# 3M Ultrafina SE - Does It Fill Or Not?



## Dave KG (Feb 23, 2006)

Okay, I'm looking for answers based on experience of use of the product here, as if you read the forums you will get conflicting information about this product with many saying that it does not fill, and others claiming that it does - and I think its something rather important to get to the bottom of as if we use a polish which is filling without knowing about it we can see some fairly nasty drop-back and swirls returning on cars which have been machine polished.

In my experience of using 3M Ultrafina SE, and from pretty thorough testing of it, I cannot seem to see a filling aspect to it... however, I do work polishes for a very long time so part of this may be that I am working the abrasives to full remove everything using them and effectively render any fillers that it contains as obselete. This would mean that I dont see any evidence of the fillers even if they do exist.

Those with shorter polish working times may therefore have a different experience of the product and see evidence of its filling properties, and I am very keen to know if it does indeed have these as for correction details where I am not looking for any filling, I would certainly not wish to have a filler product being used. So - what are people's experiences of this product? Fillers or not?? And what working method do you have for it, as my research thus far is suggesting this is having an affect, as if it does indeed have a filling aspect to it, then the long work time method I have is rendering them obselete.

Now, a good IPA wipedown after polishing can go a long way to dealing with fillers, but you can imagine on a detail if you have spent 4 hours perfecting the finish only to realise its partly filled after a five minute IPA wipedown, you are going to be none to happy about going back with another polish...

Interested to hear people's experiences here, as its one of these products that does get rave reviews (rightly so _in my opinion_, its a strong performer in my experience of it) but there does seem to be a blatant inconsistency in people's beliefs of what exactly it contains.

Fillers or not? Discuss.


----------



## ads2k (Jul 12, 2006)

From my limited time with using this product I have found 'NO' fillers present. This is my goto finishing polish for my car, maybe it works extremely well on the softish paint on the S2K. I like to extended work time, ease of use and great finish it leaves. I always check with a good IPA wipe down to check all is ok.

I would agree with Dave on this it has 'NO' fillers.


----------



## Clark @ PB (Mar 1, 2006)

I've found it to have no filling abilities and like yourself, I work it thoroughly and for a good length of time. 

The only drop back I've found with the 3M's (the 3 I use anyways) is with Fast Cut Plus, it produces an oily haze after a few hours if you dont follow up with an IPA/Top Inspection wipe down. This isnt a big deal for me as it always gets followed up with a final finish polish and Top Inspection wipe down anyways. 


I think some people get confused with the Ultrafina and the older "machine polish" (cant remember the number) which contains quite alot of fillers...


----------



## Finerdetails (Apr 30, 2006)

Clark said:


> I've found it to have no filling abilities and like yourself, I work it thoroughly and for a good length of time.
> 
> The only drop back I've found with the 3M's (the 3 I use anyways) is with Fast Cut Plus, it produces an oily haze after a few hours if you dont follow up with an IPA/Top Inspection wipe down. This isnt a big deal for me as it always gets followed up with a final finish polish and Top Inspection wipe down anyways.
> 
> I think some people get confused with the Ultrafina and the older "machine polish" (cant remember the number) which contains quite alot of fillers...


agreed

The cut and finish from Ultrafina is very similar to Menz 106ff, but I find its easier and quicker to use than the menz.

As for the FCP, I dont kknow how some use and dont refine, its not that sharp a finish that I could ever go straight to LSP from it.


----------



## toni (Oct 30, 2005)

Maybe you guys should post some product numbers so there's no confusion. I belive the PN are not the same for US and EU market. The product could also differ allthough both have the same marketing name.


----------



## Clark @ PB (Mar 1, 2006)

I find that 106ff has a good bit more cut than ultrafina to be honest, and I think the UF needs worked longer than the Menz to get the best from it. UF is more like 85RD in my eyes but again, the Menz has a bit more cut from my experiences.

FCP will finish down LSP ready on the harder paints and look good to most people, but a finishing polish makes a hell of a difference to the clarity and gloss for sure


----------



## Clark @ PB (Mar 1, 2006)

toni said:


> Maybe you guys should post some product numbers so there's no confusion. I belive the PN are not the same for US and EU market. The product could also differ allthough both have the same marketing name.


The ones I use are Fast Cut Plus (green top - 50417), Extra Fine Compound (yellow top - 80349) and Ultrafina SE (blue top - 50383)


----------



## Gleammachine (Sep 8, 2007)

I haven't found UF to have any fillers but I don't use it as often as 85rd or Megs #80.
Had issues with extra fine (yellow top) and still not convinced, I like the way it works and finishes down but had issues once the panel had cooled down overnight, some defects re-appearing that weren't visible initially under inspection.
Not sure on the exact science behind this but also read other views on US forums with a similar outcome, something to do with expansion and shrinking of the oils in the product.


----------



## fari (Oct 31, 2008)

According to Andrew Barber (3M chappie) it does not contain any fillers. 

FCP is boasted by 3M to be capable of being a 1 step polish, well 1 step if you dont include buffing the residue off with a foam egg shell pad and a spray of water, although finishing it off with UltraFina certainly improves the finish.


----------



## Clark @ PB (Mar 1, 2006)

fari said:


> According to Andrew Barber (3M chappie) it does not contain any fillers.
> 
> FCP is boasted by 3M to be capable of being a 1 step polish, well 1 step if you dont include buffing the residue off with a foam egg shell pad and a spray of water, although finishing it off with UltraFina certainly improves the finish.


I dont get your comment about buffing off FCP?


----------



## Saqib200 (May 13, 2008)

I've used it with the blue 3M finishing pad, 5-6 passes and then 1-2 passes at slow speed. I see no fillers in the product.

I agree with the comments above - re EFC (yellow top) gives some drop-back unfortunately.

I can finish down to LSP ready with FCP - only with a drop of ultrafina on a black polishing pad. Saying that - I always finish down with ultrafina to be sure, and get that last drop of clarity back into the paintwork.


----------



## Sandro (Mar 16, 2008)

i think he means the buffing off of the residue would be a 2nd step. Therefor a 2 step polish rather than one?:doublesho if that makes sense, i dunno


----------



## Clark @ PB (Mar 1, 2006)

Sandro said:


> i think he means the buffing off of the residue would be a 2nd step. Therefor a 2 step polish rather than one?:doublesho if that makes sense, i dunno


I thought he was suggesting that FCP was difficult to buff off, but considering its one of the easiest polishes to remove I figured I must have got the wrong end of the stick


----------



## baseballlover1 (Sep 25, 2007)

In the US we might have a different formula but ours fills like crazy!I give todd full credit for being the first to voice his opinion on that.


----------



## Clark @ PB (Mar 1, 2006)

Sandro said:


> i think he means the buffing off of the residue would be a 2nd step. Therefor a 2 step polish rather than one?:doublesho if that makes sense, i dunno


You must have a different formula over in the US then...Or in my opinion I should say 

Ultrafina here fills no more than the likes of 3.02 from my experiences.


----------



## baseballlover1 (Sep 25, 2007)

Clark said:


> You must have a different formula over in the US then...Or in my opinion I should say
> 
> Ultrafina here fills no more than the likes of 3.02 from my experiences.


Well if im not mistaken, you do wipe downs with top inspection so you would probably know.

I might have to get some UF from the UK too!

,Dan


----------



## fari (Oct 31, 2008)

Clark said:


> I dont get your comment about buffing off FCP?


I'll elaborate - I work in a production environment so the less stages we have to polish the quicker the turnaround of a vehicle. We originally used FastCut but moved onto FastCut Plus as it cuts quicker, costs less per panel and was simply a much better product than FastCut. Also FastCut had to be finished with another step to achieve any sort of reasonable finish.

When FCP came along we were told we could do away with a 2nd stage product and simply spray a little water onto the panel and buff off the "haze/residue" using a soft black foam. It did help refine the finish to an acceptable level but using UltraFina adds a lot more to the finish.

But anyway - the original question was does it contain fillers and according to 3M it doesnt. So either it really doesn't contain fillers or they're lying.


----------



## Sandro (Mar 16, 2008)

im sure if 3M say it doesnt then theres no reason not to believe them. i dont see any gain to be had from lying.


----------



## Dave KG (Feb 23, 2006)

I do suspect there were differences between US and UK variants of this product as in the US is where I first caught wind of the filling aspects of this polish, and then I started hearing mention of it from UK based detailers as well which did I have to say get me wondering...

While I base the advice I give on my own experiences of products, I do read around a lot to see how others find them as well and how they find them to perform and this particular product was throwing up lots of conflicting information about this particular element of filling...

Interesting to see that many do seem to find it not to fill though, which does tally with 3M's claim IIRC...


----------



## hartzsky (Dec 23, 2007)

Quit a few in US dogamatically say it fills


----------



## hartzsky (Dec 23, 2007)

_I only use UF as an addition to 3M Fast Cut Plus to try and make it workable for a little longer, but I think it is a horrible finishing polish in it's own right. As said, next to no cut, *fills like crazy *and an IPA wipedown shows you've been working a panel for ages with next to no benefit (unless the paint is exceptionally soft). Once my UF is gone I won't buy it again._ *Some recent posts too add to the controversy*


----------



## hartzsky (Dec 23, 2007)

_SE *definitely fills*, as I found out on the BMW I helped Paul with a few weeks ago, an IPA wipe down on the bumper after using SE revealed loads, so out with the 106FA to do the job properly_...[[/I]*Another recent post*


----------



## fari (Oct 31, 2008)

I am really surprised to find some people reckon it fills and like Dave I'm now more than curious. I know the old light blue top was very filler heavy and an IPA wipedown showed this but i did not have the same experience with UF.

I have only ever used UF as a finishing product over FCP, so as long as FCP didnt fill and completely removed any flatting marks etc then there should be nothing for the IPA to reveal, even if UF contained fillers as all the cutting was done with FCP.

I'll ring Andy Barber today and see if I can get "offical" confirmation one way or the other....

This is taken from the 3M product list....

3M Perfect it III Ultrafina™ SE Polish
Polish for Rotary Swirl Hologram Elimination
*Removes* Swirls and Holgrams
Ultimate High Gloss Finish
Designed for use on Rotary Polishers
Increases productivity and efficiency
Quick and Easy Clean up
Minimal Sling
For Refinish and Original paint systems

The gumf says it removes swirls and holograms.....now removing by filling isnt removing imo, ill get more info later!

This is taken from their Imperial Machine Glaze..

3M Imperial Machine Glaze
Polishing
Imperial Machine Glaze has similar characteristics to Imperial Hand Glaze but is
specifically designed for machine application. Ideal for *filling* scratches and swirl
marks on large areas.


----------



## fari (Oct 31, 2008)

hartzsky said:


> _SE *definitely fills*, as I found out on the BMW I helped Paul with a few weeks ago, an IPA wipe down on the bumper after using SE revealed loads, so out with the 106FA to do the job properly_...[[/I]*Another recent post*


Ive just read that 106FA has a cut rating of 2.5 - Ive never used Menzerna products (well, maybe re-labelled stuff but i wouldnt know the Menzerna part no.)

UF is not meant as a cutting compound...It was always sold to me by 3M as a second stage product...all the hard work should be done by a more abrasive compound and the finish refined with UF....I have never known it to be used as a single step product to remove defects any heavier than light swirl and hologram.... I certainly wouldnt say it has a cut value of 2.5 out of 5. Maybe we arent comparing apples with apples here.


----------



## Dave KG (Feb 23, 2006)

hartzsky said:


> _I only use UF as an addition to 3M Fast Cut Plus to try and make it workable for a little longer, but I think it is a horrible finishing polish in it's own right. As said, next to no cut, *fills like crazy *and an IPA wipedown shows you've been working a panel for ages with next to no benefit (unless the paint is exceptionally soft). Once my UF is gone I won't buy it again._ *Some recent posts too add to the controversy*





hartzsky said:


> _SE *definitely fills*, as I found out on the BMW I helped Paul with a few weeks ago, an IPA wipe down on the bumper after using SE revealed loads, so out with the 106FA to do the job properly_...[[/I]*Another recent post*


Yup, I am aware of these posts and they come from and based on the work of two detailers I hold in high regard which I part of what has got me very curious here as I cannot put these quotes down to misuse or lack of knowledge as the detailers there know exactly what they are doing and are very experienced.

Yet it does clash with what other well respected detailers claim, and my own findings which leads me to believe there must be something happening here - either there are fillers and the working technique affects it or there are various batches going around...

One thought would be that its drop back from heat which is sometimes mentioned, but having had cars in for two days for my own detailing and having got cars for extensive testing, I have not seen evidence of this at play either following IPA wipedowns after Ultrafina SE the following day...



fari said:


> Ive just read that 106FA has a cut rating of 2.5 - Ive never used Menzerna products (well, maybe re-labelled stuff but i wouldnt know the Menzerna part no.)
> 
> UF is not meant as a cutting compound...It was always sold to me by 3M as a second stage product...all the hard work should be done by a more abrasive compound and the finish refined with UF....I have never known it to be used as a single step product to remove defects any heavier than light swirl and hologram.... I certainly wouldnt say it has a cut value of 2.5 out of 5. Maybe we arent comparing apples with apples here.


Though some (Iain at Finer Details for example) have said they find Ultrafina SE to have the same removal capabilities of 106FA... Personally, I dont find this but then I also feel I get quite a but of correction from 106FA which is why its always a go to product before anything more aggressive comes out... Ultrafina is marketed as a finishing product rather than a correction one but it is used on some occasions as a combined correction (light) and finishing polish. This matches the general use of 106FA, so while the marketing of both products may be a little different, the useage is not.


----------



## buck-egit (Aug 19, 2008)

Its not the clearest pic but if you look just under the door handle on this BMW I did over the crissy hols.. I used FCP and then refined with UF se... if you look hard enough you can see the slight difference in the paint UFse is on the left paint is a bit darker..... It stood out more in real life that was why I tryed to capture it .....

[URL=http://img216.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1000075ka4.jpg]


----------



## Dream Machines (Mar 13, 2006)

My version is UF SE and it does fill, though I wonder if it's caused by heat from the rotary at 1800 rpm. 
Would UF SE work by orbital as it is a finishing product


----------



## Paul-T (Nov 2, 2006)

I can't really explain why Bryan and I have had different results, but as I've said before I thought the UF was likely to fill by it's oily nature, and when we were wetsanding the BMW we had removed the sanding marks with FC+, and were then refining. Bryan reached for the UF, I had grabbed the 106 and when finished Bry was giving it an IPA wipedown. Sure enough, the UF finished parts were still in need of further refinement that wasn't apparent before the wipedown, the 106 finished parts were fine. After Bry revisited those areas he left them flawless. 

Strange but true, and Dave I appreciate your comments.


----------



## Bence (Dec 21, 2006)

Do separate wipedowns on the UF area with IPA, Prepsol, straight APC, then heat it up with an IR heater.


----------

