That is so true! "We're not in Kansas anymore"DavidSA wrote:and don't forget composite science Mark! In 2002 I started to play with higher end baitcasters and "light" was like 7.8oz and most where almost 9oz.
Metanium mgl vs chronarch mgl thread
-
- TT Pro Angler
- Posts: 2745
- Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 6:28 am
- Location: NorCal
Re: Metanium mgl vs chronarch mgl thread
Re: Metanium mgl vs chronarch mgl thread
Any chance they have a schematic for the 201XG?, I could not access their site... I have not been able to find the part number for the 201XG drive gear.y2k88 wrote:5727
http://dunphysports.com/forms/warranty/ ... CU201K.pdf
Thanks, Kurt
Re: Metanium mgl vs chronarch mgl thread
Can't help you bud.
Australia is only bringing in the 6.2 gear ratio for the lefties.
Schematic is off the Shimano AU website.
Best to call Shimano US.
Australia is only bringing in the 6.2 gear ratio for the lefties.
Schematic is off the Shimano AU website.
Best to call Shimano US.
- Loafer
- Elite Angler
- Posts: 380
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 4:23 pm
- Location: Russian Federation
- Contact:
Re: Metanium mgl vs chronarch mgl thread
May be that help you:Kurt L wrote:Any chance they have a schematic for the 201XG?, I could not access their site... I have not been able to find the part number for the 201XG drive gear.
Re: Metanium mgl vs chronarch mgl thread
Shimano Aus need to pick up their game, most rods are imports and barely any are uniquely Australian. It would be nice if they made some special reels for Australia instead of a small selection of US and JDM reels. But hey that's just my 2 cents.y2k88 wrote:Can't help you bud.
Australia is only bringing in the 6.2 gear ratio for the lefties.
Schematic is off the Shimano AU website.
Best to call Shimano US.
Re: Metanium mgl vs chronarch mgl thread
We have Raiders, 3 zero, ian millers, t-curves, though the higher end rod models don't tend to be that popular.
Not sure what uniquely Australia reels (functionally) would actually entail.
Not sure what uniquely Australia reels (functionally) would actually entail.
- bronzebacks
- Elite Angler
- Posts: 243
- Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2013 12:24 am
Re: Metanium mgl vs chronarch mgl thread
I have the 2 chronarch mgl and a metanium mgl. I love both. Both are butter but the metanium feels loser easier to cast and reel. My chronarch's feel tighter and extremely smooth.
Re: Metanium mgl vs chronarch mgl thread
Hi guys, first off thanks to Cal for putting together the reviews of both these reels for us, especially those who have yet to purchase either like myself but pulling the trigger soon. Every detail helps in the decision making process.
I realised some info discrepancies in reel specs listed in the review that maybe wrong. (*Do correct me if im wrong)
No fault on TT part but I do believe it originated from Shimano USA web as TT would be taking the specs listed here:
http://fish.shimano.com/content/sac-fis ... tcast.html
These discrepancies relate to the Chronarch MGL. From the pics n vids I have seen Chron does appear to have a deeper spool but same diameter & width as the Metanium MGL. But Shimano USA n TT reviews have listed both Chron & Met with the same linecap rating 12lb/110yds. Although TT did list the Chron with a higher spool volume of 13.2 vs 11.2 cubic centimeters on the Met.
However on Shimano Japan web:
http://fishing.shimano.co.jp/product/reel/4655
They made a clear difference between the 2 reels spool sizes even though they share a similar bodysize. 150 spool size (16lb/100m rating for Chron) vs 70 spool size (12lb/100m rating for Met) while also rating both reels as Saltwater OK.
Shimano USA also didn't list the Met as Freshwater use only (which implies that it is safe for Saltwater use) but they did list Freshwater use only for the Chron. This is where I felt both reels had to be the same rating like on the Japan side. Especially since the Met is a lighter n pricier reel with possibly a higher % of magnesium in its alloy compared with the Chron. *My apologies, i need to correct myself here by editing that the Met MGL shdn't have any magnesum composition in its body as it isn't that light. Its body should be substantially heavier than the Chron MGL (with lighter ci4 alloys) since Met has a shorter handle, more ported holes in the spool and an Aluminium main gear.
The ported holes on these MGL spools shouldn't be a reason to cause corrosion to internals other than the usual bearings if non S-ARB, since the Aldebaran BFS is also a widely used Saltwater bait finesse reel in Japan and it has even more ported holes.
If anything, all MGL baitcast reels would be safer to be rated as Freshwater only reel to be more consistent since the Chronarch G has been released as the Saltwater application version of the Chron MGL.
For my purchase decision, it will still be the Chron due to a combination of several factors like longer 90mm handle, easier to adjust n clicking external dials, nicer color, palming preference of the Chron over Met (though these r just my views) but larger line cap and lower price are definitely important points that will seal the deal along with Saltwater OK rating. I do hope both these reels can cope with occasional saltwater use. Im just curious as to why a new Chronarch G was added so recently which doesn't have the ported MGL spools. Im not keen on a non MGL reel.
Has anyone experienced serious body or spool corrosion issues on Met or Chron MGLs despite taking the usual precautions n diligent washing immediately after use? Any input here would be most appreciated.
If my findings on the mistake with line capacity ratings on both reels are unfounded do advise me too, coz i understand the difficulties with USDM vs JDM model differences despite being called the same reel. I recall the 1st series of JDM Tatulas had a smaller line cap while the USDM Tatulas had a deeper spool. It was just a bloody confusing affair. I hope Shimano don't follow the same mistake Daiwa did. Cheers.
I realised some info discrepancies in reel specs listed in the review that maybe wrong. (*Do correct me if im wrong)
No fault on TT part but I do believe it originated from Shimano USA web as TT would be taking the specs listed here:
http://fish.shimano.com/content/sac-fis ... tcast.html
These discrepancies relate to the Chronarch MGL. From the pics n vids I have seen Chron does appear to have a deeper spool but same diameter & width as the Metanium MGL. But Shimano USA n TT reviews have listed both Chron & Met with the same linecap rating 12lb/110yds. Although TT did list the Chron with a higher spool volume of 13.2 vs 11.2 cubic centimeters on the Met.
However on Shimano Japan web:
http://fishing.shimano.co.jp/product/reel/4655
They made a clear difference between the 2 reels spool sizes even though they share a similar bodysize. 150 spool size (16lb/100m rating for Chron) vs 70 spool size (12lb/100m rating for Met) while also rating both reels as Saltwater OK.
Shimano USA also didn't list the Met as Freshwater use only (which implies that it is safe for Saltwater use) but they did list Freshwater use only for the Chron. This is where I felt both reels had to be the same rating like on the Japan side. Especially since the Met is a lighter n pricier reel with possibly a higher % of magnesium in its alloy compared with the Chron. *My apologies, i need to correct myself here by editing that the Met MGL shdn't have any magnesum composition in its body as it isn't that light. Its body should be substantially heavier than the Chron MGL (with lighter ci4 alloys) since Met has a shorter handle, more ported holes in the spool and an Aluminium main gear.
The ported holes on these MGL spools shouldn't be a reason to cause corrosion to internals other than the usual bearings if non S-ARB, since the Aldebaran BFS is also a widely used Saltwater bait finesse reel in Japan and it has even more ported holes.
If anything, all MGL baitcast reels would be safer to be rated as Freshwater only reel to be more consistent since the Chronarch G has been released as the Saltwater application version of the Chron MGL.
For my purchase decision, it will still be the Chron due to a combination of several factors like longer 90mm handle, easier to adjust n clicking external dials, nicer color, palming preference of the Chron over Met (though these r just my views) but larger line cap and lower price are definitely important points that will seal the deal along with Saltwater OK rating. I do hope both these reels can cope with occasional saltwater use. Im just curious as to why a new Chronarch G was added so recently which doesn't have the ported MGL spools. Im not keen on a non MGL reel.
Has anyone experienced serious body or spool corrosion issues on Met or Chron MGLs despite taking the usual precautions n diligent washing immediately after use? Any input here would be most appreciated.
If my findings on the mistake with line capacity ratings on both reels are unfounded do advise me too, coz i understand the difficulties with USDM vs JDM model differences despite being called the same reel. I recall the 1st series of JDM Tatulas had a smaller line cap while the USDM Tatulas had a deeper spool. It was just a bloody confusing affair. I hope Shimano don't follow the same mistake Daiwa did. Cheers.
-
- Pro Angler
- Posts: 1952
- Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2013 7:59 am
- Location: Pensacola, FL
Re: Metanium mgl vs chronarch mgl thread
If you are looking for a reel to use in the salt, even just on occasion, buy the G. Spool is different, and will handle the salt which is why it was created. All other models spools will corrode and cause issues, even if thoroughly rinsed after use. I like my Metaniums performance, the spool holds up ok in the salt, and no issues with frame corrosion either. That said, my Chronarchs(CI4+, G) have held up great and keep catching fish, while the Metaniums are quickly in need of service of some sort. Saltwater getting to the main gear has been a big issue that hasn't happened with any of my other reels.
As far as performance, the MGL spool is nice for lighter lures, but I think the change of braking system from the CI4+ had a bigger effect than just the spool. Most inshore fishermen throw a lot of lures in the 3/8-3/4oz range so the fast startup of the MGL isn't as important. I believe you could also buy a MGL spool to use in the G for freshwater use, but I haven't tried swapping them.
As far as performance, the MGL spool is nice for lighter lures, but I think the change of braking system from the CI4+ had a bigger effect than just the spool. Most inshore fishermen throw a lot of lures in the 3/8-3/4oz range so the fast startup of the MGL isn't as important. I believe you could also buy a MGL spool to use in the G for freshwater use, but I haven't tried swapping them.
- BRONZEBACK32
- Pro Angler
- Posts: 2234
- Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2011 8:44 pm
- Location: Utah
Re: Metanium mgl vs chronarch mgl thread
I just got my order from Shimano to do a Curado K gear swap to my Metanium 13
I checked my Metanium 13 spool and my MGL spool.
What I found out is the pinion gear from the Curado K will not work, the spool does not fit with this pinion gear.
I ended up using the gear that was in the reel.
If you do order a gear swap, order a new pinion gear for the MGL/13 and order a Curado K Drive gear in the
same gear ratio.
But my 13 is super smooth now, I will leave my MGL as is since its super smooth right now but will add a new gear set if
it loses its smoothness.
I checked my Metanium 13 spool and my MGL spool.
What I found out is the pinion gear from the Curado K will not work, the spool does not fit with this pinion gear.
I ended up using the gear that was in the reel.
If you do order a gear swap, order a new pinion gear for the MGL/13 and order a Curado K Drive gear in the
same gear ratio.
But my 13 is super smooth now, I will leave my MGL as is since its super smooth right now but will add a new gear set if
it loses its smoothness.
Re: Metanium mgl vs chronarch mgl thread
If i'm not wrong, the JDM version of the Met MGL has a smaller spool than the USDM version.leolwt13 wrote:Hi guys, first off thanks to Cal for putting together the reviews of both these reels for us, especially those who have yet to purchase either like myself but pulling the trigger soon. Every detail helps in the decision making process.
I realised some info discrepancies in reel specs listed in the review that maybe wrong. (*Do correct me if im wrong)
No fault on TT part but I do believe it originated from Shimano USA web as TT would be taking the specs listed here:
http://fish.shimano.com/content/sac-fis ... tcast.html
These discrepancies relate to the Chronarch MGL. From the pics n vids I have seen Chron does appear to have a deeper spool but same diameter & width as the Metanium MGL. But Shimano USA n TT reviews have listed both Chron & Met with the same linecap rating 12lb/110yds. Although TT did list the Chron with a higher spool volume of 13.2 vs 11.2 cubic centimeters on the Met.
However on Shimano Japan web:
http://fishing.shimano.co.jp/product/reel/4655
They made a clear difference between the 2 reels spool sizes even though they share a similar bodysize. 150 spool size (16lb/100m rating for Chron) vs 70 spool size (12lb/100m rating for Met) while also rating both reels as Saltwater OK.
Shimano USA also didn't list the Met as Freshwater use only (which implies that it is safe for Saltwater use) but they did list Freshwater use only for the Chron. This is where I felt both reels had to be the same rating like on the Japan side. Especially since the Met is a lighter n pricier reel with possibly a higher % of magnesium in its alloy compared with the Chron. *My apologies, i need to correct myself here by editing that the Met MGL shdn't have any magnesum composition in its body as it isn't that light. Its body should be substantially heavier than the Chron MGL (with lighter ci4 alloys) since Met has a shorter handle, more ported holes in the spool and an Aluminium main gear.
The ported holes on these MGL spools shouldn't be a reason to cause corrosion to internals other than the usual bearings if non S-ARB, since the Aldebaran BFS is also a widely used Saltwater bait finesse reel in Japan and it has even more ported holes.
If anything, all MGL baitcast reels would be safer to be rated as Freshwater only reel to be more consistent since the Chronarch G has been released as the Saltwater application version of the Chron MGL.
For my purchase decision, it will still be the Chron due to a combination of several factors like longer 90mm handle, easier to adjust n clicking external dials, nicer color, palming preference of the Chron over Met (though these r just my views) but larger line cap and lower price are definitely important points that will seal the deal along with Saltwater OK rating. I do hope both these reels can cope with occasional saltwater use. Im just curious as to why a new Chronarch G was added so recently which doesn't have the ported MGL spools. Im not keen on a non MGL reel.
Has anyone experienced serious body or spool corrosion issues on Met or Chron MGLs despite taking the usual precautions n diligent washing immediately after use? Any input here would be most appreciated.
If my findings on the mistake with line capacity ratings on both reels are unfounded do advise me too, coz i understand the difficulties with USDM vs JDM model differences despite being called the same reel. I recall the 1st series of JDM Tatulas had a smaller line cap while the USDM Tatulas had a deeper spool. It was just a bloody confusing affair. I hope Shimano don't follow the same mistake Daiwa did. Cheers.
- BRONZEBACK32
- Pro Angler
- Posts: 2234
- Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2011 8:44 pm
- Location: Utah
Re: Metanium mgl vs chronarch mgl thread
This is true.hokiehi wrote:
If i'm not wrong, the JDM version of the Met MGL has a smaller spool than the USDM version.
but not buy much...
Re: Metanium mgl vs chronarch mgl thread
That's true. The USDM version has a 151 spool and the JDM version a 71 spool.hokiehi wrote: If i'm not wrong, the JDM version of the Met MGL has a smaller spool than the USDM version.
More pictures: https://www.instagram.com/addicted_to_baitcaster/
Re: Metanium mgl vs chronarch mgl thread
Thanks for your contributions guys. Gosh its really hard to keep up with the usdm and jdm variants. I didnt realise there was a usdm met mgl with a 150 size spool as apposed to the 70size jdm. Where im from we get the jdm ones. And Chronarch G might possibly be skipping us. I havent tried a mgl reel yet. My last 2 were a 2013 Met HG and the even the 2012 Antares HG i had took alot more punishment from Saltwater shore casting. My Aldebaran bfs is holding up well as i expect it to be looking at how much punishment it gets from japan saltwater bfs game. In fact all these 3 reels faired much better than my Zillion 1516 with magsealed bearing in saltwater use. The S-ARBs are good. The black key washer on the Antares had some corrosion thru its black paint if i recall correctly. It was a cheap repair bill after a year of use. The Antares HG was definitely a freshwater only reel. I think all information is pointing me towards a Chronarch Mgl. Will be using it for freshwater about 80% of the time with more greasing inside the body n exposed metal parts to be on the safe side. Some mild greasing on the spool too, along with salt x applied to the base of my braids.
Re: Metanium mgl vs chronarch mgl thread
6.2 MGL - 5.4 grams-Boris- wrote:Does anybody know the weight difference between the aluminium and brass gear? Thank you very much for the information!
6.2 K - 14.3 grams
i did the swap today