding' when it was the nexgen product on the market.
The long and short is that I think that's there to really cover someone's **** on the performance of the product. Different environments will yield differennt 'cure' times or drying times. I think the most ultra-conservative number/time frame must be put on the table for a company that distributes into every corner of the world and is as respected on a global scale. Conservative has always been the paradigm for corporate America, right?
I kind of answered it earlier...
The idea of 'bonding' is one that is WIDELY debated in the automotive finish industry as well as the automotive finish protection industry. While some will swear that it will form either an electrical or similar bond with the paint, others will say that it's simply the molecules of the same product joining hands (bonding) over the paint and 'wrapping' the paint in a protective layer. There are other schools of thought on this as well...
I'm not smart enough to distinguish between the two nor am I a chemist but, what I can relate back to are my own observations and knowing how I detailed a car and what it looks like a varying stages during the degradation period after it leaves the initial detail as some will appear fairly quickly after leaving (they just love that showroom shine) whereas others won't show back up for months (speaking of which, where's Shannon!? -- you've been talking about getting that truck back in for months now! )...
Either way, I rarely see a huge variance on a vehicle that is a 6 hour cure versus one that I allow to go 18 (if I have that type of time to allow for it to happen). So, based upon that observation, I'd have to call a spade a spade and say that there's quite a bit of hype in the entire bonding thing...
Your experiences with #21 are similar to what others have described even letting it set up for hours on end (based on my reading). I've not personally ever had a tremendous problem with #21 (I'm tinkering with the 2.0 version now but really can't discern a huge difference). I think it's a pretty solid product but, in my eyes, it may fall short of it's bigger brother, #20. (as always, my opinion).
I'm rambling... sorry...
I just think that there's some hype to it. There was a reason that Meg's said to let it cure from the start which started the entire 'let it cure' craze. Lest we forget that MPPP was a semi-synthetic product and there was never a chirp of 'bonding' when it was the nexgen product on the market.
The long and short is that I think that's there to really cover someone's **** on the performance of the product. Different environments will yield differennt 'cure' times or drying times. I think the most ultra-conservative number/time frame must be put on the table for a company that distributes into every corner of the world and is as respected on a global scale. Conservative has always been the paradigm for corporate America, right?
#55
Sorry... I should have read ahead before I opened my mouth and asked the question...
Based upon what you're saying and, again, sight unseen, your thought of trying Color X may not be a bad option. There are a lot of great 'cleaner wax' types of products out there but, in all honesty, it continues to be a favorite of mine for a quick 'in and out' job on a vehicle that really doesn't require much love to get it back to pretty good health.
Here's my suggestion...
Wash it, clay it, and then give the Color X a whirl on HALF of the hood (or area that you noticed the swirls). Pull it out in the sun and assess it. If it's good enough, you know where you're heading... if not, maybe we need to drop back and punt. Also, don't be afraid to go two times with the Color X product - it won't hurt.
The kicker is that you're doing this by hand and it'll be a monster of a beast to really knock out significant swirling doing it that way...
If you're really not putting a dent in it with the Color X, the 'punt' is going to something like a #4 or a #80 or a MPPC or a SSR 2 type of product...
After that polish step (the last sentence), you'd move to the protection step with the sealant and a topper if you want to go that route.
-RP-
#56
#57
Interesting... good to know...
BTW-- you say that #21 is not as good as the big brother #20... Since when? (not sarcastic; I thought you recommended #21 over #20, but then again I forgot what day it was this morning...)
Glad to know that me and RR are not the only 2 fools who have occasional problems with #21...Dont get me wrong-- after EX-P, it is my favorite sealant. Then NXT 2.0. Then NXT (original)... Speaking of which, I just threw on a coat of the old NXT... I still have a bottle and a half of the old stuff plus the bottle of new stuff... (and a bunch of other stuff )
Anywho, I am rambling now... Thanks for the input.
BTW-- you say that #21 is not as good as the big brother #20... Since when? (not sarcastic; I thought you recommended #21 over #20, but then again I forgot what day it was this morning...)
Glad to know that me and RR are not the only 2 fools who have occasional problems with #21...Dont get me wrong-- after EX-P, it is my favorite sealant. Then NXT 2.0. Then NXT (original)... Speaking of which, I just threw on a coat of the old NXT... I still have a bottle and a half of the old stuff plus the bottle of new stuff... (and a bunch of other stuff )
Anywho, I am rambling now... Thanks for the input.
#58
Interesting... good to know...
BTW-- you say that #21 is not as good as the big brother #20... Since when? (not sarcastic; I thought you recommended #21 over #20, but then again I forgot what day it was this morning...)
Glad to know that me and RR are not the only 2 fools who have occasional problems with #21...Dont get me wrong-- after EX-P, it is my favorite sealant. Then NXT 2.0. Then NXT (original)... Speaking of which, I just threw on a coat of the old NXT... I still have a bottle and a half of the old stuff plus the bottle of new stuff... (and a bunch of other stuff )
Anywho, I am rambling now... Thanks for the input.
BTW-- you say that #21 is not as good as the big brother #20... Since when? (not sarcastic; I thought you recommended #21 over #20, but then again I forgot what day it was this morning...)
Glad to know that me and RR are not the only 2 fools who have occasional problems with #21...Dont get me wrong-- after EX-P, it is my favorite sealant. Then NXT 2.0. Then NXT (original)... Speaking of which, I just threw on a coat of the old NXT... I still have a bottle and a half of the old stuff plus the bottle of new stuff... (and a bunch of other stuff )
Anywho, I am rambling now... Thanks for the input.
I still have half a gallon of #21....feel like I am the crack supplier for Ryan, he is the only one using it from my batch.
Ryan if you want the rest of my #21 its yours....
#59
Next thing you know I am gonna be moving up to detailing heroin: Final Detail.
I still havent used it... I am waiting for right after I detail it to get it perfect. I want to see what it can do... But once I do, I promise: I wont take it like the #21 crack-addiction... LOL!!!
Also, after I get my trim cleaned up all proper, I am going to do the Black Wow treatment... I am thinking about first cleaning trim with Simple Green to remove the wax residue... I have some that is being stubborn, so I figure SG should take it off. (1:1 on an MF, so no worries)
I will say, though, as crazy as some people think you are, I can DEFINITELY understand... Once you use EX-P, its hard to use #21 on your own truck. That's why my customers just got bumped from NXT to #21!!! (well, admittedly, some of them still get NXT and I sometimes use a ****tail of everything...I am such a detailing druggie...)