GlossyTundra
Tractor Detailer
a.k.a. Patrick said:
Then I guess you dont use Z-5PRO or NXT for a LSP.
DG 105: Pleasantly suprised
- Thread starter rkf76
- Start date
Then I guess you dont use Z-5PRO or NXT for a LSP.
a.k.a. Patrick
New member
Brandon1 said:
Ummmmmmmmmm, no. I have a few select products I use on a regular basis, that I have found great success with. Please elaborate on your comment.
NXT does have some mild cleaning ability, and probably less so then 105. NXT is labeled as a "Protectant" aka LSP, refer to the Meguiars home page. Not a mention of cleaners, as they are so subtle. It is not marketed as a AIO product.
101 is labeled as "Removes fine scratches and oxidation, UV protection, acid and alkali resistant.
My world translation, has some cleaning ability, and protects. All in one type product.
105 is labeled "Synthetic Polymer Wax formula that cleans and protects in one step".
My world translation, all in one type of product.
111 is labeled as "Non abrasive formula, UV Protection, resists acid and alkali"
My world translation, sealant, LSP.
As for Z-5, dont know a thing about it.........
Hey you believe what ya want! If you have a disagreement with the chemical maekup of a product, and its manufacturers description, take it up with the manufacturer, not me. I didnt make the stuff. If you findings are different then the chemists' lab tests, well, I dont know what to tell you.
All three afoementioned DG products are worthy detailing products. Use them to your best ability. If you get better results with a more aggressive pad, then fabuloso! Its NEVER all pad, or all product, or all technique. Its a combination of all three that take your results a step higher then the scratch and dash detailer.
As for your findings, take it up with the people who made the stuff, as it contradicts what the chemists said.
GlossyTundra
Tractor Detailer
Ok then dude, keep on truckin! I will still belive the false statement that #105 is pure LSP, but thats just me.
a.k.a. Patrick
New member
Brandon, and Mike, I dont care how you use it. Im just informing all readers, that this is what the chemist told me. And thats how I use it, and find it most beneficial to my needs.:xyxthumbs
Yeah, I conceded as much (working harder than I should have) but I knew going into it that it would be an experiment.mose said:
Yes, I know OP is a dedicated polish, but guys are trying to undercut my findings by saying "function of the pad" as if this is some sort of exception or something. Take any polish and use it with a cutting pad vs. a finishing pad and you'll see a big time difference, so does that mean the polish should not be given any credit for the end results?
I guess there are two different schools of thought on this product, we all have our own opinions and ways of using products that best suit us, who's to say if either is right or wrong?
Hey bro, do you have any OP you'd like to sell me?
SpoiledMan
New member
rkf76 said:
As we know that 105 is a NON abrasive product, please tell me what removed the swirls that you mentioned above? You used a cutting pad and the pad did the work while the 105 provided the lubrication to the surface.
Way back when, Sean took some NXT wax on the rotary to some car and it came out stunning. You think that was a function of the product or the method of application of the product?
Try applying 105 with a finishing pad and watch how it doesn't have the same results. That means the what you saw was at least *mostly* the function of the pad.
a.k.a. Patrick
New member
We have a couple analogies here. One is 105 is an impressive product, even when used as not intended. RKF got more then his moneys worth when he used it as a polish. End result, the pad and product combo along with his particular technique provided some results he had not anticipated. Admitting he pushed it a little harder then he probably should have, lesson learned. Could he have used a less aggressive pad and received similiar results? Probably. I have used it before on silver with an Orange pad as well, but just for its cleaning ability. End result? Exactly what I had hoped for, and no further steps needed. End product was ideal for my situation.
The other analogy, 105 can be used as an LSP. Was it designed that way? No, but who cares. As long as the end result is what one is expecting, the products chemical makeup is null and void. I use Four Star Tire Gel on trim! End result is again, ideal for my situation. So we can all agree, some products exceed our expectation, sometimes our limitations are only achieved by elevating our Autopian curiosity.
RCBuddha, I'm also getting ~6 months from 105 on a couple daily drivers that sit outside 24 X 7. The 1st vehicle I used 105 on was in September of last year and its protection finally started showing signs of weakness in the last weeks of April on the roof. The hood still looked great, but I also used DG AW on the hood, the front windshield and wheels every other wash, but not on the roof or anywhere else.
On this particular vehicle, I applied 601 + 105 + 105 (12 hours later) + AW (12 hours later). This vehicle has only been washed with ONR twice and DG CWC every couple weeks and wiped down with DG FCS after every couple washes. I've only used DG AW on the hood after every other wash to compare how it would look and hold up in relation to the roof.
I don't know if the 105 held up better for my test vehicles because of the paint condition or because of the 601 or the way I applied these products, but I definitley got an honest ~6 months of protection from this combo on daily drivers that sit outside in the sun 24 X 7.
105 is now our goto last step product for the rv's and trailers we do (the bulk of our business), but one our vehicles starts a new test cycle tomorrow with some new CG products that I'm looking forward to playing with :woot2:.
On this particular vehicle, I applied 601 + 105 + 105 (12 hours later) + AW (12 hours later). This vehicle has only been washed with ONR twice and DG CWC every couple weeks and wiped down with DG FCS after every couple washes. I've only used DG AW on the hood after every other wash to compare how it would look and hold up in relation to the roof.
I don't know if the 105 held up better for my test vehicles because of the paint condition or because of the 601 or the way I applied these products, but I definitley got an honest ~6 months of protection from this combo on daily drivers that sit outside in the sun 24 X 7.
105 is now our goto last step product for the rv's and trailers we do (the bulk of our business), but one our vehicles starts a new test cycle tomorrow with some new CG products that I'm looking forward to playing with :woot2:.
No, WE don't know that. You CLAIM that but Patrick posted up some info rcvd from a DG chemist which refutes that. I am not familiar with the formulation of it so I can't say.SpoiledMan said:
The results I got can't be attributed to pad or product only, it was a combination of the two.
That being said, I should be able to apply some S100 w/a cutting pad to a swirled finish and be able to remove them, thanks to the pad, right?SpoiledMan said:
Come on guy, why do you keep arguing with me about this? I know I pushed the product alot harder than it was intended for, I know the pad has alot to do with the results I got, but that's always the case no matter what product you use so what's your point?
:funnypostSpoiledMan said:
There's so much info missing in that scenario that I can't even begin to answer that question
That goes without saying, and is true for any product. Or did you not think there's a reason we use finishing pads instead of wool cutting pads when applying LSP's?SpoiledMan said:
Regardless of what any "chemist" said...I have used 101 and 105 extensively by hand. I have seen 101 remove some bad surface grime (water spots, etc) with just hand application. By comparison, 105 wouldn't begin to remove any of the surface contamination and the surface looked the same after using 105 (did essentially no cleaning). So, which contains the strongest cleaners?
DG's description of the 105 is that it "forms a super-tough coating" on the surface. I HIGHLY DOUBT they would create this brand new product that they say on the bottle "lasts 1 year" and "forms a super tough coating" if it was their LEAST durable sealant product! I mean that is essentially saying that it lasts as long as AW!
I conclude that you got some bad info from someone. I don't know who you talked to and neither does anyone else, therefore the cloud isn't clear at all. From my experience, those "chemist" statements are completely backwards and just don't add up.
I would encourage everyone to use both 101 and 105 and form your own conclusions. I put no faith in what the "chemist" says here. Sheer use of both products will tell you differently.
DG's description of the 105 is that it "forms a super-tough coating" on the surface. I HIGHLY DOUBT they would create this brand new product that they say on the bottle "lasts 1 year" and "forms a super tough coating" if it was their LEAST durable sealant product! I mean that is essentially saying that it lasts as long as AW!
I conclude that you got some bad info from someone. I don't know who you talked to and neither does anyone else, therefore the cloud isn't clear at all. From my experience, those "chemist" statements are completely backwards and just don't add up.
I would encourage everyone to use both 101 and 105 and form your own conclusions. I put no faith in what the "chemist" says here. Sheer use of both products will tell you differently.
a.k.a. Patrick
New member
Mike your going to disagree with whatever I say anyway. I brought forth info from the man who helped make the stuff, figuring that was about as close to being there witnessing production myself. But its not, and so be it. If you would like, I could call the other chemist and speak with him for additional clarity. Im just trying to help state the facts here for everyone.
There are a lot of "marketing" claims by manufacturers. Optimum says the spray wax last 5 months, I get about 4-6 weeks with it. Even Gadsan says 6 months with 105, I get 6 weeks tops. We all critique "durability" a little differently.
For the sake of this thread, dont argue with what a labels states. If it says it cleans, it cleans, if it says it protects, then it protects, and if it says it does both, then lets leave it at a all in one type of product, because thats what the majority of Autopians believe a all in one type of product does.
If you find alternative benefits to a products use, then share with all, but no one here should dispute anothers findings.
Just read, shake your head or smile, and pass it on...............
There are a lot of "marketing" claims by manufacturers. Optimum says the spray wax last 5 months, I get about 4-6 weeks with it. Even Gadsan says 6 months with 105, I get 6 weeks tops. We all critique "durability" a little differently.
For the sake of this thread, dont argue with what a labels states. If it says it cleans, it cleans, if it says it protects, then it protects, and if it says it does both, then lets leave it at a all in one type of product, because thats what the majority of Autopians believe a all in one type of product does.
If you find alternative benefits to a products use, then share with all, but no one here should dispute anothers findings.
Just read, shake your head or smile, and pass it on...............
GlossyTundra
Tractor Detailer
I think a call to Duragloss from another person is in order. I'll see what I can do.
AL-53
Duragloss User
This is what I was told by the Chemist at DG....105 was the newest sealant and the longest lasting....It contained both a polymer and a resin which mimicked the wax look..the cleaners where mild enough when used by hand it can be layered and that 3 coats would be tops as it will give diminished looks after that....
When used by a machine the cleaners will come into play more strongly due to pad aggressiveness and rapid rotation..
Also was told that 101 and also the 151 fiberglass cleaner polish was the most aggressive cleaners...
I have used 101 to clean road paint off that 105 would not remove on my wheels...
Anyways this is the info I was told by both Bill and Jerry at DG...
I used 105 for the winter protection on my truck for the winter...Did it in Sept...and come April before I did it over..I still had a good gloss and was still beading very good.I used AW twice in that time period when I could wash it at a spray wash to remove salt...I am convinced it will last a long time since it lasted thru a winter where some sealants I used before never did...
Al
When used by a machine the cleaners will come into play more strongly due to pad aggressiveness and rapid rotation..
Also was told that 101 and also the 151 fiberglass cleaner polish was the most aggressive cleaners...
I have used 101 to clean road paint off that 105 would not remove on my wheels...
Anyways this is the info I was told by both Bill and Jerry at DG...
I used 105 for the winter protection on my truck for the winter...Did it in Sept...and come April before I did it over..I still had a good gloss and was still beading very good.I used AW twice in that time period when I could wash it at a spray wash to remove salt...I am convinced it will last a long time since it lasted thru a winter where some sealants I used before never did...
Al
a.k.a. Patrick
New member
See, now we have two conflicting stories, and both came from DG rep's. So now believe what ya wish! LMFAO..........Im tired.........
SpoiledMan
New member
rkf76 said:
The paint on the car pictured is on the soft side. If there were abrasives in 105 there'd be marring all over the place from applying the product by hand. I think we can conclude no abrasives for sure.
imported_Larry A
New member
Just call Jerry or Bill at DG. It seems somebody is misinformed. I was told by them exactly what AL-53 and Tiger Mike says.
a.k.a. Patrick
New member
lawrencea said:
Lawrencea.........
wannafbody
wannafbody
I've used 111 and while it is durable after about 3 months the beading falls off and it has more of a sheeting action.
I'm not too sure why you are hell bent on arguing about this. I already said I don't know what it's got in it so why do you keep going on about it?SpoiledMan said:The paint on the car pictured is on the soft side. If there were abrasives in 105 there'd be marring all over the place from applying the product by hand. I think we can conclude no abrasives for sure.
Take a look at the pic and tell me there's no marring there?
