Balboni detailed - Lots of pics

Parisien

Moderator
Messages
34,927
Simply stunning Dan......money very well spent...........I expect to see a weekly pic of your pride and joy being kept to the above standard!!!!!!


:)


P
 

conaero

Forum Owner
Messages
34,639
Saw it fresh from the detailers on Friday, miles better. Mine was swirly but Dans was much worse.

Just so you know, the wax he used, HD he refers to, is Autoglym HD Wax. He used Fury on mine which is £70 a tin and says the Autoglym HD wax is as good if not better and half the price. The Harley's is good but this stuff is awesome.

I drove to Bristol and the water was just sheeting off the car like it had Rainx on it! And I think £40 for a pot of wax is not extortionate neither.
 

Andyk

Member
Messages
61,174
Must say Matt I use to use Autoglym HD wax until I found Harlys and found Harly better.....Saying that though your GT S had full detail so would have ,ade a big difference once the wax went on.......Autoglym was good mond you..Think it was £39 a tin.
 

Parisien

Moderator
Messages
34,927
Not bad prices considering the quality of finish you end up with....but frequently its ease of application/buffing it off that makes a real difference........so which one went on/came off easiest Andy?


P
 

conaero

Forum Owner
Messages
34,639
I think modern waxes and sealants have moved on alot of recent. I don't know about durability but their water repelling capabilities are miles better than the waxes of old.

The Harley's has a very high petroleum content, you can smell it, and it's not good for the cars paint....according to Newton.
 

2b1ask1

Special case
Messages
20,283
Auto glym and others are petroleum based compounds, don't know about Harley's as I've not used it myself. Difficulty with these compounds is the mixture is easily put out of balance by evaporation our residue of previous treatments.

Fundamentally any wax is good news for modern paints.

Polishes are not unless you are removing scratches etc....

Old celulose paints were about 4 x the thickness of a hair, modern water based paint systems are less than one all in!!!
 

Andyk

Member
Messages
61,174
Not bad prices considering the quality of finish you end up with....but frequently its ease of application/buffing it off that makes a real difference........so which one went on/came off easiest Andy?


P

Harleys Frank..Or though there wasn't much in it....I'm tempted to get some expensive one just to see if it makes a big difference....
 

2b1ask1

Special case
Messages
20,283
So whats that in microns Newton......;)....?


P

Human hair = 80-150 um
Celulose paint = 250-400 um (up to 800 um for repairs or old Rolls Royce)
Modern multi-pack & water based around 100 um but 10 years ago Porsche he'd it down to 85 um to save weight!
 

rotorheadcase

Junior Member
Messages
415
I'm a big fan of the Autoglym HD wax. Great filling capabilities and leave a warm wet shine. I'm a converted nano technology sealant user these days as you can't beat their longevity or ease of use.

Neil
 

Emtee

New Member
Messages
8,446
Your Balboni looks absolutely prime Dan. Will it dissuade you from frequenting our friendly Polish community? :D
 

Emtee

New Member
Messages
8,446
Newton, a question if i may...

If modern paint coatings are so thin, why do so many detailers take before / after shots where they've prepped just one half of a panel.... door, bonnet, roof?
Surely there is a risk of leaving a seam line, or working one side of the panel differently to the other?
 

2b1ask1

Special case
Messages
20,283
They are playing a risky game Miles; I hope they have good insurance. The good ones will have a paint thicknesser (electronic tool) and know what they can work with. I would never have done this on a customers car just on demo panels on a show stand.

The fear of a polishing machine is that it will even polish the colour coat, it just would go dull after a few weeks; would this be too late to claim?

Clear coat should be the thickest layer but typically a full machine polish will remove up to 20 um during a paint correction!