SONAX Perfect finish OR Menzerna PF2500

jankerson said:
D151 is awesome stuff, excellent AIO IMO.

It uses the SMAT technology.

Working time is short, 3 passes and move on to the next section letting the product haze on the surface. Then go back later and wipe it off, after 20 mins or so.

Don't use too much product or it will dust some, don't overload the pad and clean the pad often.

You can also use it as a 2 step process because it has really good cut especially on the MF pads and the LC Cyan. So you can do a correcting step and wipe it off wet and then go back and apply with a finishing pad. Then let it haze and wipe it off.

Haven't used 66 in years, but from what I do remember it's a good product, doesn't have the correcting ability of D151 though.

It's fast to use and it works very well.
Click to expand...

I have always wanted to get some so maybe now I will. I still have half a gallon of 66 though. Its pretty good stuff. Thanks bro
 
Had a chance to try both, but not in comparable situations.

However, judging from the performance, I'm confident to say that Sonax PF breaks down quicker and finishes much better on darker paints.

As far as cut, it's TBD...but Sonax PF delivered fairly impressive abilities in this dept when I used it to correct the wool pad swirls and rotary holograms on my repainted bumper.
 
Sorry for a thread revive here, but after reading the thread, it looks as though Sonax PF is a popular choice, i have a grabber blue mustang, what pad would you recommend to use to remove some swirls from dealership wash?
 
OChallenger said:
Sorry for a thread revive here, but after reading the thread, it looks as though Sonax PF is a popular choice, i have a grabber blue mustang, what pad would you recommend to use to remove some swirls from dealership wash?
Click to expand...

Which polisher are you using?
 
OChallenger said:
Sorry for a thread revive here, but after reading the thread, it looks as though Sonax PF is a popular choice, i have a grabber blue mustang, what pad would you recommend to use to remove some swirls from dealership wash?
Click to expand...

Are you planning on using a coating after? I know that SONAX USA denies any of the fillers that many have claimed, but I just don't know if I would be willing to take the chance and apply a very expensive coating after knowing that there is a possibility it would fail.

Now, I know that many have polished with SONAX PF, then coated a vehicle and have zero problems, so there's that too. Of course, the whole issues that I've read is that normal measures, such as washing the car or using a panel wipe doesn't touch their "fillers." Of course, it is said that SONAX Polish 3/6 is just like Perfect Finish, but without the "fillers."

If you're not planning on using a coating then I would use it because it is so highly touted. Sorry to add to the confusion... Detailing products... Right? Happy detailing!
 
Perfect Finish does not have fillers. I wish this rumor would stop. No one on the main UK detailing site have had any issues whatsoever.
 
Hey guys. Not trying to thread jack but I'm new to forums and have a question, how do I start my own thread?
 
AeroCleanse said:
Perfect Finish does not have fillers. I wish this rumor would stop. No one on the main UK detailing site have had any issues whatsoever.
Click to expand...

+1.
Sonax PF was designed for rotary usage only, and with a light cutting pad. DA polishers may not fully break down the abrasives and oils. In addition, a lot of people tend to have a fast arm speed and do not work the product long enough (or spend enough time in one small section) for proper breakdown.

Any product has the potential to fill, but I think the issue here was with the product not being broken down. The stuff works great with a Flex 3401 with a light cutting pad. I have found that with a polishing or finishing pad, it doesn't turn completely clear even after many passes...whereas with a cutting pad, it does so within 1-2 passes.
 
The Critic said:
+1.
Sonax PF was designed for rotary usage only, and with a light cutting pad. DA polishers may not fully break down the abrasives and oils. In addition, a lot of people tend to have a fast arm speed and do not work the product long enough (or spend enough time in one small section) for proper breakdown.

Any product has the potential to fill, but I think the issue here was with the product not being broken down. The stuff works great with a Flex 3401 with a light cutting pad. I have found that with a polishing or finishing pad, it doesn't turn completely clear even after many passes...whereas with a cutting pad, it does so within 1-2 passes.
Click to expand...

Its water based, not oil based, FYI
 
AeroCleanse said:
Its water based, not oil based, FYI
Click to expand...

When a polish is advertised to be water-based, it means that the most prevalent component is water. However, they always contain some water soluble oils and VOC compliant carriers.
 
The Critic said:
+1.
Sonax PF was designed for rotary usage only, and with a light cutting pad.

The stuff works great with a Flex 3401 with a light cutting pad.
Click to expand...

I noticed the same and I am not seeing the filling properties as others had claimed either. :dunno:
 
AeroCleanse said:
Perfect Finish does not have fillers. I wish this rumor would stop. No one on the main UK detailing site have had any issues whatsoever.
Click to expand...
If used with a Rupes or another random orbital, yes, it WILL fill. SPF is MEANT to be used with a rotary(you should get true results).
 
FivePoint.0 said:
If used with a Rupes or another random orbital, yes, it WILL fill. SPF is MEANT to be used with a rotary(you should get true results).
Click to expand...

If you fully break down the polish why would not using a rotary cause the polish have durable fillers? Results may be different but I don't see how the chemical makeup would change.

Any links to support this? genuinely interested
 
Rotary produces friction and heat that a DA-orbital machine can't. Many compounds/polishes are designed to work optimally with a rotary.
 
ShaunD said:
Rotary produces friction and heat that a DA-orbital machine can't. Many compounds/polishes are designed to work optimally with a rotary.
Click to expand...

Results can definitely vary, no doubt about that.

I know that some abrasives are made to be broken down by different machines. However I don't see how that correlates with fillers used in a product. Using the wrong machine for a polish may lead to a less then desirable. I just don't see how using the wrong machine would make very durable fillers just appear.
 
PRicci09 said:
Results can definitely vary, no doubt about that.

I know that some abrasives are made to be broken down by different machines. However I don't see how that correlates with fillers used in a product. Using the wrong machine for a polish may lead to a less then desirable. I just don't see how using the wrong machine would make very durable fillers just appear.
Click to expand...

The only thing I've noticed with Sonax PF, is that if you use a light cutting pad and a Flex, the product will turn nearly clear after 1-2 slow passes w/med-heavy pressure. With a Rupes and a polishing pad, this never seems to happen.
 
The Critic said:
The only thing I've noticed with Sonax PF, is that if you use a light cutting pad and a Flex, the product will turn nearly clear after 1-2 slow passes w/med-heavy pressure. With a Rupes and a polishing pad, this never seems to happen.
Click to expand...

I have noticed the same thing. The 3401 has no problem breaking down rotary only polishes where my G110v2 struggles at best.
 
SPF will definitely work better with the 3401, but best with a rotary. Any non-forced random orbital is where it will fill.
 
jankerson said:
M205 wasn't tested in the comparison...... Likely because it would have had the advantage.....

With the pad, machine used M205 would have ate that test finish for breakfast.
Click to expand...

I didn't think 205 is a 1 step.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top