M105 and the PC (yet again)

I

imported_weekendwarrior

New member
I have seen several threads regarding whether this can be used with the PC. My question is a little more specific, in that I would like to know if anyone has tried this combo on hard clears (like Vettes or Mercedes). I have friends with PCs (that also own Vettes, Mercedes, Audis), that are afraid to use rotaries, but would like to get more correction.
 
considering some people have done 83 orange and 10 passes (or something like that - lol) just to achieve good results, I think that 105 and orange would achieve better results in less time..



just because the clear is harder doesnt mean it wont work...I dont understand the question? of course its going to work fine, and its going to work faster than other compounds with a PC - megs 105 with a pc and lo pro orange pads are a wonderful combination
 
toyotaguy said:
considering some people have done 83 orange and 10 passes (or something like that - lol) just to achieve good results, I think that 105 and orange would achieve better results in less time..



just because the clear is harder doesnt mean it wont work...I dont understand the question? of course its going to work fine, and its going to work faster than other compounds with a PC - megs 105 with a pc and lo pro orange pads are a wonderful combination
Click to expand...





83 and 105 are apples and oranges. It is a given that 83 will work with a PC, as it is recommended by Meguiar's. 105 on the other hand is not. 83 is a diminishing abraisive product, 105 is not. My question is if anyone has tried it on a hard clear with a PC, and if so, did it cause any issues, such as significant marring.
 
I thought someone here HAD done this, and they were even going to post a video of their method?



Am I mixing this up with something else? :confused:
 
I'm gonna try this tomorrow, using the UDM with 105 on a new ZO6. I'll make sure I post my results...
 
If someone wants to send me a sample of 105 I'll try it on an 06 Black Vette that I have coming up? and post the results. I have a FLex I can try it with as well
 
"If someone wants to send me a sample of 105 I'll try it on an 06 Black Vette that I have coming up? and post the results."







Ah, beat me to it. I was hoping for the same thing.
 
weekendwarrior said:
83 is a diminishing abraisive product, 105 is not.
Click to expand...



How can 105 not be a diminishing abrasive, yet finish down almost LSP-ready? I don't think Meg's ever said it wasn't a diminishing abrasive, only that it was a different abrasive than what they've used before, and a "proprietary" one.
 
Setec Astronomy said:
How can 105 not be a diminishing abrasive, yet finish down almost LSP-ready? I don't think Meg's ever said it wasn't a diminishing abrasive, only that it was a different abrasive than what they've used before, and a "proprietary" one.
Click to expand...





I am with you Setec. I found a post that Todd put on the Meguiars forum questioning the same thing, and the answer from Meguiars was kind of vauge. I guess that it must be a trade secret or something because the answer given was: that we should care that it works, and not why it works.



In a link from that thread, Mike Pennington (from Meguiars) answers the dimishing abrasive question, but he does not go into how it works.
 
Setec Astronomy said:
How can 105 not be a diminishing abrasive, yet finish down almost LSP-ready? I don't think Meg's ever said it wasn't a diminishing abrasive, only that it was a different abrasive than what they've used before, and a "proprietary" one.
Click to expand...



Weekendwarrior is correct. They are not diminishing abrasives but, "Super-micro abrasives" as per Meguiars. They've come up with an abraisive that is already super fine (read no need to diminish) while still retaining aggressiveness.
 
I have used the 105 with the dynabrade. The product dried out fast and left a film that was very tough to remove. I have some mixed with Optimum Polish that I use with the rotary to keep the dusting down and create a longer working time. On my next detail I will give this combo a try.

I thought that Scott wax had done this before.
 
Oh no...in that link, Pennington says that 105 does not have a diminishing abrasive, it's got a new super micro abrasive. So I guess it might not be a diminishing abrasive, it might be a really sharp (hard) but really small abrasive, so that it does a lot of cutting but finishes well because it's small. Kind of like using a diamond polish on metal...of course, they have all kinds of grades of diamond polish for different levels of cutting :nixweiss
 
Setec Astronomy said:
Oh no...in that link, Pennington says that 105 does not have a diminishing abrasive, it's got a new super micro abrasive. So I guess it might not be a diminishing abrasive, it might be a really sharp (hard) but really small abrasive, so that it does a lot of cutting but finishes well because it's small. Kind of like using a diamond polish on metal...of course, they have all kinds of grades of diamond polish for different levels of cutting :nixweiss
Click to expand...





That is as good of an explaination that I have see thus far. I could easily subscribe to that theory.
 
I have absolutely no proof of this, it's just my whacky guess at it...



Last year on one of the other boards, there was a big discussion about the differences between MIP and MSIP, as well as FPII and PO106FF. Someone from Menzerna said that the primary difference was an increase in concentration of the abrasives from 3% in their standard polishes to 7% in the ceramiclear rated polishes. Since they doubled the abrasives, they also had to change the lubrication.



I think M105 is something *similar*, not the same, but close. I think they have chosen a very fine abrasive, like something you'd find in Ultrafina, but seriously increased the concentration of the abrasive. That way it can finish down almost LSP ready, but have a huge amount of cutting power. Then they changed the lubrication to make it so you can't remove too much clear before it flashes over. It would seem like such an abrasive would be non-diminishing, otherwise they wouldn't have a reason to severely limit the working time; the abrassive would simply diminish to the point of being functionally non-abrasive like most polishes do.



Just my SWAG at it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top