NuFinish - what am I missing out on?

[BTLew81]

Originally Posted By: qwertydude
Unless they changed abrasive formula in the past 20 years the grittiness hasn't changed.

The only thing that's changed is paints have become harder and more resistant to the damage the rough grit NuFinish can inflict to paint. A little later I'll post a picture comparing the haziness and swirls NuFinish leaves behind. Can't right now I have to get to work.


A few things, and I will stand firm on them. As myself and at least one other has said, the formula has changed and is not as "gritty." Confirmed with NF customer service and experienced by me. Secondly, I have yet to see NF cause swirls. The car was most likely damaged before NF, the media used to apply it caused marring, or the towel to remove it did. Most likely user error.

Lastly, to say the formula hasn't changed and paints have become harder is false. Some manuf. have hard paints. VW, Audi are examples. Others like Honda have softer paint. Due to changes in VOC regulations, other EPA regs, as well as general changes, in some ways, paints have become softer for many carmakers.

I won't win this argument. I've done my own tests and honestly, if you're getting swirls from NF it's user error. Even with a polishing pad on my buffer it won't induce marring.

 

[Vikas]

There are bunch of guys here if given a fancy bottle of extremely expensive sealant (but the content replaced with NuFinish without their knowledge) would be extolling the virtues of their gift. You can bet your paycheck on it. There is no need to argue with them.

 

[Sayjac]

Originally Posted By: Vikas
There are bunch of guys here if given a fancy bottle of extremely expensive sealant (but the content replaced with NuFinish without their knowledge) would be extolling the virtues of their gift. You can bet your paycheck on it. There is no need to argue with them.

I like it!

 

[morepwr]

Originally Posted By: Vikas
There are bunch of guys here if given a fancy bottle of extremely expensive sealant (but the content replaced with NuFinish without their knowledge) would be extolling the virtues of their gift. You can bet your paycheck on it. There is no need to argue with them.

 

[BTLew81]

Vikas...bingo! I've said this for YEARS. In addition, people need to understand that ANY DECENT LSP over a well prepped finish will look great. It's the prep..prep is at least 95%. Conversely, even a high end LSP will look like garbage if the surface is in poor shape.

Funny thing...I used NF as my winter protection last year as I was out of Collinite. I polished the surface, applied NF, and another coat a week later. Posted some pics on a highly regarded detailing site. Most about died when they found out it was NF. No..it couldnt be NF...It's only 8 bucks. I always say..price does not equal quality.

 

[Chris B.]

Originally Posted By: Vikas
There are bunch of guys here if given a fancy bottle of extremely expensive sealant (but the content replaced with NuFinish without their knowledge) would be extolling the virtues of their gift. You can bet your paycheck on it. There is no need to argue with them.


I did that here about 8 or 10 years back I think. A long time ago any way. Everyone was in disbelief when I told them it was NuFinish.

 

[Chris B.]

Like I have said many time on this forum and others, NuFinish is a top quality product. I'm not a professional detailer any more but I was for 15 years and over that time period I used every product on the market. There are many good ones and many bad ones. NuFinish does not have the best shine but I have seen nothing that is as durable or lasts as long(Duragloss) comes close or maybe ties.
It does not scratch CD's and never has(at least in the past 15 years.
Here is some pictures of cars I have used NuFinish on. The Volvo R sat outside for almost its entire life but was treated to NuFinish every 6 months and the paint is like new:







This Truck is a 1996 GMC. It was waxed 34 times with NuFinish. Paint is still in near new condition. Kind of blows the idea that NuFinish destroys paint and is abrasive:








After 9 months of sitting outside it still beads water like it was just waxed:




Another 10 year old car:

 

[BTLew81]

Love it. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Mamala Bay]

Situation may differ in different region. UV is a killer and if you look at the chart comparing Alaska UV versus Hawaii UV it's no laughing matter. Now a guy in Alaska says hey xyz product works great here and a guy in Hawaii says nah xyz product is too weak I need something else.

Also I've look at cars on Craiglist with pictures from Minnesota, paint finish looks very good for a 10 year old car almost like new from pics. Normal folks here that reads CR and go by their recommendations(buy at Wally) don't have the same paint finish, clearcoat is gone, paint is degrades and looks old. But then again both from Minnesota and Hawaii aren't overkill type detailers but normal everyday twice a year polishers.

For Hawaii my recommendation is to keep the car out of sun as much as possible(garage).

Here's the chart.

http://www.epa.gov/sunwise/uvimonth.html

 

[qwertydude]

The problem with those shots and most people don't even realize they're doing it, is they're beauty shots. I've posted my own shots that severely highlight the paint condition, it's one reason why when people post those beauty shots they're never in a parking lot at night. Because that would show every swirl and every defect that NuFinish leaves behind.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...907#Post3099907
Pretty much no one posts shots like these to specifically highlight the true surface finish of their cars except the real detailing pros.

NuFinish as previously posted doesn't do much correction but I do know from experience it leaves behind swirls and removes more paint than is necessary. This isn't some silly notion in my head. This time I've polished a CD like you would normally, with a mircofiber applicator. Afterwards is the standard IPA wipedown to remove any oils that can hide the swirls. Polycarbonate is about as hard as the newer ultra-hard acrylic paints they use nowadays so polishing CD's and closely examining them can give a better idea of just what you're doing to your paint.

This is a control section an unpolished pristine DVD surface. The whole DVD started out like this.

This is the surface that NuFinish leaves behind. It's difficult to capture the swirling 100% but you can clearly see it's leaving behind a lot of fine swirls and some coarser ones. Moving the light around dramatically highlights these swirls and in general the haziness of the surface. This is that "weird" look people sometimes ascribe to NuFinish. It's basically just the haze from a coarse polish covered with the polymer sealant which dulls the look of the swirling, but overtime the swirls become more and more noticeable as the polymer wears off and it's back to being a swirly mess.

This is actually Meguiars Ultimate Polish. You can see it's not perfect. But the finish left behind is much more uniform and the fine swirling is not nearly as glaring when you start moving the light around. The NuFinish surface in fact looks even worse than Meguiars Ultimate Compound. And as any detailer knows you should not be using a strong compound seasonally.

So what I can conclude from my years of professional detailing experience and from my own numerous independent testing, analyses, and personal experience knowing how to analyze paint surface condition is that NuFinish even though it doesn't correct it is still removing about as much material as a compound. It has to in order to be able to work its miracles on oxidized finishes. Think about it, most detailers go to a very strong compound to rejuvenate an oxidzed finish, if a polish can rejuvenate an oxidized finish it has to be quite abrasive. Any detailer knows you wouldn't use a finishing polish like Ultimate Polish on a neglected oxidized paint finish. It simply doesn't have the cutting power, and yet NuFinish does. Does it take a genius to process the above logic?

I too have detailed professionally and even before waterless car washes were all the rage I formulated my own waterless wash and detailer from independent testing and my own knowledge of chemistry and it just happened to end up having pretty much precisely the same ingredients as the waterless washes when they came out.

On my own polishing post I've proven you can correct rather severe swirls with the newer generation of SMAT abrasive polishes from Meguiar's and a 6" "wax spreader" polisher. I've yet to see people who post beauty shots of their cars get into the real "ugly" shots the ones with detailing inspection lights to highlight the swirls that are left behind when you use NuFinish. People claim it doesn't leave swirls but have no proof to back it up. When I did my car to tell people on this site that paint correction can be done with a low power polisher I backed it up with real proof with photographs that show clearly a before and after and the exact procedure and photography explanations of how it was accomplished.

It is funny that someone will say my CD test has been disproven numerous times when it's pretty much only me that's posted about this particular test and only a couple times to boot. I don't know how one obscure testing method could have become the topic of other people's testing who likely never even heard of my CD test for testing abrasive particle size.

So since I go into such detailed and scientific analysis to prove a particular point it's gonna be difficult to convince me that NuFinish is outperforming my tried and tested regime which doesn't cost an arm and a leg to do and gets better results to boot. Because I know one thing, I've tried the NuFinish and it does leave swirls behind since I know how to look for them and know how to photograph them to show the swirls. I just don't want to apply that stuff to my car and have to strip, compound, polish and rewax to get my finish back again.

 

[BTLew81]

Whatever. Cd test is inaccurate. Differing opinions. If NF caused swirls I would absolutely notice. I'm done.

 

[qwertydude]

CD test is inaccurate?

How so? Polycarbonate is a cross linked polymer of similar hardness and toughness as modern clear coats. So it's as representative of paint as you can get and a new CD is a pristine 100% flat surface that will show exactly what a polish and only the polish does to a surface. The bright point source led light serves to highlight all the flaws any polish leaves behind. And since both polishes are working on the exact same surface, if one leaves a poorer finish on the CD it's bound to leave a poorer finish on your car. The logic must be beyond your grasp.

If you think NuFinish leaves a swirl free finish have you even bothered to try the better stuff? Because once you do and find out your paint not only looks better but the protection lasts longer then you'd change your mind.

If you're claiming it's top shelf stuff how come almost nobody on the Autopia forums uses it on a regular basis? If you're claiming snobbery then you also can't claim that your professional buddies' opinions of NuFinish are any more valid than mine and my professional buddies' opinions that it's garbage. And on the Autopia forums it's pretty much unanimous that it's considered garbage. And there's more pros there than probably anywhere else on the net.

An opinion is a point of view not based on facts. Right now you're presenting an opinion. I've presented facts.

I'm betting if I applied NuFinish to my dark colored car and showed the very same swirls occurring you still wouldn't believe me. But since I already know what's gonna happen I don't want to have to repolish my car just to have you ignore the facts still.

 

[BTLew81]

Never said it was top shelf...never. Have I tried the better stuff? Absolutely and have a garage full of products from various manuf.

You're missing my point...Never said I use it regularly, nor that it is the best. Just said it's better than some give it credit for.

How come no one uses it? Well, mainly because it isn't the BEST looking, which I admitted.

I've ignored nothing...I have MY experiences. I have MY facts as well. Just because they are not the same results as you does not make them opinion. Bottom line

I'm done. CD test is pretty bunk...go check out some of the other forums. Use what you like, as will I. I'm not a NF fan boy, but it has its uses.

 

[qwertydude]

You keep repeating the test is bunk without any evidence to back that claim up. Why is it bad? Why is it not representative of polymer based paints? Why can it not independently test two polishes side by side?

Does it not at least conclusively prove that NuFinish has abrasives in it? A lot of people claim NuFinish is 100% non-abrasive. The original CD test rubbing two CD's is pretty definitive, NuFinish has abrasives. It quickly and easily shows just how large the abrasive particles in any polish are which is useful to those who don't have access to a high powered microscope like I do to determine if the claims of any products abrasiveness is in question. The second polishing test can compare side by side the finish quality any two polishes will leave behind. If one is finer on the CD it will be finer on the paint.

If it is a bad experiment, as an aerospace engineer I would very much like to know, because experimental methodology is sort of a specialty of mine. I wouldn't have gotten where I was if I couldn't set an experiment up properly. And likely I'd still be in the detailing business where I started out so many years ago. But scientific curiosity and experimentation is something I've always had in my system as both an intellectual hobby and a lifelong pursuit. It's also why I joined this forum since oil chemistry and tribology is actually very interesting to me.

It helps me get past marketing hype, it helps me in my current job, it's helped me in all my previous technical jobs, to say my experimental methodology is flawed somehow, makes me work harder to ensure it is fair, accurate and unbiased. It's what drives me to do better. It's why regardless of brand, advertising, or hype I can separate the bad from the good. So even if you put NuFinish in a fancy bottle I'd be able to spot it instantly based on my testing method, not to mention just smelling it is a dead giveaway.

So if you can tell me what exactly is wrong with it. I can improve my testing methods.

 

[Chris B.]

If NuFinish removed as much material as a compound the clear coat would be looooooooooong gone on the Sierra posted above. The paint is in excellent condition.

There is another guy on here with a turquoise Jeep and has like 25 years worth of NuFinish on it. Paint looks excellent. He may post in here if he sees this thread.

 

[Capa]

Critic, Lol, you opened a can of worms!

I have used NuFinish, though it has been a while. The fact that it stains trim will keep me from ever using it again. Like any wax or sealant that has minor abrasives, it did produce a nice shine. Like basically all sealants, it will outlast any wax. However, a lot of people go on and on about how long it lasts and yet when Consumer Reports tested it, it didn't last a year or six months but just a couple of months. It did in that article outlast the other over the counter waxes and sealant available at Walmart and similar stores. FYI, most detailers don't buy over the counter waxes and sealants, which is why you never hear of detailers using NuFinish in real detailing forums.

I use both the sealant Duragloss 501 and wax Collinte 845. I don't have to deal with stained trim and the protection is incomparable. After claying, I apply Duragloss 501 with my Griot's DA orbital and then about 12 hours later apply Collinite. Sealants tend to have a very plasticky look (which i dont like) and so I prefer the warm glow of a wax like Collinite, which also helps to extend the protection. I generally detail my car in this fashion twice a year.

 

[Rolla07]

Nu finish does have abrasives in it..thats why its called a polish.. if the cd test was accurate the paint shown in the numerous pics above would be scratched so terribly after 34 uses of NF on it. That proves the cd test wrong. If its that abrasive the clear coat would of been done for after 10-15 uses of NF..and thats not the case. If you dont like NF say so, but dont try and prove that its bad for your paint by rubbing it on a cd. When ive used NF..i noticed it did clean the surface ( i see dirt on microfiber after wiping it).

 

[SatinSilver]

Originally Posted By: qwertydude
I'm betting if I applied NuFinish to my dark colored car and showed the very same swirls occurring you still wouldn't believe me. But since I already know what's gonna happen I don't want to have to repolish my car just to have you ignore the facts still.


Just do a test section on your dark colored car. A 2x2 section should suffice that way you won't have to re-polish your entire car. Kind of surprised you didn't think of that. Shake the bottle of NF real well first and follow all directions. Was that even you that did the experiment or did you rely on someone else to do it? I'm surprised you even own a bottle of NF to do the experiment. Or let me guess you threw it out.

I remember how you've said in the past how detailer is a waste of money and how you mix up your own formulation. Even when I can mix up bottle of Ultima detailer for less than a dollar shipped using their concentrate. I think you claimed the concentrate was 99% water. Even the users on Autopia seem to like it.

 

[qwertydude]

I did think of doing a small section of my car but it's still more work than I'd be willing to repeat an experiment just to try to prove my point to people who wouldn't believe me anyways. Think about it. I've been a professional detailer for years. I'm an aerospace engineer, do experimental projects for a living. Posted exactly how a person can eliminate swirls on their car using a minimum of products, posted exactly how to formultae a working spray detailer and waterless wash. And you accuse me of not knowing how to shake a bottle. Presumptuous to say the least.

I've had the same bottle of NuFinish for years must be going on 4 years now. I have no use for it other than maybe my motorcycle wheels since it's mineral spirits can cut through chain flung grease.

Found it in my friends garage and he used it once on his brand new car and gave it to me after we went out at night and I showed him in a lit parking lot the swirls it caused. I was at least a good enough friend to give his car a complete three step detail to fix the damage NuFinish caused. And told him instead to switch to Meguiars NXT 2.0 to keep the finish both looking good and decently protected. This was on a brand new car so I know there weren't swirls previously. I recognize the NuFinish haze instantly.

I wouldn't even do a 2x2 section on my car. I've dealt NuFinish years and years ago. It's a product of it's age good for what it was, for lazy people with heavily oxidized cars that just want to make it shine. What will it take to convince the NuFinish fundamentalists that a product that can rejuvenate a badly oxidized finish by hand is too harsh to use on a regular basis.

NuFinish is an advancement though that's been surpassed by newer AIO sealants in terms of both looks and durability. But for my daily drivers I still prefer a pure wax or pure sealant so I can decide what polish steps are necessary. If I get my car pristine and swirl and mar free with a fine finishing polish why would I go backwards a step in terms of abrasiveness just to put on an inferior protectant?

If I had to pick an AIO I'd prefer one that didn't leave my car looking like I rubbed beach sand on it, in that case Meguiars D151 is my go to, followed by Klasse AIO. Both more gentle on paint than NuFinish. Sure it won't make a junkyard beater shine but that's not what it was made for. NuFinish's ads specifically show this "test" even though it was the shiniest car in the junkyard to begin with.

As for the tried and true methods I'd actually be pretty satisfied with NuFinish's protection if they left out the rocks. The cross linking zinc polymers are pretty decent in terms of longevity on paint, still surpassed by an old school product like Collinite when properly applied though but I'd much rather do the polishing or cleaning myself with a separate step.

Now if NuFinish decided to include better newer nano-abrasives to make a superior AIO then I'd respect it as a product more. Heck even Turtle Wax has done it with their newer premium line of polishes. So if they do bother to reformulate with more advanced polishes more compatible with todays thinner but harder clearcoats. You won't find me even hesitating to post its praises. You see I don't hold grudges based on any brand name. All I care about is independent testing and performance.

As for mixing your own detailer I'm not gonna make people do it. I happen to have the ingredients on hand since they're a regular part of my car car products and I use Photo-Flo for other hobbies of mine. So save for the gel wax which is inexpensive, I don't have to buy anything else. That's why I don't bother with buying the commercial product. You see a lot of people doing these DIY products anyways from using olive oil or vinegar as fabric softener, to using baking soda to scrub their bathtubs. I just take it to another level formulating my own detailer. And I'm not making some unfounded claim it's 99% water. Read my post carefully it would be 94-98% water. This isn't made up.

http://www.ultimafinishcare.se/Pdf/Ultima+MSDS+Ultima+Waterless+Wash.pdf

MSDS's of such simple products should be easy enough for anyone with basic college chemistry to understand. Three simple ingredients polydimethylsiloxane is what composes 30% of Armor All, acetyldehyde at a concentration of
But Autopia is less about experimentation than you give them credit for. This site I'm surprised with all the experimentation and testing they do on oil I'm surprised has so much blind faith and adherence to a product like NuFinish. So you'll believe them on a product like Ultima but won't when they tell you NuFinish sucks. That's a hypocritical belief system.

 

[SatinSilver]

You said the Ultima concentrate is 94%+ water and your link went to the waterless wash, not the concentrate. I also looked at your pictures of the Focus that you posted. Which don't look nearly as good as some of the pictures posted by members on here that used NuFinish. Maybe that's why you don't like NF because someone posted their results with NF on the thread that you started. Are you still using the Johnson Paste wax on your car trim? Have you ever posted on Autopia about using an electric Turtle wax spreader with UC? Just curious...

I noticed the positive comments on Autopia about UWW after I bought and used it. But keep on assuming things.