The Aggressiveness Order of SMAT Products - This might surprise you!

[Mike Phillips]

The Aggressiveness Order of SMAT Products - This might surprise you!



Super Micro Abrasive Technology = SMAT
From left to right, the most aggressive to the least aggressive SMAT products


From the most to the least aggressive...

M105 Ultra-Cut Compound/M95 Speed Cut Compound = The same in abrading power
Ultimate Compound
ScratchX 2.0
M86 Solo Cut & Polish Cream
D151 Paint Reconditioning Cream
SwirlX
M205 Ultra Finishing Polish

Now instead of SCANNING... (like we're all prone to do on discussion forums), read the below very carefully.

The order shown here is relative, to the idea that if all things were equal, if all influencing factors could be controlled and be identical when using these products.

That of course is impossible because some of these products are only recommended for use with a rotary buffer while some of these products are only recommended for use by hand or with a dual action polisher. So if we were to follow the manufactures recommendations then we wouldn't be able to compare all of these products side-by-side because in some examples they cannot be used in an equal manner.

Does that make sense?

This article is just to give you a GENERAL idea for the aggressiveness of these products when relatively compared to one another. The way a product is applied, (by hand or machine and if by machine the type of machine), and the application material used to apply the products, (foam, wool, wool/acrylic blend, cotton, microfiber), are both HUGE factors that will and do affect how aggressive a product is or isn't.

So keep this in mind when considering which product to choose and use for your detailing project.

Also keep in mind this is a very diverse group of products, all of these products except the D151 PRC are products with the dedicated purpose of removing below surface defects like swirls, scratches and other etchings and blemishes.

The D151 is a one-step cleaner/wax that has the ability to remove below surface defects, polish the paint to a high gloss and then leave behind a coating of protection.

Any questions?

[Markus Kleis]

Re: The Aggressiveness Order of SMAT Products - This might surprise you!

I have one - how have you been Mike? We miss you!

Thanks for the post - this should be a great tool for future use. Michael Stoops also posted THIS THREAD which covered the concept of total cut as you alluded to in your post.

The product that really comes to mind for that is SOLO Cut and Polish Cream - I find this product to be incredibly versatile and offer an extremely wide range of cutting and finishing potential based on the means of application.

[Michael Stoops]

Re: The Aggressiveness Order of SMAT Products - This might surprise you!

The order shown here is relative, to the idea that if all things were equal, if all influencing factors could be controlled and be identical when using these products.

That of course is impossible because some of these products are only recommended for use with a rotary buffer while some of these products are only recommended for use by hand or with a dual action polisher. So if we were to follow the manufactures recommendations then we wouldn't be able to compare all of these products side-by-side because in some examples they cannot be used in an equal manner.

Does that make sense?

This article is just to give you a GENERAL idea for the aggressiveness of these products when relatively compared to one another. The way a product is applied, (by hand or machine and if by machine the type of machine), and the application material used to apply the products, (foam, wool, wool/acrylic blend, cotton, microfiber), are both HUGE factors that will and do affect how aggressive a product is or isn't.

So keep this in mind when considering which product to choose and use for your detailing project.

It is critically important to keep the above in mind, and it bears repeating: in many cases, you can not simply and directly compare the aggressiveness of two different products because they are intended to be used in different ways.

A perfect example of this is shown in one isolated product: M86 So1o Cut & Polish Cream. Is it a heavy cutting compound? Well, when used with the WWHC7 burgundy wool cutting pad on a rotary buffer at 1800 rpm it can pull out 1200 grit sanding marks. Or is it a finishing polish? Well, when used with a WDFF7 diamond cut foam finishing pad on a rotary at 1000 rpm it can beautifully refine a finish to a hologram free, deep, wet shine. How M86 is used makes all the difference in the world.

Taking this example one step further, Mike lists ScratchX 2.0 as being more aggressive than M86, but you would never select ScratchX 2.0 to use on a wool pad at 1800 rpm on a rotary to pull out sanding marks. It is simply not designed for that purpose.

The nature of the abrasives used in a given product (and not all SMAT abrasives are 100% identical, by the way) and the other ingredients used in the "carrier liquid" determine whether a product can even survive being used with an aggressive rotary application, or if they'll be effective at all when used by hand.

Just as so often people tend to over think certain things, we don't want you to over simplify either. Mike Phillips has long referred to the "Art of Paint Polishing" and he's absolutely right; there are an awful lot of variables to consider. Chief among those is the paint itself. But that's a whole 'nother discussion!!

[Akustic]

Re: The Aggressiveness Order of SMAT Products - This might surprise you!

M95 can use with G110 DA soft Buff 2.0 W8207?

about UC and M95, M95 is 12 on scale and UC is arround 6 ?

Thanks!

[Michael Stoops]

Re: The Aggressiveness Order of SMAT Products - This might surprise you!

M95 can use with G110 DA soft Buff 2.0 W8207?

about UC and M95, M95 is 12 on scale and UC is arround 6 ?

Thanks!

M95 is a rotary only product, do not use it with a D/A. If you really need that level of cut and you're using a D/A, stay with M105. As for Ultimate Compound, it would fall higher than 6 on our pro cut scale as it is more aggressive than M83, which is a 6. In fact, it's quite a bit higher as it is derived from M105.

[Andrew Wilson]

Re: The Aggressiveness Order of SMAT Products - This might surprise you!

This is such a great post. Thanks for taking the time to make it.

[Sudz On The Run]

Re: The Aggressiveness Order of SMAT Products - This might surprise you!

Thanks for sharing

[Mike Phillips]

Re: The Aggressiveness Order of SMAT Products - This might surprise you!

It is critically important to keep the above in mind, and it bears repeating: in many cases, you can not simply and directly compare the aggressiveness of two different products because they are intended to be used in different ways.

Mike Stoops point is dead on that it's difficult at best to try to compare all of these product with one another directly as they are formulated for very diverse procedures and diverse markets with a very wide spectrum of user skill levels taken into consideration.

That said, as long as I've been posting to forums, it seems like serious online enthusiasts always want a a list of least to most aggressive products, so this is just general indicator, not a hard and fast last word on the topic set in concrete.

I'm working on a couple other articles and in the process of writing them I found I needed to somehow reference the new SMAT collection and try to gingerly give the reader some idea of where they would fall into line assuming all other factors could be kept close to the same. But as I wrote in the original article,

The order shown here is relative, to the idea that if all things were equal, if all influencing factors could be controlled and be identical when using these products.

That of course is impossible because some of these products are only recommended for use with a rotary buffer while some of these products are only recommended for use by hand or with a dual action polisher. So if we were to follow the manufactures recommendations then we wouldn't be able to compare all of these products side-by-side because in some examples they cannot be used in an equal manner.

Does that make sense?

This article is just to give you a GENERAL idea for the aggressiveness of these products when relatively compared to one another. The way a product is applied, (by hand or machine and if by machine the type of machine), and the application material used to apply the products, (foam, wool, wool/acrylic blend, cotton, microfiber), are both HUGE factors that will and do affect how aggressive a product is or isn't.

So keep this in mind when considering which product to choose and use for your detailing project.

[searle]

Re: The Aggressiveness Order of SMAT Products - This might surprise you!

Absolutely continue to remind folks that the actual cutting effect much more than just the product but is also dependent on hand vs machine (and DA vs rotary), speed, pressure, time, pad material, SMAT vs DAT, etc.

But when all is said-and-done, is it is still extremely useful to know the relative aggressiveness of individual products when other factors are the same. Similarly it is great to know what elements are present (cleaner? glaze? wax? polymers?) since the marketing descriptions often leave you guessing.

I understand the concern that Meguiars has that the other factors will be forgotten by many, but I appreciate the willingness of Meguiars to go out on a limb and provide this relative information (along with ongoing reminders to also factor in the other variables)- especially to the folks studying these forums

THANKS!

[Murr1525]

Re: The Aggressiveness Order of SMAT Products - This might surprise you!

Still need a bit of a baseline to start comparing things, nice to see Solo and PRC added in.

[Detale]

Re: The Aggressiveness Order of SMAT Products - This might surprise you!

I guess it's all relative. Another well known detailer made a "chart" of his opinions of Meguiars products after a lot of testing. He has M205 listed as more aggressive than D151 and Swirl X which he considers equal in terms of aggressiveness. This "chart" states D151 and Swirl X as more agressive than M205.

[cleanCXS]

Re: The Aggressiveness Order of SMAT Products - This might surprise you!

this illustration says swirl x is more agressive than m205. Just wondering how this is possible since it says on the bottle that swirl x contains no abrasives?

[Michael Stoops]

Re: The Aggressiveness Order of SMAT Products - This might surprise you!

I guess it's all relative. Another well known detailer made a "chart" of his opinions of Meguiars products after a lot of testing. He has M205 listed as more aggressive than D151 and Swirl X which he considers equal in terms of aggressiveness. This "chart" states D151 and Swirl X as more aggressive than M205.

This is where you start to see the downside to attempting a comparison of products designed to be used in different ways. D151, SwirlX and M205 are all very close in inherent cut but they're used in quite different ways.

• SwirlX is a consumer product designed to be used by hand or with a D/A polisher to remove light swirls.
• D151 is an all-in-one product designed for high volume reconditioning shops that are more interested in production than perfection. It can be used via rotary with a wool pad (a combination that would give much, much more total cut than SwirlX will when used as directed ) or with a D/A and a polishing pad. Either way, it leaves wax protection that the other two do not.
• M205 was designed as a finishing polish to be applied via rotary buffer to remove any light hologramming that might be caused by using M105 with a wool pad.

So while the inherent cut of these products is extremely close they each possess different properties, unique unto themselves, that cause them to be very different products. And since are used differently you can alter the total cut pretty significantly, as mentioned above with regard to D151. Because of this, how you use them can influence how you might rank them in a chart like this.

What all this means is that, although these charts can be interesting from a general reference point of view, they don't come close to telling the whole story.

this illustration says swirl x is more agressive than m205. Just wondering how this is possible since it says on the bottle that swirl x contains no abrasives?

This is sort of a consumer vs pro semantics thing. In the consumer mind, "abrasive" means it scratches, and nothing in SwirlX can scratch your paint. Yes, technically there are abrasive particles in it that help to level the paint and remove defects, but even that simply reality can scare the daylights out of the average consumer. Their typical reaction is "so this will remove my clear coat?? No, no .... I want something that will remove my swirls without touching my clear coat". We actually hear that, and fairly regularly. MOL members understand that in order to truly remove swirls you have to remove a tiny bit of clear coat, there is simply no way around it. That's why we educate people in our classes, product demos at shows, over the phone through our call center, and here on MOL. But it's difficult to fully educate someone in the space of a bottle label, so wording is chosen carefully so as to communicate the message to those who have yet to learn all this stuff!

[Mikejl]

Re: The Aggressiveness Order of SMAT Products - This might surprise you!

this illustration says swirl x is more agressive than m205. Just wondering how this is possible since it says on the bottle that swirl x contains no abrasives?

I don't have the bottle with me right now, but I'm pretty sure it says it that it is "non-abrasive."



Mike

[Michael Stoops]

Re: The Aggressiveness Order of SMAT Products - This might surprise you!

I don't have the bottle with me right now, but I'm pretty sure it says it that it is "non-abrasive."



Mike

Good catch of a fine distinction there, Mike.

The bottle does indeed read "... this non-abrasive formula..." rather than stating it contains no abrasives. And that terminology is what was referenced in our previous post. Should have been a bit more clear on that, but leave it Mike to keep us on our toes! Well done, friend!