AutoGeek Comparative Polish & Compound Chart

[thejazzguy]

Re: AutoGeek Comparative Polish & Compound Chart

Great to see you back on MOL Mike! Glad to see that you made it safely to Florida! All the best

[Mike Phillips]

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?

This was put together before I arrived but I'm going to work on it today. It's meant as a general reference to give people an idea of how aggressive different products are, not a definitive comparison. For years people have asked Meguiar's for a comparative chart for all their abrasive products and it's never been produced because it's more complicated than simply listing products in order by their aggressiveness because of all the variables involved.

Besides that, most people really only need one or two products to tackle whatever project it is they're working on, so evaluating every product on the market is over-complicating something that should be quite simple, that is, if you're unsure as to what to use to remove the defects out of the car in your garage that you're working on, then simply post a question asking for product recommendations for the specific task at hand instead of digesting an entire chart of products. If you already have some products to work with then list those and someone will reply and let you know if what you have is what you need and if not then again they will recommend or suggest a product or two that will get the job done.

KISS = Keep it Simple Simon

I think someone from Meg's would provide feedback to AG if they question the listing.

We have a great working relationship and we're going to tweak this chart a little today.

I think I am seeing some changes on Autogeek's chart of product aggressiveness.

Someone from Autogeek must have read this post. Could it be Mr. Phillips????

I read it last Friday, and again this morning. I'm going to work with Jason and we'll tweak the chart to make it more accurate but again, a chart like this is a general indicator and the purpose of a discussion forum is to ask and get more refined and specific product recommendations that match to the task at hand, the skill level of the person doing the job and the method of application.

[tguil]

Re: AutoGeek Comparative Polish & Compound Chart

To keep it simple -- I stay within one product line and use it according to what is suggested by that particular company. For most of my "detailing life", that company has been Meguiar's. Makes sense to me.

Tom

[rusty bumper]

Re: AutoGeek Comparative Polish & Compound Chart

I see that ScratchX 2.0 is rated along with D151 @ "4" on the abrasive scale. I thought that SX 2.0 was rated much higher than a "4".

[the_invisible]

Re: AutoGeek Comparative Polish & Compound Chart

I think I am seeing some changes on Autogeek's chart of product aggressiveness.

Someone from Autogeek must have read this post. Could it be Mr. Phillips????

[Bunky]

Re: AutoGeek Comparative Polish & Compound Chart

I think someone from Meg's would provide feedback to AG if they question the listing.

[BarryK]

Re: AutoGeek Comparative Polish & Compound Chart

The problem with putting a scale on a group of consumer products is that the average consumer (ie, the non-enthusiast) will basically fall into two camps - those who will just grab the most aggressive thing they can find no matter how minor the issue, and those who would be terrified of anything that will "take off my clear coat". That last quote being a very common concern heard in our call center.

It really is far easier for the non-enthusiast to select a product based on the issue their facing - got swirls, select SwirlX; got scratches, select ScratchX 2.0, etc.

That's a VERY valid point n regards to the consumer line and something i'd agree with completely.
a non-professional or non-enthusiast person who is just trying to remove a flaw on their vehicle (swirls, scratches, etc) doesn't know or understand the real differences and they really don't want to. all they want to know is what is the best product for them to use in THEIR situation. The easier and less confusing for the general consumer the better.

SwirlX = takes away swirls
ScratchX = takes away scratches
etc

putting a number on there just confuses the issue

[Michael Stoops]

Re: AutoGeek Comparative Polish & Compound Chart

The problem with putting a scale on a group of consumer products is that the average consumer (ie, the non-enthusiast) will basically fall into two camps - those who will just grab the most aggressive thing they can find no matter how minor the issue, and those who would be terrified of anything that will "take off my clear coat". That last quote being a very common concern heard in our call center.

It really is far easier for the non-enthusiast to select a product based on the issue their facing - got swirls, select SwirlX; got scratches, select ScratchX 2.0, etc.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.