Metallic vs. non metallic paint

[ricka]

Noticed something interesting this weekend and was wondering if others agree or not...

Was bored Saturday so decided to detail my son's '01 silver Passat. It has hardly any (maybe none?) silver metallic flakes. Used the DG 105 by hand after claying and it came out great--that Polishing Pal is very worthy. Afterwards, the paint was smooth and incredibly shiney.

Comparing it to my silver '07 Audi with extensive flake and thought the Passat actually showed better. The reflection is nice on the Audi but noticeably less so than the Passat (more wet in appearance). And that's with the DG 105 and Liquid Souveran.

My long-winded point is if metallic paint is the better option than non-metallic? While the flake looks great in certain lighting angles, the non looks good from any angle. Guess I'm wondering why manufacturers use metallic paint more these days--and what if any are the advantages.

Anyway, just my 2 cents...

 

[wytstang]

Probably cause Metallics (my opinion) are more exiting to the eye if you will. Non-metallics are quit common, so when you see a nice looking metallic paint filled with flakes (silver or gold) and they are just popping every which way it catches ones attention. Think eye candy.....of coure this is my opinion and not baised

 

[ScottB]

metallic paints refract light and heat off the surface, so more of a cooling experience. Obviously flake is off a personal one.

 

[ricka]

off a personal what?

the reason i like silver is its a classier look than white imho, contrasts nicely with black trim/tinted windows and doesn't show dirt as much as darker colors. on the down side, it certainly doesn't reward a good polish/waxing like the darkies except in early dawn or dusk.

plus the paint color has been perfected a lot over the years. used to be silver = incredible oxidation in a very short period.

 

[Deep Gloss Auto Salon]

off a personal what?

Not to speak for killr but = Preference

 

[ricka]

thank you for the translation...