Deep Gloss Auto Salon
New member
- Jun 16, 2007
- 2,038
- 0
M105 has garnered many fans and rightfully so due to the great cut and quick work time which for some is a blessing and others a curse.
While only some have an issue with the relatively short work cycle we all experience the dust that is a byproduct of the buffing liquid. In my opinion it was just par for the course, after all, it is a compound, and one that is a great asset to any detailers arsenal.
It has been quite sometime since I’ve used Optimum buffing liquids. When I first used them I did not care for them. At the time my main machine of choice was the random orbital and the Optimum buffing liquids at that time simply didn’t “cut” it for me (literally and figuratively).
In comes the new trio of Optimum buffing liquids, touting improved cut (some have said OHC is along the lined of M105) with low/no dusting – consider me interested.
So on with the comparison / testing - Nicely swirled up black paintwork – perfect test bed.
Note: Each “after” pictured is after one section pass
As you will see in the above pics, there is slight micro marring left over from the compounding step. Considering the severity of the defects removed one would expect some residual micro marring. This can be easily cleaned up with a medium polishing step.
Again, slight micro marring left over – just a little but more residual micro marring as compared to the OHC. But, again one would expect this from a compound capable of removing the defects shown and this can be easily cleaned up with a medium polishing step.
Now that we have established a negligible delta in residual micro marring post compounding when using the same liquid/pad/machine combination, let’s take a look at the afters one after the other to better compare the correction achieved.
As shown above:
• The correction ability of these two buffing compounds is very comparable. I would not say the difference in cut is noticeable on this paintwork.
• The post compounding micro marring is slightly less with the OHC. With that said, both will require a medium polishing step to remove this micro marring.
Below are the results when these same two buffing liquids are paired with the Flex 3401 machine and cyan Hydro Tech LC pad.
The OHC when paired with the hydro pad and Flex machine left considerably more micro marring with only a negligible increase in correction when compared to the OHC/GG/Megs MF disc combo
Once again, the amount of correction achieved when the only difference is the buffing liquid (OHC vs. M105) is negligible. The post compounding micro marring is just slightly less with the OHC but again, considering a follow up step will be needed with either liquid this should not be a deal breaker.
Next I will show show the afters one after the other with each pad/liquid/machine combination:
Summary:
Both buffing liquids have comparable cut and only a slight edge in the severity of post compounding micro marring goes to OHC.
The main differentiators between these two buffing liquids are:
• Dust: OHC produces little to no dust as compared to M105 that produces a considerable amount of dust
• Work time: M105 has a relatively short working cycle while OHC has a long cycle time before the lubricants are exhausted. This is neither a pro nor a con for either and is really more of what the individual or the paintwork type prefers.
While only some have an issue with the relatively short work cycle we all experience the dust that is a byproduct of the buffing liquid. In my opinion it was just par for the course, after all, it is a compound, and one that is a great asset to any detailers arsenal.
It has been quite sometime since I’ve used Optimum buffing liquids. When I first used them I did not care for them. At the time my main machine of choice was the random orbital and the Optimum buffing liquids at that time simply didn’t “cut” it for me (literally and figuratively).
In comes the new trio of Optimum buffing liquids, touting improved cut (some have said OHC is along the lined of M105) with low/no dusting – consider me interested.
So on with the comparison / testing - Nicely swirled up black paintwork – perfect test bed.
Note: Each “after” pictured is after one section pass
As you will see in the above pics, there is slight micro marring left over from the compounding step. Considering the severity of the defects removed one would expect some residual micro marring. This can be easily cleaned up with a medium polishing step.
Again, slight micro marring left over – just a little but more residual micro marring as compared to the OHC. But, again one would expect this from a compound capable of removing the defects shown and this can be easily cleaned up with a medium polishing step.
Now that we have established a negligible delta in residual micro marring post compounding when using the same liquid/pad/machine combination, let’s take a look at the afters one after the other to better compare the correction achieved.
As shown above:
• The correction ability of these two buffing compounds is very comparable. I would not say the difference in cut is noticeable on this paintwork.
• The post compounding micro marring is slightly less with the OHC. With that said, both will require a medium polishing step to remove this micro marring.
Below are the results when these same two buffing liquids are paired with the Flex 3401 machine and cyan Hydro Tech LC pad.
The OHC when paired with the hydro pad and Flex machine left considerably more micro marring with only a negligible increase in correction when compared to the OHC/GG/Megs MF disc combo
Once again, the amount of correction achieved when the only difference is the buffing liquid (OHC vs. M105) is negligible. The post compounding micro marring is just slightly less with the OHC but again, considering a follow up step will be needed with either liquid this should not be a deal breaker.
Next I will show show the afters one after the other with each pad/liquid/machine combination:
Summary:
Both buffing liquids have comparable cut and only a slight edge in the severity of post compounding micro marring goes to OHC.
The main differentiators between these two buffing liquids are:
• Dust: OHC produces little to no dust as compared to M105 that produces a considerable amount of dust
• Work time: M105 has a relatively short working cycle while OHC has a long cycle time before the lubricants are exhausted. This is neither a pro nor a con for either and is really more of what the individual or the paintwork type prefers.
rops:
