TESTED: 4 PRODUCTS - RESULTS INSIDE - Detailing and Car Care Forum

The results are in from a miniature test that I started with 4 "mystery" products.

Before we proceed, I need to share some background info and some general disclaimers. It is critical that you read this section. Please do not simply scroll through the post, look at the pictures and draw a conclusion. You'd be selling yourself (and the products) short, and you'd be missing out on some critical information.

1. General Info: I did this test as a recreational test. It is not associated with Guru Reports in any manner. I tested these products on my own time, after work and on weekends. I enlisted the help of a few neighbors (none of whom are associated with Guru Reports) to help provide 3rd party input and suggestions.

The test was not a fully blind test - I knew which products I was applying and evaluating. My neighbors did not know which products were which - they just knew them as "1," "2," "3," and "4". The test was conducted over a period of 3.5 weeks. The weather during the test was horrible - it was cold the entire time, it snowed often, rained a lot, and was generally miserable. Average temperature for the 3.5 weeks, according to my weather software was 37F during the day and 19F at night. The temperature did rise to almost 60F for 3 days, but it was generally cold the entire time. This was truly a torturous and hostile test environment for any wax/protectant.

2. Test specifics: I utilized two panels for the test - one served as the substrate for an accelerated test, the other served as a "real world," longer-term test substrate. Both have been utilized in previous tests, and were in need of a little TLC. I felt these panels would be ideal for the test for several reasons:

   Paint that's in perfect condition will bead water, whether or not there's a wax applied to it. I have several panels at my home that were painted in 2001 with PPG Deltron Base/Clear that have never received any type of wax or polish - they're completely "fresh," and have never been outdoors for any length of time. When they're exposed to water, the water beads are very tight, deep, round and consistent. The water beads and rolls off quickly, just as if the panel was freshly waxed.

  Most people don't have perfect paint. I wasn't going to be concerned with scratches and nicks or other defects in the panels, because my cars certainly aren't 100% perfect. Plus, by using a panel that's been abraded previously, it's easier to determine when protection truly ends. How so? It has to do with surface tension. An abraded surface will cause water to sheet (albeit slowly) and/or pool water when compared to a surface that's smooth and free of defects (see above). Therefore, using a panel that when left untreated would cling or sheet water, I'd have a better idea of when the protection from a certain product had given up the ghost.

  Aside from having a few nicks and scratches, the panels also had thick, heavy bold black lines from a previous test. The marker lines were of the infamous Magnum 44 black marker variety, and they'd all but etched themselves into the panels. I needed to prep the panels to try and remove the lines - there was an especially thick black line down the center of each panel that I wanted to remove.

2a. Panel Preparation: The panels were given a healthy wash with our old friend, Dawn. Love it or hate it, it is a very good cleaner and quickly cuts through grime and debris. After using Dawn, I clayed the panel with Clay Magic's Blue Clay, using Mothers ShowTime as a lubricant. I then rewashed the panel with Dawn and used 3M SMR on a buffer with a foam pad. That big centerline still remained, so I broke out the 3M General Purpose Adhesive Remover and went after the line. No luck - still there. I gave it one more try with PrepSol (a paint preparation solvent) and then decided to leave the line alone. I finished with a final, heavy Dawn wash to remove the oils and solvents from the products that I'd used earlier.

  The panels were then dried with a waffle weave microfiber towel and allowed to "rest" for about an hour. I returned and drew additional lines with the marker, and let the marker cure for about 20 minutes (ok, I had to take the dogs for a walk, as they were going crazy with me being outside while they weren't).

3. Product Application: With the panels marked and the products selected, it was time to start applying the products. I gathered up 8 foam wax applicators and gave each one a "dry rub" on various parts of the panel as a control measure. I inspected for marring and for color transfer to the pads. I used a 10x-magnified loupe for marring inspection. None of the pads appeared to add to the marring, nor did they lift any color or black ink.

The products were applied, exactly per the manufacturers instructions. No other prep products were used, and the panels were literally "squeaky-clean" when the products were applied. The temperature at the time of application was 58F, relative humidity was 44% and the skies were overcast. The products were allowed to dry (if necessary) to a haze before being buffed with a natural fiber microfiber towel (I had some towels from DF Towel to try out).

Each panel's test "swatch" also had an area to which no product was applied. This was for control purposes - so, on each panel, there were four large test areas, with four smaller "control" (or bare) areas. See diagram:

Only one layer of each product was applied, and no quick detailers or other optional toppers/tricks were used with the products. With the residues removed, the panels were moved to the garage and left to sit overnight.

The next day, approximately 18 hours after the products were applied and buffed, I called my neighbors and asked them to check out the panels with me. The results follow...

The Test Results

All results refer to the section to which protectant was applied. The results do not refer to the bare/control sections, unless specifically identified. Each test category is graded on a scale of 1 to 10, with a 1 being the lowest quality, and 10 being the highest.

Initial (18 hours after application) Observations:

Product 1: All commented that the product felt very slick and smooth. All felt that the product helped to "wet" the appearance of the panel, and that the protected area looked significantly better than the untreated portion. Reflectivity and clarity were good, as was shine and gloss. Color enhancement was noticeably better when compared to bare section. Under inspection of the loupe, marring appeared to be improved when compared to the bare section. Neighbors commented that it was "a sharp looking wax." Very slight hazing noticed, buffed away with breath and towel. Product lifted significant amounts of black marker from the panel.

Product 2: Very similar results as product 1. One neighbor felt the product looked deeper than any of the others, the other felt that it was too close to call. My opinion was that it was marginally glossier, and slightly more "deep." Inspection with the loupe showed very slight filling properties. The product felt very slick, perhaps slightly slicker than Product 1. Clarity and reflectivity were also very good as was color enhancement. I felt the product jetted slightly more than Product 1 - neighbors had no idea what I meant. No streaking or hazing noted. Product didn't appear to lift any black marker from panel.

Product 3: Again, the results were very similar to products 1 and 2. The neighbors felt that the product was slightly less slick than products 1 and 2. I noticed that the jetting wasn't as deep as products 1 and 2. Reflectivity and clarity were decent, not quite as good as the others. Color enhancement was good, but we noticed streaking and a slight haze. A second buff didn't remove the streaking or hazing, so we tried "the breath technique," but that only helped slightly. Under the loupe, things looked good, as product appeared to fill slight defects and no marring was noticed. Product lifted significant amounts of black marker from the panel.

Product 4: Neighbors thought the product was slightly more reflective and had a higher gloss than the other products, which was confirmed by clarity and reflectivity measurements - they were higher than the other 3 products. Loupe showed very little filling properties and no signs of marring. Showed slight color enhancement and was very slick - neighbors felt it might have been the slickest, but thought it was too close to call. No black marker was noticed on the application pad.

Here is a picture of what the applicator pads looked like after the products were applied:

Initial Scores:

CATEGORY	Product 1	Product 2	Product 3	Product 4
Application	8	9	7	9
Removal	7	9	8	9
Slickness	9	9	7	10
Color	8	8	8	7
Gloss	9	9	8	10
Reflectivity	9	9	8	10
Clarity	8	8	6	10
Hazing/Streak	9	10	6	10
Filling	7	6	6	4
Overall	8	9	7	8
SCORES (100)	82	86	71	87

IMPORTANT NOTE: These are just initial scores - observations from approximately 18 hours after initial application. The panels had not been exposed to any of the elements, and were fresh and untouched. No quick detailers were used, and only one application of each product was used - no layering, no topping, etc.

The panels were then taken outdoors. One panel was placed aside and left to be exposed to the elements in a long-term test. The panel received one wash, approximately 10 days after the initial product application. The wash consisted of a very mild P21S Bodywork Shampoo solution, a brand new Viking 100% cotton chenille wash mitt and a blotting with a new DFTowel Natural fiber microfiber towel. No quick detailers were used after the wash.

The other panel was subjected to some accelerated testing, which was used strictly for verification purposes. I won't share the results of the accelerated tests, but will only say that they mimic the results of the real-world testing. The only important bit of info from the accelerated testing is this: all of the products beaded water very nicely initially. The beads were small, tight, deep and similar in size. After the first few minutes of accelerated testing, the bead properties started to vary drastically between products...Again, it's important to note that all of the products beaded water initially.

After 10 days of exposure to the elements, the long-term panel was washed per above and then returned outside for more exposure to the elements.

On February 13, 2004, I went out to wash the panel a second time, and after the wash decided to call it quits on the test. I called my neighbors (both work first shift, which is extremely convenient for me, the night owl) and asked them for their final observations. After the wash, I was surprised to see that 3 of the 4 products had stopped beading and were no longer sheeting water - the water was clinging to the panel. I repeated the wash, to make sure that the clinging water wasn't a result of dirt or grime on the panel. I flooded the panel with water, washed gently, flooded and then blotted dry before hitting it with a stream of water to observe for beading. My suspicions were confirmed - the products appeared to be gone.

The neighbors evaluated the products once again - I left them alone while they evaluated the products, as I didn't want any of my observations to influence theirs. When they were done, they rang the doorbell (which once again got the dogs very excited) and I joined them to hear their comments as I evaluated the products.

FINAL RESULTS:

Product 1: Significant decrease in gloss, with no slickness detected. The prepared portion felt just like the bare portion of the panel. When testing for water beading, both the prepared section and the bare section caused water to "cling" and pool. It didn't bead, and it very slowly sheeted, leading us to believe the protection was gone. Loupe showed mixed results - some very light filling remained, but it was very spotty and hard to confirm. We could see etching in the panel from where driveway salt had eaten through the protection and etched the paint.

Product 2: Very similar results to product 1. Gloss was down significantly, slickness was all but gone. Panel seemed to hold water and caused it to pool and sheet very, very slowly. Loupe showed some filling remained (better than Products 1 and 3), but it wasn't anything spectacular. There was one small stain from salt; other salt marks washed away during initial wash.

Product 3: Again, very similar to products 1 and 3. Note about hazing - it went away after the first wash (10 days prior). Water clung to panel, sheeting off very slowly - but probably a little faster than product 1 and 2. Etching detected in a few spots from driveway salt. Fillers seemed to be gone, as was slickness. Product appeared slightly better (color and depth wise) than products 1 and 2.

Product 4: Was beading water nicely. Water beaded and sheeted as it was sprayed, leaving the panel about 65% dry when water was turned off. Gloss was down slightly, slickness was down quite a bit, but the product still felt slicker than products 1, 2 or 3. Neighbors were surprised that this was the only panel that was still in "good shape." A few small specks remained from driveway salt, but they came off with a light scratch with the fingernail. Product didn't fill much initially, so it was hard to determine if it was still filling. Reflectivity and clarity were almost the same as initial application.

FINAL SCORES

CATEGORY	Product 1	Product 2	Product 3	Product 4
Beading	0	0	1	8
Slickness	0	0	0	5
Salt Protection	5	7	5	8
Color	4	4	5	7
Gloss	5	5	4	8
Reflectivity	6	5	5	8
Clarity	6	5	5	8
Hazing/Streak	10	10	10	10
Filling	2	4	2	4
Overall	4	4	4	8
SCORES (100)	42	44	41	74

Pictures of the final testing results:
Picture disclaimer: my camera is very, very old...and it's dying. I apologize for grainy photos in advance - it's on its last legs and has served me well for almost 4 years. :-) The colors are washed out, and the white balance is always off...I know I could correct this in photoshop, but I'm too lazy to do it right now...

Product 1, beading shots:

Compare the waxed portion (left) with the control (unwaxed) portion:

Product 2, beading shots:

Compare the waxed portion (right) with the control (unwaxed) portion:

Product 3, beading shots:

Compare the waxed portion (left) with the control (unwaxed) portion:

Product 4, beading shots:

Compare the waxed portion (right) with the control (unwaxed) portion:

General photos:

For those of you on cable modem, here's a movie that shows how the water reacted to the panels. Note: the noise at the beginning is my neighbor yelling "NO" to his wife's question (she's inaudible, as she was yelling from across the street) about if he had put gas in the car yet.

Please right click and use "Save Target As..." to view this 3.0 MB .mpg Movie.

FINAL THOUGHTS

Obviously this test was very harsh because of the weather conditions, and my results may not be typical of everyone else's results. My accelerated test results confirmed much of what was learned over the long-term test, but again, these are just my results. Your experience may vary. Do not perceive this information as an endorsement for or slam against any product.

The primary purpose for conducting the test was to compare two products (Meguiar's NXt and Meguiar's #20) against one another, with a control sample for comparison purposes. I wanted to test my theory that the two products may share common properties, and the test showed me that while they act similarly, I don't believe they are as closely related as I had once thought.

NXT is a nice product with a great initial appearance. It beads nicely initially, but it seems to wear away quickly, especially in the harsh weather. It was easy to use, but it did show some signs of cleaning, as evidenced by the black marker on the applicator pad.

P21S is a good product with great initial appearance. It beads nicely initially, and held-up better in the accelerated testing than NXT did, but only slightly. It was easy to apply and remove, and showed no signs of cleaning - the pad was clean when done.

#20 is a good product, as it was easy to apply and remove, and the optics were decent, save for the initial hazing and streaking problem. It too, showed signs of cleaning, with some black marker making its way onto the applicator pad.

Zaino Z5 is a nice product that's best used on surfaces that are prepared well. The durability is second to none (at least as far as I've found), and it was easy to apply and remove. I did not use Z6 or Z7 during the test, and I only applied one layer of Z5 (mixed with catalyst, ZFX). It showed no sign of cleaning, and was very mild at filling.

Again, I'm not slamming or endorsing any product. These are just my experiences and results. I'm sure other forums will be abuzz with comments about the results, but I'd appreciate it if any comments/quetsions/concerns/smart-@ss remarks be made here - I hate chasing all over the web to answer the same question 10 times on 10 different forums. :-)

Enjoy, and I hope that if you will share your results/experiences with me here. I always enjoy hearing about people's experiences with various products!

-Steve

GURU REPORTS: Unbiased, impartial, practical testing and evaluation of car care products.