Duragloss Enviroshield Ceramic Coating System

[FUNX650]

Bob, I think 105 has some, but very little polishing agents.

The 111 is suppose to be pure sealant.

The real problem about your legitimate concern is that the bonding agent
(601) that both of these are generally used with
does have a stronger polishing agent that is capable of removing old wax.

I may be wrong but I believe Duragloss #111 also has "polishing agents".
However: Duragloss #601 does not list as having any such "polishing agents".

Back to my original concern:
Wouldn't the "polishing agents" in #105, #111, (and #601?) remove, at the very least:
Some of this new Duragloss Coating? How could they not?


Bob

 

[Shortspark]

I don't really know what is in any of this stuff. All I know is what is contained in product descriptions. For example, here is what AutoGeek says about 601: "Duragloss PBA is completely transparent and undetectable underneath the sealant. It removes old wax, which can cause the final coat of protection to appear cloudy, and thereby enhances the final gloss". Because it says it removes old wax, I have to assume it is either a paint cleaner or maybe it is a true polish and contains abrasive agents of some kind. If it removes wax, no matter what chemical or abrasive process it uses to do so, I have to believe it would also be detrimental to a coating. But again, that is an assumption.

As far as 111 is concerned, I again refer to AutoGeek's description: "Duragloss Clear Coat Polish (111) is what we would call a paint sealant. It actually has no abrasives in it and therefore does not fit what most modern car care specialists define as polishes".

So, if we believe these product descriptions, it would appear the bonding agent would indeed impact adversely on the the coating (or anything else it is put on) and is intended to be used as sort of a cleaner in preparation for an application of sealant. Unlike most paint cleansers, it also assists in the bonding process, at least it does for Duragloss sealants and I would assume it should also assist any other poly-seal product.

Conversely, (and here is yet another assumption from the description) it appears 111 by itself has nothing in it to adversely affect the coating. Having said that and assuming even if it is true, why would one want to put 111, or anything else for that matter, on top of a coating, which if I have read about this correctly, was developed to be a long lasting, stand alone LSP? As I said before, putting something on top of a coating seems to defeat the purpose.

 

[FUNX650]

I don't really know what is in any of this stuff. All I know is what is contained in product descriptions. For example, here is what AutoGeek says about 601: "Duragloss PBA is completely transparent and undetectable underneath the sealant. It removes old wax, which can cause the final coat of protection to appear cloudy, and thereby enhances the final gloss". Because it says it removes old wax, I have to assume it is either a paint cleaner or maybe it is a true polish and contains abrasive agents of some kind. If it removes wax, no matter what chemical or abrasive process it uses to do so, I have to believe it would also be detrimental to a coating. But again, that is an assumption.

As far as 111 is concerned, I again refer to AutoGeek's description: "Duragloss Clear Coat Polish (111) is what we would call a paint sealant. It actually has no abrasives in it and therefore does not fit what most modern car care specialists define as polishes".

So, if we believe these product descriptions, it would appear the bonding agent would indeed impact adversely on the the coating (or anything else it is put on) and is intended to be used as sort of a cleaner in preparation for an application of sealant. Unlike most paint cleansers, it also assists in the bonding process, at least it does for Duragloss sealants and I would assume it should also assist any other poly-seal product.

Conversely, (and here is yet another assumption from the description) it appears 111 by itself has nothing in it to adversely affect the coating. Having said that and assuming even if it is true, why would one want to put 111, or anything else for that matter, on top of a coating, which if I have read about this correctly, was developed to be a long lasting, stand alone LSP? As I said before, putting something on top of a coating seems to defeat the purpose.

^^^:goodpost:^^^:dblthumb2:

I agree with you...wholeheartedly...about not "topping/layering" a Coating with another different LSP!!

No matter #111's product description...
According to #111's MSDS:
It has "polishing agents".
Often these two forms of data are in conflict.

But as previously proffered by Mike Phillips:
(and I paraphrase)
"It's not what's on the bottle's label...
It's how the product performs!"


Bob

 

[BobbyG]

Duragloss 111 is labeled a clear coat polish but it's really just a sealant and has no abrasives. This is sort of confusing considering its name..

Duragloss 111 is a very nice product and leaves a beautiful long lasting shine behind and its durability can be increased by adding Duragloss 601..

 

[FUNX650]

Duragloss 111 is labeled a clear coat polish but it's really just a sealant and has no abrasives. This is sort of confusing considering its name..

Duragloss 111 is a very nice product and leaves a beautiful long lasting shine behind and its durability can be increased by adding Duragloss 601..

Hi BobbyG...

So are you saying it's best to disregard Duragloss' MSDS regarding #111?

Bob

 

[KillaCam]

Why are people coating their cars and then adding a sealant? Pointless IMO.
If you want to "rub" on your car just use aquawax as a drying aid.

 

[Klasse Act]

Why are people coating their cars and then adding a sealant? Pointless IMO.
If you want to "rub" on your car just use aquawax as a drying aid.

Good point Killa and you know what, these coatings are going to make me re-think my whole way of doing things. Its looking like all I'll need after applying the coating from DG is do rinseless washes and apply AW, that's it. If that's the case, I need to sell off my LSP's, sounds like a fire sale is coming, LOL!

Although a different coating I applied 2x's DPPC to my old CR-Z last November and we had a brutal winter like everyone else did in the midwest/northeast and the car cleaned up VERY easily and the shine was awesome! I never used a paint prep either but would encourage people to use it and I ofcoarse have the Squeaky Clean as well as DP paint prep to go along with the DPPC now.

Once the DGPC is applied this Sunday I'll be reporting from time to time about looks and water beading/sheeting/etc, this is where having a single thread with everyone reporting their reuslts/impressions of this new coating from DG.

Sent from my SPH-M930 using AG Online

 

[1kwikf]

just wanted to add that I placed my order for this coating today. I will be using it on a 2013 ford focus not bad for $38

 

[Klasse Act]

just wanted to add that I placed my order for this coating today. I will be using it on a 2013 ford focus not bad for $38

The price of this kit is unbelievable, then factor is FIVE DOLLARS for shipping, you've got nothing to lose and everything to gain!!

Sent from my SPH-M930 using AG Online

 

[Klasse Act]

Ok, just got another email from Bill and he said to just wash the car with their #901 wash but I live in an apartment and have to use rinseless, so I asked it that was ok to use, waiting on answer but I for one will continue to use their rinseless wash as I live in an apartment and even if I didnt', I'd have NO desire to go back to conventional methods. I should also pass along that he said for me to NOT even use AW on the car once its coated, very surprising info right there!

What do you guys think about all of this?

 

[74 thing]

If you talk to Bill again can you ask him if Duragloss' coating is hydrophopic that is why he does not suggest using a topper?

I know a lot of coatings will water stain easily and that is whey there are hydrophopic products to top them with like Reload and Hydro2.

I have loved all of the Duragloss products I have and have used in the past and am interested in this one as well.

 

[Klasse Act]

It says right on the bottle, IIRC, that its hydrophobic. The emails were straight and to the point, he didn't explain why you couldn't put anything, including their own products, ontop of their coating. He did say to wait 24 hrs to apply a 2nd coat which I will be doing since the car is staying in all day Sunday while I work on it and will not go outside till I have to leave for work late morning, plenty of time to cure out of the environment.

Sent from my SPH-M930 using AG Online

 

[Shortspark]

Well Klasse, you know what I think about all this because I have posted four or five long rants here in the last few days so I think I'll just get right to the heart of the matter and post another long rant. In the spring of 2012 I bought a new ML 350 in diamond white. That is an exclusive Mercedes German paint that is a $1600 option. It is absolutely stunning, especially under street lights as well as full sun. The "diamonds" sparkle throughout and from every angle. I just have to rub on it, touch it and pamper it. Too me it is more than just a paint on a car. I have never seen a white like this.

I can't hurt it or induce swirls or even scratches because it is so hard and the color itself would mask minor imperfections. To put a coating on it once every couple years and then do nothing more than wash it would not let me enjoy the car or the hobby of detailing like I have for more years than I care to remember.

Duralgloss makes great stuff and both 111 and 105 bring out the best in this paint and believe me, I've tried a bunch of stuff not only on this car but on various cars over the years and Duragloss has never let me down. Duragloss products also allow me to use different "toppers", waxes, shampoos, QDs, rinseless, waterless, etc., etc. - I can experiment with almost anything and everything and it is loads of fun - as I said before, it is also a form of therapy for me.

I have resisted coatings in the past because although I respect the technology and admire the wonderful performance and protection these products provide, they simply are not for me. When the day comes I get too old or too sore to bother with caring for my car (heck, I'm 65 as it is!) I may go with coatings once every year or two and hang it up until I die, but for right now I want the freedom to do as I please with regards to detailing my car. Coatings, as good as they may be, do not allow me to have that freedom.

 

[FUNX650]

RE: Consumer products instructions provided by Manufactures.

Consumers use products to do things.
Manufacturers provide instructions to do them "properly".

These instructions do not exist in a vacuum...
They are part and parcel of a product's "system"; and, therefore, are a support for, as well as supported by: this product's system.

Providing instructions for Consumers, no matter how explicit they may be, does not necessarily guarantee they will be followed.
Too often Consumers act in a way that is, let's say: Is inconsistent (or even contrary) with what the Manufacturer intended.

How difficult a task it must be for Manufacturers to have their products' instructions composed by someone that knows how to overcome what's referred to as: Consumers being influenced by "real World" human behaviors---including the gleaning of information/misinformation from sources like the internet; so-called experts, professionals; something read in a magazine; 'I know better than they and their Chemists/blenders do' attitudes; experimenting; etc.

Although I believe there are many Consumers that could compose better product instructions than what many Retailers pass off as literary genius...
I'm so glad that the task of writing those product instruction is one that never befell me.

{I also keep in mind this may not be an "Enthusiasts" way of broaching such subject matter.}


Bob

 

[Shortspark]

Well said, Bob and you probably would be good at writing those manuals. That reminds me of a story. I am a member of a car forum and a thread began concerning oil changes. I chimed in and said that my car calls for oil/filter change (Mobile One Euro Blend) once every year or 10,000 miles, whichever comes first. One guy posted that it would be a sin to let a car go 10,000 miles without an oil change, even under normal driving conditions. He said he has changed oil and filter every 3000 miles/3 months his entire life on every car he has owned and has never had an oil related failure.

Several of us wrote that he is just throwing money away because that particular oil represents one of the best synthetics made and the special fleece filters that are used are also the best. Accordingly, the engineers and the on board maintenance minders know the life expectancy of the oil in the engine they designed. If they say 10,000 miles that is what they have proven through many tests. He was adamant that the engineers were wrong as rain.

Well, I get my oil analyzed at Blackstone Labs once in a while and I can attest to the oil still going strong at 10,000 miles but that fellow could not be convinced, even with lab results. We told him his time frames were arbitrary and not the result of testing but he said he would not change no matter what.

If doing things your way rather than following a manufacture's recommendation and instructions makes you happy so be it. Certainly no harm would come from changing oil more frequently than recommended but it is a waste of product, money and time - ha!, that sounds just like many areas of detailing.

 

[Klasse Act]

I hear what your saying here and I'm going to leave the car alone and see how it goes, well other than rinseless washes and the occasional touch-free to get underneath and all the cracks and crevaces. Now my wifes car will be an even better test as it goes longer intervals between cleanings, so the reports on her car will carry even more water for durability.

The oil comparison is a good one and I had a sample of Mobil 1 tested in my CR-Z where I went 13.8K and the test came back with a higher than normal of aluminum. It was stated if this was my 2nd or 3rd oil change it could explain things and they suggested I go 10K next time. I was running Mobil 1 EP and Mobil 1 synthetic filter too. My route was easy highway miles and only running the car hard once a year down on the Dragon but the car never ever used any oil during the 2.5 yrs and 46K of driving.

A buddy of mine is a service advisor for Chrysler and also has an Abarth and he's changing the oil every 5K, not 10K but I'm going to do a test once its broken in real good and I get a couple oil changes done. The Abarth takes 5W40 but when the free oil changes are done I'll be switching over to Mobil 1 European formula which is 0W40. I'm no engineer but see no harm going with this oil as it still turns into a 40 weight once it warms up.

Its kinda funny how long oil change intervals and paint coatings have overlapped here, not the first time and probably not the last time either.

Sent from my SPH-M930 using AG Online

 

[Klasse Act]

Bill sent me an email stating that their rinseless wash is ok to use after applying their paint coating. Also since we're on the subject of DG's rinseless, when making it as a QD, 6-8 oz per 32 oz of water, so in my case, when making a gallon which I always do, its 24-32 oz of DG rinseless and then top off with water.

This Sunday can't get here fast enough!

Sent from my SPH-M930 using AG Online

 

[KillaCam]

Bill sent me an email stating that their rinseless wash is ok to use after applying their paint coating. Also since we're on the subject of DG's rinseless, when making it as a QD, 6-8 oz per 32 oz of water, so in my case, when making a gallon which I always do, its 24-32 oz of DG rinseless and then top off with water.

This Sunday can't get here fast enough!

Sent from my SPH-M930 using AG Online

I've found that 3 oz per 16 oz of water is too concentrated and streaks bad. 2 oz works a lot better. Did you not get any streaks? Of course this was black paint I'm referring to.

 

[Klasse Act]

I've found that 3 oz per 16 oz of water is too concentrated and streaks bad. 2 oz works a lot better. Did you not get any streaks? Of course this was black paint I'm referring to.

So your saying that when making a gallon 16 oz and then topping the gallon with water works best? I'll give it a shot but its been a while since I had the DG rinseless because I've had people send me samples of this and that and then I bought/tried/ the TW rinseless. Per Bill @DG he said the amount he originally told me might be too much as well, so I'm going side on a lower amount, somewhere between 16-24oz and then topping with water.

Sent from my SPH-M930 using AG Online

 

[KillaCam]

So your saying that when making a gallon 16 oz and then topping the gallon with water works best? I'll give it a shot but its been a while since I had the DG rinseless because I've had people send me samples of this and that and then I bought/tried/ the TW rinseless. Per Bill @DG he said the amount he originally told me might be too much as well, so I'm going side on a lower amount, somewhere between 16-24oz and then topping with water.

Sent from my SPH-M930 using AG Online

I haven't mixed it by the gallon. I used a sprayer and mixed in the recommended 3 oz of DG rinseless with 16 oz of water to make 19 oz of product and it was too streaky. So instead of 3 I use 2 oz.