Thanks qwerty
What do you think of opticoat?
What do you think of opticoat?
Which of these options?
- Thread starter TrevorS
- Start date
- Status
I haven't used it but anything surface treatment claiming it lasts the life of the paint, I'd stay away from. Not to mention those types of specialized coatings require special prep work to actually get anything near decent life.
Basically if you have to ask how to prep your car and use those super coatings, don't bother, you won't get it right.
Plus one major downside is over time your paint will still suffer from accumulating swirls and people who spent so much time getting such a specialized coating done will no doubt resist stripping it off to polish out the swirls, since it is "lifetime". Double edged sword your paint might be protected but over time it'll look worse and worse since you never want to polish it. Plus eventually it will wear out, it's the nature of such coatings, they can be hard and durable sometimes even more so than the paint, but UV and ozone will eventually degrade the paint underneath and it'll flake off.
Think of it like your car headlights that go yellow, in fact Opticoat is likely similar to those silicon hard coats on your factory headlights, just not as thick and durable. From the factory they come with an ultrahard scratch resistant coating that is supposed to last the life of the headlight since there's no way you can reasonably reapply it. Well over time the plastic underneath degrades and flakes off taking the coating with it. Same will eventually happen to the paint. Thus you can't really call it lifetime.
Instead a yearly light polishing and regular waxing will keep the paint plenty protected AND looking top notch. Whereas with something like Opticoat, it starts out looking mediocre and only gets worse from there.
Basically if you have to ask how to prep your car and use those super coatings, don't bother, you won't get it right.
Plus one major downside is over time your paint will still suffer from accumulating swirls and people who spent so much time getting such a specialized coating done will no doubt resist stripping it off to polish out the swirls, since it is "lifetime". Double edged sword your paint might be protected but over time it'll look worse and worse since you never want to polish it. Plus eventually it will wear out, it's the nature of such coatings, they can be hard and durable sometimes even more so than the paint, but UV and ozone will eventually degrade the paint underneath and it'll flake off.
Think of it like your car headlights that go yellow, in fact Opticoat is likely similar to those silicon hard coats on your factory headlights, just not as thick and durable. From the factory they come with an ultrahard scratch resistant coating that is supposed to last the life of the headlight since there's no way you can reasonably reapply it. Well over time the plastic underneath degrades and flakes off taking the coating with it. Same will eventually happen to the paint. Thus you can't really call it lifetime.
Instead a yearly light polishing and regular waxing will keep the paint plenty protected AND looking top notch. Whereas with something like Opticoat, it starts out looking mediocre and only gets worse from there.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: qwertydude
Here's my advice. Like I said. Forget the nano-sponge or nano-towel, I don't know what your obsession with power decontamination is but I'm telling you if you don't have experience detailing cars, power decontamination is simply asking to gouge and mar your paint especially with the nanoskin products if you let them get low on lube. Get clay, it's less expensive, and does a great job, and it's the fastest part of detailing. Saving a minute to power this portion makes no sense. Use that money to buy a DA and save time and do a better job where it really counts, the polishing step.
If you really don't want to get the DA then get a decent polish like Meguiars M205. That and a 6" random orbit polisher, a couple wool bonnets and the M205 will work really well in making your car shine. It won't correct nearly to the degree that the DA does but M205, a wool bonnet and a 6" random orbit can do a lot better than NuFinish regardless of application method. If you haven't really taken the time to pay attention go at night to a well lit parking lot and look at the reflections and you'll see tons of swirls. With that said NuFinish will only make those swirls worse. People never notice just how bad NuFinish is on paint until I correct half their hood and tell them to go back to the parking lot.
And as far as protection goes, Collinite will outlast NuFinish. The reason NuFinish tends to last longer than waxes has as much to do with it's "cleaners" read abrasives. A cleaned and polished surface will bead water longer because protectants hold better to properly prepped surfaces. Waxing contaminated rough paint means the wax can't hold on as strongly and they tend to wear out quicker. But do a proper polish and apply a pure wax like Collinite and the results will look way better than NuFinish, you won't stain your plastic trim, and the protection will last longer.
+1, mostly.
The autoscrub products do require some care and experience, so after a second thought, I think a beginner is better off with using a less-aggressive, traditional clay bar.
However, I would really advise against wool pads of any kind since the fibers themselves will leave marks in the paint:
http://www.autogeekonline.net/forum/wet-...html#post649785
You are much better off with a proper set of polishing and finishing foam pads.
Originally Posted By: qwertydude
And the people promoting the nano-products online seem to be promoting them as if they're advertising. I have one, I'd rather use clay. The nano sponge doesn't save me any more time than clay and costs more. No benefit other than it's supposed to last for a hundred cars. And like I've said if you're decontaminating a heavily contaminated car an aggressive clay is better, less damaging and better feel. Clay has much better feedback than the sponge because you can literally feel when you're done with a section, the sponge you can't, clay glides smoothly and noise free over clean paint, then you know you're done. The only product you can feel your progress with is the nanoskin, but on heavily contaminated surfaces it will mar worse than clay.
Basically I see no advantage with the nanoskin products over existing tried and true products. And I'm not some old school fogey about these.
I cannot say that I agree. I've used the Nanoskin Fine grade pad, Riccardo Yellow and Pinnacle Ultra Poly clay - for a moderately contaminated car, the Nanoskine fine grade pad (on 6" DA polisher) remove most/all of the contamination in a fraction of the time without leaving any marring. On the car that I was working on, a traditional clay bar would have taken me at least 3x as long.
Originally Posted By: qwertydude
Instead a yearly light polishing and regular waxing will keep the paint plenty protected AND looking top notch. Whereas with something like Opticoat, it starts out looking mediocre and only gets worse from there.
For the record, Opticoat can be removed with an aggressive polish - so it is not truly "permanent."
Here's my advice. Like I said. Forget the nano-sponge or nano-towel, I don't know what your obsession with power decontamination is but I'm telling you if you don't have experience detailing cars, power decontamination is simply asking to gouge and mar your paint especially with the nanoskin products if you let them get low on lube. Get clay, it's less expensive, and does a great job, and it's the fastest part of detailing. Saving a minute to power this portion makes no sense. Use that money to buy a DA and save time and do a better job where it really counts, the polishing step.
If you really don't want to get the DA then get a decent polish like Meguiars M205. That and a 6" random orbit polisher, a couple wool bonnets and the M205 will work really well in making your car shine. It won't correct nearly to the degree that the DA does but M205, a wool bonnet and a 6" random orbit can do a lot better than NuFinish regardless of application method. If you haven't really taken the time to pay attention go at night to a well lit parking lot and look at the reflections and you'll see tons of swirls. With that said NuFinish will only make those swirls worse. People never notice just how bad NuFinish is on paint until I correct half their hood and tell them to go back to the parking lot.
And as far as protection goes, Collinite will outlast NuFinish. The reason NuFinish tends to last longer than waxes has as much to do with it's "cleaners" read abrasives. A cleaned and polished surface will bead water longer because protectants hold better to properly prepped surfaces. Waxing contaminated rough paint means the wax can't hold on as strongly and they tend to wear out quicker. But do a proper polish and apply a pure wax like Collinite and the results will look way better than NuFinish, you won't stain your plastic trim, and the protection will last longer.
+1, mostly.
The autoscrub products do require some care and experience, so after a second thought, I think a beginner is better off with using a less-aggressive, traditional clay bar.
However, I would really advise against wool pads of any kind since the fibers themselves will leave marks in the paint:
http://www.autogeekonline.net/forum/wet-...html#post649785
You are much better off with a proper set of polishing and finishing foam pads.
Originally Posted By: qwertydude
And the people promoting the nano-products online seem to be promoting them as if they're advertising. I have one, I'd rather use clay. The nano sponge doesn't save me any more time than clay and costs more. No benefit other than it's supposed to last for a hundred cars. And like I've said if you're decontaminating a heavily contaminated car an aggressive clay is better, less damaging and better feel. Clay has much better feedback than the sponge because you can literally feel when you're done with a section, the sponge you can't, clay glides smoothly and noise free over clean paint, then you know you're done. The only product you can feel your progress with is the nanoskin, but on heavily contaminated surfaces it will mar worse than clay.
Basically I see no advantage with the nanoskin products over existing tried and true products. And I'm not some old school fogey about these.
I cannot say that I agree. I've used the Nanoskin Fine grade pad, Riccardo Yellow and Pinnacle Ultra Poly clay - for a moderately contaminated car, the Nanoskine fine grade pad (on 6" DA polisher) remove most/all of the contamination in a fraction of the time without leaving any marring. On the car that I was working on, a traditional clay bar would have taken me at least 3x as long.
Originally Posted By: qwertydude
Instead a yearly light polishing and regular waxing will keep the paint plenty protected AND looking top notch. Whereas with something like Opticoat, it starts out looking mediocre and only gets worse from there.
For the record, Opticoat can be removed with an aggressive polish - so it is not truly "permanent."
If you read carefully I only recommend wool bonnets on a cheapy random orbital. They won't leave any hologramming since the machine is random orbital. And the low power of the machine would entail needing a more aggressive application method to do any sort or correction and even then it takes a lot longer to achieve even simple swirl removal.
The link you linked to is specifically for wool and a rotary polisher. Something I specifically advocated against for beginners.
The link you linked to is specifically for wool and a rotary polisher. Something I specifically advocated against for beginners.
Originally Posted By: qwertydude
If you read carefully I only recommend wool bonnets on a cheapy random orbital. They won't leave any hologramming since the machine is random orbital. And the low power of the machine would entail needing a more aggressive application method to do any sort or correction and even then it takes a lot longer to achieve even simple swirl removal.
The link you linked to is specifically for wool and a rotary polisher. Something I specifically advocated against for beginners.
I did read the part about your recommend of a random orbital. However, I still feel that a wool bonnet will run the risk of having the same issue. I think the concept of the wool fibers having some "bite" by themselves, and leaving behind strange marks applies to all means of application. For instance, someone was able to install leave nasty hologram-like marks on my Prius's paint using M85 and a microfiber applicator pad....by hand.
If you read carefully I only recommend wool bonnets on a cheapy random orbital. They won't leave any hologramming since the machine is random orbital. And the low power of the machine would entail needing a more aggressive application method to do any sort or correction and even then it takes a lot longer to achieve even simple swirl removal.
The link you linked to is specifically for wool and a rotary polisher. Something I specifically advocated against for beginners.
I did read the part about your recommend of a random orbital. However, I still feel that a wool bonnet will run the risk of having the same issue. I think the concept of the wool fibers having some "bite" by themselves, and leaving behind strange marks applies to all means of application. For instance, someone was able to install leave nasty hologram-like marks on my Prius's paint using M85 and a microfiber applicator pad....by hand.
Considering for years I detailed cars using a random orbital, wool bonnet, and fine hand compatible finishing polishes without leaving holograms. The random orbital was pretty much my only option when detailing cars in places where I didn't have electricity for a DA or rotary. I simply used an inverter and it's pretty safe to use with safe polishes.
Your big problem about leaving holograms with M85 is that it's not meant to be applied by hand. That's the reason you were left with hologramming. M85 uses coarser diminishing abrasives and unless you have a powerful application method like rotary, which is pretty much the only method recommended for that polish, you never end up breaking down the polish to a fine enough level to remove the swirls and holograms left behind from initial application.
From experience on all paints from soft paints on Hondas to hard German car paints, the specific combination of 6" random orbital, wool bonnet, and M205 polish has always proven to be safe and hologram free. The wool has no bite, it's softer than the paint. The bite comes from the polish and since M205 uses ultrafine non-marring SMAT abrasives you don't need the power of the DA or Rotary to break down the initially coarse abrasives because they aren't there in M205. You simply go slower over the paint and eventually you end up correcting defects. Go over too fast and unlike trying to use diminishing abrasives you simply end up not correcting but also at least not leaving swirls and holograms from having coarse abrasives that haven't broken down.
So the big problem you had was trying to use M85 by hand. You'll end up with holograms guaranteed. But try M105 by hand you'll be amazed that it can remove defects faster than M85 and not leave holograms and swirls. And that's by hand.
Your big problem about leaving holograms with M85 is that it's not meant to be applied by hand. That's the reason you were left with hologramming. M85 uses coarser diminishing abrasives and unless you have a powerful application method like rotary, which is pretty much the only method recommended for that polish, you never end up breaking down the polish to a fine enough level to remove the swirls and holograms left behind from initial application.
From experience on all paints from soft paints on Hondas to hard German car paints, the specific combination of 6" random orbital, wool bonnet, and M205 polish has always proven to be safe and hologram free. The wool has no bite, it's softer than the paint. The bite comes from the polish and since M205 uses ultrafine non-marring SMAT abrasives you don't need the power of the DA or Rotary to break down the initially coarse abrasives because they aren't there in M205. You simply go slower over the paint and eventually you end up correcting defects. Go over too fast and unlike trying to use diminishing abrasives you simply end up not correcting but also at least not leaving swirls and holograms from having coarse abrasives that haven't broken down.
So the big problem you had was trying to use M85 by hand. You'll end up with holograms guaranteed. But try M105 by hand you'll be amazed that it can remove defects faster than M85 and not leave holograms and swirls. And that's by hand.
Originally Posted By: qwertydude
Your big problem about leaving holograms with M85 is that it's not meant to be applied by hand. That's the reason you were left with hologramming. M85 uses coarser diminishing abrasives and unless you have a powerful application method like rotary, which is pretty much the only method recommended for that polish, you never end up breaking down the polish to a fine enough level to remove the swirls and holograms left behind from initial application.
So the big problem you had was trying to use M85 by hand. You'll end up with holograms guaranteed. But try M105 by hand you'll be amazed that it can remove defects faster than M85 and not leave holograms and swirls. And that's by hand.
That makes a lot of sense, thanks. For the record, I was not the one who did this - some car wash lizard did it to remove some scratch that they had inflicted.
Your big problem about leaving holograms with M85 is that it's not meant to be applied by hand. That's the reason you were left with hologramming. M85 uses coarser diminishing abrasives and unless you have a powerful application method like rotary, which is pretty much the only method recommended for that polish, you never end up breaking down the polish to a fine enough level to remove the swirls and holograms left behind from initial application.
So the big problem you had was trying to use M85 by hand. You'll end up with holograms guaranteed. But try M105 by hand you'll be amazed that it can remove defects faster than M85 and not leave holograms and swirls. And that's by hand.
That makes a lot of sense, thanks. For the record, I was not the one who did this - some car wash lizard did it to remove some scratch that they had inflicted.
Having worked with M85 before here's a little thread about it.
http://www.meguiarsonline.com/forums/sho...05-M205-and-M07
Reading down I found the best quote that explains my experience with M85.
"Also, if you short cycle M85 or M84 (ie, you don't work them long enough to fully break down the abrasives) you end up scouring the finish quite noticeably"
The only method that can reliably get a decent finish with M85 is rotary with a wool pad, that and a lot of experience with a rotary polisher. You're guaranteed a swirled finish using any other method.
http://www.meguiarsonline.com/forums/sho...05-M205-and-M07
Reading down I found the best quote that explains my experience with M85.
"Also, if you short cycle M85 or M84 (ie, you don't work them long enough to fully break down the abrasives) you end up scouring the finish quite noticeably"
The only method that can reliably get a decent finish with M85 is rotary with a wool pad, that and a lot of experience with a rotary polisher. You're guaranteed a swirled finish using any other method.
Originally Posted By: qwertydude
Having worked with M85 before here's a little thread about it.
http://www.meguiarsonline.com/forums/sho...05-M205-and-M07
Reading down I found the best quote that explains my experience with M85.
"Also, if you short cycle M85 or M84 (ie, you don't work them long enough to fully break down the abrasives) you end up scouring the finish quite noticeably"
The only method that can reliably get a decent finish with M85 is rotary with a wool pad, that and a lot of experience with a rotary polisher. You're guaranteed a swirled finish using any other method.
Good to know. As you probably saw from my other thread, I just ordered some Menzerna Power Finish, which also uses diminishing abrasives. I have never used a polish with diminishing abrasives, so I'll be sure to work it long enough (but not too long) to ensure proper breakdown.
Having worked with M85 before here's a little thread about it.
http://www.meguiarsonline.com/forums/sho...05-M205-and-M07
Reading down I found the best quote that explains my experience with M85.
"Also, if you short cycle M85 or M84 (ie, you don't work them long enough to fully break down the abrasives) you end up scouring the finish quite noticeably"
The only method that can reliably get a decent finish with M85 is rotary with a wool pad, that and a lot of experience with a rotary polisher. You're guaranteed a swirled finish using any other method.
Good to know. As you probably saw from my other thread, I just ordered some Menzerna Power Finish, which also uses diminishing abrasives. I have never used a polish with diminishing abrasives, so I'll be sure to work it long enough (but not too long) to ensure proper breakdown.
qwertydude, thanks for the amount of information! It helped get me off the fence and purchasing a DA polisher. Yeah, it was the HF cheapy. If it does well with a different backing plate and Megs Ultimate Compound and Polish, I will be very happy.
qwertydude, also my thanks for staying active in this thread. It's very helpful.
I do have some more questions:
Which clay bar would you recommend?
My vehicle is 9.5 years old. It did spend its first two years outdoors but after that it was garaged. It has 75k on it. It is a very light green metallic. I can easily feel the contamination on it and it hasn't been clayed before. If I look closely I can see surface scratches.
How much longer would a random orbital take vs the HF DA? My thinking right now is that I don't want to get extremely serious about detailing and a light polish is all I want / need to achieve. So if M205 / Meguiars Ultimate Polish could get a similar result with a random orbital then that would be a good route as there is a Ryobi cordless that accepts my existing 18v Lithium batteries.
What do you think of Pinnacle XMT 360? It seems its as abrasive as Meguiars 205 and has a polymer sealant. I could then top it with Collinite 845 which together means I have more protection than Meguiars 205 and Collinite 845.
I do have some more questions:
Which clay bar would you recommend?
My vehicle is 9.5 years old. It did spend its first two years outdoors but after that it was garaged. It has 75k on it. It is a very light green metallic. I can easily feel the contamination on it and it hasn't been clayed before. If I look closely I can see surface scratches.
How much longer would a random orbital take vs the HF DA? My thinking right now is that I don't want to get extremely serious about detailing and a light polish is all I want / need to achieve. So if M205 / Meguiars Ultimate Polish could get a similar result with a random orbital then that would be a good route as there is a Ryobi cordless that accepts my existing 18v Lithium batteries.
What do you think of Pinnacle XMT 360? It seems its as abrasive as Meguiars 205 and has a polymer sealant. I could then top it with Collinite 845 which together means I have more protection than Meguiars 205 and Collinite 845.
The Meguiars is M205 is foolproof. I wouldn't get Pinnacle XMT 360 it's an all in one product and it's really designed for a high power application method like a DA. The Meguiars is a dedicated product and it's special SMAT abrasives are unique to the brand, trust me when I say there is no other polish like Meguiars SMAT line of products. It's pretty much the only products other than simple cleaner waxes that can actually correct with the random orbital.
The random orbital vs DA. Since I have both I can tell you to achieve the level of finish with a random orbital vs DA, get ready to just do one panel in about 30 minutes or longer. You have to move very slowly and use more product to get the job done. Also you CANNOT substitute non-SMAT polishes. Don't try to be clever and buy another brand. To get any decent correction out of the polish you need to use a wool bonnet and non-SMAT abrasives just don't work too well with wool and a random orbital, it just doesn't finish as fine because the random orbital can't break down the abrasives. You'll be able to get away with applying a hand applicable all in one but you won't get any correction done. But Pinnacle XMT 360 specifically doesn't recommend hand application, makes me think they're putting a diminishing abrasive in it which is what it takes to be able to eliminate swirls in an all in one product that doesn't use SMAT abrasives.
If you want an all in one product that works with the random orbital and wool bonnet D151 works great. But if you're going to use Collinite 845 it's better to leave a pristine surface as it will last the longest that way. It's a myth that waxes "layer" they don't car waxes will mix at best when reapplied. I posted a little informal experiment polishing shoes with shoe polish, Johnson Paste wax and Collinite 915. You simply can not layer car waxes as they end up too slick to layer and even if you could it would simply flake off of itself because carnauba is brittle.
The random orbital vs DA. Since I have both I can tell you to achieve the level of finish with a random orbital vs DA, get ready to just do one panel in about 30 minutes or longer. You have to move very slowly and use more product to get the job done. Also you CANNOT substitute non-SMAT polishes. Don't try to be clever and buy another brand. To get any decent correction out of the polish you need to use a wool bonnet and non-SMAT abrasives just don't work too well with wool and a random orbital, it just doesn't finish as fine because the random orbital can't break down the abrasives. You'll be able to get away with applying a hand applicable all in one but you won't get any correction done. But Pinnacle XMT 360 specifically doesn't recommend hand application, makes me think they're putting a diminishing abrasive in it which is what it takes to be able to eliminate swirls in an all in one product that doesn't use SMAT abrasives.
If you want an all in one product that works with the random orbital and wool bonnet D151 works great. But if you're going to use Collinite 845 it's better to leave a pristine surface as it will last the longest that way. It's a myth that waxes "layer" they don't car waxes will mix at best when reapplied. I posted a little informal experiment polishing shoes with shoe polish, Johnson Paste wax and Collinite 915. You simply can not layer car waxes as they end up too slick to layer and even if you could it would simply flake off of itself because carnauba is brittle.
Thanks again qwertydude.
Can you recommend a clay bar appropriate for my vehicle as described in my last post?
Also, Meguiars Ultimate Polish is the same as 205 right?
Lastly, say I was happy with my surface after claying and just wanted to use one product to seal / protect that would be both durable and look good and could be applied by random orbital or by hand and does not have to have any correction abilities, what would that be? Still D151? (If so, is there a consumer equivalent?)
Can you recommend a clay bar appropriate for my vehicle as described in my last post?
Also, Meguiars Ultimate Polish is the same as 205 right?
Lastly, say I was happy with my surface after claying and just wanted to use one product to seal / protect that would be both durable and look good and could be applied by random orbital or by hand and does not have to have any correction abilities, what would that be? Still D151? (If so, is there a consumer equivalent?)
Surprisingly for clay bars I just buy the cheaper fine blue clay bars. I bought lots of them and I break it into thirds and use only a new piece per car. Clay as normal and when one side gets visibly dirty I fold fold it to expose the clean backside, don't knead it since kneading only works to spread the contamination throughout the bar, and throw it out when I'm done. Better to use a new cheaper bar than keep reusing an expensive one.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Car-Truck-Magic-...dc8&vxp=mtr
Unfortunately there's always a compromise, you can't get good looks, good durability, and ease of application. That product simply just doesn't exist. D151 is amazing but as a protectant it's about as effective as Meguiars NXT wax, as in one month tops. In fact if you just wanted one step and easy application by random orbital I'd say NXT 2.0 fits the bill. It doesn't correct much if at all but it's ability to hide swirls and create a very high gloss is very good.
The Ultimate line isn't exactly the same. It's basically watered down M105 or M205. It has much more lubrication to make it more foolproof but it simply doesn't have the cutting ability of the professional line. For example M105 has a cutting power of 12 according to Meg's scale, Ultimate compound only has a cutting power of 6. I know M105 by hand will eliminate 1000 grit wet sanding matte finish in a matter of a few strokes, Ultimate Compound will take quite a bit longer as it really wasn't meant for it. Both will finish just fine by hand because of the SMAT abrasives just the consumer line isn't as powerful so expect to be polishing for an even longer time which to me is unacceptablley longer since the random orbital already takes long enough using M105 or M205.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Car-Truck-Magic-...dc8&vxp=mtr
Unfortunately there's always a compromise, you can't get good looks, good durability, and ease of application. That product simply just doesn't exist. D151 is amazing but as a protectant it's about as effective as Meguiars NXT wax, as in one month tops. In fact if you just wanted one step and easy application by random orbital I'd say NXT 2.0 fits the bill. It doesn't correct much if at all but it's ability to hide swirls and create a very high gloss is very good.
The Ultimate line isn't exactly the same. It's basically watered down M105 or M205. It has much more lubrication to make it more foolproof but it simply doesn't have the cutting ability of the professional line. For example M105 has a cutting power of 12 according to Meg's scale, Ultimate compound only has a cutting power of 6. I know M105 by hand will eliminate 1000 grit wet sanding matte finish in a matter of a few strokes, Ultimate Compound will take quite a bit longer as it really wasn't meant for it. Both will finish just fine by hand because of the SMAT abrasives just the consumer line isn't as powerful so expect to be polishing for an even longer time which to me is unacceptablley longer since the random orbital already takes long enough using M105 or M205.
Last edited:
Thanks!
I would use the Ultimate Polish with a DA.
In that case is it ok to get that or should I go for the stronger 205?
Since I initially only want to do light polishing, it seems the UP is fine as a first step.
I would use the Ultimate Polish with a DA.
In that case is it ok to get that or should I go for the stronger 205?
Since I initially only want to do light polishing, it seems the UP is fine as a first step.
If you've got a DA I'd just use M205. I generally have always been happier with the M205, it's not necessarily more aggressive, it's just faster.
- Status
