Duragloss Enviroshield Ceramic Coating System

[FUNX650]

Bob, I think 105 has some, but very little polishing agents.

The 111 is suppose to be pure sealant.

The real problem about your legitimate concern is that the bonding agent
(601) that both of these are generally used with
does have a stronger polishing agent that is capable of removing old wax.

I may be wrong but I believe Duragloss #111 also has "polishing agents".
However: Duragloss #601 does not list as having any such "polishing agents".

Back to my original concern:
Wouldn't the "polishing agents" in #105, #111, (and #601?) remove, at the very least:
Some of this new Duragloss Coating? How could they not?


Bob

[Shortspark]

I don't really know what is in any of this stuff. All I know is what is contained in product descriptions. For example, here is what AutoGeek says about 601: "Duragloss PBA is completely transparent and undetectable underneath the sealant. It removes old wax, which can cause the final coat of protection to appear cloudy, and thereby enhances the final gloss". Because it says it removes old wax, I have to assume it is either a paint cleaner or maybe it is a true polish and contains abrasive agents of some kind. If it removes wax, no matter what chemical or abrasive process it uses to do so, I have to believe it would also be detrimental to a coating. But again, that is an assumption.

As far as 111 is concerned, I again refer to AutoGeek's description: "Duragloss Clear Coat Polish (111) is what we would call a paint sealant. It actually has no abrasives in it and therefore does not fit what most modern car care specialists define as polishes".

So, if we believe these product descriptions, it would appear the bonding agent would indeed impact adversely on the the coating (or anything else it is put on) and is intended to be used as sort of a cleaner in preparation for an application of sealant. Unlike most paint cleansers, it also assists in the bonding process, at least it does for Duragloss sealants and I would assume it should also assist any other poly-seal product.

Conversely, (and here is yet another assumption from the description) it appears 111 by itself has nothing in it to adversely affect the coating. Having said that and assuming even if it is true, why would one want to put 111, or anything else for that matter, on top of a coating, which if I have read about this correctly, was developed to be a long lasting, stand alone LSP? As I said before, putting something on top of a coating seems to defeat the purpose.

[FUNX650]

I don't really know what is in any of this stuff. All I know is what is contained in product descriptions. For example, here is what AutoGeek says about 601: "Duragloss PBA is completely transparent and undetectable underneath the sealant. It removes old wax, which can cause the final coat of protection to appear cloudy, and thereby enhances the final gloss". Because it says it removes old wax, I have to assume it is either a paint cleaner or maybe it is a true polish and contains abrasive agents of some kind. If it removes wax, no matter what chemical or abrasive process it uses to do so, I have to believe it would also be detrimental to a coating. But again, that is an assumption.

As far as 111 is concerned, I again refer to AutoGeek's description: "Duragloss Clear Coat Polish (111) is what we would call a paint sealant. It actually has no abrasives in it and therefore does not fit what most modern car care specialists define as polishes".

So, if we believe these product descriptions, it would appear the bonding agent would indeed impact adversely on the the coating (or anything else it is put on) and is intended to be used as sort of a cleaner in preparation for an application of sealant. Unlike most paint cleansers, it also assists in the bonding process, at least it does for Duragloss sealants and I would assume it should also assist any other poly-seal product.

Conversely, (and here is yet another assumption from the description) it appears 111 by itself has nothing in it to adversely affect the coating. Having said that and assuming even if it is true, why would one want to put 111, or anything else for that matter, on top of a coating, which if I have read about this correctly, was developed to be a long lasting, stand alone LSP? As I said before, putting something on top of a coating seems to defeat the purpose.

^^^^^^

I agree with you...wholeheartedly...about not "topping/layering" a Coating with another different LSP!!

No matter #111's product description...
According to #111's MSDS:
It has "polishing agents".
Often these two forms of data are in conflict.

But as previously proffered by Mike Phillips:
(and I paraphrase)
"It's not what's on the bottle's label...
It's how the product performs!"


Bob

[BobbyG]

Duragloss 111 is labeled a clear coat polish but it's really just a sealant and has no abrasives. This is sort of confusing considering its name..



Duragloss 111 is a very nice product and leaves a beautiful long lasting shine behind and its durability can be increased by adding Duragloss 601..

[FUNX650]

Duragloss 111 is labeled a clear coat polish but it's really just a sealant and has no abrasives. This is sort of confusing considering its name..



Duragloss 111 is a very nice product and leaves a beautiful long lasting shine behind and its durability can be increased by adding Duragloss 601..

Hi BobbyG...

So are you saying it's best to disregard Duragloss' MSDS regarding #111?

Bob

[KillaCam]

Why are people coating their cars and then adding a sealant? Pointless IMO.
If you want to "rub" on your car just use aquawax as a drying aid.

[Klasse Act]

Why are people coating their cars and then adding a sealant? Pointless IMO.
If you want to "rub" on your car just use aquawax as a drying aid.

Good point Killa and you know what, these coatings are going to make me re-think my whole way of doing things. Its looking like all I'll need after applying the coating from DG is do rinseless washes and apply AW, that's it. If that's the case, I need to sell off my LSP's, sounds like a fire sale is coming, LOL!

Although a different coating I applied 2x's DPPC to my old CR-Z last November and we had a brutal winter like everyone else did in the midwest/northeast and the car cleaned up VERY easily and the shine was awesome! I never used a paint prep either but would encourage people to use it and I ofcoarse have the Squeaky Clean as well as DP paint prep to go along with the DPPC now.

Once the DGPC is applied this Sunday I'll be reporting from time to time about looks and water beading/sheeting/etc, this is where having a single thread with everyone reporting their reuslts/impressions of this new coating from DG.

Sent from my SPH-M930 using AG Online

[1kwikf]

just wanted to add that I placed my order for this coating today. I will be using it on a 2013 ford focus not bad for $38

[Klasse Act]

just wanted to add that I placed my order for this coating today. I will be using it on a 2013 ford focus not bad for $38

The price of this kit is unbelievable, then factor is FIVE DOLLARS for shipping, you've got nothing to lose and everything to gain!!

Sent from my SPH-M930 using AG Online

[Klasse Act]

Ok, just got another email from Bill and he said to just wash the car with their #901 wash but I live in an apartment and have to use rinseless, so I asked it that was ok to use, waiting on answer but I for one will continue to use their rinseless wash as I live in an apartment and even if I didnt', I'd have NO desire to go back to conventional methods. I should also pass along that he said for me to NOT even use AW on the car once its coated, very surprising info right there!

What do you guys think about all of this?