Wax ratings on Dmitry's Garage

[Gokhan]

Dmitry's Garage has a very nice rating of car waxes.

https://dmitrysgarage.com/wax-shootout

Adam’s Polishes Graphene Ceramic Spray Coating is very impressive.

 

[TheLawnRanger]

My waxes didn't make the cut. Meguiar's, Mothers, and Griot's Garage.

 

[Gokhan]

My waxes didn't make the cut. Meguiar's, Mothers, and Griot's Garage.

Perhaps it's time to change to one of the highly rated, newer products! They are probably easier to apply, too.

 

[MrHorspwer]

The "score" is largely based on how many washes it lasts. "Looks Good?" and "Easy to Use?" only affect the rating by a single point. A product can look like junk and be incredibly fussy to apply, but if it lasts a few more washes, it's rated higher?

It could be difficult to apply, poor "looks good", low gloss, but if it lasted 150 washes, his rating system would easily score it above anything else.

How do "gloss units" work? Of all the product tested, the highest has a GU of 93.7 and the lowest is 82.7. That's 11 units or about 12%, but what does that mean? The control is 90 GU or 94 GU. That makes the delta even less. Can I see an 8% difference in gloss units? This is also done on a pristine finish. What the GU on a hood that's been in the environment for three years? What's the improvement when using a wax on this type of finish?

Most "tests" are subjective observations. GU is the only actual objective test and it determines a result of little value. I like the idea and the effort, but the scoring all seems a bit arbitrary to pick winners and losers.

Example: Adam's Spray Wax has 92.5 GU, only lasts 2 washes, and gets a rating of 2.7. Adam's Slick & Slide has 87.9 GU, is hard to apply, lasts 28 washes, and gets a score of 27.9. Is Slick & Slide 10 times "better"? According to the score it is. What if you're looking for a quick gloss boost for your car because you're at a cars and coffee event and want it to look prime for the day? Which is better?

 

[alarmguy]

Good post, you know, I wish someone would test some of what I consider "mainstream" applicator type rub on and wipe off waxes.
All this spray stuff is fine for people who want to spray their vehicle down every month or two but that gets real old for me, quickly.
I come form a time where wax would last a solid 6+ months no matter how much I washed the car. (used to love Rain Dance many decades ago.)

Sooooo much spray stuff but to me the durability is in the stuff like Turtle Wax Ice paste wax and Meguires Ultimate Synthetic Liquid Wax.
But dont worry. I have both of them applied to the roof of my Chevy Traverse to see which is more durable. I also have Nufinish on the hood of my wifes Mazda but we know that will be the longest lasting already.
I like the Turtle Wax Ice Paste the most as far as applying and removing but the Meguires Ultimate Synthetic Liquid is acceptable.
Whats nice about these is they should last a long time and can be applied to plastic, unlike the NuFinish which is really bad but will safe that for the fiberglass boat.

 

[Gokhan]

The "score" is largely based on how many washes it lasts. "Looks Good?" and "Easy to Use?" only affect the rating by a single point. A product can look like junk and be incredibly fussy to apply, but if it lasts a few more washes, it's rated higher?

It could be difficult to apply, poor "looks good", low gloss, but if it lasted 150 washes, his rating system would easily score it above anything else.

How do "gloss units" work? Of all the product tested, the highest has a GU of 93.7 and the lowest is 82.7. That's 11 units or about 12%, but what does that mean? The control is 90 GU or 94 GU. That makes the delta even less. Can I see an 8% difference in gloss units? This is also done on a pristine finish. What the GU on a hood that's been in the environment for three years? What's the improvement when using a wax on this type of finish?

Most "tests" are subjective observations. GU is the only actual objective test and it determines a result of little value. I like the idea and the effort, but the scoring all seems a bit arbitrary to pick winners and losers.

Example: Adam's Spray Wax has 92.5 GU, only lasts 2 washes, and gets a rating of 2.7. Adam's Slick & Slide has 87.9 GU, is hard to apply, lasts 28 washes, and gets a score of 27.9. Is Slick & Slide 10 times "better"? According to the score it is. What if you're looking for a quick gloss boost for your car because you're at a cars and coffee event and want it to look prime for the day? Which is better?

Yes, that point-rating system is a little bizarre. They should have given more weight to the visual, feel, and ease of use categories and not make it yes or no.

Perhaps the reason he gives such a high rating to the durability is that if a wax is not durable, it neither looks good or protects against elements after a short while.

He does have YouTube videos for every product though, and he gives you a better idea of the look, feel, and ease of use of the waxes. You should watch them before you buy a particular wax.

He gives the exact gloss units in the ratings. Glossmeter is a scientific instrument. It measures the reflection of light at a specific angle. The difference between 80% GU and 88% GU is exactly a 10% increase in the reflection when looking at the angle the instrument is adjusted to. Now, how is a 10% increase in the reflection perceived by the human eye? I don't know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossmeter

I am tempted to try Adam’s Polishes Graphene Ceramic Spray Coating, but it is highly toxic, with dire warnings on the bottle! He wore a gas mask while applying it.

 

[Gokhan]

Here is how my 2021 Prius Prime Limited Blue Magnetism looks immediately after Turtle Wax Ice Seal N Shine is applied, before the usual 24-hour curing period. I think it is a good, durable product that is fairly easy to use. It's available at Walmart.

 

[Eddie]

Didn't NuFinish make the cut or was it just omitted? Ed

 

[oesman]

This is actually my website, funny seeing it it here today. I can answer some questions:

My waxes didn't make the cut. Meguiar's, Mothers, and Griot's Garage.

Didn't NuFinish make the cut or was it just omitted? Ed

I've got an ever growing list of waxes to test. I think my backlog is something like 50+ waxes at the moment, ranked by how often they're asked about. I do have a bottle of NuFinish should should be in the next test or possibly test after that. I have I think just one Griot's product tested, no Mothers, but I do have two Meguiar's products in there.

The "score" is largely based on how many washes it lasts. "Looks Good?" and "Easy to Use?" only affect the rating by a single point. A product can look like junk and be incredibly fussy to apply, but if it lasts a few more washes, it's rated higher?

It could be difficult to apply, poor "looks good", low gloss, but if it lasted 150 washes, his rating system would easily score it above anything else.

How do "gloss units" work? Of all the product tested, the highest has a GU of 93.7 and the lowest is 82.7. That's 11 units or about 12%, but what does that mean? The control is 90 GU or 94 GU. That makes the delta even less. Can I see an 8% difference in gloss units? This is also done on a pristine finish. What the GU on a hood that's been in the environment for three years? What's the improvement when using a wax on this type of finish?

Most "tests" are subjective observations. GU is the only actual objective test and it determines a result of little value. I like the idea and the effort, but the scoring all seems a bit arbitrary to pick winners and losers.

Example: Adam's Spray Wax has 92.5 GU, only lasts 2 washes, and gets a rating of 2.7. Adam's Slick & Slide has 87.9 GU, is hard to apply, lasts 28 washes, and gets a score of 27.9. Is Slick & Slide 10 times "better"? According to the score it is. What if you're looking for a quick gloss boost for your car because you're at a cars and coffee event and want it to look prime for the day? Which is better?

You're not wrong, durability is the single biggest factor in my testing today, followed by gloss. It tends to be the quality most, but not all people, find important. For instance the Spray Wax you mentioned with 2 wash durability would be disqualified by most people since they would have to reapply the product constantly. Some people with show cars may be ok with that, or those that like to wax their cars a lot, but there are prettier products for those purposes. The Slick & Slide actually only failed visual appeal, not ease of application, it is easy to use. Some people trade visual appeal for durability if it's cheap enough or easy enough to attain for a daily driver, especially in harsh climates where cars are always dirty anyway.

This is why I show a broken out table and include a video for each product. You can decide for yourself if shopping that particular product. For example Fusso Coat original formula is very well regarded, even though it's not as shiny as many other products. I'm not the first one to note this. However, people are willing to source it from Asia and Eastern Europe and wait weeks, or in the case of one of my friends, almost 2 months.

Gloss Units are not the only factor for visual quality, but it is an objective quality since it can be measured (like durability). Paint that has been well cared for, even 3 year old paint, should be in the 90-100 GU range. Paint that has weathered over a decade or prematurely aged due to abuse may be in the low 80s or worse. Everyone's eyes are a little different, but the higher the overall gloss the harder it is to tell. On low gloss surfaces even small differences in gloss are very noticable. For well polished car paint I would say 5GU is perceivable, but not very noticable. Meaning if I showed you a taped off line where the gloss changes you will probably notice it but won't go "oh wow that's huge". It is definitely easier to polish a turd and have people go "wow what a difference" than a brand new car, but even a brand new car can look better.

This is because gloss units aren't all that account for the subjective visual appeal pass/fail rating that I give. Some products that aren't very glossy create thicker coatings, and although they may reflect a tiny bit less light those thicker products often look very pretty. You get a candy looking appearance like the clear coat got thicker, with very easy to see depth added to the paint. You can see the difference before and after with the taped off line I mentioned.

Yes, that point-rating system is a little bizarre. They should have given more weight to the visual, feel, and ease of use categories and not make it yes or no.

Perhaps the reason he gives such a high rating to the durability is that if a wax is not durable, it neither looks good or protects against elements after a short while.

He does have YouTube videos for every product though, and he gives you a better idea of the look, feel, and ease of use of the waxes. You should watch them before you buy a particular wax.

He gives the exact gloss units in the ratings. Glossmeter is a scientific instrument. It measures the reflection of light at a specific angle. The difference between 80% GU and 88% GU is exactly a 10% increase in the reflection when looking at the angle the instrument is adjusted to. Now, how is a 10% increase in the reflection perceived by the human eye? I don't know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossmeter

I am tempted to try Adam’s Polishes Graphene Ceramic Spray Coating, but it is highly toxic, with dire warnings on the bottle! He wore a gas mask while applying it.

The problem is like @MrHorspwer noted; Slickness, visual appeal, ease of application, are all subjective opinions. For visual appeal some people don't like that thicker products make their paint look darker for example. It's really hard to quantify visual appeal. It's like ranking models on a number scale, some guys have a thing for blondes and others brunettes. This is why I can't give it an out of 10 score (or similar) because to me it would be even sillier. Essentially I just fail products for what is in my opinion are unacceptable visual qualities, like looking ashy and/or clearly duller than the taped off area for instance. If the product manages to make the paint look better then I pass it.

I am looking to expand my objective testing and have some heat and UV related tests cooking up that should hopefully expand the scoring very soon! I would like to figure out a way to objectively measure slickness, but haven't been able to come up with a repeatable objective test that gives good results so far. Professional tribometers are quite pricey, but I'm looking into those too.

As for the Adam's Graphene Ceramic Spray, it is very noxious without adequate ventilation or protection. I would say do it outside with just a basic N95 to avoid big droplets as you apply it to your applicator. Indoors I would definitely go with a chem cart on a respirator because it is super noxious.

 

[MattPersman]

This is actually my website, funny seeing it it here today. I can answer some questions:




I've got an ever growing list of waxes to test. I think my backlog is something like 50+ waxes at the moment, ranked by how often they're asked about. I do have a bottle of NuFinish should should be in the next test or possibly test after that. I have I think just one Griot's product tested, no Mothers, but I do have two Meguiar's products in there.



You're not wrong, durability is the single biggest factor in my testing today, followed by gloss. It tends to be the quality most, but not all people, find important. For instance the Spray Wax you mentioned with 2 wash durability would be disqualified by most people since they would have to reapply the product constantly. Some people with show cars may be ok with that, or those that like to wax their cars a lot, but there are prettier products for those purposes. The Slick & Slide actually only failed visual appeal, not ease of application, it is easy to use. Some people trade visual appeal for durability if it's cheap enough or easy enough to attain for a daily driver, especially in harsh climates where cars are always dirty anyway.

This is why I show a broken out table and include a video for each product. You can decide for yourself if shopping that particular product. For example Fusso Coat original formula is very well regarded, even though it's not as shiny as many other products. I'm not the first one to note this. However, people are willing to source it from Asia and Eastern Europe and wait weeks, or in the case of one of my friends, almost 2 months.

Gloss Units are not the only factor for visual quality, but it is an objective quality since it can be measured (like durability). Paint that has been well cared for, even 3 year old paint, should be in the 90-100 GU range. Paint that has weathered over a decade or prematurely aged due to abuse may be in the low 80s or worse. Everyone's eyes are a little different, but the higher the overall gloss the harder it is to tell. On low gloss surfaces even small differences in gloss are very noticable. For well polished car paint I would say 5GU is perceivable, but not very noticable. Meaning if I showed you a taped off line where the gloss changes you will probably notice it but won't go "oh wow that's huge". It is definitely easier to polish a turd and have people go "wow what a difference" than a brand new car, but even a brand new car can look better.

This is because gloss units aren't all that account for the subjective visual appeal pass/fail rating that I give. Some products that aren't very glossy create thicker coatings, and although they may reflect a tiny bit less light those thicker products often look very pretty. You get a candy looking appearance like the clear coat got thicker, with very easy to see depth added to the paint. You can see the difference before and after with the taped off line I mentioned.



The problem is like @MrHorspwer noted; Slickness, visual appeal, ease of application, are all subjective opinions. For visual appeal some people don't like that thicker products make their paint look darker for example. It's really hard to quantify visual appeal. It's like ranking models on a number scale, some guys have a thing for blondes and others brunettes. This is why I can't give it an out of 10 score (or similar) because to me it would be even sillier. Essentially I just fail products for what is in my opinion are unacceptable visual qualities, like looking ashy and/or clearly duller than the taped off area for instance. If the product manages to make the paint look better then I pass it.

I am looking to expand my objective testing and have some heat and UV related tests cooking up that should hopefully expand the scoring very soon! I would like to figure out a way to objectively measure slickness, but haven't been able to come up with a repeatable objective test that gives good results so far. Professional tribometers are quite pricey, but I'm looking into those too.

As for the Adam's Graphene Ceramic Spray, it is very noxious without adequate ventilation or protection. I would say do it outside with just a basic N95 to avoid big droplets as you apply it to your applicator. Indoors I would definitely go with a chem cart on a respirator because it is super noxious.

Thanks for doing this it’s great

 

[gofast182]

Interesting results compared to my own experience.

On the traditional wax/sealant side, I own Jescar Power Lock+ and Wolfgang Deep Gloss 3.0 and have years of experience with each. While Wolfgang starts with slightly more gloss to my eye (and the results do show that part), it has never outlasted Power Lock in terms of durability.

I just posted a review of Xtreme Solutions Poly Seal before this was posted. I find it astounding it lasted that long in testing. In the real world, on my car, there's no way Poly Seal will last that long.

What are being called ceramic coatings are NOT true ceramic coatings. The products listed are not solvent based, resin delivered coatings. They are all sprays. In the overwhelming majority of cases, if it doesn't come in a little glass bottle (with the exception of Can Coat and a couple others) it is not a true ceramic coating.

 

[oesman]

Thanks for doing this it’s great

Thanks Matt

Interesting results compared to my own experience.

On the traditional wax/sealant side, I own Jescar Power Lock+ and Wolfgang Deep Gloss 3.0 and have years of experience with each. While Wolfgang starts with slightly more gloss to my eye (and the results do show that part), it has never outlasted Power Lock in terms of durability.

I just posted a review of Xtreme Solutions Poly Seal before this was posted. I find it astounding it lasted that long in testing. In the real world, on my car, there's no way Poly Seal will last that long.

What are being called ceramic coatings are NOT true ceramic coatings. The products listed are not solvent based, resin delivered coatings. They are all sprays. In the overwhelming majority of cases, if it doesn't come in a little glass bottle (with the exception of Can Coat and a couple others) it is not a true ceramic coating.

Personal results are always going to vary and I totally believe what you're seeing in your use case. All of this depends on real world conditions, unfortunately its hard to compare products that way. For instance if I run Jescar in the summer it may not last as long as Wolfgang in the winter. Or I may wash my car more times during a particular period. Maybe I'll drive on the beach and hit some salt water and scrub my truck really well after. I recently found a popular shampoo that had isopropyl alcohol in it as a foaming agent , it does foam well, but your wax will hate it . There's just no standard way to compare. Furthermore there are so many products you just can't test them this way with any consistency.

My goal is to have a standardized abrasion test with a pretty simple shampoo that was tested to be pH neutral with my tap water and dilution. This limits all the other factors that may be unique to personal uses. For a personal use case though, maybe in your situation the Jescar is better. Maybe whatever your environment is like the result is that it's longer lasting. I know you guys have real winters in NJ for example unlike Houston.

As far as ceramic coatings, I totally agree with you. Very few of the spray products calling themselves coatings provide anywhere near the protection. There are a couple, but they are so concentrated and pungent with solvent that they need the same protection as the little bottles and the nozzles tend to clog. So I suspect they may be pretty close to the same concentration.

 

[PimTac]

As for the Adam's Graphene Ceramic Spray, it is very noxious without adequate ventilation or protection. I would say do it outside with just a basic N95 to avoid big droplets as you apply it to your applicator. Indoors I would definitely go with a chem cart on a respirator because it is super noxious.

This part is interesting because it seems to go against the grain of what most products are evolving to and by that I mean environmentally and human friendly. This one aspect might be a deterrent for consumers once word gets out.

 

[Gokhan]

This part is interesting because it seems to go against the grain of what most products are evolving to and by that I mean environmentally and human friendly. This one aspect might be a deterrent for consumers once word gets out.

Yeah, I was thinking about it, but now that I know it's a hazardous substance, I'll probably pass. In any case I can't imagine putting the microfiber cloths used to apply this product in my washer and dryer by my kitchen. I even questioned myself afterwards when I did that to wash the microfiber cloths used to apply Turtle Wax Ice Seal N Shine.

 

[oesman]

I think in general it's best to acknowledge PPE and risks around detailing. Polishing paint without a respirator isn't a great idea either. The question is how often do you do it and do you want to invest in PPE to reduce risks. For example with a chem cart and a p100 cart you can't smell anything, regardless of how noxious. Coating wise I think the liquid applicators are probably better in this regard since you don't aerosolize as much vs. spraying it on an applicator. I'm not even sure why that Adam's product is a spray since they don't instruct you to spray it on the panel, it could just as well use a dropper tip I'm sure. Maybe to differentiate the products.

I see people applying this stuff without any PPE and I'm not sure how they tolerate how noxious it is. There are folks who spray paint without any protection too :-/ and let's face it spray paint in every hardware store, auto parts store, etc... As far as washing the towels, I'd say the big hazard is the solvent aspect which should evaporate. Another unforeseen aspect could also be any inhalation issues around small aerosolized particles. Why was asbestos bad? Because it's small and sharp and tears into the cells in your lungs and causes cancer that way. If some of these products really use "nanotechnology" and have particularly small particles there may be yet to be discovered risks.

There are some concerns around graphene for this very reason. Though keep in mind graphene detailing products are using graphite oxide and not actual graphene. Much like coatings aren't really using straight up SiO2 despite all the "how much SiO2 does X product have" debates, it's actually various organosilicon compounds, i.e. *siloxanes/silanols/siloxides, for instance aminoalkoxydimethylpolysiloxane, octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane, etc...

 

[bbhero]

Very, very, good post ^^^^^^^↑^^^^^



I would believe It's not just particles I would be concerned about...
The inhalation of aerosolized droplets.... That are less than 5 microns in size. Or even down to 400 nanometers in size.

A very well made and properly fitted n95 mask is highly efficient down to 300 nanometers. With a beta ratio over 75 at that size droplet or particle.

 

[Gokhan]

@oesman, first of all thank you very much for the great hard work you are doing at Dmitry's Garage! The wax ratings are very useful.

I have a question. About 27 hours after I applied Turtle Wax Ice Seal N Shine, I drove the car on a cold (~ 57 °F), humid night. As soon as I got out of the garage, condensation occurred on the paint. It was really a lot of condensation, and the paint looked very cloudy and uneven, especially on horizontal panels. I was looking at other cars and no other car had as much condensation as mine. In fact there was one very well-taken-care-of silver SUV, probably detailed, that was parked out there in the parking lot, and there was no condensation on it whatsoever! How can this be? Do some waxes attract moisture more than others? Is this because it was only a day after the wax was applied? Did I do something wrong? The car certainly doesn't look good when it is so cloudy. Here are some pictures. Note that I also waxed the black grill around the Toyota emblem. I rubbed my finger on the mirror to show the condensation. The next day the paint looked normal. Perhaps it looked a little lighter than without the wax.

 

[gofast182]

Thanks Matt


Personal results are always going to vary and I totally believe what you're seeing in your use case. All of this depends on real world conditions, unfortunately its hard to compare products that way. For instance if I run Jescar in the summer it may not last as long as Wolfgang in the winter. Or I may wash my car more times during a particular period. Maybe I'll drive on the beach and hit some salt water and scrub my truck really well after. I recently found a popular shampoo that had isopropyl alcohol in it as a foaming agent , it does foam well, but your wax will hate it . There's just no standard way to compare. Furthermore there are so many products you just can't test them this way with any consistency.

My goal is to have a standardized abrasion test with a pretty simple shampoo that was tested to be pH neutral with my tap water and dilution. This limits all the other factors that may be unique to personal uses. For a personal use case though, maybe in your situation the Jescar is better. Maybe whatever your environment is like the result is that it's longer lasting. I know you guys have real winters in NJ for example unlike Houston.

As far as ceramic coatings, I totally agree with you. Very few of the spray products calling themselves coatings provide anywhere near the protection. There are a couple, but they are so concentrated and pungent with solvent that they need the same protection as the little bottles and the nozzles tend to clog. So I suspect they may be pretty close to the same concentration.

Thanks for acknowledging my points/observations. It's not always easy to even take constructive criticism, especially when you put a good deal of effort into something like you have here.

 

[Wylie6G72]

Thanks for putting this together. I'm always interested in durability, as some of my vehicles get washed often, and one sits outside 24/7. It helps a lot to have data.

This is actually my website, funny seeing it it here today. I can answer some questions:

 

[PimTac]

This is a very instructive thread.

@Gokhan , I haven’t had the condensation issue on mine but I’ve noticed that pollen seems to attract to the body surface more more with the Griots 3 in 1 Ceramic. Just overnight after I washed and sprayed the car I go out to see the dusting. It seems to stick rather than blow off while driving. A quick wash takes care of things but I don’t recall this happening with other products.