Iron-X
- Thread starter casvg5
- Start date
Griots Garage Heavy Duty Wheel Cleaner looks to be the best cost per ounce.
http://www.autogeekonline.net/forum/product-reviews/73560-iron-remover-product-cost-spreadsheet.html
http://www.autogeekonline.net/forum/product-reviews/73560-iron-remover-product-cost-spreadsheet.html
RobertJ34
New member
- Nov 14, 2013
- 345
- 0
Recently came across Wolf’s Chemicals Deironizer Decon Gel
I actually bought it yesterday. I checked their website out and FB page, looks like a pretty good product. I figured for the price, can't hurt to try something new (at $14 cheaper than iron-x, liter size)
I actually bought it yesterday. I checked their website out and FB page, looks like a pretty good product. I figured for the price, can't hurt to try something new (at $14 cheaper than iron-x, liter size)
DetailKitty
Well-known member
- Jul 17, 2013
- 5,068
- 66
I went with the Wolf's as well... but I haven't tried it yet... damn winter.
Radarryan
New member
- Nov 9, 2012
- 778
- 0
Before you judge just on price alone, check out this comparison that Todd Helme recently did...
Throw Down: Iron Remover Comparisons - Autopia Forums - Auto Detailing & Car Care Discussion Forum
Throw Down: Iron Remover Comparisons - Autopia Forums - Auto Detailing & Car Care Discussion Forum
GreatAvalon
New member
- Feb 16, 2014
- 614
- 0
So I'm a little confused, is Iron-X aiding the clay process, or does claying with iron deposits on the car cause damage/light scratching?
Disposablehero
New member
- Jun 16, 2013
- 15
- 0
Claying will get particles including iron caught above the clearcoar whereas Iron-x will dissolved material both above and below the clear where claying will not work. If particles are below, further paint damage will be seen if not removed. Decontamination is a big thing to do before claying.
Radarryan
New member
- Nov 9, 2012
- 778
- 0
Sorry bud! Knowledge is power and trust me, other than Iron-X, I did not see the results of the test coming!
rops:
Rayner
New member
- Jun 27, 2013
- 22
- 0
There's absolutely stacks of them popping up over here, none have come up to Iron x for me but the closest to it was Bilt Hamber Korrosol not sire if you can get it over the pond though? I'd still use Iron x if the car hasn't been done before or really bad but the BH is great for maintaining a car.
CarolinasFinestDetailing
New member
- May 30, 2011
- 1,556
- 0
There`s a Euro shop here that carries Bilt Hamber in the NE. I`m so glad I saw this thread. I have a 1/3 bottle and full bottle of Iron X, but will need more soon. Auto Finesse is big in a few car forums I am in and was going to try it out. Not after seeing that unbiased test.
Yes
IronX is better IMO, but GG Heavy Duty Wheel Cleaner works because I have used it before on paint and had success.
Lowejackson
New member
- Aug 19, 2010
- 270
- 0
I have used Griot's too before on paint - it was good but not as good as Chemical Guys (which I bought instead of Iron X).
There are a lot of options out there. There is also quite a bit of rubbish spouted about the products.
First thing is that the market price of some products is almost the same as the cost price of others and some very arbitrary tests would prove that certain products are genuinely weaker than others. I cannot name names but sometimes, more expensive does mean more concentrated. Unfortunately, sometimes it does not!
Another note is that the whole motivation behind these products, in my view, is that they are pH neutral. If you are not concerned about pH neutral, then go buy a non-colour changing product which will do the same job at one tenth the price. That in mind, some of the colour changers (perhaps even one noted in the test that was linked) is not (or certainly used not to be, and no 'V2' has been raised) pH neutral. Any products that falls into that category, IMO, uses the colour change as a gimmick, rather than focusing on the important 'pH neutral' aspect.
One more thought is that all of these products are based around a similar chemistry. However, not all of the active ingredients are of equal toxicity. Again, not naming names, but one of the products in the linked test uses a version of the active ingredient which has a higher toxicity level to others on the market. This highlights a more important issue, the overall health and safety. Certainly in Europe, any of these colour changers should have an irritant hazard warning if an active level of 1% of greater is present. In my experience, the activity level needs to be much higher and should very likely warrant a 'harmful' warning. I imagine many are un-interested but the reality is that these products should all have hazard warnings and symbols but I have seen many which have none. One must then ask, is the product genuinely dilute enough to be hazard free (in which case, stop telling us how strong it is) or has the all too common situation occurred, where the 'manufacturer' actually is insufficiently informed to have the hazard classification correct?
As for the topic of the thread, if I were in the US at the moment, I would probably be buying Iron-X.
First thing is that the market price of some products is almost the same as the cost price of others and some very arbitrary tests would prove that certain products are genuinely weaker than others. I cannot name names but sometimes, more expensive does mean more concentrated. Unfortunately, sometimes it does not!
Another note is that the whole motivation behind these products, in my view, is that they are pH neutral. If you are not concerned about pH neutral, then go buy a non-colour changing product which will do the same job at one tenth the price. That in mind, some of the colour changers (perhaps even one noted in the test that was linked) is not (or certainly used not to be, and no 'V2' has been raised) pH neutral. Any products that falls into that category, IMO, uses the colour change as a gimmick, rather than focusing on the important 'pH neutral' aspect.
One more thought is that all of these products are based around a similar chemistry. However, not all of the active ingredients are of equal toxicity. Again, not naming names, but one of the products in the linked test uses a version of the active ingredient which has a higher toxicity level to others on the market. This highlights a more important issue, the overall health and safety. Certainly in Europe, any of these colour changers should have an irritant hazard warning if an active level of 1% of greater is present. In my experience, the activity level needs to be much higher and should very likely warrant a 'harmful' warning. I imagine many are un-interested but the reality is that these products should all have hazard warnings and symbols but I have seen many which have none. One must then ask, is the product genuinely dilute enough to be hazard free (in which case, stop telling us how strong it is) or has the all too common situation occurred, where the 'manufacturer' actually is insufficiently informed to have the hazard classification correct?
As for the topic of the thread, if I were in the US at the moment, I would probably be buying Iron-X.
