Solution Finish vrs Tuff Shine Black Restore Test

[swanicyouth]

4/1/13

Decided to do a longevity comparison between these two. In the past, Solution Finish hasn't lasted too long for me. However, I never put down a tape line and the plastic is in pretty good shape, so it was hard to tell. This time, both pieces were cleaned with Duragloss APC 10:1, then Tuff Shine Tire Cleaner, then 70% IPA.

Both pieces are on the same vehicle, and both pieces get pretty dirty.

Tuff Shine Black Restore:

Solution Finish:

Both these pieces will be cleaned with waterless, rinseless, or regular soap. As for application, Solution Finish is a bit easier, as it spreads thicker, more like a regular dressing. As for cost, SF is much more expensive at $30 an ounce. TBR costs only costs $3.33 an ounce. That means SF costs NINE TIMES MORE!!!!

Here is a tape line of TBR I did 5 days ago. Vehicle was washed once and there was a day of intensive rain:

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/04/02/e6uvuru6.jpg[/IMG

[IMG]http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/04/02/guzeruju.jpg

As you can see in the close up there looks to be some "chips" around the edges. However, this is where the tape line was and I tried to apply it "light" there to not get under the tape because its so watery. It shows no signs of degrading anywhere else.

I will update this in a bit.

 

[Setec Astronomy]

For some reason I thought you were going to use the different products on the same piece, separated by the tape line, instead of using them on different pieces.

IMO using them on the same piece is a better test because different parts of the car may be slightly different material plus different environmental exposure.

 

[ihaveacamaro]

subbed for results. Been loving your tests swanicyouth!

Although I do agree with Setec as far as the doing the test on the same piece. Any reason you chose not to?

 

[Lim3]

Great pics. Rooting for TS for its price.

 

[timsatx]

For some reason I thought you were going to use the different products on the same piece, separated by the tape line, instead of using them on different pieces.

IMO using them on the same piece is a better test because different parts of the car may be slightly different material plus different environmental exposure.

I agree. It seems rather like the reverse of what you would expect if what I am seeing is correct. That is that the parts you are pointing to are actually where the product was used. It would seem to be better done to use the tape as a demarcation line between the two products.

Actually, I am editing this because I think what you were pointing at was the tape line separating the two. I guess I just don't know which is what, but then again I just woke up and haven't had breakfast so I am a little slow right now.

 

[swanicyouth]

They aren't on the same pieces. The tape line is just to see the condition of the product. So, mud flaps are all TS and rear deck piece is all SF. The mud flaps get more dirt, so I decided to use TS on them. I'm expecting SF on the rear deck to fall off fast based on past experience, so I thought I would give SF a little "head start".

 

[swanicyouth]

Well, its 10 days after my 1st application of TBR and 5 days since I started the comparison w/ SF.

First, applied TBR 10 days ago to this wiper cowl piece. Its seen: 1 wash, 1 day of rain, & no real signs of degradation:

The slight "chipping" at the tape line started soon after application and hasn't expanded. I'm sure its just due to the tape and nothing else, as its nowhere else on the piece:

So at 10 days / 1 rain / 1 wash its already exceeded "long term" polymer "dressings" for me. As, they usually only last me 1 rain.

Now for TBR vrs SF something interesting is showing. Both are holding up well (5 days old). However, one of them is attracting dust and pollen big time - and one is not. It's 62 degrees here in PA and there is some pollen in the air.

TBR (both sides of tape line):

SF (both sides of tape line):

As one can see, SF is attracting a load of dust and pollen and TBR is not. First I was wondering if other factors like location of the trim piece could be contributing, until I realized the area where the tape was "neutralizes" that idea, as that area is 100% product free. So, the only thing attracting dust would be the product.

So, its seems like TBR is acting more like a coating, since it doesn't attract (or hold) dust/pollen more than bare plastic. SF is acting more like a dressing

I'll keep monitoring it.

 

[AutowerxDetailing]

Awesome write up! That is weird that the SF is attracting so much dust/pollen. I would have assumed it would be the other way around. Subscribed for updates!

 

[Stang Man]

Well the SF is on a panel that lays horizontal and close to the road/tires, this could be a possibility as to why it is showing more pollen than the other areas.

 

[swanicyouth]

Well the SF is on a panel that lays horizontal and close to the road/tires, this could be a possibility as to why it is showing more pollen than the other areas.

Not included int the contest is my wiper cowl which had the TS applied days before. It's dust free and flat.

After last nights thunderstorms, the dust was washed away. But, the no dressing area looks cleaner for SF.

SF:

View attachment 17056

TS:

View attachment 17059

View attachment 17058

Both are holding pretty good and now have been in multiple rains. The SF is surprising me, as it never lasted me this long before - I thought. But I never put down a tape strip until now. The SF does look a bit more "natural", so maybe it was there and I wasn't noticing.

No reason to use conventional dressings with these two.

 

[BucboyInPa]

Great write-up! Definitely want to see how both these hold up

 

[mwoolfso]

Well the SF is on a panel that lays horizontal and close to the road/tires, this could be a possibility as to why it is showing more pollen than the other areas.

First off, this is a great write-up.... I have been looking for any comparisons between SF and any other competing product for awhile.

That said, some of the conclusions are not going to be 100% accurate and/or absolute by virtue of the way this test was set up. I'm not complaining, it is just a fact.

Horizontal pieces will pick up pollen faster than verticals. Pollen is "sticky" and gravity works perpendicular to any horizontal surface, the accumulation will be faster on horizontals and actually increase over time due to the sticky nature of pollen. The only way this would be challenged is if there was a constant breeze moving at a common angle (to both trim pieces) where the effect on them (from pollen) would be more equal. That would be a constant wind/breeze at 45 degrees; roughly speaking. Gravity still wins though so the vertical piece will always have the advantage. And how often does a breeze move at 45 degrees on a consistent basis?

 

[Setec Astronomy]

Sheesh, every piece of trim is different. Some GM cars even have wiper cowlings that are co-molded, so part of them is hard plastic and part of them are rubbery. No test is going to be completely conclusive.

 

[swanicyouth]

I washed the vehicle today, foaming it and pressure rinsing first. And I found the week spot in the TSBR

It chips off!

(Wiper cowl I applied 2 weeks or so ago - no Tire Clear Coat on top)

View attachment 17074

View attachment 17075

View attachment 17076

Now, this is one of the mud flaps I applied same time as SF. One of them has a chip as well:

View attachment 17077

While the SF has faded a bit, its not "chipping":

View attachment 17078

I'm going to re-coat the TSBR on the wiper cowl.

 

[AutowerxDetailing]

That is so weird that it's chipping like that... Looking forward to the extended results!

 

[Rsurfer]

It looks more like the product did not adhere then chipping.

 

[mwoolfso]

Sheesh, every piece of trim is different. Some GM cars even have wiper cowlings that are co-molded, so part of them is hard plastic and part of them are rubbery. No test is going to be completely conclusive.

That's right! All the more reason to test different 2 (or more) products on the same piece.

 

[swanicyouth]

Well I recoated the cowl and touched up the mud flaps with TBR. ONE THING IS, I was a heavy dressing applied and all the silicone may have not been 100% out of the plastic.

I've ran into this with the tire coating before. With the tires, touching up the bad areas seems to ressve it - so that's what I did. The TBR is holding 100% on the running boards though.

 

[swanicyouth]

There is now a clear winner here between TBR and SF. First, let me show you how dirty my Pathfinder gets after 4 days of driving, 3 of them to work (25 miles each way through wooded area), 1 of them at home.

That was washed 4 days ago. Under that dirt is where the SF was applied. Today I washed the vehicle. I wanted to see what was going on under the dirt.

To wash it I foamed it with 7 ounces of Bilt Hamber Snow Foam (this is a normal dilution of this product) mixed with a few ounces of Maxi Suds II

Now its clean.

The TBR was "chipping" miserably and looked horrible

The chipping is not as easy to see on the running boards, I think I will continue to use the product there:

The wiper cowl was chipping TBR badly as well:

Not it good for a product that says its permanent.

Under all the dirt, the SF was still showing the tape line, albeit faded a bit:

So, I would have to say SF is better and a clear winner here. It fades gradually, even though it only lasts me a few weeks. A normal dressing only lasts me one wash. TBR looks horrible when it starts chipping away, and its hard to remove the rest of it to start over - which is exactly what I did on all the areas (except running boards) with SF.

I will continue to use SF on the cowl, back plastic piece, and the mud flaps. The TBR seems to looks pretty good on the running boards, although once it starts chipping - touching it up with another coat could be the kiss of death - as that is what I did before on the mud flap above.

The problem with the TBR is the chipping effect it gives as it wears away. It looks terrible. Then, you can't remove the remnants of it to re-coat easily. Removing the remnants involved a lot of cleaning with the Tuff Shine Tire Cleaner, which is the only thing I had that wanted to remove it.

This is worse than a product that just fades away. At least if it fades away, re-application just involves cleaning the piece, not spending a lot of time and energy trying to remove the rest of the coating.

 

[Setec Astronomy]

If Solution Finish is only going to last you a few weeks, to me it would make more sense to use something like WETS or UTTG, which would be easier to apply and likely more economical.