:nerd:
gpshumway said:
While technically market interaction, a response to a specific e-mail question about product contents and functionality is very different from the ad-copy verbiage which gets put on the website. Dan asked a specific question and got a specific answer.
The website verbiage refers to the entire line of LSPs as polishes, including Aqua-Wax, which is clearly not a polish in any sense of the word. 111 is also referred to as a polish even though it contains no abrasives. The ambiguity of their website info is what kept me from trying their products in the past.
Duragloss is not unique in having this problem, Meguiars has it bad, to the point they have a "decoder ring" in their web forum. Other makers are better about having a simple lineup and communicating the purpose of each product and the way they work together.
Boy I would like to have me one of those "decoder rings"! :eyebrows: Although I'd have to say I never had any significant problems understanding Megs products. The one thing that is fairly consistent (that I like, and have used for years) is the cut meter on the right side of the label. I'd like to see that on not just the Mirror Glaze products but ALL of the Megs products, including OTC.
I to would say DG and its course of continued ambiguity is by and large what kept me away from the product(s). Combined with extremely affordable pricing, bordering on what I believe we'd all agree is actually
cheap (
when compared to most everything else out there) makes it fall into the "too good to be true" category. :wink1:
It was actually fairly recently even that a AG member sent me a number of DG samples to which I was pleasantly surprised. :idea
OTOH, with the exception of some very VERY old gallons of 901 (902 actually in the gallon size) at
only ONE of my local NAPA stores I've yet to find any DG products. The 902 is so old, the jug has turned yellow and the soap itself is more amber looking than the deep cherry red color it's supposed to be. (And yes, after the 'samples' showed up I ordered several gallons of DG products.) :wow:
shortspark said:
Duragloss may confuse people with their nomenclature and descriptions but for those of us who are experienced in these sort of things we need only a rough road map to understand their products. If you read the descriptions carefully you can pretty much ascertain what each product is suppose to do. And by experimenting with the products we get an even better fix of their capabilities, as is the case with anything where trial and error is the best way to compare performance of different products.
For example, let's look at what the products themselves tell us in their description: 101 ("Recommended for all vehicles 1 year or older which may require additional cleaning properties to remove mild oxidation and light surface scratches"); 105 ("One Step Wax - Recommended for all vehicles. Contains additional cleaning properties to remove mild oxidation and light surface scratches"). 111 ("Duragloss CCP (Clear Coat Polish) is a non-abrasive synthetic formula, which gives a "wet look" shine and durable protective coating. Durable to both acid and alkaline washes. Can be applied to the entire vehicle in the sun or shade before removing easily for a high gloss and protective coating. Recommended for vehicles less than 1 year old. Can be applied as a final coat/sealer after using #101, 105, or 501").
So, although the term "polish" is loosely used by Duragloss (as is their use of "wax"), we can still pretty much figure out and ascertain what these products are suppose to do from the descriptions alone. We can determine, eg, that 111 is a true LSP because they tell us it can be applied as a final coat over the others and is non-abrasive. Because of this we can be pretty certain it contains no cleaners and is a pure sealant. We know 105 has some cleaners because of its description as an AIO product. And 101 leans more to a polish in the traditional sense because it says this product is best used on older vehicles.
I agree that Duragloss could do a better job in their descriptions for the average Joe, but those of us with a little experience should have no trouble figuring it all out, especially after a time or two of experimenting with these products.
I agree with everything you've said. But at what cost, and what time involved are we supposed to 'try' and 'learn' what does what from DG? It seams their ability to produce an affordable (
actually VERY affordable) product has trickled down to "less" in other areas. It may be me, but I find even there labels to be somewhat lower end looking (but then again, compared to CG or PB they are million dollar labels). :becky:
gpshumway said:
While you can decode the marketing speak on the DG website to get back to the actual function of the product, you shouldn't have to. For a product marketed to enthusiasts who know what they're doing, the performance aspects of each product should be straightforward and easy to understand.
For instance, the website says 101 is for cars "1 year or older..", while 105 is for "All vehicles". If anything the verbiage indicates 101 is more aggressive than 105, but Dan's e-mail indicates the opposite. The verbiage also gives no indication why 105 and 101 are both produced. What's the difference? In what situations is 101 preferred over 105 and vice versa? Not being able to explain why you produce two ostensibly similar products is a bit amateurish, especially on the company's most public face, the website. Then there's 501 which is buried in the marine section of the site, implying it's not for use on automotive paint.
It's not like I've got it in for DG, it's just that when I was shopping for LSP I found Klasse and Zaino, both of which gave clear information about how to use each product. Klasse have a very simple product line and Zaino understands they have to tell customers the difference between Z2 and Z5 to avoid confusion.
That clarity helped me make up my mind and DG got ignored because it was too much effort to get the information I needed to make a good decision.
THIS!!!
Experimentation is fine, but in the end I'd much rather spend time driving the car than anything else. Detailing it is down the list, researching detailing products is WAY down the list for me.
I agree with the first part.... but for me... detailing has often been a course of action I'd choose rather than driving... as it's sometimes therapy from the real world. :help:
