Review: Duragloss Fast Clean & Shine Detail Spray

[CEE DOG]

Review: Duragloss Fast Clean & Shine Detail Spray

Introduction:
A couple months ago in a reply to my Aquawax review Vikas (sontakke) requested that I put together a review on this product. If I recall correctly there were others who had used it and had good things to say. A couple weeks ago Shane (Ciera SL) sent me a bunch of different products he wanted me to review. Shane was kind enough to supply us with this particular sample as well. Thank you Shane!

Product Description (from AG website):
Duragloss Fast Clean & Shine Detail Spray is formulated to remove dust and lift soil from painted surfaces without scratching or removing durable polishes. Duragloss 921 actually bonds with the polish for added gloss and durability.

Initial Product Observations:
1.- Packaging: N/A
2.- Directions: N/A
3.- Consistency: QD spray
4.- Color: Hot pink
5.- Scent: A mixture of Aquawax & Cherries
6.- Size/Price: #921 - 22 oz. ($7.99) – $0.36 per oz.
7.- Size/Price: #923 - 128 oz. ($25.99) – $0.20 per oz.
8.- Manufacturer: Duragloss (Brothers Research Corporation)
9.-Made in: North Carolina, USA

Condition of Vehicle(s):
Chili Pepper Red 2008 Saturn Sky Redline:
Last polish or paint cleaner: 8 months ago +/-
Last sealant applied: UPGP 8 months ago +/-
Last wax applied: Dodo Juice Banana Armor and Orange Crush about 3 weeks ago.
Last wash: ONR about 1 week ago and had not been driven since then and has been garaged.
Clean with a touch of light dust (not that I saw any)

Green 1997 Saturn SL:
Clear coat failure has begun on the main panels in the past month or two.
Last polish: Unsure
Last paint cleaner: 5 months ago +/-
Sealant: None applied after last stripping
Wax: Optimum Car Wax 6-8 weeks ago I believe
Spray wax: Four Star approximately 1 week ago
Last wash: with Meguiars Wash and Wax approximately 1 week ago
Car has been driven between 100 & 200 miles since last wash and stays outside 24/7.
Slightly dirty

Conditions:
65 degrees Fahrenheit
55% humidity

Method of Preparation, Application, and noted Observations:

Saturn Sky:
I began by using FC&S on various portions of my Sky to get a feel for it. Throughout the process I had no issues with streaking. Next I taped off two small areas for a controlled test of slickness and gloss. On the right side I used FC&S while on the left I used DP-FG. I sprayed approximately the same amount of each product on their respective section. Then I wiped each section down with a separate mf towel and flipped to buff dry. To test for slickness I lightly rubbed both sections with my fingers, as well as a section I hadn’t applied product to. I found that the FC&S did not add much slickness if any to my recently waxed Sky. This won’t go down as a con because I’m not sure you could expect it to be any more slick then the Sky already was. Next to the DP-FG it did seem to be slightly slicker. As far as gloss I could not see a difference between the DP and DG on my Sky.

Saturn SL:
For further testing I moved outside to my Green Saturn SL. The next test was to use the product on a warm panel to test for streaking. The sun was a little further from reach then I had hoped but the panel was just slightly warm. I realized I could stab two frogs with one stick and test the FCS for removing soil without scratching which was claimed in the AG description. As mentioned in the “Condition of Vehicles” section, the SL was certainly dirtier then what I would consider a QD’s scope of work. I sectioned off an area on the lid and another on the rear quarter panel near the gas tank. After applying FCS to both areas and wiping I flipped the towel and wiped dry. When I tested for slickness this time around I did feel that there was added slickness provided by the FCS. The FCS had better cleaning abilities then the typical detail spray but not that of the waterless washes I have used. It removed the majority of the dirt easily and there was no marring that I could find using my Brinkman or LED light. The sun was too far out of reach to get a sun shot (although I did try). Since I couldn’t get the sun shot I brought the camera with me to work the following day and when the sun was high enough to get a shot I did so (last picture). The sun did not reveal any marring either. After viewing the pictures please rejoin me for the Pros, Cons, and Summary.

01-Product up for Review

02-Before

03-Side by Side Product Comparison Before

04-During

05-FC&S After

06-FG After

07-Side by Side Product Comparison After

08-FC&S After

09-Side by Side After

10-Side by Side After

11-Side by Side After

12-Side by Side After

13-FC&S After

14-Side by Side During Tape Removal

15-Dirty

16-Dirty

17-LEFT SIDE IS CLEAN AND RIGHT SIDE IS DIRTY

18-UPPER LEFT SIDE CLEAN & LOWER RIGHT SIDE DIRTY

19-Clean

20-Clean

Note applying to pictures 21 and 22: I also used DP-FG to 1/2 of the cleaned section on the rear quarter panel and buffed it off to see once again if I could find a gloss difference between the two products. Unfortunately there wasn’t quite enough sun left to aid me. The following day when I had the sun where I wanted it I did not see a difference.

21-Side by Side

22-Side by Side

23 Sun Shot

Pros:
1.- Excellent price
2.–Good cleaning ability with no observed marring
3.- No streaking during this testing
4.- Cleans and shines plastic and rubber

Cons:
1.- None that I observed

???:
1.- I know a lot of people say this product really adds slickness but I did not find it to be above average in this department.
2.- “…without … removing durable polishes.” What does that mean? Does that mean that some waxes and sealants that are not as durable will be removed by DG-FCS? Hopefully either Richard or Richy have spoken to Jerry about this and can fill us in. If not I’ll contact Duragloss and get a quote.

Summary:
As seems to be the pattern for Duragloss this is another fine product at a great price. If I was in the market for a detail spray I would be more then happy to purchase this product. In my limited testing I found the following. FC&S is a better cleaner then most detail sprays. I could not tell with certainty that the gloss it provided was any different than that of DP Final Gloss. The slickness was slightly beyond that of the DP Final Gloss but less then what I have seen from FK-425.

And the Product Links:

22 oz. http://www.autogeek.net/duragloss-fast-clean-shine-detail-spray.html

128 oz. http://www.autogeek.net/128ozdufacls.html

 

[richy]

Corey, I would guess that means the cleaners in it are not so powerful as to strip an LSP. I think that's a reasonable assumption. Their marine detail spray has more cleaners in it than this product does.

 

[DLB]

The master of the product review does it again. Thank you Corey, you are the man!

I wasn't even that interested in the product, just wanted to read the beauty of one of your PR threads.

Well, that and I wanted to post in one of your threads with my avatar.

DLB

 

[Shane731]

Great review as always Corey! :dblthumb2: So, if you were buying a detail spray, would you go with DG FC &S or DP FG?

 

[CEE DOG]

Corey, I would guess that means the cleaners in it are not so powerful as to strip an LSP. I think that's a reasonable assumption. Their marine detail spray has more cleaners in it than this product does.

Thanks Richy. The fact that the word durable was used cofuses the issue. I would assume they would not strip any LSP.

The master of the product review does it again. Thank you Corey, you are the man!

I wasn't even that interested in the product, just wanted to read the beauty of one of your PR threads.

Well, that and I wanted to post in one of your threads with my avatar.

DLB

Great to see you around Dalton! Thank you so much for the kind words!

Btw: Your avatar never loses it's affect on me! Ouch!!

Great review as always Corey! :dblthumb2: So, if you were buying a detail spray, would you go with DG FC &S or DP FG?

Thank you Shane! Out of those two choices I would pick the DG FC&S especially because of its price.

 

[DARK HORSE]

Gee Corey, I'm starting to wonder if you ever get tired of hearing me saying things like Great, Outstanding, Thorough, Awesome, Incredible, Fantastic, Review Master, etc., etc., etc... Any way, thank you for taking so much of your valuable time once again to provide such a "insert above formentioned here" review rops:

 

[kkreit01]

Great review. I also use this product, and like it a lot.

“…without … removing durable polishes.”

^ I think that's a strong hint that DG thinks you should also be using their "polishes" (sealants). Since all their sealants are named "polishes", that's my hunch.

 

[Meghan]

Nice review, thank you Corey for taking the time, your reviews are amazing with details! I like the Duragloss but I stand by DP Final Gloss as my go to product, I just love it!

 

[BobbyG]

Gee Corey, I'm starting to wonder if you ever get tired of hearing me saying things like Great, Outstanding, Thorough, Awesome, Incredible, Fantastic, Review Master, etc., etc., etc... Any way, thank you for taking so much of your valuable time once again to provide such a "insert above formentioned here" review rops:

And of me agreeing with you Tad!! :laughing:

Corey once again you did an outstanding job at testing and documenting your procedures and the corresponding results. rops:

Tremendous!! :dblthumb2:

 

[Dubbin1]

:dblthumb2:

 

[A4 1.8tqm]

Great review Corey! I always like comparisons. Even if I can't see a difference in the pics, I know you are paying close attention to the subtleties and I trust your judgment. I'll stick with FK 425, for it's slickness and I don't really need to think about cleaning power (no winter QDing for me, just rinseless or 2BM).

The fact that the word durable was used confuses the issue. I would assume they would not strip any LSP.

It is a strange sentence to have on the label. Maybe it's referring to glazes? They are not "durable". :dunno:

I was thinking about slickness tests... Like finding some kind of "standard" and testing different products against it. I'm thinking a puff of air that is repeatable and some light dust (baby powder or something?) The test would be like a dry version of "water sheeting". Thoughts?

 

[Kurt_s]

Hey Corey,

Another great review. I don't know how you can find time.

I barely had time to try the UWW+ that OldTiger sent me today.

 

[CEE DOG]

Gee Corey, I'm starting to wonder if you ever get tired of hearing me saying things like Great, Outstanding, Thorough, Awesome, Incredible, Fantastic, Review Master, etc., etc., etc... Any way, thank you for taking so much of your valuable time once again to provide such a "insert above formentioned here" review rops:

Thank you Tad! I very much appreciate and certainly never get tired of hearing your kind words.

Great review. I also use this product, and like it a lot.

“…without … removing durable polishes.”

^ I think that's a strong hint that DG thinks you should also be using their "polishes" (sealants). Since all their sealants are named "polishes", that's my hunch.

Thank you. That makes sense and does come across that way.

Nice review, thank you Corey for taking the time, your reviews are amazing with details! I like the Duragloss but I stand by DP Final Gloss as my go to product, I just love it!

Thank you Meghan! I really appreciate it. I started a review on the DP Final Gloss but I'm going to play with it some more before I finish it.

And of me agreeing with you Tad!! :laughing:

Corey once again you did an outstanding job at testing and documenting your procedures and the corresponding results. rops:

Tremendous!! :dblthumb2:

Thanks so much Bobby!

Great review Corey! I always like comparisons. Even if I can't see a difference in the pics, I know you are paying close attention to the subtleties and I trust your judgment. I'll stick with FK 425, for it's slickness and I don't really need to think about cleaning power (no winter QDing for me, just rinseless or 2BM).



It is a strange sentence to have on the label. Maybe it's referring to glazes? They are not "durable". :dunno:

I was thinking about slickness tests... Like finding some kind of "standard" and testing different products against it. I'm thinking a puff of air that is repeatable and some light dust (baby powder or something?) The test would be like a dry version of "water sheeting". Thoughts?

Thank you Dave! I love the FK-425 as well.

Another interesting hypothesis!

I like you're idea! I have never considered something like that before. There is a possibility that it tests a combination of the slickness and static of the product rather then only the slickness. What I mean is, slickness to the touch of our hand may feel one way but some products may react differently to the charge of the powder. Do you mind if I try your idea if I ever get the chance?

Hey Corey,

Another great review. I don't know how you can find time.

I barely had time to try the UWW+ that OldTiger sent me today.

Thank you Kurt. Glad to hear you got your hands on the UWW+! Jim is a great guy and has been very generous in sharing his products with me as well.

 

[A4 1.8tqm]

Thank you Dave! I love the FK-425 as well.

Another interesting hypothesis!

I like you're idea! I have never considered something like that before. There is a possibility that it tests a combination of the slickness and static of the product rather then only the slickness. What I mean is, slickness to the touch of our hand may feel one way but some products may react differently to the charge of the powder. Do you mind if I try your idea if I ever get the chance?

Yeah! That's the idea, test slickness and anti-static properties. Slickness to your skin may be different to dust. After all, it's the initial build-up of dust/dirt (especially for peoples Garage queens that don't ever see rain) that we want to avoid as much as possible, to keep that "freshly waxed look". Kind of more a summer thing I guess.

Feel free to run with the idea, maybe a squeeze from a turkey baster or the thing for cleaning baby ears/nose's for a puff of air... hmmm... or the "air blaster" toy... or new thread for this discussion.

 

[Kurt_s]

Thank you Kurt. Glad to hear you got your hands on the UWW+! Jim is a great guy and has been very generous in sharing his products with me as well.

yes his is. I feel like you and Jim are on a crusade to save me...rops:

Yeah! That's the idea, test slickness and anti-static properties. Slickness to your skin may be different to dust. After all, it's the initial build-up of dust/dirt (especially for peoples Garage queens that don't ever see rain) that we want to avoid as much as possible, to keep that "freshly waxed look". Kind of more a summer thing I guess.

Feel free to run with the idea, maybe a squeeze from a turkey baster or the thing for cleaning baby ears/nose's for a puff of air... hmmm... or the "air blaster" toy... or new thread for this discussion.

Ionic charges can be positive or negative so different substances in the test could interact with the QD differently. It's not as black and white as we may wish.

There may be tradeoffs to static vs non-static beyond dust collection, such being so slick that when someone tries to lean up against the car they slide off and hit the ground. At least hopefully... :laughing:

 

[ScottB]

I personally preferred it to its counterpart Aquawax. Didnt find any streaking and same glossy looks.