View Full Version : difference between meguiar`s #9 and #9 2.0 ?
jjagain
03-27-2003, 11:46 AM
obviously v2.0 is a new formula, but what else is different? is v2 easier to use? better results?
imported_BretFraz
03-27-2003, 11:51 AM
According to a very reliable and trusted source, the only diff is in the product name and the label.
Still exactly the same product.
Originally posted by bretfraz
According to a very reliable and trusted source, the only diff is in the product name and the label.
Still exactly the same product. WOAHHH!!! :shocked That`s not what I was told like, almost a year ago!
So what`s with all these older threads and posts I remember reading touting the new 2.0 formula? :confused: I noticed that no one had 2.0 around here, so I was told that 3M SMR was actually preferred over the old version of #9 if I couldn`t get #9 2.0! Some people were saying how it was easier to use and buff out? :nixweiss
http://www.autopia.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8862&highlight=2.0+meguiars
http://www.autopia.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8534&highlight=2.0+meguiars
imported_BretFraz
03-27-2003, 05:20 PM
I read those links and I sort of question the accuracy. Its also very possible that Meguiar`s has tweaked the formula of 2.0 since its intro.
I got my info from DavidB but I can no longer find the thread where he made the comment. I`ll keep looking but I fear its in the Mod Forum like so many other good threads :mad: :mad:
Don`t forget that Carguy was good buddies with his Meguiar`s rep and got most of his stuff for free. He has/had cases of Meguiar`s products in his garage. I`m not saying his comments are not accurate but they could be just a parroting of what his buddy told him and not analysis from independent testing. I don`t mean to throw the guy under the bus, just callin` it as I see it.
EDIT - Found the quote from David:
Let give credit here credit is due. Regardless of an individual, Meguiar`s is a good company with a name that carries a lot of weight in the industry. Like many big companies, they spend more on marketing than new product development.
Let`s face it, putting "V2.0" on the bottle of their SMR was brilliant. No change to the product, but it is the second version of the label on the bottle. Just brilliant! I`m sure the same person who gave you (Steve & Bret) the thoughtful comments at the SEMA show came up with that brilliant idea.
It was from that thread, now locked, from Geekysteve where he said he was going to stop using Meguiar`s because of our bad experience with them at SEMA/AAPEX.
MnRiverman
03-27-2003, 05:59 PM
Everything comes down to marketing and the power of suggestion. If you think it will work better than the first one, then it will. :p ;)
Tim Lingor
03-27-2003, 07:35 PM
I do not think that they are the same! I have an old bottle of #9 (white liquid ( the old, old #9 was kind of brown/gray)) and the new # 9 - 2. 0. The smell and texture is very different!!! The new 2.0 is much thicker and works way better with a rotary than the old stuff. In terms of swirl removal, I can not tell the difference between them as I already liked the old #9 for that task!
The new 2.0 does smell, look, and feels like Meg`s #82 as well. However, Meg`s told me that they were not the same.
Just IMHO!
George Wax
03-27-2003, 08:06 PM
For the record M-09-16-2.0 and Meguiar`s Swirl Free Polish M-82-32 are the same product`s..:xyxthumbs
Tim Lingor
03-27-2003, 08:16 PM
Hey George!
When I spoke to Meguiars, I asked if they were the same as they sure seemed close to me!! But I was told that the #82 was meant for rotary buffers where the #9 was designed for either hand or machine.
:confused:
Wow, talk about stirring the pot! :eek: This is all terribly interesting.... Thanks for the insider info George, but I`m also :confused: like 2hotford.
Thanks for the quote Bret - come to think of it, I do remember reading that, but for some reason the implication must not have sunk in. :rolleyes:
imported_BretFraz
03-27-2003, 11:33 PM
Originally posted by George Wax
For the record M-09-16-2.0 and Meguiar`s Swirl Free Polish M-82-32 are the same product`s..:xyxthumbs
So is it safe to assume that #2 Fine Cut is the same as #83 DACP? They seem awfully similar........
Scottwax
03-27-2003, 11:54 PM
Originally posted by George Wax
For the record M-09-16-2.0 and Meguiar`s Swirl Free Polish M-82-32 are the same product`s..:xyxthumbs
I`m not suprised. I bought some 2.0 when I ran out of Swirl Free and the performance seemed the same, and definitely better than the old version of #9 which seemed to be a bit chalky.
CharlesW
03-28-2003, 07:30 AM
Originally posted by bretfraz
So is it safe to assume that #2 Fine Cut is the same as #83 DACP? They seem awfully similar........
In the world of detailing products, it is never safe to assume anything.:)
Meguiar`s puts #83 DACP in the "Hi-Tech Paint Cleaners" listing in their Professional Surface Care Product Guide.
#2 Fine Cut Cleaner is listed in the "Traditional Paint Cleaners" section.
On Meguiar`s 0 to 10 abrasive scale:
DACP = 6
#2 = 5
Charles
G Money
03-28-2003, 08:18 AM
The 2.0 seems to have less "sling" effect when used with a rotary.
I`ve noticed this.
TheBeast
03-28-2003, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by 2hotford
I do not think that they are the same! I have an old bottle of #9 (white liquid ( the old, old #9 was kind of brown/gray)) and the new # 9 - 2. 0. The smell and texture is very different!!! The new 2.0 is much thicker and works way better with a rotary than the old stuff. In terms of swirl removal, I can not tell the difference between them as I already liked the old #9 for that task!
The new 2.0 does smell, look, and feels like Meg`s #82 as well. However, Meg`s told me that they were not the same.
Just IMHO!
WORD.
Steve @ Guru
03-28-2003, 11:59 AM
Come on now, let`s be a little more realistic - let`s review some common occurances with Meguiar`s info:
- When calling customer support, one person will tell you one thing while on the phone, and another will tell you something completely different (often 180 degrees opposite). This has been well documented here.
- They seem to be tweaking their formulas constantly, but not for the reasons that we might all hope/expect. I have it from an even more trusted source that the big M was the only company to lose money in 2002 - that`s pretty hard to do in the detailing world...
- Bret commented to me after SEMA 2002 that it appeared as though Meguiar`s was trying to become "all things to everyone - the next turtle wax". In order to do this, they have to have product placed *everywhere* - places like Wal-Mart will push and push for a vendor to lower its unit price by a penny...the difference between being on the shelf and not being on the shelf could boil down to a few cents...how do you think they save the few cents??
I later heard the same info from another industry insider, so it confirmed what people had been speculating...
- I`ve used both DACP and #2 side-by-side, and I don`t agree with the DACP = 6 and #2 = 2 cutting ability. I`d say that DACP is no where near a 6 in cutting terms, and that #2 is more aggressive than SMR #9.
- There`s too many inconsistencies with info from Meguiar`s - so, when an apparent insider like George shares info that seems to agree with the general "insider consensus", it carries a little more weight with me. Unfortunately, the internet is pretty anonymous, so there`s no real proof that George was with Meg`s, but I trust that he was. :)
Just my thoughts....if there`s one thing I learned from doing the Guru Reports stuff, it`s "don`t believe ANYTHING that you read or hear in the detailing world without trying to prove/test it yourself." The other thing I`ve learned is: if you`re happy with what you`re using, keep using it!
The stories...oh, I could write a book...