difference between meguiar's #9 and #9 2.0 ?
- Thread starter jjagain
- Start date
imported_BretFraz
New member
According to a very reliable and trusted source, the only diff is in the product name and the label.
Still exactly the same product.
Still exactly the same product.
WOAHHH!!! :shocked That's not what I was told like, almost a year ago!bretfraz said:
So what's with all these older threads and posts I remember reading touting the new 2.0 formula?
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? :nixweisshttp://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
New member
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
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.
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
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
New member
Everything comes down to marketing and the power of suggestion. If you think it will work better than the first one, then it will. 
Tim Lingor
New member
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!
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
New member
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
New member
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.
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.
This is all terribly interesting.... Thanks for the insider info George, but I'm also 
imported_BretFraz
New member
George Wax said:
So is it safe to assume that #2 Fine Cut is the same as #83 DACP? They seem awfully similar........
bretfraz said:
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
Steve @ Guru
New member
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...
- 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...
George Wax
New member
Dual Action Cleaner Polish M-83-32 is NOT the same product as M-02-16 Fine Cut Cleaner..Reason being M-83-32 was specifically designed for your newer type of basecoat/clearcoat paint finishes i.e. oem type of paint finishes, as well as body shp applied basecoat/clearcoat paint finishes..M-02-16 can be used on basecoat/clearcoat paintfinishes but is not as an effective product like M-83-32..M-83-32 is also more user friendly...As a matter of fact M-02-16 is most effective on single stage paint's (non-clearcoat)...Keep in mind both product's can be used with a high speed rotary buffer..
In my honest opinion M-83-32 is an overall great product..With a lot of new technology in it's new formulation..(took a long time for Meguiar's Inc...to develop and test the Body Shop Professional Line of Product's (BSP)...:bow
In my honest opinion M-83-32 is an overall great product..With a lot of new technology in it's new formulation..(took a long time for Meguiar's Inc...to develop and test the Body Shop Professional Line of Product's (BSP)...:bow
George Wax
New member
Anyone can simply call our 1-800-347-5700 the Meguiar's toll free line and ask if George "Wax" Hernandez,, ever worked their, and I am pretty sure they will say yes...Why would I even post here in this very detail oriented site if I did not know my product knowledge..I worked their for 3 year's and now I have moved on into a different career more along my major Insurance Fraud..When I see post's here that need some explanation or solution's to Meguiar's Inc .. Product's I will post....:bow
Last summer, Canada hadn't yet received No. 9 v2.0 in the small bottles but only had it for the larger size format. I asked when they expected to get additional stock and he mentioned it was solely a labelling issue. They didn't have any 2.0 labels at the time so they proceeded to labelling it with the original.
Here in Canada at least (he said that it was also going in the USA), the reformulated version was already being sold but just not labelled as such. In Canada, it was due to the french labelling that we require.
Meguiars is constantly tweaking their formula's, so No. 9 2.0 could have been bottled long before it was labelled as such.
Therefore, comparing 2.0 vs. the original could prove problematic unless you have bottle that has been sitting around for a while - which in of itself, could be a problem for the comparison.
Personally, just be glad #9 2.0 works very well and leave it at that. The old one was good but 2.0 is definitely better.
Interesting comment from George about the BSP line. Based on experience and comments from other users, that his statement is pretty accurate.
Meguiar's Professional to Bodyshop Line is similar to 3M's Finesse-it II to Perfect-it III.
The old formulations are still good but the newer versions seem to be much more forgiving and easier to use. It takes time for people to give on their tried and true (FI-II being a classic) but once they are willing to try some newer formulations, there's no looking back for most.
Paco
Here in Canada at least (he said that it was also going in the USA), the reformulated version was already being sold but just not labelled as such. In Canada, it was due to the french labelling that we require.
Meguiars is constantly tweaking their formula's, so No. 9 2.0 could have been bottled long before it was labelled as such.
Therefore, comparing 2.0 vs. the original could prove problematic unless you have bottle that has been sitting around for a while - which in of itself, could be a problem for the comparison.
Personally, just be glad #9 2.0 works very well and leave it at that. The old one was good but 2.0 is definitely better.
Interesting comment from George about the BSP line. Based on experience and comments from other users, that his statement is pretty accurate.
Meguiar's Professional to Bodyshop Line is similar to 3M's Finesse-it II to Perfect-it III.
The old formulations are still good but the newer versions seem to be much more forgiving and easier to use. It takes time for people to give on their tried and true (FI-II being a classic) but once they are willing to try some newer formulations, there's no looking back for most.
Paco
Steve @ Guru
New member
George Wax said:
Awesome! Thanks for joining, and I'm sure you'll be inundated with questions/queries. Please be patient with us.
Too cool. Thanks again!
----
Charles: my bad- read the post too quickly... sorry for the confusion.