3D BDX vs. CarPro IronX

conman1395 said:
Surfactants aren't lubricants.... They're surfactants. I agree with how you use IronX, after cleaning a wheel as that's how I do it. You wouldn't just spray on a wheel cleaner and rinse it off (at least I never do) and you wouldn't just spray wheel cleaner and scrub and rinse either (at least I wouldn't). I always use lubrication by way of my wheel bucket filled with soap.
Click to expand...


Thanks for clarifying what I was saying. That's what I meant but I made myself sound like a idiot. I checked the MDS on BDX and it does contain soap and cleaners and iron X does not. That's all I was trying to say.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Great review and I've used 3D BDX and came away impressed with this product. I have used IronX on wheels just to see but mainly use it for paint.

Thanks for your review and thoughts👋

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk
 
Interesting review.

To clarify a few facts:

1) Iron-X DOES contain surfactants. Whether it is lacking, comparatively, in some other components or specific surfactants which make it a less potent wheel cleaner is another matter. Looking at the BDX sheet, my inclination is that they both have surfactants, albeit that those in BDX would be more potent degreasers (as a note, I am quite surprised, given the specific alcohol ethoxylates and their quantity, that there is not a greater hazard warning). BDX does have a health solvent addition which should help in general cleaning. It is also worth noting that it has a lower content of the active ingredient (for iron removal) compared to the last IX data sheet I looked at.

2) Surfactants WILL be important from the lubrication standpoint. With a water based product, when someone talks about lubricity, it will almost always be down to the surfactants within.

Final thought - someone suggested Optimum Ferrex was safer - could we get some sort of clarification as to the reasons for this statement?
 
PiPUK said:
Final thought - someone suggested Optimum Ferrex was safer - could we get some sort of clarification as to the reasons for this statement?
Click to expand...

PiPUK! Glad to see you back!

I didn't see anything in this thread about FerreX. That product has no solvents and 10-20 on the active, which is the sodium salt, according the MSDS.
 
Setec Astronomy said:
PiPUK! Glad to see you back!

I didn't see anything in this thread about FerreX. That product has no solvents and 10-20 on the active, which is the sodium salt, according the MSDS.
Click to expand...

Evening. I hadn't gone too far but an expanding business and a growing baby have taken up a lot of time!

Someone on p2 commented on FerreX, I think. Theory819? I like to understand comments like these as they often turn our to be inaccurate.
 
PiPUK said:
Evening. I hadn't gone too far but an expanding business and a growing baby have taken up a lot of time!

Someone on p2 commented on FerreX, I think. Theory819? I like to understand comments like these as they often turn our to be inaccurate.
Click to expand...

Pipuk, What would you say is the better of the two here in your opinion relating to everything?
 
PiPUK said:
Evening. I hadn't gone too far but an expanding business and a growing baby have taken up a lot of time!
Click to expand...

Oh, congrats!

PiPUK said:
Someone on p2 commented on FerreX, I think. Theory819? I like to understand comments like these as they often turn our to be inaccurate.
Click to expand...

Oh, I missed that. On the face of it FerreX sounded like Trix, but it turns out the tar-remover part of FerreX is a surfactant. This came up on the Optimum forum when someone complained about the tar-removal performance (or lack thereof).
 
Personally, I like bdx over iron x, about the same price or a bit less but the smell is much less in bdx. Maybe slightly longer dwell time needed but still does the same thing.
 
I would like to apologize to the thread starter for taking the thread in a little different direction. It's was well done and I just wanted to thank you for your write up. I always thought that iron X was more of a iron remover other than a dedicated "cleaner" and BDX is more of a product that cleans but also helps remove iron. I just wanted to know if my thinking was incorrect. Thanks again for the write up and this is why I enjoy this forum.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Bill1234 said:
Pipuk, What would you say is the better of the two here in your opinion relating to everything?
Click to expand...

I have never used BDX so I am limited to suppositions based on the ingredients. For wheel cleaning, that solvent in BDX cannot be ignored, it will certainly help. For iron removal, I would favour IX because (using the MSDS which I have seen as a basis) it has a higher activity for the functional ion and it uses a form of the active which I favour. For technical reasons we ceased using the sodium salt. Initially it was favoured because it was cheaper and lower in odour but we almost always found that the sodium based formulations were much more inclined to dry out quickly. That said, I believe that the majority of products are based on the sodium salt with a limited few sticking to (in my view, superior) alternative salts.

Setec Astronomy said:
Oh, congrats!



Oh, I missed that. On the face of it FerreX sounded like Trix, but it turns out the tar-remover part of FerreX is a surfactant. This came up on the Optimum forum when someone complained about the tar-removal performance (or lack thereof).
Click to expand...

Many thanks.

The tar removal 'claim' did strike as a bit rich and I had also seen what you note. I'd still like to know what was meant by FerreX being 'safer'. As far as I am concerned, the primary active ingredient defines the risk. The form of the salt is of minor importance in this regard, they all have the same hazards. The only way that I can see a product being genuinely safer is if it has a lower active content. To get to the point of no hazard symbols at all needs an extremely low activity (don't quote me, but I believe 1% triggers a skin sensitisation hazard). I have stated before that I am highly sceptical of a product, of this type, which has no hazard symbols. It suggests to me that the product is either weak (and I doubt it would be sufficiently functional at these levels) or that some error has been made in the classification of the product.
 
PiPUK said:
I'd still like to know what was meant by FerreX being 'safer'.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't put too much stock in that comment.

I do however, see some logic in using a surfactant tar remover, although its performance is going to be way off a solvent. The combination of a solvent into a step which is going to be rinsed with water seems problematic from a runoff/storm drain perspective.

It would seem a more prudent approach to separate the steps, although CarPro has it both ways (Iron X, Tar X, Trix).

Is it possible that OPT's surfactant approach is mainly to address the "drying out" issue, and that any tar removal is a side effect/benefit?
 
Setec Astronomy said:
I wouldn't put too much stock in that comment.

I do however, see some logic in using a surfactant tar remover, although its performance is going to be way off a solvent. The combination of a solvent into a step which is going to be rinsed with water seems problematic from a runoff/storm drain perspective.

It would seem a more prudent approach to separate the steps, although CarPro has it both ways (Iron X, Tar X, Trix).

Is it possible that OPT's surfactant approach is mainly to address the "drying out" issue, and that any tar removal is a side effect/benefit?
Click to expand...

As far as I am aware, there are a handful of surfactants which are even slightly effective against tar. The only one I have confirmed this with is likely not even available on the US market. Unfortunately surfactants are often as bad as solvents for washing down the drains. For instance, nonyl phenyl ethoxylates are very bad for the environment, to the extent that they are banned in Europe. Strangely, they are still common on the US market. So I wouldn't necessarily assume surfactants are better than solvents in your run off water.

The combination of the tar and iron is a tough one. Car pro have demonstrated this well because their product isn't stable and needs shaking all the time. We have actually got a product which IS stable and is, IMO, easily superior to trix but nobody is interested. By incorporating the aqueous phase (i.e. iron remover) into a solvent phase (i.e. tar remover) means that you only have half of each. Worse still, you need something to make them compatible (assuming you aren't willing to sell an unstable product) so you are doing well to have half the potency of the individual products. So I believe that keeping steps separate is best. The combined product is a concept which seems to better suit wheel cleaning, rather than deep decontamination.

It is possible that OPT uses the surfactant to stop drying out but I'll give them more credit than to have done this rather than the more obvious solution! I'll be interested to try the product some day and see what the tar removal is really like, until then im sceptical that it would be any use at all against the sort of tar you get in the UK (ive yet to find anything beyond non-polar solvents to do an acceptable job).
 
Im not too happy with BDX. Did an average job at best and doesnt rinse off cleanly...like I had brown drip stains the next day.
 
Here is how I need to due my wheels and this method works best with BDX vs other wheel cleaners I have tried.
1) rinse the wheels
2) BDX the wheels
3) let sit for a couple of minutes.
4) spray again the places I missed.
5) Agitate with a brush. Let sit for a couple.
6) Rinse off the BDX.
7) take a MF towel used for cleaning with a little Rinseless wash or QD and wipe the wheels clean. Wipe in all the crevasses until it is all wiped clean.

This method works well for me.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
AGOatemywallet said:
Driggett,

I think your method would work with regular car soap

Very through
Click to expand...
Agreed very thorough but if you are doing it as a business you need to consider the product cost and that method seems to use a lot of product. That's why I follow Mike's use of iron removal for wheels using iron x to get more bang for my buck.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
 
PiPUK said:
It is possible that OPT uses the surfactant to stop drying out but I'll give them more credit than to have done this rather than the more obvious solution! I'll be interested to try the product some day and see what the tar removal is really like, until then im sceptical that it would be any use at all against the sort of tar you get in the UK (ive yet to find anything beyond non-polar solvents to do an acceptable job).
Click to expand...

I found the statement from the non-technical rep on their forum-- " FerreX has a special blend of surfactants which makes it work better than solvents in removing wax and tar."

You know Dr. G is a polymer wizard (well, at least to us laymen) so maybe he threw that in to assist in the iron removal and it has some minor tar removal properties so they added it to the label blurb. It's probably better as you noted to separate out the two tasks (although if I ever get to use my Trix maybe I'll change my mind).

Since we're talking about storm drains and surface water contamination, the thioglycolates can't be very good for the fish, either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top