Meguiar's G110v2 Dual Action Polisher is the REAL DEAL!

Auto Concierge said:
Quantum physics applied to paint correction............ here is what I can understand, does the machine work well? if so there you go.
Click to expand...

Thats kinda what I was thinking. As long as it preforms well for the job for which it is purchased , I'll be a happy camper. If it gets up and mixes me a drink , I'll be estatic. Paul S :)
 
Kinda like horse power and torque, ever wonder how that 3/4 ton F250 spanked your butt at the stoplight when you're sure you got it covered with your pimped out Civic....

I know a guy with a 50 year old (at least) John Deere - 2 cylinder, that will pull a house - at about 1500 rpm!
 
Junebug said:
Kinda like horse power and torque, ever wonder how that 3/4 ton F250 spanked your butt at the stoplight when you're sure you got it covered with your pimped out Civic....

I know a guy with a 50 year old (at least) John Deere - 2 cylinder, that will pull a house - at about 1500 rpm!
Click to expand...

This is an important point/analogy, and I'm not sure that it has really been addressed in this thread (other than people saying that they don't really care about objective measurements such as amps, watts, and torque "as long as it works good").

Giving opinions on how the machine works is obviously perfectly fine and Kevin gives a great review, but I think it would be important to also discuss objective measurements as well, and compare them to other machines if possible.

For example, the new Griots DA polisher has a 7-Amp, 850-Watt Motor. This seems to be quite a bit more powerful than the PC XP (4.5 amp motor) and certainly more powerful than the G110v2's 4.2 amps.

Generally speaking, having a higher amp motor (like the Griots) would equate to having more torque, which would certainly be a good thing when it comes to a DA polisher as the pad is much less likely to bog down under pressure (especially at lower speeds when desired).

I certainly think that Legacy99 was on the right track when he went down this line of questioning.

Can a less powerful DA machine (in terms of both amps and watts) be "better" than a more powerful machine in terms of polishing and defect removal? I personally doubt it, but I am certainly willing to keep an open mind, especially since I realize that there is more to a polisher than just raw power numbers.

But then again, how much difference can there really be in terms of how the machines actually function? (They both have a 5/16 inch orbit from what I understand). How much difference can there be in terms of ergonomics?
 
Rob T said:
This is an important point/analogy, and I'm not sure that it has really been addressed in this thread (other than people saying that they don't really care about objective measurements such as amps, watts, and torque "as long as it works good").

Giving opinions on how the machine works is obviously perfectly fine and Kevin gives a great review, but I think it would be important to also discuss objective measurements as well, and compare them to other machines if possible.

For example, the new Griots DA polisher has a 7-Amp, 850-Watt Motor. This seems to be quite a bit more powerful than the PC XP (4.5 amp motor) and certainly more powerful than the G110v2's 4.2 amps.

Generally speaking, having a higher amp motor (like the Griots) would equate to having more torque, which would certainly be a good thing when it comes to a DA polisher as the pad is much less likely to bog down under pressure (especially at lower speeds when desired).

I certainly think that Legacy99 was on the right track when he went down this line of questioning.

Can a less powerful DA machine (in terms of both amps and watts) be "better" than a more powerful machine in terms of polishing and defect removal? I personally doubt it, but I am certainly willing to keep an open mind, especially since I realize that there is more to a polisher than just raw power numbers.

But then again, how much difference can there really be in terms of how the machines actually function? (They both have a 5/16 inch orbit from what I understand). How much difference can there be in terms of ergonomics?
Click to expand...

All good points, and the specs certainly make a difference.

FWIW- I did not have a Griot's machine with me, but did have a brutally powerful Makita rotary outfitted with the Dynabrade Dual Action Buffing Head. Not an apples to apples comparison because it features a 3/4" stroke and tops out in oscillation speed at 3,000. On paper, when you consider the fact that the rotary has more than adequate power and the stroke is over twice that of the G110v2, it looks grim for the v2. But that was not necessarily what happened. In fact, they were both plenty capable when used on a beat up paint job. The thing is, I saw the best defect removal with the v2 set at 4.5 out of 6 on the speed dial, and the Dynabrade worked well at low and high speeds (it was more about getting the pad to spin consistently with this big gun). Neither machine required all of the torque the machine could provide. The combination of the backing plate, buffing pad, buffing liquid, paint type, amount of product (etc.) did not require maximum speed or tremendous applied pressure. Perhaps the next vehicle would benefit from the torquier machines. SO, not ever BAD to have the most powerful motor, but not necessarily the most important factor to consider for me.

If I was planning on knocking down sanding marks, I would likely opt for the Makita/Dynabrade if the sanding marks were not refined. If they were? I would opt for the more comfortable machine.

I also had the Flex XC 3401 VRG, the Festool Rotex RO150 FEQ, the Bosch 1250DEVS, and more. Interesting comparison:

BOSCH 1250DEVS

Disc Size: 6" (150mm)
Amperage: 6.5, Rating: 120 V
Eccentric Offset: 3/32" (2.5mm)
Sanding stroke 3/16" (5 mm)
No Load RPM: (in turbo mode) 270-600
No Load OPM: 3,100-6,650

FESTOOL ROTEX RO150 FEQ
Pad diameter 6" (150 mm)
Power consumption 720 watts / 6 amps 120 v AC
Sanding stroke 3/16" (5 mm)
Speed eccentric motion 3300 - 6800 opm
Speed rotary motion 320 - 660 rpm

These two machines are fairly similar in terms of specs.
But WOW did they feel different! As for the polishing capabilies? In my experience that day, there was no contest. The Festool was far better. This was in random as well as forced rotation mode. Ergonomics, weight, and engineering must have something to do with it (moving mass, geometry, motor efficiency, balance, etc.)

The backing plate was also a factor, because these two machines used very different plates. It makes a big difference.

There is a point when ample torque is okay when discussing a random orbital. Not that we don't like excess power, because its almost always better to have more rather than less, right? The free spinning backing plate doesn't only respond to torque (twisting force). Orbit speed matters too, and even though these machines are not geared to increase or decrease orbit speed, there could be instances where heavy torque would not be as critical as higher oscillations. Oscillations help increase centripetal force, centripetal force CAN increase backing plate rotation, and on and on.

But yes- specs ARE important to me. I have to tell you, though, when I use a machine for the first time, I NEVER look at the motor specs. Not saying it's a bad idea to see specs as important. This is especially true if you don't have the opportunity to use the machine before buying one.

All things considered... I think I am starting to go crazy figuring this stuff out. :banghead:
 
Kevin Brown said:
All things considered... I think I am starting to go crazy figuring this stuff out. :banghead:
Click to expand...

This Kevin Brown Method has really sucked me in. I mean, I see thread after thread (w/pics) Yet still I just can't wrap my head around it other then you use/waste wax and lean hard....Hell, I've already been doing that for over 25years

My hats off to you Kevin, you really have chosen a difficult way to make a point. Your definately skilled at your profession...No Doubt :rockon:

Plus, what I really like about you is that your a big smiley man fan :banghead: :cornut: :angel: :wink: :Innocent: :notworthy: :w00t: :iagree: Stop :tongue: :hurray: :thumbup: Sleep
 
My hat is off to you KB. When you don't know the answer you don't try to cover it up with some off the wall answer. Putting pencils on a bp to measure throw takes a lot of time and effort. Your KBM method with Meg's 105 has changed the way detailer's use a DA.
 
More power doesn't always mean a better machine, just ask all those guys who jumped to the original "Ultimate Detailing Machine". It had more power than the original PC, so many many people jumped ship. Only to find thread after thread of "My UDM died, help." Another lesson to learn from the UDM is buying things in there first year of production, you roll the dice alot of times while "kinks" get worked out. The Megs V2 might initially show lots of promise, HOWEVER, lets see if it offers the dependability long term. I know of a few detailers who went thru quite a few of the original Megs units, they were not exactly super reliable. Way to early in the game to tag the Megs unit as "the real deal"
 
akimel said:
FWIW, I checked MOL's thread on the G110v2, and Michael Stoop confirms that the amperage of the new machine is 4.2.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the confirmation. Well 4.2 amps (G110v2) to 4.5amps (PC 7424XP)is not much of a difference, but when it jumps to 7 amps. and 850 watts (Griot) that's another ball game.
 
Flash Gordon said:
This Kevin Brown Method has really sucked me in. I mean, I see thread after thread (w/pics) Yet still I just can't wrap my head around it other then you use/waste wax and lean hard....Hell, I've already been doing that for over 25years

My hats off to you Kevin, you really have chosen a difficult way to make a point. Your definately skilled at your profession...No Doubt :rockon:

Plus, what I really like about you is that your a big smiley man fan :banghead: :cornut: :angel: :wink: :Innocent: :notworthy: :w00t: :iagree: Stop :tongue: :hurray: :thumbup: Sleep
Click to expand...

What brand DA where you using 25 years ago?
 
Flash Gordon said:
This Kevin Brown Method has really sucked me in. I mean, I see thread after thread (w/pics) Yet still I just can't wrap my head around it other then you use/waste wax and lean hard....Hell, I've already been doing that for over 25years

My hats off to you Kevin, you really have chosen a difficult way to make a point. Your definately skilled at your profession...No Doubt :rockon:

Plus, what I really like about you is that your a big smiley man fan :banghead: :cornut: :angel: :wink: :Innocent: :notworthy: :w00t: :iagree: Stop :tongue: :hurray: :thumbup: Sleep
Click to expand...

Flash, you don't use wax with KBM.;)
 
Kevin Brown said:
Regardless- I can assure you that I would not tout an inferior product, only to be eventually known as recommending subpar products. It is quite the opposite! As I was writing the review, I kept thinking, "Man- I hope the people that buy one of these gets the same impression of this machine as I did... otherwise I am a DEAD MAN." :scared:



Not a problem at all. NEVER be SORRY to have an opinion... just OWN IT !!
Click to expand...
Kevin, I had the pleasure of meeting you late last year at a Meguiars Thursday Night Open Garage before you wrote this review. I think you alluded to this upcoming thread when I asked (post-SEMA) if a review of the new G110 was forthcoming.

And based largely on your review which I initially read on the Meguiars forum, I sold my G110v1 in December, bought the G110v2 and paired it with my PC 7336 on a recent polishing. I keep the PC as a dedicated 4" polisher so I don't have to swap out backing plates, but it did allow me to detect the differences you wrote about with no degree of uncertainty.

I kept the speed of my G110v2 at 4.5 for the larger surface areas, but I found that I had to kick up my PC to speed 6 just to achieve the same results I was receiving with the Megs DA. At first I thought it was due to narrow planes of polishing for which I was using the PC (roof pillars, upper door panel segments, etc), but then I tested out the G110v2 with a 4" pad and got the same results with the same 4.5 speed I had used on the rest of the car. Now I'm thinking of retiring the PC and getting another G110v2! :D

Thanks again!
 
How can the G110v2 be able to do more defect removal at lower speed settings compared to the PCXP, yet the PCXP has slighty more amps/power?
 
07 z-oh-6 said:
How can the G110v2 be able to do more defect removal at lower speed settings compared to the PCXP, yet the PCXP has slighty more amps/power?
Click to expand...

I do experience the same thing as I'm able to go some extreme correction with the v2 at speed 5 via the KBM or Surbuf pads. If I have some time, I will try 4.5 on my next correction.

I do not know why either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top