To do things right, I'd say that the first step would be to determine whether the water spots are etchings or simply mineral deposits and go from there. The minerals in hard water deposits are often times harder than the abrasives found in many polishes or swirl removers. This is why you'll see detailers taking a chemical approach to removing the mineral deposits.
Vinegar does a pretty good job at dissolving or breaking up the mineral deposits so that they can be safely removed without abrading the paint around the mineral deposits, this is really what occurs when you take an
abrasive approach to removing something that is harder than the abrasives in the swirl remover. The abrasives very slowly work against the super hard mineral deposits but rather quickly abrade off layers of the softer paint around them. By the time you get through the mineral deposits with an abrasive polish, you have unnecessarily removed some of the paint around them. You might not see this occurring with the human eye but it is in fact happening.
If the water spots are not mineral deposits but rather etchings (sometimes very deep etchings) the way to be rid of them is to level the paint as a whole until you reach a level that is below the lowest portion of the etchings. In this case depending on how deep the etchings are, you could be removing a good amount of paint until you reach this point and to remove such a layer would typically require a compound.
We can think deeper about this method as well.
Typically the do it yourselfer will be using a DA polisher with foam pads to do the leveling of the paint to remove enough paint film build to effectively remove the visibility of the deeper hard water etchings. The problem here lies in the fact that the foam pad is going to be conforming itself to any contours that it is worked over, including the deeper etchings. So when we think about what it really occurring between the pad and the paint, we have:
1. A DA polisher jiggling and sometimes rotating a foam pad.
2. An abrasive compound working between the pad and the paint, essentially carving out/off microscopic portions of paint thus reducing the level of the paint's film build.
3. The DA user applying pressure to the machine further ensuring that the softer foam pad conforms to all the levels of the paint's film build that it's being worked over, including the deeper etchings.
So...What he have is a paint film build that has been compromised in areas as a result of hard water etching it's way down through the paint's film build. Sometimes this hard water can etch it's way through half or more of an already very thin film build. Now you have a machine and pad with pressure applied by the user working an
abrasive product over the paint's already thin film build, including the etched areas that very well could be half or less than that of the rest of the paint's film build around them.
It reminds me of this.
Tootsie Pop Commerical - YouTube
Get my point?
This is why (and I know it doesn't help in your current case) prevention and protection is so important.
Having said all that, I would suggest that you take a towel dampened with clear vinegar and lay it over an area where you have the most water spots and allow it to dwell in the shade for a few minutes. Maybe 5 minutes or so, then lift it off, fold it and try removing the water spots by lightly rubbing that same vinegar dampened towel over the area to see if you are removing hard water mineral deposits. If they go away using this method great.
If you do this, you will have just done a test spot using the
least aggressive method as was suggested by the other members in this thread.
Sometimes we need to slow down and think, what is the problem we're trying to solve and what exactly is the least aggressive method?
This last sentence makes my mind go back to something that I read earlier in this thread. Someone suggested to do a test section using the
least abrasive method first. Others have suggested using the
least aggressive method first.
I don't mean to call anyone's suggestions out but let's look at this accurately. To do a test section using the
least abrasive method first, we would be jumping right to an abrasive product first, and sidestepping any non abrasive or chemical based solutions. Granted, something like Menzerna's PO85RD is an abrasive product, I would characterize it as being "ever so slightly abrasive". It was not meant to cut defects out of paint but rather to "super finely polish" or "jewel" the paint as some say. PO85RD is also intended for rotary use (though many use it with a DA polisher with decent results) and the abrasives are of the diminishing type, meaning that they are soft abrasives that break down into finer abrading particles rather quickly. Why do I bring this up you may be asking yourself. Well...
When I think "
least abrasive product" I, and I'm sure many others here go right to PO85RD. As I said earlier it is not meant for cutting away defects so it doesn't remove much paint film build at all so it won't likely hurt anything if you'd use it to try removing hard water mineral deposits. If the mineral deposits are heavy, hard deposits, while PO85RD won't necessarily hurt anything, it won't work either as soft diminishing abrasives will not abrade away hard, heavy mineral deposits. It will have been a waste of expensive product and time not to mention unnecessary wear and tear on your tools.
The acetic acid in vinegar however, will work to chemically dissolve and or loosen up the hard, heavy mineral deposits.. This would be the
least aggressive method. See... There is a difference.
Mike Phillips has written about this difference many times in his articles, that's where I learned about it.
Once you have determined what you are dealing with in the way of your hard water spots and remedied the problem if possible, then you'll have a clean canvas to work with and only at that point will you be able to make an action plan to follow the theme of what is the right way to go about this project.
Long winded but in my mind it is accurate info, hope it helps. TD
