Griot`s DA and 6" MF pads??

[imported_Bunky]

I had never heard that the G110v2 was better than the XP.

Bump. Does anyone agree that the Meg`s unit (not involved in representing Meg`s - no offense) will not bog down as much as the XP? It should be a simple side by side comparison to prove. Can someone do it?

[mikenap]

Bump. Does anyone agree that the Meg`s unit (not involved in representing Meg`s - no offense) will not bog down as much as the XP? It should be a simple side by side comparison to prove. Can someone do it?

I sold my XP after trying someone`s G110. Compared to the PCXP, the 110 had much better ergonomics, a soft-start feature and a bit more power. The increase in power is noticeable going from one machine to the other back to back, but not as noticeable as the GG`s power. The GG is leaps and bounds ahead of the other two.

[imported_Jose]

Considering Griot`s DA is one of the more powerful DA`s on the market, do you think it has enough power to spin 6" MF pads and still get effective defect removal in the same amount of time as a 5.5" MF pad?

My experience is limited but here are my thoughts:

Given the ample power of the GG DA I don`t believe an extra quarter inch on each side of the center of the pad is going to make any difference. I haven`t used the MF pads. That said, I use the 6-inch Hydro-Tech pads with my GG and they work perfectly. I would think that pad composition and polish selection are more important for the GG DA than pad size.

A couple of things I believe to be true: DA`s correct mainly with orbits, not rotation. The rotational speed of DA machines is somewhat important in that a higher speed distributes the random orbits faster but not in the same way as for rotary machines, which only use rotational speed for correction. In both cases though, the larger the pad the higher the speed at the edge of the pad given the same rotational speed for both size pads.

Best,

Jose

[imported_User Name]

Bump. Does anyone agree that the Meg`s unit (not involved in representing Meg`s - no offense) will not bog down as much as the XP? It should be a simple side by side comparison to prove. Can someone do it?

Bunky,

I don`t know that I heard one was better than the other, but I remember when the G110 v.2 came out, Kevin Brown gave some explanations as to why the G110 v.2 was more powerful (an not looking at RPM`s only).

If I was smarter, I could explain his reasons, but I have NO idea. I`ll see if I can find the thread he wrote.

[imported_Kevin Brown]

Pad size does make a difference, for a number of reasons.

1. There is quite a bit more surface area in play when using the 6-1/4" disc compared to the 5-1/2" disc ... about 29.12% more:




Imagine if you dropped machine speed 29.12%, or had 29.12% less random rotation of the backing plate. That would be a big deal. So depending upon what you are trying to accomplish, the increase in surface area may be beneficial or detrimental. It just depends upon the task at hand.

2. When using a maximum speed setting in hopes of creating rapid backing plate rotation, a larger pad will spin at a higher rate of speed for a given RPM, assuming friction doesn`t enter into the equation.

If we do not take into consideration the speed of the mechanically driven orbit nor how friction affects backing plate rotation, but instead focus only on overall rotational speed:

A 5-1/2" disc spinning 10 times per second has an outer edge speed of about 9.8 MPH

A 6-1/4" disc spinning 10 times per second has an outer edge speed of about 11.2 MPH.

That`s about 14.3% more speed.


3. Considering how friction might affect backing plate rotation:
We would need to know whether "X" amount of weight and pressure placed upon a small area would slow backing plate more than if it was spread over a large area. That would be interesting for sure.

4. Procedure plays a big part in the choice of pads. For example, if you tend to tilt the machine in order to focus applied pressure or machine motion (or polishing energy), then you`d have to tilt the machine more in order to create the same sized footprint upon the paint as a smaller disc would.

In fact, you don`t even need to tilt the pad for this dynamic to occur. A panel featuring even a modest curve or bulge would net a similar effect.

Note:

I think that tilt is one of the reasons some guys aren`t too keen on using the Flex XC 3401VRG with the Meguiar`s Microfiber Discs.

After all, the discs don`t use overly squishy foam, so machine motions are transferred through the foam to the microfiber material very efficiently. When the machine is tilted even a little, the concentration of pressure and the machine`s forced rotation tries to rotate the pad like a tire, taking the polishing guy along for the ride.

This is why I posted on another forum that Zoh6 give an interface pad a try... stick one between the backing plate and a Microfiber Disc.

The Flex has a relatively large orbit (5/16" diameter orbit) compared to the Festool Rotex RO150FEQ (3/16" diameter orbit) or the Makita BO6040 (7/32" diameter orbit).

[Todd@RUPES]

What Kevin said! (I think....) :thumbup:

[Michael Stoops]

Bump. Does anyone agree that the Meg`s unit (not involved in representing Meg`s - no offense) will not bog down as much as the XP? It should be a simple side by side comparison to prove. Can someone do it?

Yes, I work for Meguiar`s, but I can still be objective when it comes to this sort of thing.

At Barrett-Jackson West Palm Beach back in April I had to do my demos using a Porter Cable 7424XP since the G110v2 was still on national backorder and we were totally out. We were selling the XP at that event (which lead some to believe that we were replacing the v2 with the XP and/or we were going back to selling a rebranded Porter Cable like we did with the original G100 - neither of which is true, by the way (yes, the G100 was simply a rebranded 7424; no, we aren`t going back to that practice)) just so that if someone got all excited following the demo they could purchase exactly what I used in the demo. And, yes, we sold a bunch - apparently my demos went quite well. :wink:

Anyway.........

While I have no doubt that the Porter Cable 7424 XP is a fine tool (I still have and love my original 7424) it simply did not have the power of the G110v2 and would bog down much easier. It left me longing for my v2 and I had to be careful not to apply too much pressure - I needed to demonstrate pad rotation while correcting defects. The demo car was a 2011 Roush Mustang, non metallic black, that I "prepped" for correction by applying an old school rubbing compound (competitors name to go unmentioned here!) by hand in order to sufficiently scour the paint. Let`s face it, you can`t do a good demo on defect removal if the paint looks perfect to start with! You can see how badly I scoured the paint in the left side of this image, and how well it came out with the Porter Cable 7424XP, W8207 Soft Buff 2.0 foam polishing pad (gadzooks, a 7" pad on DA?!?!?! that`ll never work!!!!) and a little bit of Ultimate Compound (gasp!!!! not even M105???????).



That poor Roush `Stang - I`d correct it, then tear it up again, then correct it again. Did this 4x a day for 3 days, then buffed out the whole thing before giving it back to the fine folks at Roush. And, yes, they knew about it all as their booth was right next to ours and they came by and watched me do everything. Full disclosure, blah blah blah.

So, obviously the 7424XP has some decent power behind it, but yes, you can bog it down much easier than a G110v2, without a doubt. On this car, even with this level of defect, and using 7" pads and a $10 consumer level product, the 7424XP was well up to the task. On much harder paint, posing a bigger challenge? Well...............

[imported_Bunky]

Thanks Mike for the response. It is interesting the differences in views on the comparison. I am sure the factor of diminishing vs non-diminishing may also make a
difference.

In my limited use of M105/M205, it seemed to reduce the fickleness of the DA (finding the balance of speed, pressure, etc) that newbs seem to have and just let the polish do the work. As long as you did not buff it dry, it worked to some degree.

[gmck]

In both cases though, the larger the pad the higher the speed at the edge of the pad given the same rotational speed for both size pads.

You may need to rethink that one. A DA with a smaller pad is more aggressive than with a larger pad, given that no other change such as pad or compound is made. The opposite is true when using a rotary.

[Michael Stoops]

A couple of things I believe to be true: DA`s correct mainly with orbits, not rotation. The rotational speed of DA machines is somewhat important in that a higher speed distributes the random orbits faster but not in the same way as for rotary machines, which only use rotational speed for correction. In both cases though, the larger the pad the higher the speed at the edge of the pad given the same rotational speed for both size pads.

You may need to rethink that one. A DA with a smaller pad is more aggressive than with a larger pad, given that no other change such as pad or compound is made. The opposite is true when using a rotary.

Jose is correct here, but so are you, gmck. Jose isn`t saying that a larger pad on a DA provides more cut, just that two pads of different sizes will ultimately yield different outer edge speeds at similar tool speed settings. That`s simply physics, no way around it. For example, a 7" pad running on a DA at speed 5 with a lot of downward pressure may only be rotating at a few dozen rpm, but it`s outer edge speed is going to be higher than that of a 4" pad spinning, under load, at the same few dozen rpm. But where the higher outer edge speed on a rotary plays a key role in correcting ability (ie, larger pads yield higher speed and therefore more cut - all else being equal) the same situation on a DA does not, primarily because simple rotation is not how a DA provides cut.

So Jose is correct that a larger pad will give that higher outer edge speed, but you are spot on that on a DA the smaller pad provides more cut (again, all else being equal) due to it concentrating the energy of the tool in a smaller area.

[imported_Kevin Brown]

And if you tilt the machine so that a majority of pressure is on a smaller catseye-shaped portion of the disc...

You get the benefit of a small footprint such as the small disc offers, with the edge speed of the large disc.

Or, you could feasibly donut hole a pad until you mimic the surface area of the smaller disc, yet polish as you normally would with a large disc.

[imported_User Name]

Even though I only understand about 50% of what is written, this is another one of those really informative threads.

To Mr. Stoops... can the same be said between G110 V1 and V2 as you said with PCXP?

I have a V1 and it has always been sufficient for my hack needs but I feel like DA power is kind of like horsepower, you always want much more than you need!

[Michael Stoops]

Yes, the v2 has a definite power jump over the v1, equal to that of it`s jump over the XP.

But you know, if you`ve got a tool that`s working great for you and you`re just dealing with your own vehicles, I don`t see a big reason to run out and buy another tool just for the sake of spending money. I mean, if you really are taking care of your own cars (and just your own cars) they should look pretty darn good all the time.

That said, there`s nothing wrong with having a backup tool, or one DA dedicated to 4" pads and another for larger pads. Or having a DA and a rotary. Or two DAs, a rotary, and a Flex 3401.

Why I have 5 DAs, a small Metabo, 3 rotaries and a Dynabrade attachment is beyond me since I don`t detail for a living ut:

[imported_User Name]

Yes, the v2 has a definite power jump over the v1, equal to that of it`s jump over the XP.

But you know, if you`ve got a tool that`s working great for you and you`re just dealing with your own vehicles, I don`t see a big reason to run out and buy another tool just for the sake of spending money. I mean, if you really are taking care of your own cars (and just your own cars) they should look pretty darn good all the time.

That said, there`s nothing wrong with having a backup tool, or one DA dedicated to 4" pads and another for larger pads. Or having a DA and a rotary. Or two DAs, a rotary, and a Flex 3401.

Why I have 5 DAs, a small Metabo, 3 rotaries and a Dynabrade attachment is beyond me since I don`t detail for a living ut:

I was actually thinking about a backup two weeks ago while I was detailing my car. I though, "what would I do if my V1 suddenly died on me". I mean, no huge deal when it isn`t a client car, but it would still suck. Maybe that is the pitch I throw at wifey!!! LOL

[imported_Bunky]

I was actually thinking about a backup two weeks ago while I was detailing my car. I though, "what would I do if my V1 suddenly died on me". I mean, no huge deal when it isn`t a client car, but it would still suck. Maybe that is the pitch I throw at wifey!!! LOL

I own one of the original UDM 1.0 (called by some as the original David B Ultimate Disappointing Machine). Mine still works but I am also staying active since I do want to get a new unit just in case it dies at the wrong time.

My buying criteria:
1. Cost - not a significant factor (that is, XP, Griots, V2 are close enough)

2. Ease of use - I do want one that does not leave me with the shakes, etc. My UDM still can do it even without using the handle. I do not like the Griots with the side handle (too much vibration)

3. reliability - pretty high. I want something with a reputation but warranty is key if not considered the best. If it dies an early life, I do not want to pay shipping to get it fixed. The ability to install brushes is a plus.

4. Power - pretty high. I have not used the v2 or XP yet so do not know how they work against the Griots. I would like to try all three some time (maybe at some detailing event)

I have been leaning to the Griots for power and warranty.