EM 6000 water-based lacquer review. - created 02-12-2010
Daniels, Barry - 02/12/2010.14:15:08
MIMForum Staff
I was asked to give a review of a new water-based finish that I just started using. EM6000 is water-based acrylic lacquer made by Target Coatings. Some of the advertised benefits include full burn-in capability, fast drying and sanding, self sealing, good leveling, good clarity, and of course the low-toxicity and water cleanup that these kind of finishes are known for. It is also rated to be harder than nitro. Sounds good, doesn't it?
I am refinishing the redwood top on a guitar that I previously finished with McFadden's nitrocellulous lacquer. I plan on leaving the nitro on the back and sides and will finish the top with the EM6000. I prepared the surface by sanding the old nitro off and doing a light wipe of water on the wood to raise the grain with a final sanding up to 280 grit.
Using the manufacturer's recommendations, I sprayed three coats of thinned finish (1:1 with distilled water) on the raw top with one hour wait between the coats. I sprayed one more coat of thinned EM6000 as the surface was not totally sealed. The finish only has a slight ammonia odor which goes away completely when dry.
The next day, I lightly sanded the surface with 3m frecut 400 grit sandpaper (dry) and was immediately impressed with how quickly the EM6000 sands. It takes probably half the effort to sand as nitro, and it had no tendency to gum up the sandpaper. I was a little concerned about reports that stearated sandpaper and water based finishes do not get along nicely, but found out latter that there was no problem. I applied four coats of full strength finish with an hour between coats. Now the surface was fully sealed and I was getting to see what this stuff is really like.
One thing that amazed me was how quickly the finish gets hard. I could lightly sand dust nibs off after an hour, which is not possible with nitro.
The next day, I sanded again and applied four more coats of finish. At this point, I noticed one problem. The BWB fiber purfling on either side of my abalone trim looked weird. The black lines were actually a light gray color. It appears that the EM6000 does not wet-out the surface like nitro or shellac. I have read a few other reports about the same effect on ebony. I think a cure for this would be to use a shellac seal coat under the finish. The clarity of the finish is not up to the standards of nitro, but this may change when buffed.
Another thing I was concerned about was the compatability of the EM6000 on the top with the nitro on the sides of the guitar. But there appeared to be no problems. In fact, I had some EM6000 run under my masking tape on the sides causing a fairly big run, and it seemed to burn into the surface of the lacquer and dried as if it was quite happy there. I had to sand it off. The paper plate I use to seal the soundhole had the previous coats of nitro and the EM6000 topped it with no problems.
Sanding of the finish is so quick that you have to be careful. Doing any spot sanding will likely result in a divot, so try to avoid that. I did a number of drop fills and they burned in and leveled well.
The application of the EM6000 is very nice. It seemed to spray from my small HVLP gun nice and quick. I usually have to slow down to get a full wet coat using nitro, but this stuff came out quicker and laid down very well with no problems (drips, runs, orange peel, etc.) I am waiting 2 weeks before buffing the finish (manufacturer only recommends one week), which will be up this weekend. So I will report back when done. Also will include a few pictures.
Thanks for doing this Barry. I'm just underway with my first EM6000.
I used shellac to seal before EM6000 & don't (so far) see the problem you mentioned. I was planning to use the same schedule as Ultima... 3coat/day...3 days between sessions ...1 month full cure, although from what I read, EM6000 may allow quicker processing (eg I see 100 hrs. "complete chemical cure time"..... makes me nervous). So, you've got 8 coats on total (2 days between sessions) and are now waiting 2 weeks to level / buff?
I've used the EM6000 on several instruments. I use shellac (and pumice pore fill). It works very well for me. I usually wait 14 days before final level and polish but have done some at 7 days with no problems. I have been really happy with it. Starting with PSL many years ago, I used to use a more robust varnish on the neck shaft settling on the EM8000 after a bit of experimenting. I did some testing with the EM6000 (coating on a piece of plexiglass and submersing overnight) and found it was as tough as the 8000. Now, I coat my necks with EM6000 and my life is much simpler.
Quick Q for Bob.
I just picked up some EM6000 but have some USL left over. For my next finish,I was planning on using the USL for the under coats, rough level sanding than finishing with EM6000. I normally wait 4 weeks before level and polish with the USL. Do you think two weeks will be enough with EM over USL?
Andy, you should ask Target directly, they'll know their own products best.
I've been using EM6000 as well. I also use 2 coats of shellac as a sealer, using a colored shellac can provide a bit of a warmer color for the overall finish. I've been leveling with 600 and for higher grit wet/dry papers I wet sand using mineral spirits (low odor type). I haven't done enough finishing with the EM6000 to declare any level of expertise but I am quite happy with it and plan to continue using it.
My final sanding and buffing session went pretty well. I started sanding with 1500 grit wet-or-dry, used wet with mineral spirits. I had read advise not to sand EM6000 with water.
Normally, I would start sanding nitro with 600 or 1000 grit to get it level. But the 1500 grit on the EM6000 went very fast and it leveled the surface just fine. I followed up with 2000 grit CAMI paper and then to my buffing machine with medium and fine Menzerna compound. I had to bump the speed up on my buffing wheel a little to get the gloss up.
Summary of benefits: Good spraying characteristics; good build; great sanding; good surface hardness.
Summary of deficits: Very poor figure pop (shellac sealer should help); finish clarity not as good as lacquer but not unacceptable.
I'll post a photo later.
I'm a little surprised that no one has mentioned epoxy as a filler/sealer under EM6000. The use of epoxy is well documented by John Greven, Mike Doolin (and others) for use with waterborne lacquer both Target and KTM products. The epoxy 'wets' the wood very well, and can be thickened with silica powder to use a filler as well. Many guitar builders are using this method. (including me).
Thanks Barry, very helpful!
I agree with Jay. I use epoxy as a filler and colorant and find it works as well as shellac or lacquer as far as wetting the wood.
Barry, how many RPMs did you bump up to? Thanks for posting this information. I just bought a can but haven't used any of it yet.
Very interesting Barry. Thanks. I agree with Jay about the use of epoxy, I was wondering the same. But, if I recall correctly Barry is not a big fan of epoxy. Am I right?
You are correct about me not liking epoxy for finishing. I do use a lot of it for gluing and laminating things though.
A reply for Andy, as I remember, when I ran out of USL, I finished the last coats with EM6000 with no problem. Jeff at Target claimed the two finishes were compatible. I'm traveling this week with sporadic connectivity. You can check the forum at targetcoatings.com for more information.
Here are some photos. After looking at the surface again I see that I need to rebuff. Sanding scratches from one of my steps are quite visible.
Here is a close up of the fiber BWB purfling that did not get sufficiently wetted out.
For comparison here is nitrocellulous on the walnut back. Once again, I did not get a good gloss during buffing. Back to the wheel!
Nice stuff Barry!
Barry, how many RPMs did you bump up to? Thanks for posting this information. I just bought a can but haven't used any of it yet.
Jim, my buffer is on a stepped pulley and I measure the speed in the units of Surface Feet Per Minute (SPFM). The setting that worked was 4770 spmf.
What's the finest compound that you have? Looks like even the nitro could use a finer one.
Yes, the nitro needs rebuffing too.
I have some of the extra fine but did not use it. But that is not the problem on this one. There are linear sanding scratches that were not removed at some point in the process so I need to go back several grades.
But you started at 1500, right? The coarse Menzerna(red/brown) is equivalent to 1500, so there's shouldn't be anything finer than that present?
Just trying to help; the issue may not be what you think it be. Or I didn't read the previous posts correctly...
I appreciate whatever advice you can provide.
I sanded the EM6000 with 1500 and 2000. I sanded the nitro with an equivalent to 700, 1200 and 2000. The sanding scratches in both surfaces looks similar. I used Menzerna medium and fine. I'm thinking the medium compound did not remove the 2000 grit scratches. I have some of the red/brown compound and maybe that is what I should have used. I dunno. Usually buffing is a little bit of a challenge for me.
I think that's it, Barry. I don't think you can get away with skipping the red/brown stuff. I go right from that compound to the fine and get a good gloss.
Yup; you started too fine on the compounds; go back! On dark woods, I'll sand to 2000, even though the #113(red/brown)wax is supposedly 1500, but it still works. Also, buff perpendicular to the final sanding direction with the 113. Then skip right on over to the #16 wax. The #18 is useless.
Follow that with a liquid, like Menserna's "Intensive Polish" or something similar for a really deep, wet look.
I also think you may be spinning the buffs a bit fast for the nitro, though if you have a light touch, you're okay. No idea what the waterbornes like, as I've sworn them off(after swearing at them for way too long).
Then skip right on over to the #16 wax. The #18 is useless.
Which ones are the #16 and #18? I don't know what those numbers mean.
Those are the real Menzerna numbers. Sorry. I guess you buy them from LMI or SM? Look on the stick to see if the original Menzerna sticker is there, and it'll be the 3rd number down. If not, I'll dig out the SM catalog and cross reference them again.
Smaller number, finer compound. Also, lighter color, finer compound. Love their simple system!
Mario, don't worry about looking up the numbers. My bars had the numbers on them. I have been using 16 and 18.
Okay; toss the #18; it's less than useless. You want the 113 and follow that with the 16.
I tried that once before but it didn't work for me, but am willing to give it another go. Will report back.
Here is a close up of the fiber BWB purfling that did not get sufficiently wetted out.
Definitely go with shellac or epoxy under the EM6000. I've never had anything like that when i've put on a good undercoat. It also has the advantage of blocking or at least slowing any water from the EM from raising the grain on the wood.
Redid the buffing and it went much better. Used the #113 and like before, it left visible scratches, but they were removed by the #16. Used Stew-mac swirl remover on a foam pad and I have deep water look. Much better. Thanks Mario and Mark.
Used Stew-mac swirl remover on a foam pad and I have deep water look.
Is the swirl remover like Meguiar's #7 ??
Ditto Mario (and others) - I finally started to get far better results when I took the time to follow the buffing scheme of Doolin/Grevin. The key buffing step was the first one..ie. with Brown Mezerna. It's the coarsest. I start with it and then got through all 4 compounds sold by Stew Mac. If lazy, I sometimes skip from coarse to fine...but the first Brown steps sets up the success (or failure) of all following grades of polish. Prior to buffing, I wet sand 400/600/800/1000 followed by Abralon pads on a nice new Bosch 5" 8 hole orbital all the way up to 4000. Perhaps a bit of overkill but seems that the truism is correct and that is to no skip steps. You need to make sure that the step you are on removes all the larger scratches from the previous step. Then take much more time in each buffing step, recharging your wheel with every pass AND don't mix all four compounds on one set of buffing pads. Either switch pads or have at least a double-ended buffer set up. Enjoy.
So you use two compounds on one pad?
Big no-no, that.
Boy! The buffing police are on the alert! When using all four grits, I switch pads for each grit..sometimes.....I go from medium(brown) to fine hence no pad switching..just the two appropriate ones that are on the machine. no crime has been committed.....
Nobody said it's a crime, but when trying to help someone sort through their buffing problems, all too often it's these details that were missed.
Jay are you saying you use two different grits on the same buff?
Uh-Oh! All their pretty lights are a-flashing now!
Alright, I need to see some ID!
Ith there a problem ossifer?
Well, never let a bit of helpful advice go unpunished! I don't use multiple grits on one pad. Didn't mean to imply that. peace.
Here's my 2 cents. Just finished buffing out the first I've done with EM6000, and I have to say I like it. It does seem quicker & harder curing than Ultima, shortening the schedule. This is wet sanded to 2000 (using min.spirits), then buffed with Menzerna med. & fine.
Yummy.
Nice!!
Nice! Grrrrrreat job on the 'burst! Let us know what it looks like in a year or two, though.
I've tested a LOT of WB finishes, and many looked downright excellent when new, but none held up, so I don't get too excited these days. I've resolved to letting everyone else do my testing now
I am only now getting back to building having retired finally. It was a terrible shock to see all the changes in nitro formulations and the demise of McFadden to boot. I've never used anything but that. What kind of varnish (spray?) is used under this EM6000?
This worries me to no end...what equipment is needed vs nitro?
EM6000 sprays fine with a gun setup for nitro, as long as there are no metal parts that will corrode inside the gun.
Wow! Very very nice Dave...
Never used waterborne lacquer before. Waterborne finishes were introduced in the auto industry quite a while ago, and those finishes have to withstand the elements. It's definitely the future of finishing...
Waterborne finishes have chemicals that are just as bad as sovent-based finishes, though it is nice to not have to smell solvents.
Louie,
I really do want to hear and see how well it's held up a year from now, then two years from now.
Me too but I'm going to keep using it for now or until something better comes along. Nitro is not a good option for me.