M83 on the loose

[Hoytman]

Wow, Hoytman. I think you are overthinking this. Obviously Meg's still makes #83 because it still sells. Whether it is a good product or their best product doesn't really enter into it, as evidenced by the hue and cry over D114. My opinion has nothing to do with whether it's DAT, SMAT, new, old, etc. It's just from my experience, and I find those polishes with the "trade secret oils" harder to work with than a lot of other polishes. Maybe I'm not remembering them properly, I'm sure my technique wasn't as good back than as it is now. Heck, 83 might not even be the same now as it was then, we did go through the VOC thing 12 years ago or so, perhaps they've changed the solvent.

But the real reason is why, today, would I want to use this product, when I can use a product that cuts harder, finishes better, and stains trim less?

PS As to the reason why it "still sells" I think has a lot to do with some car guys (and shops) sticking with what they've found to work, no matter how much has changed in the meantime. I mean there's still guys who polish their car by hand, right? That doesn't mean that's the best way to do it.

Setec,
Perhaps I still didn't represent my position clear enough. I'm not necessarily speaking solely of M83, rather, all DAT's by Meguiar's. Let's not forget that M83 is at least touted to be easy to use with a DA...not just for rotary specifically like the others.

@Hoytman. This is just my opinion... But I don't really think you can compare all DAT products all that simply. For example, M105 and Griots Fast Correcting Compound are both SMAT, but would you say they're all that comparable? Most people would say no, mainly because M105 can have a very short work time, whereas Fast Correcting Compound can be worked almost endlessly. That's just 1 example of how far things have come while still being SMAT.

The other major thing you're forgetting is that most of those early Meguiars DAT compounds such as M84, M85, M95, etc. were made to be used with rotary polishers.. That being said, do you still think they're comparable to the modern day Pinnacle DAT polishes?

The reason Meguiars still sells those old compounds is because there's still alot of detailers/body shops that use rotary buffers.

But as far as modern day/future products, I think it's safe to say Meguiars has moved on from DAT..

Yes, I'm well aware plenty of shops still use Meg's DAT products...I thinking I even mentioned it my last post.

I expect one brands products to be different from another brand whether DAT or SMAT from either, else why sell the same products. My entire post was about why one brand of DAT is often used and the other I've never seen in my time here at AG. Why? You may have touched on it without me thinking about it when I posted...the tool being used. I wasn't even thinking about it when I wrote that. Still, I seen Mike use Pinnacle Advanced Compound with a rotary (my memory could be wrong...thinking of a demo at Evansville), but I've never seen him demonstrate the use of other Meguiar's DAT's. I'm not asking him to play favorites. It's just something I've noticed and wanted to ask about. I know he probably used and demoed them a ton while at Meguiar's. My thoughts aren't so much as to why or how the Pinnacle compound/polishes are so much better, as they are hoping for an explanation as to why they're not use or demoed much here and why Meg's hasn't upped the ante on there own DAT products if the Pinnacle products are that good. Clear as mud, I know.

So, Meguiar's has moved on from DAT products, okay...while Pinnacle DAT are still high enough quality to be used and demoed to this very day (even used side-by-side with modern SMAT's)...Menzerna created FG400...and Meg's just completely forgot about offering newer and better DAT products to their existing customers/shops while allowing their existing DAT's on internet forums to be shadowed by an 'inferior" complex. Doesn't make sense for a company to do that, to me.

"If you stay in the Meguiar's professional line, then don't use this because it's old, use these new SMAT products. However, you could use these (insert brand names) DAT's on your modern bc/cc because these are better." ... And maybe they are that much better. IDK! Never used them enough to form my own opinion.

None of this was typed with even a smidgeon of a thought of ruffling feathers. Pure curiosity.

[Hoytman]

Double post. Sorry!

...And never mind responding. I've already hijacked the op's thread enough. Sorry!

[Setec Astronomy]

Perhaps I still didn't represent my position clear enough. I'm not necessarily speaking solely of M83, rather, all DAT's by Meguiar's. Let's not forget that M83 is at least touted to be easy to use with a DA...not just for rotary specifically like the others.

I think we're beating a dead horse here. 80 and 81 are gone, as far as I can tell.

As far as your other DAT/SMAT comments, I'm know I asked Mike Phillips on here when FG400 came out if it was SMAT or DAT, and I believe the answer was "it doesn't matter". I also know this question came up about some of the Optimum polishes and the answer was "SMAT and DAT are really obsolete terms when it comes to current abrasive technology". I'm sure I'm paraphrasing and I hope I'm remembering things correctly.

My point is I doubt Meg's is thinking about their range of polish products as "here's our SMAT offerings, and here's our DAT offerings..." I think they develop products as they see fit, and they continue to sell products if they continue to sell, and they don't if they don't.

[Brandon Wetch]

My only heavy cut is 105. I must really be missing out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk oooooooohoohooooo I have an iPhone everybody!! An IPHONE.

[Hoytman]

Who mentioned M80 and m81? I never. Wasn't even referring to products that are gone.

For the record, I don't own Fg400, or the Pinnacle products and I am NOT against trying and owning them. Then again, why not just stick to SMAT offerings or something like AAT...which was not the first of it's kind. I thought M86 was first in that department.

I guess it's wrong to question why it's ok to use current/newer offerings of DAT products on modern bc/cc, but not older DAT products.

[Setec Astronomy]

Who mentioned M80 and m81? I never. Wasn't even referring to products that are gone.

I guess it's wrong to question why it's ok to use current/newer offerings of DAT products on modern bc/cc, but not older DAT products.

Holy cow man, you're really stuck on this. It's fine to question it...but I've already given you my answer, I feel it's an inferior product. It was great in its day, but its day is long past.

[RPM_BR]

I have a bottle of M83 (which I nicknamed lefty, because of the picture) and I tried recently to use it in a car in which I was working with the M101/205 combo.
It smells solvent, it is oily, but it kinda cut. It seems a high speed (1200 to 1600 rpm) rotary compound, really old school.
It doesn't dust, it softens the foam pad (high solvent content I would guess) and gum up the wool pad.
I will use it in budget cars until is gone.
And when it is gone, it'll be gone for good.
M101, M205 is a lot better, though it dusts.