Hey Chris....huh? (Opti-Coat Pro vs. 2.0)

[Setec Astronomy]

I hate to sound like a broken record with this one, because we've gone 'round on this topic before, about the difference between Opti-Coat Pro and 2.0.

 

My recollection is when OC 2.0 first came out "we" were told that it was the same as OC Pro but it used a different solvent that evaporated slower, so a less experienced applicator would have more time to work with the high spots.

 

Then some time later the description evolved, that Pro and 2.0 were the same, the same solvent, but Pro was more concentrated (more product, less solvent) which meant it gave a thicker coating, but flashed faster (less solvent to evaporate). I'm not sure that exactly made sense, because if you thin solvent based paint down so the coat is thinner--it dries faster, not slower--but that is a different animal (I guess).

 

At the time 2.0 was released, Chris--here was an answer you gave on the Autogeek forum about the difference between Pro (then known as Opti-Guard) and 2.0: "Opti Guard has a little more actives and a little less solvent, but this only translates into different quantities to do basically the same job. You might see a little more durability from Opti Guard forming a faster bond, but not enough to effect the results significantly. Longevity hasn't been documented as thoroughly as Opti Guard, obviously...but with the same chemistry they are very comparable."

 

So to today's point, Chris...I see you posted a thread on another forum stating that "Opti-Coat Pro offers more protection against a more varied array of chemicals and contaminants and is a much more concentrated formula. The prepolymer resin used to create Opti-Coat Pro is also more expensive and more complicated to manufacture....Not to knock Opti-Coat 2.0 by any means, but they are not the same at all." (emphasis mine)

 

I know this has been a hot-button topic for me (and others) for a long time--originally because Opti-Coat was not available to the general public (partly for liability reasons and partly because of the exclusive installer territory concept that Anthony Orosco favored which seems to have been realized now), and then because of this confusion as to what the difference was. At one point "we" (the enthusiast community) were told if we did two applications of OC 2.0 we could approximate the (thicker) Pro application...which doesn't seem quite right if the resin is different.

 

So can Chris or someone from Optimum clarify what the difference is between OC Pro and 2.0 and why there have been varying explanations along the way? Is it simply a different concentration, or is it a different solvent, or different prepolymer, and has it always been that way or has it changed several times?

[Setec Astronomy]

Ok, I understand, and I remember the "do not smell" days. And I understand the concept of the installer network having access to a product that no one else does (if that is actually the reason for the difference). I just see with some regularity people on the forums trying to decide if they should coat the car themselves or go to a professional, and previously they could be told that they could get pretty much the same thing if they did two applications of 2.0, but apparently that is no longer accurate.

 

It's kind of funny that in today's world, largely due to the internet, the average person can get all kinds of products that are "for professional use only" like HF wheel cleaner, spray cans of 2K clear, professional pest control products, etc. Maybe in another few years when coatings are the norm for enthusiasts we will get a consumer version of Pro that is the same except for the warranty card.

[Shikyna]

Hi Chris. Further to this, can u explain the difference if any in durability and thickness and resistance to chemicals etc. cheers Derek

[Shikyna]

Thanks Chris