Difference in Meguiars Pro Lines

[bacon]

Can anyone tell me what the difference is in the pro lines? There seem to be 3 series of low/medium/high cut products. I see 1/2/3 82/83/84 and then the 105/205 stuff. Whats the difference? Do they all have the same diminishing particles?

Im looking to remove some moderate swirling in black paint that is about the severity seen in the picture below (not my car). Looks to be from lack of wax and washing with a dirty rag/gravel dust being wiped off instead of rinsed off. Car is 8 years old. My local parts store has the 1/2/3 products in stock, but i had planned on using the 80 series until i saw these. What do i need to buff these out right the first time?

Thanks

[bacon]

Re: Difference in Meguiars Pro Lines

nobody knows? or is it the same stuff in 3 different packages?

[Murr1525]

Re: Difference in Meguiars Pro Lines

Well, you kind of have 3 generations of products.

#1, 2, 3 are the oldest, somewhat 'original' products. #7 being the original I suppose. But they tend to be a little more rotary based and they are diminishing abrasives.

#80, #83, were designed for SS paints still, but are starting to get towards the DA use, little more user friendly, etc. Also diminishing abrasives.

#205 (Ult. Polish) and #105 (UC) are the more modern products, and they are micro abrasives. They are for hand/DA use, and more designed for the modern clear coats as well.

You're looking at a little different technique for the different products as well. But as far as advice, it is still the same as your other thread as far as prefered products.

Maybe this thread would help show a bit more:

http://www.meguiarsonline.com/forums/showthread.php?55306-Pictures-from-June-16-2012-Saturday-Open-Class

And UQW, UQD, and Nxt 2.0 are really the only products that are repackeged, the rest are all fairly unique.

[BillE]

Re: Difference in Meguiars Pro Lines

If you go to the 'home page' of MOL (it's at the top of this page, "HOME"), drill down and you will see a download for the 2012 Professional Catalog.

Just by looking thru it, it may help you to decipher the different numbers. They (the numbers) can get confusin' at times.

Hmmm, maybe Meguiar's could come out with a 'new' version of Little Orphan Annie's Magic Decoder Ring.

Where abouts are you located?

Bill

[bacon]

Re: Difference in Meguiars Pro Lines

Thanks, that helps. I kind of assumed it was a product generation thing but wanted to make sure. Im using a rotary unit so I might just use the #1 thats available at the store followed by a #9 and then Ill finish with #26 yellow wax. I looked closer last night and I don't think a fine cut is going to do it - a medium should work and its not quite as intimidating as going to a 105 or a 4 Its a caddy, should have thick paint (i hope).

One final question, I see products like #1 recommend to finish with #9 and then follow with wax. What is something like #3 (machine glaze) for? Is that something you use if you werent really trying to get rid of swirls in the first place? Will the #9 break down into a fine enough polish that will shine before the wax or do I need to do a #3 before the wax?

Im in the SW metro in bloomington.

[Michael Stoops]

Re: Difference in Meguiars Pro Lines

We're going to expand a bit on Mat's comments below:

#1, 2, 3 are the oldest, somewhat 'original' products. #7 being the original I suppose. But they tend to be a little more rotary based and they are diminishing abrasives. We think you're actually talking about M01, M02 and M04 here (Medium Cut Cleaner, Fine Cut Cleaner and Heavy Cut Cleaner, respectively). These are indeed quite "old school" diminishing abrasive products, with M04 being a very gritty product that is really a rotary only product. We wouldn't lean toward these products for a modern clear coat, regardless of condition, simply due to there being better choices with more advanced technologies.

#80, #83, were designed for SS paints still, but are starting to get towards the DA use, little more user friendly, etc. Also diminishing abrasives.
M80, M83 and M84 are certainly more "advanced" than the three above, with M80 and M83 having pretty high polishing oil loads in them (M80 especially!) but still utilizing diminishing abrasive technology. On clear coats that aren't super hard you can get outstanding results with either M80 or M83 on either a rotary or DA buffer. M84 is a rotary only product that will cut fast on a wool pad, but tends to easily create noticeable holograms that demand a second step to remove.

#205 (Ult. Polish) and #105 (UC) are the more modern products, and they are micro abrasives. They are for hand/DA use, and more designed for the modern clear coats as well. Actually, these can both be used with a rotary buffer, and that's even their real design intent. These use our latest high tech super micro abrasive technology, so they don't actually break down, as such. M105 offers plenty of cut but also tends to finish down way nicer than any compound has a right to. It can even be used as a finishing polish when coupled with the right pad and technique. M205 is an amazing final finishing polish that can leave an incredible level of gloss, clarity and depth.

OK, so you say you're going to do this 8 year old Caddy with a rotary buffer, right? What pads are you planning on using - foam, wool? The paint is really going to dictate what's needed, ultimately, to correct it. Our inclination would be to do a test spot with M105 on a foam polishing pad to start, at maybe 1400 rpm or a bit more if needed. You'll cut through the defects pretty quickly but not out of control, and odds are you'll finish out much nicer than any of the other products will finish. A follow with M205 or even M80 should finish things off beautifully prior to waxing. But we'd really stay away from the M01/M02/M04 on this car as the later generations of products will be much better suited to this modern paint.

[bacon]

Re: Difference in Meguiars Pro Lines

Thanks, thats a lot of useful information. I was under the impression that 105/205 could only be used on a DA unit since on the Meguiars site it doesnt list it as for use with a rotary buffer. Ive got a rotary buffer that I can use and was going to use a yellow foam pad. The defects arent that bad, so 105 should make quick work of them - ill test it on the hood first and then follow with 205.

[BillE]

Re: Difference in Meguiars Pro Lines

Just for info...105 and 205 were, in the beginning, developed for rotary use and the newer paint systems. Folks found both products worked pretty well with a DA. Meguiar's, always thinking outside the box, tweaked them (especially 105) for better use with DA machines.

Then lo and behold, the folks in Irvine came out with Ultimate Compound. UC is a kissing cousin to 105. Enough so that many people have gone to it instead of 105. After a couple of years (I think), Ultimate Polish was introduced. This and 205 are very close in results and workability.

Just because the Ult Compound and Ult Polish are considered an 'over the counter' and/or 'customer grade', don't think they won't do the job as well as the 'pro' line. They do and will.

Have you used a rotary before? If not, be damn'd careful! Go slow and keep your head in the game. It is easy to cut thru the clear, burn edges, etc.

I can't offer any advice on pads for rotary use...haven't used one in over 35 years!

Good luck and keep us all up to date on how things work out for you.

Bill

[benzw205]

Re: Difference in Meguiars Pro Lines

Hello, and what about leather products ? I would like to buy the best product to clean and the best conditioner, which one are they ? Thank you so much.

[drumdan]

Thanks, that helps. I kind of assumed it was a product generation thing but wanted to make sure. Im using a rotary unit so I might just use the #1 thats available at the store followed by a #9 and then Ill finish with #26 yellow wax. I looked closer last night and I don't think a fine cut is going to do it - a medium should work and its not quite as intimidating as going to a 105 or a 4 Its a caddy, should have thick paint (i hope).

One final question, I see products like #1 recommend to finish with #9 and then follow with wax. What is something like #3 (machine glaze) for? Is that something you use if you werent really trying to get rid of swirls in the first place? Will the #9 break down into a fine enough polish that will shine before the wax or do I need to do a #3 before the wax?

Im in the SW metro in bloomington.

The main difference between #3, and #9 is that #9 contains a load of diminishing abrasives, intended on correcting swirl marks, rather than masking them as a glaze would do.

[dbssoccer]

Re: Difference in Meguiars Pro Lines

This is a great thread in that I have the same confusion as others. I have bottles of 'old school' meg products on my shelf.

I'm working on a 95 Toyota T-100. Red but no Clear Coat (per my body shop). I had it professionally cleaned-up a year ago to remove the oxidation. Since then some light oxidation has reappeared. (damn red paint!). I was thinking about using products out of the professional line (by hand) but then I see this Ultimate Compound come up several times. Is UC appropriate for light oxidation on this surface? Again, I'll most likely not be using any sort of machine to apply.

And after the UC, what would be the recommended next steps? Should I polish then wax? or just wax? If so which of the thousands of the Meg products would be recommended?

Thanks.

[The Guz]

Re: Difference in Meguiars Pro Lines

UC is good stuff. If you are going to use it you can follow up with a polish such as UP or M205. If you are content with the look after using UC then you can proceed to your choice of wax or sealant.

You should definitely consider a DA. It's worth the money.

[dbssoccer]

Re: Difference in Meguiars Pro Lines

I do have a orbital polisher that I have used in the past. It wasn't an expensive tool, as I recall.
I don't fully understand the difference between this polisher and a DA.
And then there is the issue about which bonnet/cover to use, etc. I have an assortment of terry cloth covers, etc. I recall the last time I used it it had a foam rubber covering which seemed to work pretty well but then I really didn't understand the proper technique. And when the foam rubber tore I went back to doing things by hand. Clearly there is a difference between my orbital and the pictures of the tools like the Meg DA. Is the orbital something I should resurrect or is it a choice between manual or laying down $200 for a DA?

[The Guz]

Re: Difference in Meguiars Pro Lines

From what you are describing both tools are different. A DA polisher will net you better results then what you have. The one you have is more of a wax spreader. Nothing bad just the limitation of the tool.

I only do areas by hand where I can not get the DA.

[dbssoccer]

Re: Difference in Meguiars Pro Lines

The Guz,

I found a thread that discussed the differences between three type to tools. Your assessment of the orbital is what I read in that thread but the author may have given the orbital the ability to do some level of cleaning.

Now that I know I have something better than using my hands my next question is around the bonnet. For the UC, and wax, for that matter, what are the recommended applicator materials? The foam seemed like it worked until I caught it on a piece of trim and tore a big hole in it. But I had no idea of what was the correct material so I was shooting the dark and potentially causing more harm than good (or, at least, less good than was possible).