M105 vs Power Gloss, No way its a 12!

D

dan46n2

New member
I just got in some Meguiars 105 and compared it to my Menzerna Power Gloss. I did a few side by side comparisons on the hood of my '94 Vette and can not tell any difference in cut between the two. I was using a rotary with a yellow Edge pad. I am really doubting Meguiars scale of a 12 for 105 and 8 for Power Gloss. Other than that they both finish nicely.
 
I have to agree man.



I did the same both products, Edge Yellow, Flex Speed 5. I didn't notice any difference in the finish. I looked at under 750 Watt Halogens and an IPA Wipe Down. Nothing finish was equal on both products.



The only thing I could see, M105 is a very fast worker. Only real difference to me...
 
If your not happy, send the m105 to me ;) . To the 2nd poster, so it cut faster, and finished down just as nice, what more could you ask for?



To the OP, how exactly did you test the cut? Did you do it on some RID that neither were able to take out? Just trying to figure out how you were testing it because all you mentioned was how it finished out. And that's where the beauty of m105 comes into play, it cuts and cuts and cuts but finishes out like polish.



So judging by how it finished is not a great way to do it
 
That's exactly what I was trying to say bigjim. Neither mentioned anything but either failing to take something out. They only mentioned the finish.
 
The defects were similar on both sides of the hood, going from swirls to deeper marks and scratches. After using both products they both removed the same depth defects and 105 could not remove anything deeper than power gloss could. As far as speed they were close, power gloss did take a little longer to break up completely. However as far as the chart that ranks PG an 8 and 105 a 12, there is no way that is accurate from what I noticed.
 
dan46n2 said:
Thats the chart I was referring to.
Click to expand...



That chart IMO is only accurate when comparing products from the same Mfg... when comparing products across multiple Mfg's that chart has little bearing. Now, if a correlation study was done to establish that a cut of 3 for Mfg "X" was comparable to a cut of 5 for Mfg "Y" then and only then would you be able to create a chart based on a numerical cut and compare across multiple mfg's



I can only imagine mfg's use different "scales" when assigning a numerical code for cut
 
MotorCity said:
That chart IMO is only accurate when compaing products from the same Mfg... when comparing products across multiple Mfg's that chart has little bearing.



I can only imagine mfg's using different "scales" when assigning a numerical code for cut
Click to expand...



I thought the whole point of the chart was to compare products from different manufacturers.
 
dan46n2 said:
I thought the whole point of the chart was to compare products from different manufacturers.
Click to expand...





I can only speak from my point of view and that is I seriously doubt there is a industry standard when assigning a numerical cut to a product.. Therefore comparing products based on an assigned numerical cut, when not from the same mfg would prove to be difficult without 1st doing a correlation study to establish the potential variance...



Just my two cents
 
I love M105. Not knocking it by any stretch, great product. I just agree'd with the original poster the cut seems about the same to me. That's all.
 
The only reason why it is a twelve (12), is the fact that they have older compounds that are ten (10) in cut already. Seeing that they can not go back and change all the millions of bottles that are out there, they just bumped the cut rating over 10.



Maybe the new "Megs" cut rating spread is now at 20.
 
dan46n2 said:
I also went over the PG side with 105 and it did not remove any defects left over from PG.
Click to expand...





Meg's did say that the new formula 105 isn't as aggressive as the old formula. If the old formula was a 12 out of 12, I'd give the new formula about a 9.



dan46n2, you mentioned that you went over the area that you had done with PG again with 105, and it didn't remove any additional defects....that's a bit odd. Here's why: Every time you use a product, you remove X amount of clear coat. Let's say one application of 105 removes .01u of clear. It will remove that much clear *every time*, regardless of whether another compound was used previously. Let's say that PG also removes .01u per application. That would mean that on the side you did with PG and 105, you have removed a total of .02u, which would mean that the defects on that side of the hood are pretty deep. Eventually, with repeated applications of *any* abrasive polish, you'll get to either the bottom of the defects, or the bottom of the clear coat, whichever occurs first.
 
Just to add...



I did hear that the cut gauge on the non-diminishing bottles might be removed in the near future.



The non-diminishing abrasive products are very pad dependent. For example, if you use a finishing pad with M105, you are definately not getting a cut of 12. But if you use a wool pad and M105, you are getting the full cut.
 
I have yet to use the new formula, but when the old M105 and PG are both used correctly and on a pad with very little cut, like LC white or Meg's 9006, I've always noticed a better cut with M105.. I have used M95 a lot more than M105 and that cuts better than PG as well... PG, when used with a rougher pad, like LC yellow, or even orange, does cut very well but leaves an 'ugly' surface due partly to the pad and partly to PG... that's obviously my opinion from my experience but I would easily give M95 11-12, M105 12 and PG 9 or so... as I mentioned in that thread with the polish chart, there needs to be a standard where each polish is compared to the next on the same paint and same pad... I've done that with nearly all polishes I use (most of both the Menzerna and Meg's line) and, again, M105 and 95 not only cut a bit more than PG, but finish down much much better... PG to me is a lot like M85
 
lecchilo said:
I have yet to use the new formula, but when the old M105 and PG are both used correctly and on a pad with very little cut, like LC white or Meg's 9006, I've always noticed a better cut with M105.. I have used M95 a lot more than M105 and that cuts better than PG as well... PG, when used with a rougher pad, like LC yellow, or even orange, does cut very well but leaves an 'ugly' surface due partly to the pad and partly to PG... that's obviously my opinion from my experience but I would easily give M95 11-12, M105 12 and PG 9 or so... as I mentioned in that thread with the polish chart, there needs to be a standard where each polish is compared to the next on the same paint and same pad... I've done that with nearly all polishes I use (most of both the Menzerna and Meg's line) and, again, M105 and 95 not only cut a bit more than PG, but finish down much much better... PG to me is a lot like M85
Click to expand...



I just tried both with an 8 inch LC wool pad on my rotary and got very similar results. They must have toned down the new formula.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top