[net.auto] liquid vs. paste wax

kitten@hao.UUCP (08/24/85)

**
This week I used liquid wax on my car for the first time.  I had been
using RAIN DANCE paste on my 74 Mustang for the past 5 years.  A friend
talked me into trying a liquid, as the paste took lotsa elbow grease to
use.  I was very surprised and pleased with the results.

This time I bought RAIN DANCE liquid.  I found it applied easily, and
required less water (dampening the applicator) than paste.  As a matter
of fact, I found that unless you use a very small amount, it could
lead to buffing problems.

My car is 11 years old, and has different ages of paint on it (due to
uninsured 20's-ish males).  Some of the original paint is still there,
as it is so thin you can see the (gray) primer through it.  Some of the
paint is as new as '83 (someone's target practice).  The paint is brown
metallic (bronze).  With the paste, I have had all sorts of buffing
problems, mostly what I refer to as "spiking".  Spiking is when 'lines'
of paste form, following the buffing motion, and are tough to buff
down.  I feel the main cause of this is the abrasives in the paste.
The other problem is 'missed' spots...even though it looks like you
buffed there, sure enough, the next day, here's this unbuffed spot.
Also, there's the problem of over-applying.  This can be easy to do,
and hard work to fix...especially if you have oxidized paint.  Most
car waxes are designed to remove a thin layer of paint that is oxidized
to let the shiny layer underneath show through.  Also, this can be
usefull for removing tar and bugs *to an extent*.  It's really best
to use bug & tar remover if you have more than a moderate accumilation.

The liquid paste applied like a dream.  It was hard to over-apply, just
because it was a liquid.  It buffed fairly easily, unless I used too
much water, then I tended to have water spot marks that had to be
buffed down.  The paint seemed to 'take' it right in, I got the
impression that the paint was being 'nurished' as it should.  But
as I buffed the hood and front fenders, I noticed something that
I hadn't seen with the paste - depth.  I could really see the depth
of the paint.  The oldest paint is on the doors and the left rear
fender, and it left an over-shine (no depth, but shiny on the
surface), which got 'deeper' the further I got down.  Understand-
ably the part of the doors and fender that didn't have the sun
beating down on it had better reflection properties.  The only
thing it didn't do was 'clean' (deoxidize).  I am assuming that
it is too difficult to suspend abrasives into a liquid wax.
However, considering how thin the paint is now, I should probably
just keep using the liquid and make sure to keep it beading.

In conclusion, I would recommend the paste for a first and occational
application, with the liquid as the usual wax.  I've been pretty
happy with the brand in the past, and even more so with the liquid.
There are a few tips and warnings about waxing:

1) Paste is more water-sensitive when buffing.  Water can be held
in moldings, and drip out when you're buffing.  This will cause
it to remove paint (as the wax is a lubercant, and the water causes
friction).

2) The best thing to buff with is flannel.  I use an old nightgown.
It is big enough to go a couple of waxings between washings.  Don't
use harsh detergents, or machine dry.  This can make the fabric
tough.  I'm still considering whether or not to use rinse fabric
softener.

3) Both the paste and liquid causes 'dust'.  Brush away frequently
with your buffing cloth.

4) Remember to keep the paint beading.  Things like machanic's
greasy hand prints can become perminent parts of your car's
finish if the paint is dry and 'thirsty'.  Paint is, after all,
and oil-based product.

Well, geez, this has gotten long.  Thanks for reading.