How much Menzerna FG 400 to buff out a car?

[Hoytman]

The reason I said the ratio works perfect is that it makes things simple and gives an approximate cost.

Some answered 2 ounces used, some 4, and some 6. There's no way to know without going through the conversions which is a pain. So, we just simply use the real numbers given to us by the scale. It can be proved because those numbers don't lie...

The only way to find the real amount of fluid ounces used is to take the real world numbers that Mr. Phillips showed (2.6, 2.2, and .4 lbs.) and do a bunch of conversions. Cost per detail is the main concern and focus in Mr. Doyle's book, not the exact fluid ounce per detail. I don't have time for a bunch of converstions and looking at conversion charts.. In the restaurant business there's no time for it either. That's why I agreed with the fellow above. Ratio's make things simple and can be very accurate depending on how many numbers you use after the decimal. Just as in diluting products for detailing, the dilutions are given in ratios.

Just to show he was very close with his answer...

Here's what he said:

$48(cost for the bottle) to 2.6 Lbs is X(in dollars) to .4(difference between full bottle and the used bottle) or

$48 / 2.6 lbs = X / .4 lbs or ($48 / 2.6 lbs)(.4 lbs)= X

The weight of the empty bottle is irrelevant because it cancelled out.

So.... the cost for buffing out the car is X = $7.38 (give or take $.10).

So... $48 divided by 2.6 x .4 = $7.3846 (152) ...OR...
$48/2.6 = 18.461538 x .4 = $7.3846 (152)

Now let's check his math. The real numbers given to us don't lie...as proved below.

2.6 divide by .4 = 6.5

6.5 x 7.3846 = $47.9999

I'd say he hit the dollar amount of product used by Mr. Phillips right on the horse...I mean head... LOL!...given that a quart of FG 400 costs $48.

It only gets complicated if you try and convert the numbers used (2.6, 2.2, and .4), numbers given as total mass pounds per the scale, to fluid ounces used.




Of course you could always go the long way around, and Bob is quite capable, however, I am not. The long way...

Now to conversion of a liquid volume>liquid weight
-For example purposes: Water (other liquids to follow).

First:
-Based on 1 US liquid gallon/water = 231 in3; 1 inch = 2.54 cm.
Second:
-US system of weight/mass = Avoirdupois (Avdp.)...
Where 1lb = 16oz
-Third (Known scientific fact):
Water at room temp. (77F/25C), and 1 atmosphere (air pressure at sea level)
has a density of 997.13 kg/m3.

-A few multipliers/conversion factors:
1 m = 100 cm
1 kg = 1000 g
1 L = 1.0567 US quarts (qt)
1 lb = 16 oz = 453.59 g

997.13 kg/m3 (x) 1000 g/kg (x) 1 m/100 cm3 (x) 1000 cm3/L = 997.13 g/L

-Converting to US Avdp. Units:

(997.13 g/L) × (1 lb/453.59 g) × (1 L/1.0567 qt) = 2.0803 lb/qt

1 quart (US Volume) = .0.9464 L (Metric Volume) = 2.080 lb/33.29 oz (Avdp. Wgt.)

1 fluid ounce (US Volume) = 29.57 mL (Metric Volume) = 1.040 oz (Avdp. Wgt.)


Using Mike's Menzerna "weigh-ins"...With Water as the "product":

-Full FG400: 2.6lbs = 41.6 oz...including Water-product and bottle/lid assembly
-32 oz of Water actually weighs = 33.2848 oz

-Using this method:
41.60 oz (-) 33.28oz = 8.32 oz; which = Too much, IMO...
For the ~ Weight/Tare of an empty 32oz Menzerna FG400 bottle/lid assembly...

That is: if the product in the Bottle is Water
-And, as it has been mentioned:
Bottle/lid assembly---Relevant/Not Revelant? Material/Immaterial?

Known scientific fact:
-Specific gravity (sg) of water = 1.0000 at 39.2° F/4° C
-The thermal coefficient of the expansion of water is:
0.00021 per 1° Celsius at 20° Celsius.

Without its MSDS in front of me at the moment...
-What then could be the ingredients/chemicals in Menzerna FG400...
That are different than Water...
That would alter/boost the Weight of this compounding-product solution/emulsion,
that's within its said Bottle?
-Is Water one of the ingredients?

I assume it has solvents.
Here's a couple:
-Naphtha's sg = .66477..."Lighter" than Water
-Kerosene's sg =.81715...same as above

I assume it has abrasives:
Here's a few:
-Alumina's sg = .961...Weighs ~ same as Water
Aluminum oxide' sg = 1.522..."Heavier" than Water
Kaolin's sg = 1.025..."Heavier" than Water

I assume it has many other: "compound" ingredients/chemicals.

-Once a person had the specific gravities of all FG400-ingredients/chemicals;
and, if the Chemists' FG400 formulation was never strayed from when blending;
then, the mathematical equations could be readily solved by plugging in those numbers;
with, finally, the weight/tare of FG400's bottle could be obtained as well...IMHO.

Yet...
-Will a 32oz bottle of FG400 allow a person to compound between: 4-5.3 vehicles...
Even if this task was performed per/M.P.'s skill-level?

But...
Then there's that ol': 'Thermal coefficient of the expansion of'...rearing it's mugly head...

Dang My Luck!!



Bob

:dunno:

Good horse trainers speak softly and no longer beat their horses. :laughing:

 

[FUNX650]

So... $48 divided by 2.6 x .4 = $7.3846 (152) ...OR...
$48/2.6 = 18.461538 x .4 = $7.3846 (152)

Now let's check his math. The real numbers given to us don't lie...as proved below.

2.6 divide by .4 = **6.5**

6.5 x 7.3846 = $47.9999

I'd say he hit the dollar amount of product used by Mr. Phillips right on the horse...I mean head... LOL!...given that a quart of FG 400 costs $48.

It only gets complicated if you try and convert the .4 lbs. used to fluid ounces used.

-**6.400 oz. = .4 lbs**

-Which, IMO...Is the "how much" amount of FG400 M.P. was referencing in his thread-starter title:
RE: "How much Menzerna FG 400 to buff out a car"?

Of course you could always go the long way around, and Bob is quite capable <<< LOL

Good horse trainers speak softly and no longer beat their horses. :laughing:

-I just assumed Mr. Phillips original 'goal'
of: "how much"...pertained to lbs.>ozs.......
-Not: "how much" money per lb/oz/vehicle(s).

The way I look at the 'money-angle' is:
-If folks are willing to part with $48.00 of their hard-earned cash for just:
A-Single-Quart-of-Compound...
Then: No complaints/worries should ever be heard from their quarters.

-Not really beating a dead horse, per se...
'Cause I saw its:
-Fetlock aquivering;
-Forelock ashivering

-And no amount of whispering,
-Would abate its whimpering.


Im the MAN

Bob

 

[Kaban]

Great stuff Mike!

So what compound should I get the FG or the M101 when it's released? Is there an advantage or disadvantage to either?

 

[Hoytman]

-I just assumed Mr. Phillips original 'goal'
of: "how much"...pertained to lbs.>ozs.......
-Not: "how much" money per lb/oz/vehicle(s).


Bob

My understanding of the "original goal" was how much per oz. as well, thus the photos of products on the scales. Then I realized there was another message when he posted this...

On page 50 and 51 of Renny Doyle's book, (as well as elsewhere in the book),

"How to start a home-based car detailing business"

He addresses the topic of knowing how much each detail job is costing your for products, that would include chemicals and wear-n-tear on buffing pads, etc...

...which to me would mean, based on what I've read in that book, having to know the cost and amount of product used per detail in order to keep a weekly check on both product usage and cost per detail. If that makes sense.

One thing I don't see mentioned in the book is amounts Mr. Doyle uses, only the dollar amounts are listed. However, I would think you'd have to have it broken down in order to know the true cost.

As for 6.4 oz. of FG400 being used by Mr. Phillips...

Do I get partial credit...at least for figuring out the tare weight isn't needed?

So much for me being a horse whisperer...

Ha ha...oh it's all good fun.

 

[Vegas Transplant]

Man this has been funny watching people try to get their head around this...

I'm still lost

 

[FUNX650]

One thing I don't see mentioned...

Things I haven't seen mentioned yet are:

-Be at your utmost carefulness, using extreme caution when 'buffing' with this
(FG400) aggressive compound, or any others of the same ilk, for that matter.

-I hope and pray there are no "detrimental CC-incidents"...
.......Whether reported here on AGO, or not.......
In regards to any FG400 usage for paint-correction.


-The "numbers" so far discussed, then, would seem
quite minor in comparison.




Bob

 

[Mike PhillipsMike Phillips is verified member.]

My understanding of the "original goal" was how much per oz. as well, thus the photos of products on the scales. Then I realized there was another message when he posted this...

...which to me would mean, based on what I've read in that book, having to know the cost and amount of product used per detail in order to keep a weekly check on both product usage and cost per detail. If that makes sense.

One thing I don't see mentioned in the book is amounts Mr. Doyle uses, only the dollar amounts are listed. However, I would think you'd have to have it broken down in order to know the true cost.

As for 6.4 oz. of FG400 being used by Mr. Phillips...

Do I get partial credit...at least for figuring out the tare weight isn't needed?

So much for me being a horse whisperer...

Ha ha...oh it's all good fun.

Great post their Bill...


I think it's important if you're detailing for money to have an approximate idea of the costs of your materials.

Materials = Any product you use to transform a customer's car. That includes pad wear, gas and driving time, microfiber towel wear-n-tear, chemical usage, etc.

One reason for this is because you need to know in order to educate your customer so they know. Most people don't have ANY CLUE as to how much a quart of something like Menzerna FG 400 costs. They also don't know how little a crappy compound costs.

Yet if you ask them if they want the paint to look good when you're done with their car they will say "yes".

So in order to charge more money for your work you have to be able to,

Educate your customer - It's not their job to know your business but it is your job to bring them up to speed.

Know your approximate costs for products. Every car is different. If you customer doesn't want to spend a lot of money but wants a nice job then you need to use a process that will get the job done and you need to know your costs.
​

In most cases, for most people you should be using a one step cleaner/wax. After washing or wiping the car clean and then decontaminating it, by claying, Speedy Prep Towel or Nanoskin Autoscrub Pads, your next step will be to make the paint shiny by using a one-step cleaner/wax. One-step cleaner/waxes won't remove any of the deeper swirls and scratches and in most cases are really only going to remove the shallow stuff.

IF you customer wants show car results, then they need to be educated on what that requires in the case of,

• Tools
• Pads
• Products

Show car results require the right tools, the right pads and quality products.

There's no way some hack detailer can buff out any car using only a rotary buffer with a wool pad and low quality product and get customer pleasing results.

Quality work also takes time.

You cannot move a buffer over the paint FAST in order to get the job done quickly AND still get good results. If you do this is called "Hack Work" and it's going to look horrible down the road.

In order to massage the swirls and scratches out of a clear coat finish AND have the paint look swirl free when you're all done and down the road, you have to move the polisher slowly over the surface, not at the speed of light like a Wild Man Technique.


Again, it's your job to educate the customer on this aspect of your profession. The way I do it is explain the right way, that is moving the polisher slowly and the extrapolating that out so they understand that if I'm moving the polisher slowly and buffing out their entire car, the FIRST STEP, the swirls and defect removal step is going to take TIME.

They usually understand this.

Then I tell them, if they hire anyone that says they're going to buff their car out in 2-3 hours, that's a sign the person doesn't actually now what they are doing. If their price includes the interior too, that's an even bigger sign they don't know what they are doing.


If after explaining all this to a customer they decide they still don't want to pay a lot of money then you better be using a one step cleaner/wax and NOT doing a multiple-step process and/or let someone else have the blessing.




If you customer wants t

 

[Mike PhillipsMike Phillips is verified member.]

Things I haven't seen mentioned yet are:

-Be at your utmost carefulness, using extreme caution when 'buffing' with this
(FG400) aggressive compound, or any others of the same ilk, for that matter.

Very good advice Bob...


Before I used the FG 400 on this clear coat I first gathered information on the product and actually posted what I learned here,


The Boss is Here - Menzerna FG-400 Has Arrived!


See #6



What I found out then, and in a phone call to Jeff Silver is that this compound uses a very complex abrasive powder mix which is both diminishing and non-diminishing. The quality and complexity is reflected, (no pun intended), in the cost of the product.


Point being is I knew I wasn't using a caveman, simple rocks in a bottle type abrasive compound on this 1957 Chevy and I would never do that anyway.

Note also throughout the entire project I only used a foam polishing pad. No one can say, that's an aggressive pad because it's not.

So I used a very high quality, safe compound that finishes out like a polish, (That speaks very loudly for the quality of the technology), and I used a non-aggressive pad and I used a dual action polisher.

I submit all of the above to be a very safe and sane approach.

It was also used by a person that focuses on the task at hand and treats all cars as though they are his own, I cover that in this article,

The Mindset of a Professional Detailer


And notice the focus on the task at hand...

So while I was using an aggressive compound, in my opinion my process was very safe and even helpful to the paint. A smooth surface will hold up longer over time than a rough surface with swirls and scratches. I restored a very smooth surface and then applied a very high quality coating and then educated the owner on how to properly take care of the results.


You do make very good points in your post and considering how thin factory paint on new cars is, anyone reading this thread would do well to keep that in mind.

This car of course has a custom paint job and I did measure it with my DeFelsko PosiTest Paint Thickness Gage before I started and there was plenty of overall paint thickness.

The quality build of the car together with the quality appearance of the paint job gave me the confidence to make the "Go" or "No Go" decision and after evaluating both the customer and the finish I chose to "Go".

 

[FUNX650]

Very good advice Bob...

Thanks for your kind words Mike.

Before I used the FG 400 on this clear coat I first gathered information on the product and actually posted what I learned here,


The Boss is Here - Menzerna FG-400 Has Arrived!


See #6



What I found out then, and in a phone call to Jeff Silver is that this compound uses a very complex abrasive powder mix which is both diminishing and non-diminishing. The quality and complexity is reflected, (no pun intended), in the cost of the product.


Point being is I knew I wasn't using a caveman, simple rocks in a bottle type abrasive compound on this 1957 Chevy and I would never do that anyway.

Note also throughout the entire project I only used a foam polishing pad. No one can say, that's an aggressive pad because it's not.

So I used a very high quality, safe compound that finishes out like a polish, (That speaks very loudly for the quality of the technology), and I used a non-aggressive pad and I used a dual action polisher.

I submit all of the above to be a very safe and sane approach.

It was also used by a person that focuses on the task at hand and treats all cars as though they are his own, I cover that in this article,

The Mindset of a Professional Detailer


And notice the focus on the task at hand...

So while I was using an aggressive compound, in my opinion my process was very safe and even helpful to the paint.

That's my opinion also! :xyxthumbs:

A smooth surface will hold up longer over time than a rough surface with swirls and scratches. I restored a very smooth surface and then applied a very high quality coating and then educated the owner on how to properly take care of the results.


You do make very good points in your post and considering how thin factory paint on new cars is, anyone reading this thread would do well to keep that in mind.

This car of course has a custom paint job and I did measure it with my DeFelsko PosiTest Paint Thickness Gage before I started and there was plenty of overall paint thickness.

The quality build of the car together with the quality appearance of the paint job gave me the confidence to make the "Go" or "No Go" decision and after evaluating both the customer and the finish I chose to "Go".

Hi Mike...

-All of the above "processes" you undertook...
Is exactly what I was alluding to in this earlier post of mine:

Yet...
-Will a 32oz bottle of FG400 allow a person to compound...
...Even if this task was performed per/M.P.'s skill-level?

NOTE: As usual...
-Your advice is always welcome in my book!!

Thanks again Mike.



Bob

 

[OMRebel]

Do I get partial credit...at least for figuring out the tare weight isn't needed?

I'm gonna beat this horse to death simply b/c I'm concerned someone will be reading this thread and starting their own business. Next thing you know, they're figuring out costs with incorrect math. The only reason you believe the weight of the bottle carrying the product is unnecessary is because the weight of that bottle is so miniscule.

Let me give you an extreme example to maybe shed some light. I step on a scale holding 32 ounces of compound in my hand. The scale weighs 192.6 pounds. I pour some out. The scale now weighs 192.2. How much Menz did I use???? I bet your first questions is "Well, how much do you weigh?"

According to your math, I used .4/192.6 which equals .2% of the 32 ounces. Therefore, .002 x $48 = 10 cents. You're going to have inventory and profit margin problems in a hurry. You have to either know the weight of the compound or the weight of vessel carrying it.

Again, it doesn't really matter about the weight of the bottle if you just want a ballpark figure. However, mathematically, it's incorrect. I still say my method stated previously is a good way to go about it. :rant:

 

[Mike PhillipsMike Phillips is verified member.]

I'm gonna beat this horse to death simply b/c I'm concerned someone will be reading this thread and starting their own business.

Next thing you know, they're figuring out costs with incorrect math.

Just to chime in...

I used a system that was readily available to me, that is an accurate electronic scale and a camera. The math was done on my iPhone.

My goals was to give the Big Picture Idea of how much product I used just give people a big picture idea.

To be honest, I used the product liberally, I'm not a big fan of the "pea sized drop" crowd because you need a certain amount of lubrication to do any paint abrading job effectively.

So taking that into consideration, (that I used the product liberally, not stingy), I think I still used very little product for the size of the car and all panels were equally buffed, I never skimp on quality work in fact I have a saying,

If it has paint... it gets polished...

(Or dampsanded in this example)

So please continue to discuss, not rant about this topic.


Maybe it's time for someone to come up with a way the average detailer can account for product/liquid usage that could be very universal so a method to the madness can become a standard in the industry.


:dblthumb2:

 

[Jomax]

This thread took a turn lol, anyhow I'm cant wait to try this product. It looks to be a killer one step for family members, and my truck which doesn't need nor do I want a perfect finish( even though it might just do that)


Sent from my iPhone using AG Online

 

[OMRebel]

So please continue to discuss, not rant about this topic.


Maybe it's time for someone to come up with a way the average detailer can account for product/liquid usage that could be very universal so a method to the madness can become a standard in the industry.


:dblthumb2:

Mike, you're absolutely right, and if anyone is interested, I stated how I personally measure in post #16. Not only does a clear bottle help you keep an eye on your product, but the self cleaning tops aren't too bad either.

 

[Hoytman]

I like the idea of using a cleaner wax on my black daily driver, and I'm glad you brought it up Mr. Phillips. Especially concerning some of todays recent threads on black paint.

However, I'm at a cross roads on what I'm working on.

I seem to have too much oxidation and staining for any of the AIO products I have, which only consists of D301, Mothers cleaner wax, and Meguiar's cleaner wax. Then there's the extreme swirls not counting the RIDS.

I used M105/M205 on the roof and it came out perfect except for a few bird bombs and possible ash marks. The wool pad and compounding stage had to be used to remove the embeded dirt. I didn't have anything else that would touch it.

The staining is minor on the hood compared to the roof, however, the hood area has the most swirls and RIDS along with some rock chip areas that are minor, but the number is high. That's 4 problems to try and fix.

M105 on a Lake Country orange flat pad has proved the ticket on the sides of the vehicle and I'll probably follow with M205 as well. However, I have another issue...winter cold...and thin paint.

Both on the hood, and mostly on the doors are some areas where touch-up paint needs to be applied. My concern is what to do now to leave the most paint. The wife wants it done now, but if I just polish it out now and let the touch-up work go, I feel I am thinning the paint too much for when I do touch-up those areas.

Instead of adding touch-up paint, allowing a long drying time, then sanding to the level of where the paint is now, I'd be removing paint now by compounding/polishing, then applying touch-up paint, sanding and then having to compound and polish around areas that have already been thinned.

Did I describe that well enough to understand?

You have a pm. I need some help with photo's and then maybe you could give me better advice based on pictures.

 

[umi000]

Maybe it's time for someone to come up with a way the average detailer can account for product/liquid usage that could be very universal so a method to the madness can become a standard in the industry.


:dblthumb2:

Two easy ways that I can think of, offhand.

First is to transfer some of your compound into, say, a 4-oz, clear bottle marked in half-oz gradients. You'll then easily be able to see how much product you use on a detail.

Second method is still to use the weight of the product used - but doing some legwork beforehand so you can accurately convert weight to volume. Take a small cup, get the empty weight. Then, pour an ounce of product into the cup - get the weight of the cup + product. Subtract the weight of the cup from the cup + product weight - you now know how much 1 oz of product weighs (density), and can therefore easily convert from weight to volume.

 

[Mike PhillipsMike Phillips is verified member.]

However, I have another issue...winter cold...and thin paint.

IF the car in question is a daily driver, then focus on making the surface clear and shiny but not defect free. Clean, smooth protected paint will last longer than neglected, rough paint. So just by cleaning the paint and making it smooth and then applying "something" on it to protect it will have put you and the longevity of the paint job way ahead of the game.

Read this thread and then don't get too hung up on perfection...


"Taking your car's paint to it's maximum potential"




:xyxthumbs:

 

[Hoytman]

Read this thread and then don't get too hung up on perfection...


"Taking your car's paint to it's maximum potential"




:xyxthumbs:

Yeah...it's easy to get hung up on perfection when it really isn't necessary on a daily driver and that article was exactly what I was thinking about when I wrote that.

I've got a few things in my arsenal that might work for the rest of this SUV, but it's just goind to take doinging some test spets I suppose and try to dial in what's best.

I swear there's 3 different paint conditions on this SUV.

 

[Setec Astronomy]

I swear there's 3 different paint conditions on this SUV.

Certainly possible it's a combination of factory paint and two different repairs. Sometimes you can get weird weathering on one side if the vehicle is always parked a certain way.