#9 vs #82

[rjstaaf]

Mike,

Can you give me a rundown on the differences between #9 and #82? They are both a 3 on the scale. They look and feel the same. From what I have heard #82 has fewer fillers in it. Is that true and if so is that the only difference?

Thanks

Bob

[Airborne Ranger]

hey rjstaaf,

The difference I know is SFP has a bit more bite to it then does #9. Yes #9 has fillers in it. I think #82 SFP has some fillers in it as well but don't quote me on it. IMO, I think SFP shines alittle bit better too,,,,,deadman98

[Rusty Bumper]

Originally posted by rjstaaf
Mike,

Can you give me a rundown on the differences between #9 and #82? They are both a 3 on the scale. They look and feel the same. From what I have heard #82 has fewer fillers in it. Is that true and if so is that the only difference?

Thanks

Bob

Hi rjstaff,

Here is a little info I got from Mike: http://www.meguiarsonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=2663&highlight=mike

#82 has a much better gloss IMO....It is rich in polishing oils too, from what I've heard.

[Mike Phillips]

Hi all,

The #82 Swirl Free Polish is a slightly more aggressive polish than the #9 Swirl Remover 2.0

I obtained this information from our Director of Training, Mike Pennington who gets all of his information from R & D.

#82 Swirl Free Polish is part of the 80's series, which is a line of products that was developed from Meguiar’s involvement with OEM's on assembly lines. #9 Swirl Remover 2.0 is part of Meguiar's traditional Mirror Glaze line, (Numbers, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, etc.), that has been improved over they years and is similar to #82, but is less aggressive, or another way of saying it is, it has less bite.

As far as fillers go, one of the primary purposes of the rich lubricating oils is to embody, or suspend the diminishing abrasives in a slippery film, which in effect buffers, or cushions their abrading action. This prevents the scratching and scouring of the surface typical of traditional compounds.

To describe these oils as merely fillers would not be fair to the product or the role these oils play in the paint polishing process.

Just last weekend, I used M-84 Compound Power Cleaner to remove hundreds of scratches in the hood of a black Viper. At the end of the compounding procedure, 20-30 people inspected the results and I know it would be fair to say that most of the people inspecting the results would say the finish looked as though it had been polished and waxed because the surface was so clear, and glossy.

http://archive.meguiarsonline.com/gallery/data/500/2700_FullonDemonstration-med.jpg

The fact is, it had only been compounded so far. The results were clear and glossy because the diminishing abrasives did their work in a rich lubricating film, and then after breaking down, they polished the surface out to a high gloss.

Hope this helps...

Mike

[rjstaaf]

Originally posted by Mike Phillips


As far as fillers go, one of the primary purposes of the rich lubricating oils is to embody, or suspend the diminishing abrasives in a slippery film, which in effect buffers, or cushions their abrading action. This prevents the scratching and scouring of the surface typical of traditional compounds.

To describe these oils as merely fillers would not be fair to the product or the role these oils play in the paint polishing process.


I guess I could have used a different word. Fillers aren't a "bad" thing :)


Hope this helps...

Mike

Sure does, as always :D

Anyway, got a chance to use #82 last night. I haven't really done any thorough surface prep on the Mustang in about 8 months so I had a few swirls I wanted to get rid of. I think I have found a new favorite product. #82 definitely does have a bit more bite than #9. I also found that #82 alone leaves the paint looking almost as glossy as #9 followed by #7.

Anyway, only had time to do the hood, trunk and roof so I put some ColorX on to protect it for the rest of the week. By the way, ColorX is another awesome product. I hope to finish up the car this weekend, we are supposed to be getting some perfect weather for it.

I still haven't decided what to do after the surface prep. I am kind of leaning towards NXT topped with either #16 or #26. Hopefully I will have some pics up by Monday.

Thanks again Mike :xyxthumbs

[Scottwax]

I would agree based on my own experience that #82 is a bit more aggressive than #9 and also leaves a higher gloss. I will say though that for an off the shelf product, #9 is certainly no slouch.