Can anyone tell me the difference between Motomag I's and Motomag II's???

All the II's I have are stamped as such. The II's are smooth and will respond well to polishing. The I's have a rougher texture and are not going to shine, except for the sidewalls.

Thanx Randy. I always wondered the same thing.

Yup, the Is I recently examined were really rough--I had forgotten how "casted" they look.

Randy, is there a coating that needs to be removed before polishing IIs, or can I just go at it?

Coating? Shouldn't be.

I suggest sitting down with the mags, some simi-chrome and a good long movie.

Anyone who has polished MM's can vouch that your in for a two hour job but the results are awesome.

PS. Casino is good

Good choice. Godfather 1 & 2 also? Thats is if you REALLY wanna make em shine!

umm, i thought the main difference between motomag I's and motomag II's was that mI's were magnesium and mII's were aluminum. true? false?

Motomag I's were sand cast aluminum. The first Motomags were made in Simi.

Motomag II's were investment casted aluminum and then ball burnished. All are distinctly marked with "Motomag II, Chatsworth, CA" .

The spokes, rim sidewalls were also beefed up on the Motomag II's.


I believe it was Geoff Sebastian that spoke with Skip Hess to debunk the myth that Motomag I's were built from magnesium. The production ones were not.

[ January 10, 2004, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: Bill Curtin ]

quote:

---

if you REALLY wanna make em shine!

---

You could also get a from movie behind the swinging doors at your local video store