GG 6", Megs G110v2, or Flex 3401

[5.4 Shelby]

This is a direct quote from Michael Stoops. He works for Meguiars and is a product specialist.



I will also add, UC is *much* easier to wipe off than M105. You will not find M105/M205 over the counter.

Thanks for the quote.

I have a PBE shop close to my work. They carry several of the Megs polishes including the 95. They dont have the 105 though. He said he can get it, but, I'd rather order from AG anyway.

[Kevin Brown]

I think you may be getting Revolutions and Orbits mixed up. Please correct me if I'm wrong but see below

· Specifications ·
· Power input 900 Watts (7.5 amps)
· Power output 590 Watts
· Rotary RPM: 160-480
· Orbital OPM: 3200-9600
· Orbit (stroke length): 8mm
· Velcro back plate (included)
· Weight 5.75 lbs

You are correct that those are the specifications listed. However- Flex is apparently counting an "orbit" as a quarter circle motion, not a half circle motion. A few of us curious guys absolutely verified the orbit versus rotation motion of the Flex to be a 10:1 ratio, not a 20:1 ratio. From a previous post on soMe Other detaiLing forum:

As it stands, the Flex literature lists the speed without load at 160-480 RPM and the orbit rate without load at 3,200-9,600 RPM (this is the same thing as oscillations per minute or OPM in the case of this machine). However, my own research into the specs show that the ratio is NOT 20:1, but is in fact 10:1.

How did I research this? It was super-technical... I used all sorts of meters and electronic gizmos with accelerometers and such. Naw, just kidding- I simply spun the backing plate by hand and counted how many in and out movements the backing plate made! oke

The total was ten oscillations for every rotation. If, in fact, the specs are off by the amount of rotations the pad makes, then the rotations spec may very well be 80-240 RPM. If that is the case, a random orbital can easily replicate a similar amount of rotations (I regularly see my machine travel an estimated 600 RPM). If the orbit rate is incorrect, then the machine will top out at 4,800 OPM (the G110 has an OPM rating of 6,700 OPM). I suspect that the RPM may be lower, not the OPM.

If you are asking, "What is your point, and how does this impact my choice between the Meguiar's G110, the Dynabrade 61379/61384, and the Flex XC 3401 VRG?"

The point is this: Regardless the unit you choose, they all generally work better and faster than hand application, so get one! But before you do, if you have the opportunity to try the Flex or G110 at least, do it.

There are a lot of dynamics going on that the user does not need to worry about. That being said, a change in oscillation size, backing plate speed, or even the rotational weight DOES make a big difference in overall performance.

After this post, a group of us were able to verify the rotation of the Flex. On speed setting 1, revolutions were verified as 160 RPM (varying + or - a few RPM). On speed setting 6, revolutions were verified as 480 RPM (varying + or - a few RPM). This was accomplished using an honest to goodness electronic measurement device. We also tried to measure the rotational speed on a G110 at full speed, but we ran out of time before we could get an accurate reading. It was a bit more difficult to measure compared to the Flex.

For me, there was no doubt that the G110 was reaching a higher rate of rotation. Paired with a buffing pad that allows rapid rotation of the backing plate, I think that the G110 could spin the pad (under load) 7-10 times per second.

[WRAPT C5Z06]

Thanks Kevin!!!!

[Kevin Brown]

Thanks Kevin!!!!

You are welcome.

I just read the entire thread. Wow. "OVERCOMPLICATED?" Not true. Tsk, tsk.

I do agree that whenever someone wants to know the theory behind a technique, or the reason something is working the way it is, the explanation can get complicated, ESPECIALLY when it is express in written form.

However, the premise that this particular method of application is "complicated", is simply false. I am able to tell a guy over the phone how to implement this method. How hard can it be?

For what it's worth... there are probably eight to ten specific reasons why priming the pad with the buffing liquid delivers a superior result versus traditional application methods.

I can assure you that in a head-to-head comparison, more work will be accomplished during a shorter period of time if pad priming is implemented. Assuming all other aspects of application techniques are equal, I doubt there will be a need to swap pads any more than would be necessary if traditional polishing methods are used.

If a paint polishing guy or gal is achieving stellar results using traditional methods of application, that's great! If their method of application seems to be similar to how I polish paint, that is fine with me also. What I am most happy about, however, is that more than a few guys who were dyed-in-the-wool ROTARY masters have come to see the benefits of using the random orbital for serious defect removal and final paint polishing.

So hey- if it took an "overcomplicated" and "hyped" KBM that has "been around for years" to get them to give the random orbital another chance to prove its merits... isn't that GREAT, too?!

[Mike Phillips]

For what it's worth... there are probably eight to ten specific reasons why priming the pad with the buffing liquid delivers a superior result versus traditional application methods.

Hey Kevin, thanks for dropping by and clearing up any confusion...

Hey give me a call sometime to discuss...

760-515-0444

[CEE DOG]

[WRAPT C5Z06]

Did I miss something?

[CEE DOG]

You are correct that those are the specifications listed. However- Flex is apparently counting an "orbit" as a quarter circle motion, not a half circle motion. A few of us curious guys absolutely verified the orbit versus rotation motion of the Flex to be a 10:1 ratio, not a 20:1 ratio. From a previous post on soMe Other detaiLing forum:



After this post, a group of us were able to verify the rotation of the Flex. On speed setting 1, revolutions were verified as 160 RPM (varying + or - a few RPM). On speed setting 6, revolutions were verified as 480 RPM (varying + or - a few RPM). This was accomplished using an honest to goodness electronic measurement device. We also tried to measure the rotational speed on a G110 at full speed, but we ran out of time before we could get an accurate reading. It was a bit more difficult to measure compared to the Flex.

For me, there was no doubt that the G110 was reaching a higher rate of rotation. Paired with a buffing pad that allows rapid rotation of the backing plate, I think that the G110 could spin the pad (under load) 7-10 times per second.

Thanks for your time Kevin. It doesn't all quite add up to me but that is very interesting and if what you say is true then I would call that false advertising. In any case I suppose it doesn't matter. I love the Flex and how smooth it runs and found using a certain other DA to be taxing on my happiness. All that vibration reminds me of a jackhammer
Anyway, thanks again for breaking it down for me.

Edit: After reading my post I don't like that it sounded like an insinuation and instead of "if what you say is true" I probably should have said "if you're method of testing is accurate and complete"

[CEE DOG]

Did I miss something?

Sorry, the whole KBM thing just gave me the giggles

[WRAPT C5Z06]

very interesting and if what you say is true then I would call that false advertising.

It's just very misleading on Flex's part?