The verdict, well, the M3-Power did deliver a very close shave. But it turns out it was no better than Gillette's Mach 3 Turbo, which is $7 cheaper. So Consumer Reports says there's no need to pay more just to get a little buzz.Not everyone agrees, of course, and I've had email from people who felt the M3Power was better for them than the regular Mach 3. For instance, this email:
I just read your review on the m3 power, and I think it doesn't do the razor justice at all. 1st off, the lubrication is way better on those blades, and there is a big difference between those blades and the regular Mach 3 blades. 2nd off, I do agree with you that the shave is about the same as far as closeness goes, but the major plus for this razor compared to any other razor I've used, is how gentle it is on the skin. I'm not sure how your skin is, but mine is very irritable and just about anything messes me up. This razor is the best I've ever had when it comes to taking care of my scalp. I've tried it with the vibration and without, and I'm confident that this is mostly due to the vibration, although I do feel that the extra lube on the blade helps a bit more as well. The other thing with this razor is that due to the vibration, I can use the blades twice as long as I could with a non-vibrating handle. As far as it costing too much, I think that's bogus, it's a whopping 7 or 8 bucks more, and it's not like you gotta buy one every week, you buy it once. It costs less than that damn headblade and it works twice as good.The author referred to the review of the M3Power on my site, in which I recommended sticking with the regular Mach 3.
Personally, I think you can reduce irritation by using a good shaving lubricant (like shaving oil or Aveeno Positively Smooth shave gel), and it's a cheaper method for improving one's shave than the M3Power. Of course, your mileage may vary.