Sonax Perfect Finish & Nano Polish vs. Menzerna line ??

[Tato]

Are you sure? Really deception felling while reading your comment above, if that's true, I've planned to test it soon, and I use DA (3401).

I was based mainly at AG product description, which, based on your statement, is terribly wrong...

'Sonax Perfect Finish is the quintessential example of a one-step polishing compound. A traditional polishing system requires a second finishing step from a finer polish to maximize gloss and clarity. That’s not the case with Sonax Perfect Finish! Sonax Perfect Finish, when paired with the appropriate foam or microfiber pad on a dual-action or rotary polisher, is capable of impressing even the most discriminating enthusiast with its cutting and finishing abilities, eliminating the need for a multi-step system.

Sonax Perfect Finish, best car polish


It also has cut 4 on a 6 maximum scale, which is pretty high for finishing polishes rating. I thought Sonax had Nano for that function.

Sonax Perfect Finish is rated at an impressive 4 for cut and an impeccable 6 for finish. Going by Sonax’s scale, a traditional medium-cut polish would rate at around a 2-3 for cut and a 4-5 for finish. Sonax Perfect Finish is proof that you don’t have to sacrifice cut in the name of a perfect finish!

[Kitoy22]

I think that what he was saying is true, sonax perfect finish was primarily developed for a rotary polisher. But it does'nt mean you can't use it with a DA, its just that you will be able to maximize the polish more with a rotary polisher compared to DA polisher. Since it is a DAT you will be able to breakdown the polish with a rotary polisher, and finish may be a little bit better due to consistent rotation of the pad. It just means if you will use a DA, it may just take a little more time to breakdown the polish, this isn't really a problem, its just a minor tweak in your technique if you are used to using a smat polish. But if your using a long throw DA, breaking down the polish will be faster.

[porta]

Depending on where in the world you are, there are different cut and different designations for each of their compounds and polishes. In fact, it is really something to look at their complete line and see just all that they offer.

Thats why I wrote the code PO203S wich is the Power finish you guys in North america used to have. Menzerna USA is now importing PO203 who have less cut but higher gloss then PO203S.

As said by Kito22. Perfect finish have a similar cut or slightly more cut the PF2500, ie something like PF2400 but higher gloss. I can second on this. The gloss is similar to SF4000. But the biggest advantage Sonax have over Menzerna is that it's fast working and their is no need for longer polishing cycles. When using a rotary, I polish no longer then two minutes. Sonax are saying 90 seconds - no longer. The removal is also much better easier then Menzerna, similar or easier then Meguiars #205, wich is dead easy to remove. Then filling? I have not noticed any dreadful and deceiving filling that lasts for months. Use a proper prepp product, alkalie wash, silicone remover and you are a good to go for a coating. Remember that Sonax have using coatings since around 2005 with no bonding issues.

And no, nano polish is not perfect finish with out fillers.


@ Tato I was comparing the equivalent product from Sonax vs Menzerna in terms of cut and gloss. I have not used the nano polish from Sonax so much but I have a updated version (low dust) thats want to be used.

[Tato]

Glad to hear from you, very nice info here.

Thanks for considerations, I've just asked because if you tell me to compare WG Uber Compound to FG400, I would say like you did:

WG Uber Compound = FG400

Not being exactly equal, but have 95% similarities.

When I saw your x = y answer, I thought of something like cited above.

Thanks for clarifying things for me.

Kind Regards.

[The Critic]

Are you sure? Really deception felling while reading your comment above, if that's true, I've planned to test it soon, and I use DA (3401).

I was based mainly at AG product description, which, based on your statement, is terribly wrong...

'Sonax Perfect Finish is the quintessential example of a one-step polishing compound. A traditional polishing system requires a second finishing step from a finer polish to maximize gloss and clarity. That’s not the case with Sonax Perfect Finish! Sonax Perfect Finish, when paired with the appropriate foam or microfiber pad on a dual-action or rotary polisher, is capable of impressing even the most discriminating enthusiast with its cutting and finishing abilities, eliminating the need for a multi-step system.

Sonax Perfect Finish, best car polish


It also has cut 4 on a 6 maximum scale, which is pretty high for finishing polishes rating. I thought Sonax had Nano for that function.

Sonax Perfect Finish is rated at an impressive 4 for cut and an impeccable 6 for finish. Going by Sonax’s scale, a traditional medium-cut polish would rate at around a 2-3 for cut and a 4-5 for finish. Sonax Perfect Finish is proof that you don’t have to sacrifice cut in the name of a perfect finish!

Sonax PF was originally designed to be used in a body shop environment on a rotary, and is capable of removing 2000-grit sand scratches on fresh paint. Rumor has it that it will soon be the #1 body shop product in Europe. Sonax USA’s website has the most accurate information on the intended use for the product, and I can assure you that it was rotary only – and it even says so on the back label.

For all practical purposes, it’s really a finishing polish for the detailing community. Sure, the amount of correction you get is going to vary by paint hardness, but don’t expect this product to be the magic potion that will replace a lot of your med/heavy polishes.

The belief that you can get a product that can cut like a compound, but finish like 85rd, is really just a pipe dream.

It is true that Sonax PF has a very quick worktime. I think the 90 second figure is about right if you are using it on a rotary or a Flex. On a DA, I would be careful since the product may not fully breakdown.

The problem with using these light to med finishing polishes on heavier defects, is that they may be filling the defects. The residual oils and fillers can sometimes be extremely difficult to remove, and your true result may be masked. Originally, I thought that silicones are the only fillers, but apparently there are other materials that can potentially give a body shop safe product the ability to fill.

[Tato]

Oh well, that's good information.

Rest assured I've learned a lot from your words, and my questions earlier were only to get the most from your message. Your lesson was very important for me, thanks for taking your time on that.

By the way, I'll be using Flex 3401,

Kind Regards.

[RaskyR1]

Sonax PF is a rotary only product. Sonax is launching a new Profiline EX 4/6 product that is suppose to be DA friendly.

There has been some chatter by some very respected industry professionals that Sonax PF has a tendency to fill in the same manner as Ultrafina. That is, the fillers are extremely durable and it can be difficult to confirm that correction has actually taken place.

However, keep in mind that the product was designed to be used as a fine cut finishing polish on a rotary. Using the product outside of its intended use can leave to undesirable consequences.

I'm Sorry, I had hoped to avoid these threads but I feel the above in bold is a bunch of BS which really comes off as an sorry attempt to get past the reports of filling. Many polishes and compounds were originally designed to work specifically with a rotary or DA, but as history has shown it doesn't mean they can't be used with other tools. To come out and say it's designed to be used only with the rotary and that it can potentially fill when used with a DA, sounds like more of an admission that something in the product fills, period. A comment I made elsewhere, "I don't care if I apply it with my bare a$$, regardless of application, if it fills, it fills!"

SPF is so easy to use on a DA what could they possible need to tweak to make it more friendly.

FYI: Utrafina can be a very good polish when used the way it's supposed to be used, as a final finishing polish to remove very fine holograms. I also find SPF to be a very good product when used as a FINISHING polish. IMO It's when people push the product to do the work of a compound and the work of a finishing polish that they get into trouble.

Just my $.02

[pgeorgan]

Sonax PF was originally designed to be used in a body shop environment on a rotary, and is capable of removing 2000-grit sand scratches on fresh paint. Rumor has it that it will soon be the #1 body shop product in Europe. Sonax USA’s website has the most accurate information on the intended use for the product, and I can assure you that it was rotary only – and it even says so on the back label.

Sorry to dig up an old thread. I had to chuckle at this a little.

On the one hand, you accurately point out that the back has a symbol on it indicating it's intended for rotary use. On the other hand, on the very same bottle, it also says, "no fillers".

You're incredulous with respect to the latter, but not the former.

I'm just a hobbyist, but I've used Sonax PF on an Audi RS-line vehicle, as well as a Lexus, and I couldn't be happier with the results. Both using a random orbital. I finished out the Audi with CPro Lite and it looks better 1 year later than the Lexus, which was finished with UK 3.0 and topped with SiC, and literally did last week. Though, I think the differences are a result of the paint color and type. The metallic speckled Lexus colors don't pop all the much.

If there are fillers, and I'm not saying there are, they seem to be of the permanent variety. Some call that nanotechnology and I would actually prefer that to permanently leveling my paint. It would also seem to be the only of it's kind, as I've not actually seen anything like it. Heck, maybe Sonax really has successfully applied nanotech to paint correction, and "Nano Polish" isn't just a gimmick. Kudos to them (sarc).

I think one would be able to dump some powerful solvent onto the paint after Sonax PF and have an answer as to whether there are fillers or not. Pretty bold claim to make, like saying Starbucks puts dirt in its coffee grounds (which is what Folgers does, eg).

[noorth]

Esoteric said in one of their videos Perfect finish has both SMAT and DAT, FYI.

[pgeorgan]

Esoteric said in one of their videos Perfect finish has both SMAT and DAT, FYI.

Link?