Meguiar's D114 Rinsefree Express Wash Is Discontinued

Michael Stoops said:
Geez, 10 pages discussing a discontinued product?? We absolutely love, love, love your passion, guys, but the simple truth of the matter is not enough of you were buying D114 to justify us keeping it in production. That said, D115 Rinse Free Express Wash & Wax is still available, as is the consumer version of it, Ultimate Wash & Wax Anywhere (including it's newly changed name - yes, NAME ONLY; Ultimate Waterless Wash Anywhere).
Click to expand...

It's interesting to me that D115 is the better seller between itself and D114. Perhaps because it was also sold in a smaller RTU quantity?

D115 was my very first rinseless wash product purchase. After reading good reviews of both D115 and D114, I thought to myself why would I want to use one of these products that didn't leave additional protection behind? So I bought a gallon of D115 and began rinseless washing using the Garry Dean method.

Then WG Uber was introduced. So many positive reviews and comments got me excited to try it so I ordered a gallon. Wow! Awesome product and did not have the overpowering smell of D115. I have not touched D115 since and probably never will.

In the interim I kept reading positive comments and recommendations for D114. With all of the discussion on "topping" of products and several forum contributors with an adamant position against it (Bob, et al ), I thought maybe there's something to the argument about using products without out the additional gloss enhancers.

So, I purchased a gallon of D114. Why not I figured. It is/was inexpensive and the dilution ratios were the best of the two other rinseless products I had tried.

My initial reaction was not great as the product foamed just a bit when I first mixed it up. I was not used to that with my other rinseless products. My forum research indicated this was normal and was just how the product was. After getting over my initial reaction I was blown away by this products performance! Gloss enhancers be damned this cleaning product brought back the gloss of my LSP better than anything else I had tried. I loved it!

Been using both D114 and Uber for rinseless washing for just about a year now. I do rinseless for over 90% of my washing as I do not have running water in my shop. I am very sad to see D114 discontinued. I'll stock up on a few gallons and wait for the next great advancement in waterless and rinseless washing.

RIP D114 you will be greatly missed.
 
It's a bit surprising that with the popularity of coatings that D114 isn't the #1 rinseless wash product on the market but since when did logic ever rule in this business. It seems the rinseless products that contain gloss enhancers, polymers, and wax are preferred. Logic be damned.
 
BadgerRivFan said:
It's interesting to me that D115 is the better seller between itself and D114. Perhaps because it was also sold in a smaller RTU quantity?
Click to expand...

I think you nailed it. Two parts of my working theory which applies to more than just the car care community - I'm seeing it with other chemical makers I deal with too.

1) There is more profit in selling an RTU product than a concentrate.

2) A "professional" level product better have a normal consumer grade equivalent. Apparently, per Mike's statement, D115 is the same as theur waterless product - so buy it in the gallon online or a Wally World or wherever they can get it in front of the regular consumer. I've heard tales that D156 is the same as another of their OTC grade products.

It looks like for them, and others I deal with (at work) this is the way profit lies. Sell quantity to the professionals/enthusiasts but also have an OTC version for the masses. I haven't priced Meg's products, but I know with my suppliers the price difference isn't huge per ounce - mostly packaging for the smaller OTC versions.

And though Mike was amazed that there were 10 pages on this subject, I'm even more amazed that AG mods allowed a post with outside links to continue this long. I understand (though rumor here) that AG raised the price on D114 just when this post started. WOnder if soon we will see a sale on "Rinseless Wash Products" (of course, with Free Shipping over $150). :)
 
BadgerRivFan said:
It's interesting to me that D115 is the better seller between itself and D114. Perhaps because it was also sold in a smaller RTU quantity?
Click to expand...

This is certainly an interesting point; I wonder how much better some of the Detailer line products would sell if they were available in quarts, or the D163 tire gel if it was available in a pint, although I understand the target market is bulk/volume users. I'm going to guess the answer is that for every quart they would sell to an enthusiast, a shop would buy 10 gallons--so again, not the target market. But after all, D300, 301, and 302 are sold in pints, and the Mirror Glaze products, which are also "professional" products, all come in quarts or pints as well as the larger sizes. I know ADS had a bang-up business decanting Detailer-line gallons into quart (secondary) sample bottles--for a while.

I think some of the acceptance problems of D114 (vs D115 as above) go back to those numbers that Forrest quoted. He suggests that the issue is water; I'd suggest that some of it is customer perception. People are used to the idea of washing something (cars, dishes, human bodies) by soaping it up and rinsing it off. They are also used to the idea of spraying something from a bottle and wiping it off--glass cleaner, 409, etc.

So perhaps the rinseless wash process is non-intuitive and difficult to accept. Shoot, we have members here that don't accept it.

Anyway, back to the "size matters" discussion, if we can agree that at this point Optimum is the "old guard" of rinseless washing (while actually it's QEW), you can buy every product that Optimum sells in multiple sizes, most down to 8oz, some 4oz (including ONR), and even some to 2 oz, but nothing starts bigger than 17oz, and they have some travel kits that have assortments of the small bottles. Whether there is a lesson to learn there I don't know (which could be that OPT spends too much time pouring their products into little bottles).

BM1024 said:
I've heard tales that D156 is the same as another of their OTC grade products.
Click to expand...

That's not a tale, they have been open on their forum in disclosing that the OTC version of D156 is UQW.


BM1024 said:
I'm even more amazed that AG mods allowed a post with outside links to continue this long.
Click to expand...

It's a link to the forum of a company that they distribute for; that's a little different than a link to a competing web store.
 
BM1024 said:
It looks like for them, and others I deal with (at work) this is the way profit lies. Sell quantity to the professionals/enthusiasts but also have an OTC version for the masses. I haven't priced Meg's products, but I know with my suppliers the price difference isn't huge per ounce - mostly packaging for the smaller OTC versions.
Click to expand...

The OTC version of Megs Waterless Wash sells for $12.99 per 26oz.
So if you were to buy 5 OTC bottles it would cost you $65, which is the same price a gallon of D115 usually sells for..
But the difference is you only get 130oz. of RTU product OTC, whereas if you buy the gallon of D115 for that price, it'll yield you no less than 640oz. and up to 2,688oz. of waterless wash. [depending on how you choose to dilute it]

In this case there's a huge difference in value, but most people are too cheap to get over the initial up front cost. [not all, but some]
 
Setec Astronomy said:
It's a link to the forum of a company that they distribute for; that's a little different than a link to a competing web store.
Click to expand...

My mistake - allowed by the rules. (Back to the cave to find something else to troll about....)
 
BM1024 said:
My mistake - allowed by the rules. (Back to the cave to find something else to troll about....)
Click to expand...

I don't think it's allowed by the rules, but it may not be disallowed. In practice, they don't seem to have a problem with links to the MOL forum.

Eldorado2k said:
The OTC version of Megs Waterless Wash sells for $12.99 per 26oz.
So if you were to buy 5 OTC bottles it would cost you $65, which is the same price a gallon of D115 usually sells for..
But the difference is you only get 130oz. of RTU product OTC, whereas if you buy the gallon of D115 for that price, it'll yield you no less than 640oz. and up to 2,688oz. of waterless wash. [depending on how you choose to dilute it]

In this case there's a huge difference in value, but most people are too cheap to get over the initial up front cost. [not all, but some]
Click to expand...

But the part that you're missing is that the people who buy that product OTC (other than 'Geeks who might buy it in an emergency or a good sale) would never have any idea that there is a bulk concentrate version. It's a different market, and why Meguiar's has a consumer line (actually multiple consumer lines), a "professional" line (Mirror Glaze), and the Detailer line, in a similar way that PBMG has Wolfgang, Blackfire, Pinnacle, and McKee's.
 
Setec Astronomy said:
I don't think it's allowed by the rules, but it may not be disallowed. In practice, they don't seem to have a problem with links to the MOL forum.
Click to expand...

What I read (after I opened my big mouth): Autogeek.net is a private closed forum, for the discussion of products that are vendors of Autogeek.net only. This is a private forum and open links to other companies that are not associated with Autogeek.net will be deleted and will result in a permanent ban.
 
Setec Astronomy said:
people who buy that product OTC (other than 'Geeks who might buy it in an emergency or a good sale) would never have any idea that there is a bulk concentrate version. It's a different market, and why Meguiar's has a consumer line (actually multiple consumer lines), a "professional" line (Mirror Glaze), and the Detailer line, in a similar way that PBMG has Wolfgang, Blackfire, Pinnacle, and McKee's.
Click to expand...

You are right. I would have just bought the normal Meg's OTC stuff if I hadn't found <another unmentionable forum> first. Didn't know there was a difference - except for $100 per can stuff my father-in-law used. What saved me was wait time. I had a crappy car and was waiting to buy my new one. I spent the time on youtube, and websites that eventually lead here (and other helpful places) that lead to a better education and understanding.
 
BM1024 said:
You are right. I would have just bought the normal Meg's OTC stuff if I hadn't found <another unmentionable forum> first.
Click to expand...

If it's Autopia it's mentionable here, it's also owned by PBMG, although they try to keep it a distinct entity and differentiate the store, etc.
 
something I just heard.

"Yes it's discontinued as is D163. Michael Stoops confirmed yesterday. Basically not enough sales to keep them around.

Nick Winn on MOL stated there is no replacement in the works for D114. So D115 or their consumer version is what is sticking around.

So stock up on D114 while it's still in stock. Once it's gone, it's gone."
 
I'm not even sure why this disturbs me so much.

I've never used the product- yet -I was planning on buying my first jug as soon as I finished of this container of ONR.

Ever company has to make decisions for business purposes. I get that (and have made them in my company, too.) Some my customer's didn't like, also.

So why does this bug decision by Meg's bug me? Is it because I'm fairly new to detailing and a majority of my storage space is taken up by their stuff? (APC, Express Wax, Last Touch, Glass Cleaner, Interior Cleaner, Leather Cleaner, Leather Conditioner, Gold Class). (There are some Optimum products up there too.)

I'm not sure - but I'm taking this discontinuation personally! Don't they know I WOULD have bought some in the next month (or so) and that single jug would have changed their sales figures! Geez. :)
 
I think you see that products without wax disappearing. When you go to the local parts store, if they sell only one soap for a brand, it is usually the one with wax. I would state at some point you have to include the word "wax" because people expect it. I would prefer some likely be called "wash and bead" since doubt the wax content in some. It is like products being called leather conditioner when they really do not condition leather like an old school leather care product.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top