D151 vs. M105/M205

[mh68]

Has anyone compared the results of these products using a DA? I'm curious as to which works better. I'm currently using D151 and am very impressed with it but have been reading about M105/M205 and would like to try them. The D151 replaced my M80/M83 combo, it worked better imo, so now I'm wondering about M105/M205.

Mike Harris

[Mike Phillips]

Re: D151 vs. M105/M205

Just to note, you are comparing apples to oranges...

Two of these products are water soluble, one isn't. D151 contains ingredients very, very different than the two body shop safe tools you listed.

A cleaner/wax by it's very nature should leave a better looking finish because it's leaving a wax behind on the surface, the other two are not leaving any protection or long lasting ingredients on the surface.

Good question though and I'm sure others will chime in, just wanted to point out to everyone that might ever read this thread that cleaner/waxes and body shop compounds and polishes are apples to oranges.

[Markus Kleis]

Re: D151 vs. M105/M205

D151 and M105/M205 are very different products, but do share the new Super Micro Abrasive Technology. Aside from that though, very different uses and applications.

D151 has cut somewhere around that of 80/83, but is intended to be a quick, 1-step polish and wax.

M105 has a cut rating of 12, and is intended for heavy defect removal. It is a serious compound. M105 is not to be taken lightly, but at the same time it is a great product because it leaves a great finish considering the amount of cut it brings to the job.

M205 is an ultra finishing polish intended to leave a high gloss finish. It has a cut rating of 4, but finishes like a traditional 1 or 2 cut product. M105 and M205 are intended to be a great 1-2 punch combo for many full correction jobs, but they do not leave any wax/sealant behind like D151.

Overall, all 3 products have their uses... but they are quite different.

[AeroCleanse]

Re: D151 vs. M105/M205

If your happy with D151 then just keep using it. If the defects don't come out with D151 then switch to M105. I haven't used M205, but you don't have to use M205 after M105. You could use M105 and follow up with D151.

[Tim Lingor]

Re: D151 vs. M105/M205

Hey,

When I was testing/reviewing D151, I fell in love with the product. It has a cut between M83 Dual Action Cleaner Polish and Solo (making it stronger than M83) but it finishes down as well if not better than M80. Therefore, I am able to on certain paints use D151 and then ultra finish the paint with M205. This creates an ultra clear finish!

But if D151 is not enough or it does not respond well on certain paints, I may switch to M105 followed by M205 or even M82 if I am using the rotary polisher.

I think something should be said here: I see way too often on MOL people recommending M105 and then M205. Meg's M105 is very aggressive and may be way more than is needed. Meguiar's has always recommended using the least aggressive product possible to do the job. Therefore to automatically direct someone to use M105, may end up someone removing way more clear coat/paint than necessary.

Tim

[3Fitty]

Re: D151 vs. M105/M205

I think something should be said here: I see way too often on MOL people recommending M105 and then M205. Meg's M105 is very aggressive and may be way more than is needed. Meguiar's has always recommended using the least aggressive product possible to do the job. Therefore to automatically direct someone to use M105, may end up someone removing way more clear coat/paint than necessary.

Tim

Very true Tim. I know I have been so caught up on the M105 hype (which is all warranted BTW), but you give those who are not pros (like me), a good reminder of using the least aggressive product.

Although, let me ask you a question...

Suppose M105 is overkill for a particular car but M205 is not quite strong enough. What is the danger of starting with M105 over something like SwirlX or ScratchX 2?

My thinking is, what if I'm lazy and figure I can knock out the heavy swirls with 1 or 2 passes of M105, instead of 5 passes of SwirlX?

[Tim Lingor]

Re: D151 vs. M105/M205

Very true Tim. I know I have been so caught up on the M105 hype (which is all warranted BTW), but you give those who are not pros (like me), a good reminder of using the least aggressive product.

Although, let me ask you a question...

Suppose M105 is overkill for a particular car but M205 is not quite strong enough. What is the danger of starting with M105 over something like SwirlX or ScratchX 2?

My thinking is, what if I'm lazy and figure I can knock out the heavy swirls with 1 or 2 passes of M105, instead of 5 passes of SwirlX?

Good question!

Part of the problem of having an aggressive scale printed on the bottle is that people take the difference between say an 8 and a 10 as only a jump of 2 in strength but that is only part of it. Though the jump is only 2 levels, those 2 levels may be huge depending upon the polish-ability of the paint! This is why most people use a test spot to see how a certain paint reacts. Once a person finds a combination that works on that test spot, you can now repeat that process on the entire car.

BUT on that test spot a person needs to remember that the effects of applying and removing of cleaner polishes and/or compounds is accumulative! For example, let's say you use M80 or M205 first. If that does not remove the swirls, many people would jump to M83 which seems like the next logical step, or is it? If one uses M80 first and then M83 next, you are getting the combined results from both products. In other words, M80 has already removed some of the marring and M83 may have removed the rest. The question becomes then, should a person use M80 for 2-3 passes, or use M83 then M80, OR move to a whole new compound like M105? And that is where years of detailing experience takes over.

After detailing for so many years you get to know how a certain paint reacts simply by doing a basic test spot. I know after using M80 and seeing how the paint reacts, which product I will need to use. It is a mistake to automatically get into the frame of mind that if a "little is good, then a LOT is better" as with paint this is simply not true! I keep flinching every time a see a newbie "detailer" posting and promoting that a person should just use M105 and then M205 as that is simply NOT true!

Many "detailers" that work in body shops may be told by management to get the car done within a certain amount of time. In this case, the tech may just jump to M105 as he/she will know that it will level the finish pretty fast. However, because they are on the clock and have to get it done fast, they are not concerned with the amount of clear coat and/or paint being removed.

I will not detail that way. I will remove as little paint as necessary thereby maximizing the lifetime of the paint. That is why I will not detail a vehicle in 3-4 hours as I usually need 10-12 as using the least aggressive method takes more time, but I can walk away knowing that I or the individual will have the same paint to detail for many years.

I hope I made sense.

Tim

[3Fitty]

Re: D151 vs. M105/M205

Great post. Thanks Tim.

[mh68]

Re: D151 vs. M105/M205

Thanks for all the great replies! I knew that M105/M205 didn't contain a wax like D151. I was just wondering how aggressive they were compared to D151. I use D151 to get a lot of swirl marks out and still top it with M21. I was wanting to see how they worked on more severe defects that several passes of D151 wouldn't work on. I'll be adding them to my arsenal!

Thanks!

Mike Harris

[AeroCleanse]

Re: D151 vs. M105/M205

I will not detail that way. I will remove as little paint as necessary thereby maximizing the lifetime of the paint. That is why I will not detail a vehicle in 3-4 hours as I usually need 10-12 as using the least aggressive method takes more time, but I can walk away knowing that I or the individual will have the same paint to detail for many years.

I wonder if you end up taking as much material off anyway, just taking longer to do it.

[AeroCleanse]

Re: D151 vs. M105/M205

Thanks for all the great replies! I knew that M105/M205 didn't contain a wax like D151. I was just wondering how aggressive they were compared to D151. I use D151 to get a lot of swirl marks out and still top it with M21. I was wanting to see how they worked on more severe defects that several passes of D151 wouldn't work on. I'll be adding them to my arsenal!

D151 is more aggressive than M205, less aggressive then M105.

[Tim Lingor]

Re: D151 vs. M105/M205

I wonder if you end up taking as much material off anyway, just taking longer to do it.

I am not sure how? If you only use a product with an aggressive level required to level the paint, rather than using a too aggressive product that removes more paint than necessary, you should be removing less paint. Sure, the more aggressive method is faster, but if it removes more paint than needed, you are reducing the life expectancy out of the paint.

Tim

[AeroCleanse]

Re: D151 vs. M105/M205

I am not sure how? If you only use a product with an aggressive level required to level the paint, rather than using a too aggressive product that removes more paint than necessary, you should be removing less paint. Sure, the more aggressive method is faster, but if it removes more paint than needed, you are reducing the life expectancy out of the paint.

Tim

Doesn't the defect require the same amount of paint removal no matter what? The only real way to tell would be to use a paint thickness gauge.

[Tim Lingor]

Re: D151 vs. M105/M205

Doesn't the defect require the same amount of paint removal no matter what? The only real way to tell would be to use a paint thickness gauge.

Yes, of course it does. I do not think I am getting across what I am trying to say. Using two products, with an accumulated cut may not remove as much as the cut from a single but much stronger product. A paint thickness gauge is not needed unless one is to measure a large discrepancy.

OK, let's suppose a person has light swirling on a ceramic clear coat paint. Many light cut products may not remove the swirling used individually, but a combination with an accumulated cut may. This does not mean that a heavy compound like M105 should be automatically reached for as M105 may take off more clear coat than is necessary to remove the swirling. If the accumulated cut of the two products is less than the cut from the single heavy duty compound and yet removes the marring, why reach for a heavier compound and remove more clear coat or paint than is needed?

If after doing a test spot you find that the accumulated cut removes the swirls, then on a new test spot, you could use another slightly stronger compound than the original compound and see if it does the job. That means trying M80 and then moving to M83, and not automatically to M105 which will remove more clear coat than may be required. Many may argue that with the new SMAT abrasives the product keeps cutting through the buffing process, and once a scratch is removed you stop buffing. Well that is inaccurate. The SMAT abrasive do a fantastic job of cutting, but if you use them on a paint that does not require such a cut, they can haze the finish requiring even more buffing. So while the scratch is removed, now you have to remove the haze which also removes more paint.

So let us suppose that I am filling up a glass of water to the half way point. By using less aggressive means, I can fill the glass and stop very close to the half way point. If I use an aggressive method and really pour the water into the glass, and I over-shoot the mark, I can pour out the water. But with paint, if you take off more clear coat than needed, you can not put it back.

As I said, over the years of doing test spots you get a feel for paint and how it reacts. That is why so many get comfortable within one product line, like Meguiar's. You do a test spot, inspect the paint, and then you can make an educated guess as to which product may do the job.

I hope that clarifies it better!

Tim

[Markus Kleis]

Re: D151 vs. M105/M205

Well, I think the bottom line Tim is trying to convey is that many of us (myself included!) have become accustomed to reaching for products like M105 for virtually all defect removal because we know that in a single pass we can remove the defects.

Tim (If I am understanding him properly), is saying that rather than trying to get it 100% removed in the first pass, instead shoot for removal over the combination of the steps (whether that is 2/3/4 steps etc).

In other words, start with something like M86 Solo cream, and find it gives you 85%~ defect removal. Some people at that point would step up to M105. Tim is suggesting instead to see if M86 + M205 would, when combined remove the defects. Then, instead of 100% removing the original defects in step 1 and then also removing more "good clear" with a finishing polish you would be removing less clear during your final polishing stage since it would be removing the original defects and the left over defect from the previous polishing steps.

Make sense?