Okay, I have been following this thread with a small bit of interest, and have to say a couple of things.

As far as independent testing of the product is concerned to determine what is in it:

I brought this product into the US with Tako, and I paid a lab a hefty sum of money for our company to determine the safety, and also legal labeling requirements before we could begin marketing it. The likeliehood of anyone else "testing" or "having the product tested" is pretty slim, not to mention a violation of our copyright and trademark. The formula is protected by law, and also by a legal agreement with the inventor. The primary ingredients that I can give are glass and flourine. Not silicon, not alcohol, not petroleum. Not to mention, I can't see someone paying the lab fees required to test this product.

Secondly:

By the number of people that do like the product, and do want to continue using it, I can only surmise that maybe...just maybe the application is being done incorrectly. In all of our literature, etc. we stress the importance of removing other product residue as it interferes with the bonding properties of the CrystalGuard.

As is always the case, when in doubt, give us a call or email us. We are more than happy to work with you on the best way to use the product, as well as, our videos, tips and tricks, and other resources we offer directly on the website.

Thirdly:

The Terms and Conditions on the Online Store clearly read that we do not give refunds for products purchased there. While we do want our customers to be satisfied and to appreciate our product, we do not pay for testing. If our product arrives damaged or leaking we will be glad to replace it at no charge. The "Satisfaction Guarantee" is for our clients who receive our warrantied professional application in our shop, and have paid for that warranty.

Lastly:

Often I find that in many cases die hard, refuse to change, absolutely the best, and other related statements in regards to that other multi-step product are frequently marketing terms used by individuals who represent that product, and do not want others to know that they are in fact selling a competitive product on a sponsored forum. Please, not to say that anyone is at the moment, but read the rules of the forum and do not market or try to market someone else's product here.

As always, I appreciate everyone's opinion, and I find constructive support or criticism extremely helpful. Don't get me wrong. It's okay to test other products and do your comparisons and share your results, but direct marketing or sales is not allowed.


Thanks always for your support!

Kat

 

Razorkat, I will assume that you are not accusing me of bias or surreptitiously marketing a product on this site. I have been very careful to be fair in my testing.

You seem to be implying that this is a CG vs. Zaino thing. That's not right at all. Based on my results with CG, I bet I would have gotten the same results if I had tested it against Meguiars or Klasse or Turtle Wax.

I am quite certain that my application process was correct, especially on the second test, on my wife's car hood:

1. Wash with Dawn to remove wax
2. with water standing on the surface, spritz on CGQ.
3. with microfiber towel, gently wipe over the surface, spreading the CG solution around. What I did here was I used a damp, squeezed-out 1-foot square towel and layed it flat on the surface, then wiped over the entire surface over and over for a few minutes, making sure the solution was spread evenly over the area.
4. with damp microfiber towel, wipe dry.

When I requested a refund, I heard back from Jim Campos who also quickly questioned my process; he asked me to call him, but was then unavailable. To be fair, it was Friday afternoon. I will continue to try to contact him.

Like you, Jim also stated that the company will honor no satisfaction guarantee on the product, all sales are final, it's on the website, etc etc. He also stated that I am only the second person ever to be unhappy with CG. That seemed odd to me; if I'm only the second person ever to be unhappy with it, wouldn't it seem normal and obvious for him to laugh into his hand, call me an idiot, and give me the refund I requested in the interest of goodwill?

When I quoted to Jim the customer satisfaction statement from the web site:
He said, as you said, that the warranty only applies to the professionally-installed Crystal Guard. Excuse me, but doesn't that statement say "products" plural?

As I have stated before, I really wanted CG to be all it claimed to be. I'm basically lazy and would love to be able to protect my finish and have it looking gorgeous with very little effort. I was frankly surprised at the results; but as a scientist, once I started the experiment I had to report the results I got.

 

bhobson333,
How much do you have left? Want to sell it?


Went out and vacuumed and cleaned interior of my car. Washed wifes IS300 (again). Evaluated both finishes.

I *have* the say that (on my cars) CG out lasts & out shines any thing so far. To keep my Zaino shine looking deep and rich; I would have to apply once a month. On my G, I have multilple coats of CG and the results are top notch. On the IS, I have only applied one coat. That was done just before Easter. That car still looks almost as good as my G.

 

Kat:

I'm giving CGQuick a try on my new Brickyard. First order of business was to wash with Dawn dish liquid. So far, I've applied 4 coats of CGQ on the car and it looks sparkling and lustrious.

I finally got a chance to wash the car this weekend after a week of rain and dirt. It still beaded up some and sheeted the water off some too. Overall, I thought the life of the application was pretty good.

During washing, I use several high-quality microfiber towels (PakShak), lots of water, and rinse the towels often; but, I still see some very fine scratches showing up, which leads me to believe that the CGQuick may not be nearly as durable as you claim CG to be.

CGQ does have an alcohol smell.

In the flyer included with the CGQ product, on the CG website, and in the videos for CGQuick, and on the CGQuick bottle, there is no mention of removing other products. It IS mentioned extensively on this web site.

In fact, the 6.75 oz CGQuick bottle states that it should be used for 2-3 applications, while the threads here by Takeo state 8-10 applications. The only instructions for application I received with the $85 ($93 after shipping) CGQuick Application Kit were on the bottle.

Another question I have:
Would the pro version be a better choice for someone who wants a stronger finish?

Does the product layer? In other words, are there benefits for continued application?

With mutiple layers of CGQuick, how does it compare to CGPro?

Thanks for your time,
mgk

 

I did a little research and i would sat CG has similiar properties to this US NAVY sealant:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

United States Patent
5,081,171

Nixon
January 14, 1992


Nixon January 14, 1992
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Composition for sealing of painted or metal surfaces

Abstract

A liquid composition for protecting a positively charged surface, the composition comprising: negatively charged polytetrafluoroethylene polymer resin particles and at least one member of the group consisting of methyltrimethoxysilane and an amino functional polysiloxane; whereby the negatively charged polytetrafluoroethylene molecules fuse to the surface upon exposure to ambient temperatures.


------------------------------------------------------------------------

Inventors: Nixon; Charles R.
Appl. No.: 311150
Filed: February 14, 1989
Current U.S. Class:
524/188; 524/265; 524/546

Intern'l Class:
C08K 005/54; C08L 027/18

Field of Search:
524/546,261,262,506,188,265 427/13,387

References Cited [Referenced By]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. Patent Documents
3560249 Feb., 1971 Chereshkevich et al.
427/13.

3925292 Dec., 1975 Holmes
524/546.

3968069 Jul., 1976 Grimand et al.
524/546.

4104225 Aug., 1978 Combere
524/546.

4284668 Aug., 1981 Nixon
427/355.

Other References

Dow Corning, "A Guide to Dow Corning.RTM. Silicones for Polish Formulators", Form No. 22-637A-79, 1979.
Dow Corning, "Information About Polish Ingredients", Form No. 22-240A-78, 1978.
Dow Corning, Material Safety Data Sheet for "Dow Corning.RTM. 531 Fluid", May 15, 1987.
Dow Corning, Material Safety Data Sheet for "Dow Corning.RTM. 536 Fluid", Mar. 26, 1990.

Primary Examiner: Lawrence; Evan
Attorney, Agent or Firm: Volpe & Koenig
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Description

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

This invention relates to sealants for metal or painted surfaces, including the gel coat on fiberglass, to protect the surfaces from corrosion and other damaging environmental effects. The present invention is particularly useful as a paint sealant for automobiles, airplanes or boats.

Unprotected painted surfaces and unpainted metal surfaces are damaged by exposure to the environment by the action of ultra-violet and infra-red rays of the sun, acid rain, salt, insects and other harmful elements. There have been numerous products developed for protecting painted surfaces, such as waxes, activated silicone polyethylene polymers and, as described in U.S. Pat. No. 4,284,668, tetrafluoroethylene polymers.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention is directed towards novel protective compositions and a method of applying same to a painted surface, including gel coats of fiberglass surfaces, or unpainted metal surface. The protective composition comprises negatively charged polytetrafluoroethylene (hereinafter "PTFE") polymer resin particles, preferably in an aqueous dispersion in the form of a hydrophobic colloid with resin particles of about 0.05 to about 0.5 microns or larger in size.

Before application of the protective composition, the painted or metal surface is positively charged, preferably with a novel cleaning composition which removes any trapped sediments and insolvents from the pores in the paint or metal surface and which leaves the surface positively charged by virtue of using a cationic surfactant containing electropositive ions.

The molecules of PTFE resin, which are negatively charged, i.e. containing negative ions, are pulled down into the pores in the surface of the paint or metal in view of the electrostatic attraction between the negatively charged molecules and the positively charged surface. As the treated surface is allowed to cure in a warm environment, the PTFE resin molecules elongate, causing them to physically interlock themselves to each other and fuse into the paint or metal surface.

The PTFE is inert to most harmful elements except halogen fluorene. In particular the action of ultra-violet and infra-red rays, photolysis, acidic and alkaline chemicals are resisted by the PTFE protective coating. The present invention therefore provides durability and resistance to the damaging effect of environmental elements, in combination with a very simple method of application.






























































































.

 

PTFE is Teflon.

mgk

 

right...now i don't think CG has teflon, but if they are using flolurine as a solvent it has to be some other inert polymer with long-bonding molecular chains and not an oil or a wax. Therefore you wont get the oxidation as you do with those products..also the flourine will completely evaporate leaving an uncontaminated strata of whatever the polymer is. Therefore multiple apps do work as the flourine in the fresh application will soften the top of the previous coat and bond the new coat to it. so you get a thicker coat not multiple coats. which is better for light refraction.If you use waxes, theres always a slight oxidation layer betwween multiple coats hence glazing or discoloration over time.I think the trick will be to be very attentive to the cleaning stage before applying sequential coatings,otherwise you'll trap impurities withine the coat and so on.

 

You're evaluation is correct........

Cleaning the surface is one of the major keys.

And anyone who would like instructions, please contact me privately, at:

kat@4dmatrix.com

and I will be happy to send you what we have.

Kat

 

In a fit of boredom, I decide to read this thread for something to do...

Now, I'm not here to say Crystal Guard is a bad product by any stretch of the imagination. I'm sure it is better than 99% of the other stuff you can buy and it does look good on the cars I have seen it on. But, I'm sold on Zaino. Based on what I have read and seen, tt does look/shine better than the CG. My car reflects so sunlight so brightly, I have to drive like this...

Seriously, a friend followed my in my Z on the way to the body shop (Because I had to drive the vehicle carrying the Nismo kit) and there were times I could not look in the mirror for more than a second or two at my car because the sunlight reflecting off the front end was so bright.

to bhobson... I can tell which parts of your car are Zaino-ed vs CG-ed. I won't post here, but can email my observations if you like. For everyone else, go back and look at the pics on page 1. The Zainoed and CG areas have about the same amount of shine, but the Zaino-ed areas appear to have more depth and detail. The CG-ed areas seem to be blurred ever so slightly.

To further illustrate this, I go back to a comment from earlier in this thread...

I enter exhibit A below. This is the roof of my car with two coats of Zaino approximately 1 week after they were applied. Between weekends, the car was washed once and not "re-Zainoed". Notice the depth and detail of the reflection. You can actually count the stones of the nearby bridge if you like... again... 2 coats of Zaino.

As for the "complex" procedure for applying Zaino... if you feel wash with Z7, apply Z2, polish with Z6 is complicated, then maybe you shouldn't be allowed to drive, which is a far more complicated process.

I have done the following sequence many times and it takes, at most 2 hrs if I'm taking my time... wash with Z7, apply/remove Z5 swirl remover, polish with Z6, apply/remove Z2 protectant, polish with Z6. Everything goes on super easy and comes off easy.

And I can't speak for CG, but what bhobson said about washing after Zaino is true. I can take my home garden house and spray off almost any dirt, film, or bugs off my car. The wash rag is almost unnecessary except for the most stubborn bug splats and the brake dust on the wheels.

CG - a definite contenda
Zaino - the undisputed champion!

Of course, that is just my opinion. Use what you like!

 

my car still looks like that and i put CG on it probably 2 months ago! it's been rained on almost every day as well. when it get sunny...and when i get the digital camera back...i'll post a pic. i've cq'd it once! but, like you said....use what you would like.

 

if that's not enough... here's my door...

oh... what's that on the driveway???
If it weren't in the shadow, i could probably read more than just the Z logo on the bottle...

 

bring that sun to boston!!!! we need some of that here. it finally gets nice (today) and i gotta sit in work as usual!

 

I'll happily send you some sunshine as long as I get to keep some, too.

After the past month and a half, I was beginning to wonder what clear skies looked like....

 

I just received the Zaino products but haven't applied them yet. If someone wants to send me som CG I'd be more than happy to test. I have a Brickyard-Touring with a great finish. I did apply 1 coat of carnuba but will using dawn & then the claybar before applying the rest.

 

Got to love Zaino.

 

I don't have a black or dark colored car, so I can't post reflection pics that look like a mirror.

Beautiful shine though. You can't go wrong w/ Zaino.

However, here is a pic I took of my hood BEFORE I washed it. It has been about 3 + weeks w/o a wash. This is a prime example about how I've been saying the car doesn't get real dirty w/ CG.
If you look close, you'll see dirt and spots on the hood. If not I'll be glad to send the hi res pic to any skeptic.

 

Wow .. u guys are all nuts.

<--- drive through car wash.



LOL ... just kidding, well about the being nuts part. I think i will have to look into getting some Zaino too. Those shines are blissfully satisfing in an odd way.