Please post your Meguiar's Ultimate Paste Wax water repellency observations

Loach

Loach

New member
Joined
May 24, 2014
Messages
452
Reaction score
0
Those of you who have experience with this wax, I need your thoughts. First, let me tell you what I've been experiencing.

This wax/sealant, regardless of me leaving it on to dry for 5 minutes, for 20 minutes, the beading and sheeting diminishes when I perform my water test. When I first put water on it, it starts off sheeting relatively fast, but as time goes on (5-10 minutes) I notice that the beads become more oblong shaped, and the sheeting starts slowing down. Is this typical?

Prior to this wax I was using Meg's Ultimate Liquid. And what really startled me was the car that I waxed before with the liquid version after about a few days was washed with Meg's Deep Crystal car wash soap using the proper dilution ratio, and the beading and sheeting was very poor and slow. The car was clayed prior to application of the product and an IPA wipe down was performed before as well. I then reapplied it to the hood of the test car, waited a few days, the car was garaged during this time, and I then rinsed it down and washed it using Meguiar's Gold Class soap. Same exact thing happening. Very poor beading, very slow sheeting. This is what led to the decision to try out the Ultimate Paste version and see if I could get some sort of better results but I'm not. The beading and sheeting diminishes very quickly.

So, maybe it has something to do with water touching the wax so quickly after buffing the excess off? I then tested it by applying it and letting it dry for 20 minutes, removed it, let it cure for about 4 hours, came back and did the water test and no difference is noticed in the test. Starts off relatively strong, and then diminishes over a 10 minute period of rinsing (simulates a typical afternoon Florida rain shower). Application outside temperature was 75*, relatively low humidity, out of the sun applied in the shade in the garage.

Give me your thoughts. Have any of you noticed this with this wax? I used a different OTC wax on the other side of the hood for comparison and did not notice this happening at all. Beading and sheeting stayed strong. Am I not supposed to have water touch the wax for a certain amount, upwards of over 4 hours after removing the excess? Any help or thoughts appreciated.
 
Why are you wetting the surface so close after application? Apply and remove and leave it alone got a little. That might help :)
 
cleanmycorolla said:
Why are you wetting the surface so close after application? Apply and remove and leave it alone got a little. That might help :)
Click to expand...

Comparable to Collinite 476s and even some other paste synthetic waxes, I've noticed that wetting the surface immediately after allowing those waxes to dry and then removing the excess doesn't diminish their surface repellency at all, especially after such a short time period during the water test. I did bump the wait period up to 4 hours before wetting and noticed no change. My biggest concern, is as a short amount of time goes by just wetting the surface, I'm noticing a diminished performance in repellency occurring right before my eyes. It's like the wax doesn't like to play with water, which isn't good for climates that are prone to everyday afternoon showers. For a wax that prides itself on increasing surface tension of the paint for beads to roll right off, it sure is leaving much to be desired at this point.

CowboyTruckn said:
I always let it rest for at least a day
Click to expand...

I'm going to put up some test sections around the car and test even longer waiting periods.

Those of you who have tried this wax before, are you at all impressed with the water repellency?
 
Loach said:
Comparable to Collinite 476s and even some other paste synthetic waxes, I've noticed that wetting the surface immediately after allowing those waxes to dry and then removing the excess doesn't diminish their surface repellency at all, especially after such a short time period during the water test. I did bump the wait period up to 4 hours before wetting and noticed no change. My biggest concern, is as a short amount of time goes by just wetting the surface, I'm noticing a diminished performance in repellency occurring right before my eyes. It's like the wax doesn't like to play with water, which isn't good for climates that are prone to everyday afternoon showers. For a wax that prides itself on increasing surface tension of the paint for beads to roll right off, it sure is leaving much to be desired at this point.



I'm going to put up some test sections around the car and test even longer waiting periods.

Those of you who have tried this wax before, are you at all impressed with the water repellency?
Click to expand...


okay, but still don't know why you're wetting any wax immediately after application, seems like the wrong way to do it
 
Megs Ultimate waxes are sealants, not waxes. For best results, allow them to cure, at least 12 hours, but 24 hours would be even better to allow them to cross link and bond with the paint. Also, I would forgo the IPA wipedown.

I have used Megs Ultimate Paste and Liquid, as well as Collinite 476, 845 and 915 on numerous cars. I have found two coats of either Ultimate wax about 24 hours apart to outlast 2 coats of 845 24 hours apart, and to give 476 and 915 a run for their money. Again, two coats, 24 hours apart.
 
•Meguiar's Ultimate Paste Wax contains, by weight, 10-30% polydimethylsiloxanes...synthetic polymers...
("a rose is a rose is a rose")

•These types of polymer products should not be exposed to any liquids for a certain window-of-time to fully cure.
-If not: their characteristics will be compromised---the "setting-up" process(es) of the polymers will have been bollixed!!

•This proverbial window of total-cure-time is: 12-24 hours.

Bob
 
RPPM is correct. From Meg's website:

• Our most advanced, pure synthetic hydrophobic wax.

That means there is no wax in it. Why are you doing this? It shows/proves absolutely nothing. You might as well drop a meteor on it and say it doesn't protect the paint because there are no beads. The things some folks are concerned about absolutely amazes me sometimes and this is indeed one of those times.:surrender:
 
You aren't letting a synthetic paint sealant cure. Let it sit overnight without being exposed to any water and it should perform like it should.
 
I have never used that , I have used and like 3M performance finish. easy on easy off, beautiful depth. add some good carnauba over it a few days later and its brilliant. the SCG kit is a sealer, and a glaze. like everyone says let it set a few.
 
Thanks for the replies guys. I have a test spot brewing that I'm going to let sit for a while before wetting.


RTexasF said:
RPPM is correct. From Meg's website:

• Our most advanced, pure synthetic hydrophobic wax.

That means there is no wax in it. Why are you doing this? It shows/proves absolutely nothing. You might as well drop a meteor on it and say it doesn't protect the paint because there are no beads. The things some folks are concerned about absolutely amazes me sometimes and this is indeed one of those times.:surrender:
Click to expand...

It's a comparison test. Think about your customers. You're going to run into some customers that are going to want the product that you put on their paint to have the highest level of repellency. They equate that to protection. You might be able to explain to them that according to so and so, the diminished level of repellency in the protection after (x) amount of days/weeks/months doesn't mean there's not a level of protection still on the paint. But all they care about is seeing the product on the paint do the thing that they want it to do - repel water for the longest amount of time possible. It's in my interest to test the products in my arsenal that will excel in that field. And I want to make sure I do the test right so I don't pass judgement on a product if I'm not giving it it's fair ability to perform the best it can.
 
Loach said:
Thanks for the replies guys. I have a test spot brewing that I'm going to let sit for a while before wetting.


It's a comparison test. Think about your customers. You're going to run into some customers that are going to want the product that you put on their paint to have the highest level of repellency. They equate that to protection. You might be able to explain to them that according to so and so, the diminished level of repellency in the protection after (x) amount of days/weeks/months doesn't mean there's not a level of protection still on the paint. But all they care about is seeing the product on the paint do the thing that they want it to do - repel water for the longest amount of time possible. It's in my interest to test the products in my arsenal that will excel in that field. And I want to make sure I do the test right so I don't pass judgement on a product if I'm not giving it it's fair ability to perform the best it can.
Click to expand...
Polymer Science dictates that "polymers"
need a 12-24 cure time.

So...
If you're going to be applying polymer inundated LSP-products to your Customers' vehicles:
You'll need to sell that principle to your Customers.

If not:
Using car-care Waxes that contain only all-natural waxes---no synthetics---is one alternative.

However:
Their expected time for imbuing repellency is quite short-lived, when compared to Hybrid Waxes and Sealants.

Bob
 
Bit of an update. I tried letting it cure for 18 hours, and I noticed no difference whatsoever of the repellency properties at all compared to 4 hour cure time, and no cure time, which is wetting the surface directly after buffing the dried excess off. I did take a video of what's happening that I'll try to upload and post a link to. It starts off beading and sheeting strong and fast, however, after a period of about 10 minutes of wetting, the repellency does get tired, and I noticed weaker beading and slower sheeting that shows up in the video as well.

I'm not sure what's going on here, it's possible that the mineral content in the water I'm using is reacting to the surface that affects the Meguiar's repellency more than my comparison wax. After performing the water test for about 20 minutes, the surface of the car did not feel as smooth as before after drying the hood of the car and then going back over the paint with a microfiber towel, that's true for both sides with both waxes. I will have to perform a water quality test to see just how bad the water is here, but the comparison synthetic paste sealant did not exhibit a diminished beading or sheeting throughout the test.
 
I had it happen where I wasn't applying enough product, and what you're describing happened to one of my test panels. However, on an adjacent panel, I strive for more of an "even" coat, and get small, tight beads every time, even after washing. This is with the liquid version though. On Saturday I applied a coat of Ultimate Liquid Wax on a vehicle. We drove it all day, and at night, she parked next to a sprinkler. Last night I had to remove all of the water spots. Yesterday morning however, the beads were round and tight. Looked great, but because the vehicle got left in the sun, they etched the surface.
 
A little OT, but I do prefer the ultimate liquid wax to the paste. Goes on whisper thin with a DA and doesn't stain trim at all. In fact, it actually enhances the trim a bit.
 
I don't believe it's your lack of wait time causing the issue. However, I wouldn't recommend wetting down a car that a sealant was just applied to do a "water test".

Two reasons why I don't believe this is your issue:

1. Have you ever tried to get a sealant (all Meg's current waxes are sealants IIR) out of a foam pad? It doesn't matter if you wait 5 mins or 5 days. It's almost impossible to remove with detergents, APCs, or soaps - let alone plain water. I do not believe plain water is removing your sealant.

2. While it is recommended to let a sealant "cure" for 1/2 a day or so; I believe most of the bonding/cross linking/whatever-ya-wanna-call-it happens pretty quickly. I don't know what you call this in chemistry accurately; but in pharmacology it's a first order type of reaction (would technically be talking about metabolism of a drug there).

What this means is, a large portion of the "bonding" occurs quite quickly, as there are less and less un-bonded molecules - the rate of bonding slows down. Hence, most of the "bonding" is done in a short bit of time. It takes a much longer period of time for the last little bit to occur.

****While we could speculate what the exact issue is here, the easiest thing for you to do may be just try another non Meg's LSP. For whatever reason, this one is just not working out for you due to an unknown factor.
 
Hey guys, I was able to get a video up that showcases my observations of what I'm dealing with. My comparison wax is ICE paste wax version. More testing needs to be done, my test panel got "contaminated" with the spray waxes that I was testing out after performing this test. I want to get the entire hood coated with Meg's UPW, let the wax get tired, and then dry it and wait a day and see if it resets itself after being dried without the help of spray waxes. Because it's possible that this is just a temporary occurrence after wetting for an extended period and the repellency of the wax might reset after drying. I also want to test two coats applied 24 hours after each other and see if it ever gets tired with the water I'm using. Note, the video is 18 minutes long of sheeting and bead observations. That's so I could show in one video without editing of exactly what's going on with each side after extended water testing. Feel free to fast forward for a less time consuming before/after observation.

ICE Paste vs. Ultimate Paste Water test - Watch in 720p
 
My two cents,

Used Meg ULW for the first time this past weekend on my 2008 silver commuting machine.

Very pleased with the results. I washed, clayed, the applied. Very bright and slick when I was done. Great even shine, more depth. Exactly what I was hoping for.

Today we had our first rain shower since. Water beaded nicely. The slickness is now gone as well as some of the depth, but the shine is still apparent which makes me think the stuff is still bonded on there doing its job. Still pleased, but we will see how it dates through the rest of the rain we will get here this weekend.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top