Menzerna Polish Range - Removal Rates Test

Another example thread, this time looking at removal rates and correction achieved from the full Menzerna range of polishes. The point - to see how the polishes perform, what paint removal corresponds to what correction, the abilities of the polishes and at the end, where it all goes wrong (purposefully in this case ).

So here we have our test panel - its the roof of my trusty banger, a Vauxhall Astra which is living out the last days of its life being polished before it goes to the scrappy! A test mule Out with the wire wool, lets get some scratches:



Now, we measure the thicknesses here using multiple readings and taking the average, and we calculate the absolute error in each reading also. The starting thickness here was measured to be:

Starting Thickness = 107.4 +/- 0.7um

For all of the ceramiclear abrasive polishes, the classic Zenith Point Technique was used: spread at 600rpm, work at 1500 - 1800rpm, refine at 1200, then 900rpm.

First up was 85RD Final Finish on a finishing pad, which delivered the following results:





Note how much worse the paint looks under the strip lighting - deeper marks are masked by the bright light sources such as the Sun Gun. Good level of correction though for a finishing polish on a finishing pad!

Paint thickness after 85RD:

After 85RD = 106.1 +/- 0.8um
*No removal rates calculated, only remaining thicknesses here. Subtraction gives removal rates, sum of the squares square rooted of the percentage error gives a measure of the error in this value for those interested

Next stage: 106FA on a polishing pad (W8006 from Meguiars), and we get:





Notably better correction, we are now just down to the deeper RDS. Paint left:

After 106FA = 102.9 +/- 0.8um
Looks to be more paint removed, as would be expected. This paint was prepolished to ensure soft upper layers removed.

Next stage: 203S Power Finish on a polishing pad:





A little better but not hugely, the remaining marks are deeper than it would seem, but then 203S did not seem to remove much paint:

After 203S = 101.8 +/- 0.8um

Certainly not compared to 106FA - into harder paint perhaps, or a slightly different abrasive style not being suited to this paint... Intensive Polish was next, so we'll see what that delivers:





A bit more in terms of correction, but at what cost in paint?:

After 85RD3.02 = 101.0 +/- 0.8um

Again, seems low, so looks like we are into harder paint now - this points more to there being a gradient in paint hardness on a finish, starting soft and getting harder the deeper you go which further supports the idea of there being UV degredation of upper clearcoat layers.

Now, we move to a different style of abrasive - a brittle, sharp abrasive compared to the ceramiclear's rounder abrasives. That of S34A Power Gloss, applied as above using Zenith method which although not typically Power Gloss, I wanted to keep the application the same here to avoid this being a variable.

The results:





Correction level superb, finish not bad either considering its a heavy cutting compound on a soft paint! Or is the paint soft? Debate :lol:

The paint left:

After S34A = 93.7 +/- 0.9um

A big amount of paint removed! Does this mean that the sharper abrasives better suit this paint for removal?

Now, at this stage, a second hit of Power Gloss would not be advised on a real detail... but as this is an experiment, lets do it, and see why its not advised!! :lol: Note the strike through after two hits:





Using the readings, you could see this coming - big chunk of paint removed first time, paint level now low, all factors pointing to another hit of PG being a no no! Paint left now:

After 2x S34A = 85.3 +/- 0.7um

Well into the strike though level...

So, what can we say after this little bit of fun?

First open ended question - different styles of abrasives... PG is more aggressive but it is hugely so here, is it that the sharper abrasives better suit this paint? Testing with the PO91L version of IP will tell us this answer here, so watch this space But an interesting observation.

Note also, the removal rates slowing down again, pointing to paint getting harder the deeper we go for the same abrasive type. This is more consistent results with previous tests.

And, also interesting to see the Meznerna range's cutting and finishing abilities

Many thanks to Alex_E for his help with this test

 

Thanks for the input and the time put forth to bring this to our attention.

 

good info.

 

Dave, Thank you for sharing. Your write ups are very informative...:thumb:

 

after Power finish you stop listing the pad used, is one to assume you used a polishing pad through the test?

 

Definitley a good read

 

Great writeup...this is an excellent tool for those wanting to learn more about Menzerna.

 

This might be a stupid question Dave, but where the products used on the test area used on different areas of the panel, or were they consecutive in use in the same spot? It looked like the same scratch throughout, but wouldn't it have been effective doing different areas of the panel for each product tested? Like I said, this may be a stupid question and I didn't pay attention, but that is one thing that was going through my thoughts reading your thread.

 

Nice write-up, you must be togwt son :hmph:

 

Thank you once again, yet another terrific and informative thread. Keep em coming Dave :thumb:

 

Curious as well.

 

Hi guys, all on the same section of the paintwork for this particular test as the normal process for polish assessment on a detail is to test on a single region and work up until correction is achieved - and I was trying to see if the clearcoat appeared to get harder with repeat hits. But future tests will look at multiple paint sections too - this post is the tip of the iceberg

 

Great post once again. Thank you for taking the time out of your day!

 

Dave,

Thanks for posting. Very Informative!

Waiting for the rest of the iceberg :knit: :stirpot: