#7 over Tech Wax?

[Detail_Guy]

Here's my response...

Not sure if Meguiar's has it right or wrong with their definition of polishes, but I can tell you this... there are no cleaners or abrasives in #7... period!

[Fly bye]

there are no cleaners or abrasives in #7... period!

I would say you are 100% correct

The point I was trying to make, is that differen't companys use the same exact name for a product that perform two entirely different functions. For example, Megs #7 has "Pure Polish" right on the bottle. We know that it does not contain chemical cleaners, or abrasives, whereas a product like, say XMT for example, their polish does contain diminishing abrasives. So the industry is kind of misleading.

Now, you look up the word "Polish" in the dictionary, as I already posted, the definition is this; "To make smooth and glossy usually by "friction"

Pretty much most, if not all the companys I have come across, define the word "Polish" as the way Websters defines it.

The intent of my original post was to point out this misnomer.

[Wolf-Strong]

The misunderstanding here seems to be in the fact that what some consider cleaners, others consider polishes. M7 has no ability to remove any imperfection, or protection from the surface. I also never said anything about pure carnauba waxes; the two waxes I did mention are not even carnauba based waxes, rather a blended wax LSP. The truth is, the carnauba is taken down to a useable level with many different types of methods, many of which include solvents, not oils. The oils are there to help lubricate the surface, which many manufactorers use. What I have found different about M26 and M16 is while they do have carnauba in them, it is a very little amount, and the wax itself is actually a polymer based wax (with a fair amount of Silicone if I am not mistaken).

I am not going to argue on who is right or wrong in their definitions, and I believe people around here already have formed their opinions on that matter. For me, I use the term cleaners for products that remove paint, which can infact be done with chemical cleaners (which do not contain abrassives), and with abrassives. Abrassives being defined as essentially little objects that dig into the paint to level it out, whereas a chemical cleaner may be defined as a soap, which will clean out surface etchings, but not much more (very loose analogy).

On a final note with M7, the cleaning ability people do experience with it tends to be in their method of application. If you use M7 on a wool or cutting pad, of course you are going to see some cleaning action happen. Apply M7 by hand with a finishing foam pad, and you will not, unless of course you start putting your 150lb weight into it, then of couse some cleaning action will happen. M7 in itself has no ability to remove imperfections. Adding NXT will also not effect M7's look either, as whatever cleaning ability is in NXT is so mild, many don't even consider it. Even a mild cleaner wax won't take much effect if it uses chemical cleaners, though once you start removing paint with anything more agressive than that, you are then removing the paint which M7 absorbed into, which will of course then remove its wet look.

[ricka]

From what I've found so far (and verified in other posts), Meg #5 or #7 doesn't add much if anything to a nice clear coat. It's mostly formulated for single stage paint. Guess its okay to use if you're convinced more is better, but I just don't see the big advantage.

To me it doesn't even add a worthwhile slickness either.

Just my 2c.

[Detail_Guy]

Yep, #7 is essentially a layer of oils for gloss enhancement and the temporary filling of imperfections. It is made to be used under Tech wax (or other carnauba's).

[zaxjax]

I belonged to a Hot Rod car club and 90% of the old Hot Rods are painted in a single stage. Many of those owners will use #7 for show purposes only to enhance shine and clarity. It offers no cleaning properties, and is not meant to, and does not provide any durablity.