AutoGeek Comparative Polish & Compound Chart

[akimel]

AutoGeek has just released a chart comparing the aggressiveness of different polishes and compounds. We have already discussed how difficult it is in fact to compare polishes made by different manufacturers; it is sometimes very difficult to compare polishes made by the same manufacturer. Meguiar's SMAT technology makes comparisons especially problematic. But it's always interesting to read and discuss these questions.

I bring to your attention in particular AG's assessment of the Meguiar's line. In particular, please note that they have given both M80 and M09 a cut of 3, while M82 is assigned a cut of 2. I was under the impression that M09 was the mildest of Meguiar's cleaner-polishes. Also note that M03 and M81 are assigned a cut of 2. Perhaps even more controversial is the assignment of a cut of 9 to M105. I believe that Meguiar's officially gives M105 a cut of 12. Perhaps AG's number reflects the experience of various detailers with the product. I recall reading more than one person noting that the new M105 doesn't appear to be as aggressive as the original formulation.

FYI.

[ColonelCash]

Re: AutoGeek Comparative Polish & Compound Chart

It looks like D151 got the short end of the stick. Very hard to say that D151 with SMAT would be considered a 4.

[PorscheGuy997]

Re: AutoGeek Comparative Polish & Compound Chart

I disagree with a lot of things on their chart.

-M02 is ranked a 7? I'm hoping that they meant to put down M01. Otherwise, M02 is a little more aggressive than M80.

-D151 is ranked a 4. Wow... D151 is definately more aggressive than M83.

[BarryK]

Re: AutoGeek Comparative Polish & Compound Chart

yes, that chart seems to be off on a lot of products.
M105 listed as a 9 when it should be a 12
M205 listed as a 3 when it should be a 4
I may be wrong but I thik the d151 i actualy correct. I was alway under the impression it was the same polishing cut as M205 at a 4

mis-listings on many others also... that chart is useless

[ColonelCash]

Re: AutoGeek Comparative Polish & Compound Chart

I wonder if they consulted Mike Phillips about this chart? I'd love to see him drop into MOL and kind of clear the air...or maybe Mike Stoops can get some additional info?

I can't say the chart is bad, its a good piece of documentation to have...especially when you are supplying multiple products from different vendors as AutoGeek does.

Could we have various opinions at MOL about the rankings? Sure we can and that is one of the best parts of this hobby. Look around the MOL forums and you'll see that members often time can refer multiple products to the same situation and bring out stunning results. That is something that few others companies have going for them and one reason I continue to use Meguairs products.

[the_invisible]

Re: AutoGeek Comparative Polish & Compound Chart

From my understanding, the chart is not for brand-to-brand comparison of different products. It only gives readers an idea of where each product belongs relative to one another. Meguiar's product aggressiveness is easily determinable due to the cut-rating labelled on the sticker. I think that is how Autogeek bases the aggressiveness chart for the products.

[CharlesW]

Re: AutoGeek Comparative Polish & Compound Chart

I wonder if they consulted Mike Phillips about this chart?

I would bet on it.

I can't say the chart is bad, its a good piece of documentation to have...especially when you are supplying multiple products from different vendors as AutoGeek does.

I would agree with that.

From my understanding, the chart is not for brand-to-brand comparison of different products. It only gives readers an idea of where each product belongs relative to one another. Meguiar's product aggressiveness is easily determinable due to the cut-rating labelled on the sticker. I think that is how Autogeek bases the aggressiveness chart for the products.

I think you are right on in your assessment.
Many of the perceived discrepancies and errors are due to readers not understanding how the chart is intended to be used.

[rusty bumper]

Re: AutoGeek Comparative Polish & Compound Chart

That chart is flawed. There is no way that #82 and #81 are going to have the same cut.

On the other hand, I see that #81 is rated above #7. That's interesting because we just had a discussion on that very subject last week.

[TH0001]

Re: AutoGeek Comparative Polish & Compound Chart

I doubt they consulted Mike Phillips on the chart and why would they? Mike is VERY experienced with Meguiar's, but what can he provide on other brands that people have been using for years? Obviously his opinions on Meguiar's products are invaluable, but even members on this forum who likely have more experience (recently) in using the products seem to disagree with this chart.

IF the chart is not based on brands, but rather comparative per brand, then it is okay. IMO, this defeats the purpose of a compartive chart.

IF the chart (as it looks) is designed to compare brands to brand, as a chart of this nature should be, then it falls very short IMO. Some of the ratings seem to be out of left field.

There will always be some discussion regarding how aggressive different products are because different products will react different paints. I have seen 'milder' products out cut more aggressive polishes on some paints... Way too many variables to consider. I believe that you have to use a product on at least 10 cars, maybe 20, before you really can understand the product. That is why, again in my opinion, there are so many variances in online opinion. A product may work amazingly well on 9 out of 10 cars, but what if the 10th car is the one the user happens to own. We see it all the time on various forums, a product will get amazing reviews, but then there will be a post speaking about how terrible a product is. Or worse, somebody will ask for an opinion on a particular product, and the 1 person who had one bad experience (given that he hasn't used it on all but 1 car) will bash it. Nature of the beast I suppose, but none the less, I feel if you haven't played with product on various paints with various methods you cannot truly know the product.

That said, here is where they are flat out wrong (IMO) compared to each other...

Pinnacle

Giving way too much credit to Swirl Remover, it's not that powerful (compared to other products on the list.)

Pinnacle XMT

I found XMT 4 to be significantly less then M105. Different leagues IMO.

Meguiars...

This is almost why I am certain they didn't consult Mike Phillips, because I see a lot of areas that certaintly don't align with my experience.

M95 may or may not be more aggressive then M105, I have no idea but compared to other polishes on the chart they should both be more aggressive (or the others should be less aggressive)

M205 is grossly underrated and is far more aggressive then M80 (I know this goes against Meguiars rating, but anybody who has used this will agree.) The rest are wrong for the most part as well? M81 which is an abrasive free polish is as aggressive as M82? M09 is the same as M80? This area of the chart doesn't seem to fit with Meguiars or Meguiars user's experiences.. The SMAT products are hard to rate anyways, because they cut over time instead of thru a cycle.

Menzerna

I have never found Power Gloss to have near the cut of M105/3M Extra Cut Compound. It raises questions about product testing IMO,(if M105 was a 10) PG would be an 8, maybe. SIP should be bumped up a notch (compared to everything else on there...)

Griots Garage

Griots Garage Machine 1 is a super compound? That wasn't my experience with the product several years ago, although it could have been reformulated. IME, it should be a 7 tops (probably a 6) and everything should be shrunk in comparison. It is a very consumer friendly, moderate polish, not a compound at all.

Einszett

Intensive Paste is the same M95 and more the M105? I could see how somebody could mistakenly make that assumption based on a lack of experience because of the amount of surface scouring that 1ZIP leaves behind, but it isn't that aggressive as far as defect removal. Maybe a bump higher then SIP depending on the paint and conditions, but it is no where near a 10.

Optimum

I would knock down Hyper Compound a level, but this is pretty good.

Obviously we can all argue the same differences but some of the ratings on this chart are absolutely wrong compared to my experience. I understand if this chart isn't meant to compare line to line, but rather each line with in itself, but if this the case then everything should start at 10 and move downward. Also this (not comparing them against each other) would completely defeat the purpose of this chart, no? I mean it is a comparison chart.

Here is a chart I made based on experience instead of manufacturer marketing and bad information.



Of course I am welcome to critiques on this as well, but I feel it is far more accurate.

[the_invisible]

Re: AutoGeek Comparative Polish & Compound Chart

M205 is grossly underrated and is far more aggressive then M80 (I know this goes against Meguiars rating, but anybody who has used this will agree.) The rest are wrong for the most part as well? M81 which is an abrasive free polish is as aggressive as M82? Seriously this area of the chart is terrible.

Interesting, and good to know.

Snazzy chart you made there, by the way.

[CharlesW]

Re: AutoGeek Comparative Polish & Compound Chart

I would bet on it.
I would agree with that.

I think you are right on in your assessment.
Many of the perceived discrepancies and errors are due to readers not understanding how the chart is intended to be used.

My apologies. It appears that I was wrong on all counts.
I was the one that didn't know how to use the information properly.

[Michael Stoops]

Re: AutoGeek Comparative Polish & Compound Chart

Does anyone have any information on how these rankings were achieved? (can anyone guess why M105 Ultra Cut Compound is listed as both 9 and 10?)

Charts like this may seem handy to someone new to paint polishing, but we all know that there is a lot more to a product than simply the amount of cut. Most here would agree that SMAT products not only offer great cutting ability (depending on overall formulation, of course _ M105 v M205 for example) but beyond that they leave a very high level of clarity to the finish. What else cuts like M105 but can leave such a beautiful finish?

Further, as has been noted, two products of "equal" cut will not necessarily perform "equally" on the same vehicle. If they did, then all products listed in the two most heavily populated columns (4 & 6) would perform equally against their respective competitors. If you've been doing this for a while, you know that is not true.

How much does technique come into play? If you're highly skilled with Brand X and decide to give Brand Y a shot, it may seem as though it's struggling to achieve the same results. Do the two require a slightly different technique to achieve optimum results? We've had people with 30 years experience using a rotary buffer with an old school "rocks in a bottle" compound call to complain about M105 because it simply did not cut at all. We have no doubt these folks were good at what they do, but they have been doing the exact same thing for 30 years and suddenly they change to a very different product.

Expanding on the idea of technique - what process was used to determine level of aggressiveness? Polling of a large group of people? A small group of people getting together and trying products on a variety of vehicles? What variables were present during the testing? How many want to bet that a chemist working for any of the companies listed would review the "test" protocols and just smile?

Now, this is not to say that the chart is worthless. It is merely a basic, very general guide. If it prevents someone from picking up an overly aggressive product when wishing to try out a different brand, or gives someone a little more understanding of where one company's products fall within their own range, then it's OK. Still a bit flawed, perhaps, but OK. It's doubtful, though, that Autogeek intended this to be the definitive reference chart.

[HealthyCivic]

Re: AutoGeek Comparative Polish & Compound Chart

Yeah as Mike says, the problem with a chart like that is it tries to take something that is exponential (includes technique, paint finish, working conditions, environment, cut, endurance, etc...) and make it linear. OK as a general guide use? Yes. And that's really all it should apply for anyway because most experienced detailers are smart enough to know that technique, paint finish, working conditions, environment, cut, and endurance all come in to play.

[the_invisible]

Re: AutoGeek Comparative Polish & Compound Chart

I wouldn't hold Autogeek against their slight misjudgement over a couple of products. Honestly, even Meguiar's isn't having unity over product aggressiveness. We ONLY presume Mike Phillips' interpretation of product aggressiveness to be correct. As a mere mortal, Mike Phillips, or anyone else for that matter, can be entirely incorrect in this regard. The only way to prove that he is correct is to have data sheets released for each product.

Here is an excerpt from Meguiarsasia on youtube that exhibits disunity between Meguiar's interpretation of product aggressiveness:

SwirlX on a Classic VW

meguiarsasia (1 month ago) Show Hide


SwirlX is made specifically for swirls and #205 is for professionals and can be used by hand, orbital, DA or rotary....swirlx is less aggressive than 205 and is to be used by hand or DA only. Its a perfect follow up to M105.

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gudMr2pOVgI

The bolded red font is contrary to the information in this thread:

http://www.meguiarsonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28407

So if Meguiar's itself isn't having an agreement over the aggressiveness between M205 and swirlX, why should Autogeek be berated for the slight error? Seriously, for pete's sake.

[Eddie6th]

Re: AutoGeek Comparative Polish & Compound Chart

The one thing good about the pro line products is the level indicator on the side.

As far as the consumer line goes,would it not be a good idea to put something similair? SwirlX...ScratchX 2....Ultimate Compound.I'm just thinking about a lot of consumers,who don't participate in forums but buy these products,could instantly see how aggressive these products are when purchasing.



The original comparison chart...Seems a bit vague to me.There is no writing about how these conclusions were met.

There must be a good,controlled way to write up something like this.