M83 on the loose

[caudleej]

I decided to give M83 a try today since I thought it might cut a bit better than M205. I am new to detailing in the last few years and with the new SMAT abrasives out that's pretty much what I started with and have never really reached for any of Meguiar's diminishing abrasive products. I know the concept behind them and have used them but they have never really been my go too.

Anyway I decided to test the product on the roof of my personal truck. Mind you the rest of the truck is about 95-97% defect free and beautiful. The truck is going on 5 years old and other than routine washing. Maybe two clay bar treatments and some carnauba I have never touched the roof of of the truck mainly because it's a pain to get up there and I kept telling myself it's your daily driver and you can't see up there unless you climb up and look. I just recently used chemical guys jet seal on the rest of the truck and am very happy with it. I decided I shouldn't neglect the roof anymore especially living in Florida and do a proper sealant job on it.

The roof was very swirled and had quite a few deep scratches from a tree limb I had over my drive a while back. I clayed the roof very good and then tried M83 on a polishing pad and the da. This made a difference but I new I would need more cut. I have figured out the best combination to remove scratches from thus truck is M205 on a microfiber cutting disc. With this in mind I grabbed one, primed it up and tried the M83 with the microfiber disc and this gave me results. I could have easily went on to a compound like M105 because the roof was so neglected but I played with the M83 a bit more to see what I could come up with. I found the best results were obtained with a little faster speed on the da and of course a longer working time.

This did not remove the deeper scratches but did diminish them some. I wasn't trying to remove them though. Don't want to sacrifice much clear on the roof.

Overall I think the product works well.

Between M83 and M205 I think the 83 cleans and polishes much better, but the M205 seemed to have more bite.

The only major problem I do see with the product which may be why it seems to not cut as well in this application is it gums up the microfiber pad in just one or two sections. I attached some pictures of my pad after one or two passes with the M83.

[Hoytman]

Blow it out with compressed air and you're good to go, or use a stiff bristled nylon brush.


You know...this thread made me think of something.

EDIT:

Rest of post deleted by me. Not relevant to the thread.

[Sizzle Chest]

Thanks for the review, some very good info!!

[Setec Astronomy]

Blow it out with compressed air and you're good to go, or use a stiff bristled nylon brush.


You know...this thread made me think of something.

You often see on this forum that M83 is old technology being DAT...and really some make it sound as if it's an inferior product. What is odd in that regard is, this same technology is often recommended and demonstrated on videos and television by recommendation of Pinnacle products. Not just referring to M83, but all Meguiar's DAT polishes...they don't get much love here by forum members. Of course, I understand why AG staff recommends house brands, but still...I'm talking about apples to apples comparisons, not SMAT products offered by either.

Ninja edit notwithstanding, I presume you're referring to a post of mine from a few days ago. I honestly don't know why you would use #83 today when there are so much better polishes. I mean if you already had it and wanted to use it up, or you're working on SS paint then ok, but there actually is a reason why Meg's came out with M100, M101, M105, D300, etc. Those 80-series polishes came out 30 years ago, and I don't think it's accurate to lump them in with the Pinnacle polishes, nor it is simply because they are DAT that they are "old", there are plenty of current DAT polishes like FG400.

[Hoytman]

PM sent

DAT is DAT, or it isn't DAT. Old, new, future. The types of abrasives may be different, but the principle is the same. Carrier liquids, oils, chemicals may be old, new, future. Principle is the same. I doubt chemical make-up, aside from working time and abrasive amounts per bottle, will make two brands that far different. Point being...they either work, or they don't. Old, new, future paint...doesn't matter because even those 30 year old products are still being used today by many. I would not even begin to deny their results. Lots of my local body shops are still using Meg's DAT products in their shops. BUT...this is why I deleted part of my thread because it wasn't relevant to the OP...and I didn't want to offend AG staff for doing their job...pushing house brands. Their livelihood depends on them doing their job. That's why I deleted it...no more, no less.

[Hoytman]

... Those 80-series polishes came out 30 years ago, and I don't think it's accurate to lump them in with the Pinnacle polishes, nor it is simply because they are DAT that they are "old", there are plenty of current DAT polishes like FG400.

Just to be clear for those reading into the future, I wasn't trying to compare any SMAT products to DAT products and I even stated talking about making an apples to apples comparison...that would be DAT for DAT regardless of brand name.

Actually Setec (I'm not jumping on you just making a distinction), you make my point for me. You did what most other posters do and have done when an older Meg's compound/polish is being discussed, you mentioned more modern products are offered. I understand that, and I use those products you mentioned. However, I was specifically talking about Meguiar's DAT products being touted as being old and not often recommended for modern BC/CC paint yet at the same time there seems to be no issue in using and recommending Pinnacle DAT products on modern paints. Sort of clouds "the reason" Meg's created those other compounds you mentioned. I mean, Mike uses Advance compound and polish quite often on demonstrations, on factory paint and custom paint...bc/cc too. I've seen him work his magic in person with purpose and precision and without hesitation using those products.

Readers...

Now, I've been around Mike 1 time in person. That said, I'm usually pretty good at getting a feel for a person based on lots of things. I think Mike uses and likes Pinnacle DAT polishes (even FG400)for:

1. It's his job. I get that; it's given and understood.

2. I actually believed him when he said they're great easy to use products.

3. I really feel he has confidence in using them himself, even on his own time.

4. I believe he feels they are that good.

The American way is to innovate, never settle, strive towards perfection, create something new whether we need it or not regardless whether what is old seems to work better or is made better. Companies have to create something new to sell to continue to grow profit margins. That is key: not profit, rather profit margins. The appearance of being better doesn't always translate.

Lots of questions come to mind.

What separates the differences in these brands of DAT products, what makes them different?
Are the abrasives, although both DAT, all that different?
Are they of a different make-up, or derived from different natural substances?
Are they refined the same?
Do the bottles contain the same amount of abrasives?
What about the types of carriers for the abrasives and how do they allow the abrasives to work?

Why complicate it all by talking about question that doesn't matter to the average Joe. What matters is do they get results? To say one is more suited than the other for modern bc/cc is hard for me to swallow. What we don't know, unless otherwise informed which they often do, is how often Meguiar's has changed formulations to these older products without informing us.

Here's something else to chew on for a while and ponder...I know I have.

Few cars are made these days with single stage paint compared to years ago. It was eluded to using up M83 on a single stage product to use it up. The fact that M83 is still being produced in the numbers that it is as well as other Meg's DAT products, and for that matter Pinnacle DAT and other brand DAT products too, makes me ask why are they being produced if the SMAT products are that far superior?

It certainly wouldn't be for the amount of single stage painted cars because they're a minority now. The answer must be that they still produce results and obviously they have to produce some for the older paint systems. Or do they really? Oddly enough you see plenty of evidence of folks using DAT products on modern paints, but little evidence in comparison ( I said in comparison) of SMAT products being used on single stage paints.

So, my point with all this was: I can't recall Mike Phillips or any other AG staff past or present, using Meguiar's DAT products on a modern bc/cc project, but you will see them use house brand DAT polishes, and even Menzerna. So, I ask myself; why and how can Meguiar's (one of the biggest, if not the biggest, car care company in the world) continue to create, produce, and market DAT products that are inferior...wrong timing of that word...let's say this...far less used and recommened compared to other "like" products making the Meguiar's brand "appear" to be inferior? I have a hard time believing that they are indeed inferior.

NOTE: I'm aware that Meguiar's staff even recommends SMAT abrasives on modern bc/cc over their DAT products, so let's not even consider talking about that further.

Also,
I'm not calling Mike or any other AG staff out. Their job has certain priorities. I get and respect that and would never require any of them to jeopardize their jobs. Actually, I don't think Mike Phillips will see my questioning in that light. I think he knows I'm just asking questions because I'm thinking about these things. I know he's not a cool aide drinker and if it isn't recognizable by now, I'm not either.

I actually don't feel there's any particular reason why Mike doesn't use Meguiar's DAT products on a given project with bc/cc when he uses Pinnacle. I believe it's more of he likes the Pinnacle better than it is anything against Meguiar's DAT's. I know Mike knows Meguiar's products well enough and has enough skill to take any Meg's DAT product and use it to create a squirrel without a swirl. I was just trying to comment and question why you don't see him using him and perhaps explain this perception that people can't or shouldn't use Meg's DAT's of modern paints. It's obvious that SMAT products were designed to work on these paints better and easier for people. That's different than saying DAT's won't work.

My apology to the op for getting his thread so far off track. I deleted part of my post so as not to detract from your thread, but somehow Setec posted and I resubmitted an edited post at the same time. That's why he was able to quote my original post. Since he quoted that entire post I felt compelled to further elaborate on my comments.

That's my story. I'm sticking to it.

[Setec Astronomy]

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.

[Eldorado2k]

@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..

[dlc95]

Sometimes those old polishes are just what the doctor ordered. I still use M02, and M09 regularly. Heck, those were the first abrasive polishes I've ever used. Even when I wasn't "into" polishing paint, I'd still pull those products out when it was time to do a vehicle I was "obligated" to do.

I'm not 100% that the technology in M02 and M09 are on par with PF2500, and SF4000. In fact there is a very distinct difference in the buffing experience, cut/finish, and wipe off. That being said, those Meguiar's products still get the job done. I love the finish M09 gives to this day.

As far as M83 goes...

The last time I used M83 (1999) it turned to cement shortly after working it. I never tried it again. In fact it was the only Meguiar's product I ever had a problem with. Maybe it's time to revisit?

[Paul A.]

GREAT discussion fellas! As long as we keep it free of contention i would love to hear more. I respect everyone's opinion here and like hearing from those who have more experience and also like to think things through. We should never become robots always reaching for certain products because we are conditioned by simple habit.

There is no doubt that the technology of abrasives has evolved quite a bit. I am also stuck on thinking constantly about what Mike P. considers the single most important factor in paint correction...the abrasive used. I have an abundance of both DAT and SMAT products and continue to use them frequently including some "older school" DAT's that i still enjoy working with. When i reach for something to refine a test spot or two i first think of an abrasive that may be better and one which will remove and level THIS paint to a point i think i want...not more. It may be a DAT or it may be a SMAT but i don't think we're really talking about DAT vs. SMAT comparisons (again). And then there's an AAT product! My understanding is that it's a DAT down to a point of then a SMAT (i think). I also consider the machine i'm using and there are certainly products designed for forced rotation and non-forced random orbit rotation as Eldo mentioned. I think what caudleej was posting about is exactly what i always try to do and that is to select a product to cut down just what i need for this objective in front of me. As he stated, M83 wasn't going to cut down at or below some of his RIDS and that's OK. And SAFER.

I still have some older product i reach for every now and then. Part of the reason is because i want to simply get rid of it but i select it based on what i know to be the abrasive used...sometimes it works better on this paint and sometimes not. Needless to say, i have found some of the old school products to perform exactly like caudleej was referring to.

And that's ok. Plus i got rid of more "old stuff" to make room for technology to replace it all with the new super duper hyper abrasives sure to come!