#80 (Speed Glaze) vs. #82 (Swirl Free Polish)

[benpocock]

I've had #80 for a while and have just added #82 to my collection and notice that they both share the same cutting ability (or so the label on the bottle says). So what exactly is the difference? I realise #80 has some protection in it for freshly painted surfaces, but is that it?



On initial use I've had more sucess with #82 than I have had in the past with #80 - is that because #82 has fillers (not that it would bother me if it does?)



Ben

 

[benpocock]

I've had #80 for a while and have just added #82 to my collection and notice that they both share the same cutting ability (or so the label on the bottle says). So what exactly is the difference? I realise #80 has some protection in it for freshly painted surfaces, but is that it?



On initial use I've had more sucess with #82 than I have had in the past with #80 - is that because #82 has fillers (not that it would bother me if it does?)



Ben

 

[k80]

Ben



Are you sure the label says the cutting ability is the same I was allways under the impression that #82 SFP was less agressive than #80 SG.



Andrew

 

[k80]

Ben



Are you sure the label says the cutting ability is the same I was allways under the impression that #82 SFP was less agressive than #80 SG.



Andrew

 

[benpocock]

Well I think this must be the old style bottle as this is what I see when I'm looking:

Ben

 

[benpocock]

Well I think this must be the old style bottle as this is what I see when I'm looking:

Ben

 

[k80]

Ben



Looking at those bottles they appear to be the old style design. Im not sure if the actual product changed or just the label though.



I've just looked on Meguiars US and #82 has a cutting level of 3 whereas #80 has a cutting level of 4, see below.



#82



http://www.meguiars.com/estore/prod...Shop-Professional-Swirl-Free-Polish&sku=M8232



#80



http://www.meguiars.com/estore/product_detailpage.cfm?product=Speed-Glaze&sku=M8032



Andrew

 

[k80]

Ben



Looking at those bottles they appear to be the old style design. Im not sure if the actual product changed or just the label though.



I've just looked on Meguiars US and #82 has a cutting level of 3 whereas #80 has a cutting level of 4, see below.



#82



http://www.meguiars.com/estore/prod...Shop-Professional-Swirl-Free-Polish&sku=M8232



#80



http://www.meguiars.com/estore/product_detailpage.cfm?product=Speed-Glaze&sku=M8032



Andrew

 

[Brazo]

AGree with k80 also #80 contains glaze whereas #82 doesn't iirc

 

[Brazo]

AGree with k80 also #80 contains glaze whereas #82 doesn't iirc

 

[imported_COBRyan]

I've had #80 for a while and have just added #82 to my collection and notice that they both share the same cutting ability (or so the label on the bottle says). So what exactly is the difference? I realise #80 has some protection in it for freshly painted surfaces, but is that it?



On initial use I've had more sucess with #82 than I have had in the past with #80 - is that because #82 has fillers (not that it would bother me if it does?)



Ben

Actually I think 80 would have more fillers than 82. I have used 82 with great success. It is a very easy polish to use with a rotary, wipes clean with no fuss, and works real well after DACP. I tried 80 but I still prefer 82.

 

[imported_COBRyan]

I've had #80 for a while and have just added #82 to my collection and notice that they both share the same cutting ability (or so the label on the bottle says). So what exactly is the difference? I realise #80 has some protection in it for freshly painted surfaces, but is that it?



On initial use I've had more sucess with #82 than I have had in the past with #80 - is that because #82 has fillers (not that it would bother me if it does?)



Ben

Actually I think 80 would have more fillers than 82. I have used 82 with great success. It is a very easy polish to use with a rotary, wipes clean with no fuss, and works real well after DACP. I tried 80 but I still prefer 82.

 

[imported_NHBFAN]

I find #80 and #82 to give similar results.

 

[imported_NHBFAN]

I find #80 and #82 to give similar results.

 

[Scottwax]

I find #80 and #82 to give similar results.

Me too, but #80 breaks down more quickly (hence the inclusion of 'speed' in the name) and has a more wet looking finish, while #82 is more clear. Not huge differences though.

 

[Scottwax]

I find #80 and #82 to give similar results.

Me too, but #80 breaks down more quickly (hence the inclusion of 'speed' in the name) and has a more wet looking finish, while #82 is more clear. Not huge differences though.

 

[zey]

Mainly I use M82 after M80 to produce a crispier surface without much micro-marring induced by M80 with DA. I haven't tried using M82 with rotary though...

 

[Accumulator]

Referring to the pic of the two bottles, the label on #80 used to incorrectly show its abrasive level as being lower than it really is. #80 is a little more aggressive than #82, but only until you work it a little while. Both should leave a ready-to-wax finish, but IMO #80 is more idiot-proof than #82.

 

[spotpad]

Referring to the pic of the two bottles, the label on #80 used to incorrectly show its abrasive level as being lower than it really is. #80 is a little more aggressive than #82, but only until you work it a little while. Both should leave a ready-to-wax finish, but IMO #80 is more idiot-proof than #82.

Sorry to resurrect an old thread but... What do you mean by more idiot-proof?

 

[SVECobraR]

I just used #85, #83, #82 this weekend, in that sequence, and i coudlve'nt have been more disappointed. The results were great ( but i think it was actually due to the wool pad), but wowww were they hard to remove. I think i caused more scratches by trying to remove it then i removed buffing it.