Does Sonax Dashboard Cleaner Have UV Protection??

[CrownKote]

I don't know if anythng with "UV protection" or any other claims are of benifit, but I do know a well dressed interior looks a whole hell of a lot more appealing than a bland, lifeless interior that's just "really clean" from the chemicals used to clean it.

Just my opinion, of course...rops:

So true Ted! I love a nice clean natural interior that I feel is protected... It makes me feel like I have done my part to elongate the life of the vehicle!

 

[PAR Detailing]

This is an interresting read for sure. I think this debate might be similar to the "Is dawn safe to use for washing your car" debate. I love hearing peoples opinions on this kind of stuff. It makes you really analyze and think.

 

[rwright]

Another knock down, drag out thread Mark :laughing:.

 

[WRAPT C5Z06]

Another knock down, drag out thread Mark :laughing:.

They always follow me! :laughing:

 

[Dubbin1]

They always follow me! :laughing:

See Mark this is what happens when you think too much :nomore:

 

[WRAPT C5Z06]

See Mark this is what happens when you think too much :nomore:

I'm starting to believe you.

 

[Dubbin1]

I'm starting to believe you.

If more people would we wouldn't have these problems

 

[mdb917]

I'm starting to believe you.

If more people would we wouldn't have these problems

:urtheman: :laughing:

 

[David Fermani]

:iagree:

I was under the impression that Optimum Technologies (along with, no doubt, others) was in the process of formulating, possibly now testing, interior protectant product(s), for better lack of term, similar to their Opti-Gard/Coat 2.0's protecting abilities.

Yes, Dr. G is working on the interior protection counterpart for the Coating line. This will give him a full spectrum to offer dealerships/retail. From what I know it’s pretty difficult to produce something that is truly long term.


I wonder:If this is true...Could this be hype or the "real deal"? A lot of other products seem to do what they say they will do--- but for the long-term, that could also be hype.

Yes and no, but do they really do everything they say they will and is all the marketing fluff accurate?

RE: Vehicles glass areas: Today's modern glass is a barrier against the sun, but how about the heat transfer? Heat is a known threat to the integrity of interior materials is it not? I don't think a protectant would alleviate this heat. Besides placing a vehicle out of direct sunlight, rolling the windows down a fraction, or some kind of an exhaust mechanism, heat may still present itself as an undesirable foe in the long-term.

Good point about heat. I’d have to say heat has a more damaging effect on interior components than UV. Especially seeing that I've been told your glass is accountable for over 98% of blocking effectiveness, but doesn’t do much to cool down your interior. My wife’s van is garage parked most of the day, but the center section of the dash top pad is starting to heat (not UV) warp. No protectant would have eliminated this seeing that the damage occurred from the inside out.


RE: Short term protecting abilities of interior protectants: Like most protectant products, they have to be re-applied on a regular maintenance schedule. After cleaning, an application even if short-lived, may be, IMO, of benefit.

I was told that any UV inhibitors found in car care products last at best 3-4 hours. What you’re left with is a cross-linked polymer that might add temporary moisture, but it is debatable if that’s beneficial to the longevity of your interior components. No testing has ever been completed to prove this.


RE: Suntan Lotion Affect: Preference of champagne, ecru, fawn, beige (a "brown/tan" color, if you will) interiors---if your interior is going to get a "tan"---then how would you know?
I can accept the UV testing results on humans but have trouble with UV testing on vehicles' materials--the results may be out there--trust is the issue...but that's just my thoughts.

Bob

I’d love to see the test results that can document this whole claim. You’d have to block off a separate section and compare the color stability after a certain level of exposure. Maybe I’ll try this on my next company car?

Yeah well you have no idea what you're missing then because UIGP is an awesome product.

It might be, but I see it as a waste of time and money unless it can offer real protection and not alter any feel or look of a like-new looking interior.

You have no more knowledge on if these products really add protection than anyone else on this forum and it just kills me that you think they do nothing. I also love how you call it nonsense without knowing yourself. You argue something with zero facts while we at least have a claim from the top companies making the stuff. I'll go with the manufacturer claims in that they do offer protection because they are the ones that paid for the studies so they can make those claims.

Just because a company claims something, doesn’t mean you should relegate it as fact? What "studies" are you referring to and can you provide a copy of them?

Because of this thread, I actually reached out to 2 different additional industry leading companies about the subject of long term protection that their's and other product offer. You see, just because a company claims their product “protects” it really doesn’t have to do any more than something like not attract dust and repel water for it to validate their claim. Pretty vague huh? The exact same thing goes for UV protection. As long as it offers the most minuscule amount of protection (1-2 hours say), it can also qualify them to boldly make the inaccurate claim where the common consumer believes it’s offering much more. Both companies have zero data and claim that none exist from their knowledge. One isn’t needed because there is no industry validation for accuracy. One source claimed that the concept of “protection” is no more than a “theoretical prediction based on no long term tests”. Another stated that “there isn’t a realistic need for more protection because glass blocks out over 98% of UV”. “If it didn’t people would be getting sun burns on a regular basis while driving their car”.

I’d also like to say that because I’ve researched this subject for quite a long time and have spoke to several industry leading sources about this to collaborate my stance, that this is way more that you or anyone has done to justify this concept. If you or anyone else would like to dig a little deeper and find a shred of evidence to back up yours or the manufacturers claims I’d accept it with open arms. Until then, I’m maintaining my vehicles with a bit of educated skepticism.

Not trying to start an argument just telling it like it is.

But I don’t think it “is” what it “is” though….

On another note why wouldn't you want your interiors "clear coated"? It helps protect against stains from spills and makes clean up a snap. Seems to me if you are any kind of a real detailer you would welcome kind of product into your arsenal.

There are already tons of products on the market that protect against this. It’s no secret. Also keep in mind these products break down with friction and cleaning and require reapplication. If a product could truly “clearcoat” my interior from UV and wear AND totally block out UV protection for years and years then I think it would truly be a legendary product. But, because this product is so far from existing that it’s purely a pipe dream.

 

[Flannigan]

What is more vague than manufactures' claims is you saying "industry leading sources". I just don't understand how you think you have more knowledge on the subject since there is no proof either way.

 

[Flannigan]

So does this mean that you don't believe that wax offers any protection either, or isn't worth applying? Souveran lasts for 2-3 weeks at best but people love it. It makes paint look and feel different than it did when it was brand new, and adds protection. Do you think it's pointless to apply wax?

 

[rwright]

So does this mean that you don't believe that wax offers any protection either, or isn't worth applying? Souveran lasts for 2-3 weeks at best but people love it. It makes paint look and feel different than it did when it was brand new, and adds protection. Do you think it's pointless to apply wax?

Maybe I'm too sleepy but can you fill me in on how this is relevant?

 

[Flannigan]

Maybe I'm too sleepy but can you fill me in on how this is relevant?

He is saying he doesn't like altering the look or feel of an interior so I was wondering if he feels the same about the exterior. It's a very logical conclusion to draw from his nonsensical posts.

 

[FUNX650]

What is more vague than manufactures' claims is you saying "industry leading sources". I just don't understand how you think you have more knowledge on the subject since there is no proof either way.

Did you stop to think who comprises the "industry leading sources" as referenced here? I did. If I may, I would like to take stab at this query by eliciting: Chemists...the people who actually have the knowledge of chemicals; the people that actually formulate the chemical- laden products used for vehicle, home, industrial, etc. care.

For this forum, I'll just take a look at the vehicle care side only.

These Chemists formulate products according to what their Boss (Usually Chemical Companys...perhaps Detail Supply Companys, Re-sellers) tells them to formulate. Sometimes it's a wax, sealant, protectants. But the kicker here is the Chemists are told to stay within the price range of the chemicals the Boss has in his chemical supply chain; they're told what attributes the Boss desires in their making the waxes, sealants, protectants---shine vs. durablity, beading vs. sheeting, UV protection vs.matte/high sheen---and the percentage, hazards level, and quality of the chemicals to be blended. There's usually a chuckle or two exchanged between the Chemists when they are told to blend in some UV protection in the designated products--products that would be so expensive if enough UV protectant chemicals could actually be added to be effective---no one could afford them!!!

All Chemists know that the costs of chemicals are miniscule compared to the consumers' price; that there are some pretty sharp marketers out there; some pretty packaging; fancy advertising; and each product line, it seems, has its own shills and fanclubs.

Contrary to popular belief: These Chemists have the proof of what/how their blended products will or will not perform. With their livelihood and salary on the line, I would never beseech them to come forward, spill the beans, and face discharge. As such, no betrayal on my part either.

I believe David Fermani has his own connections/friendships with not only Chemists, but the Chemical companies' owners/Bosses; marketers; re-sellers; his "contacts".

I firmly believe that he also would never ask his contacts for a "this is what everyone should really know about the products for your vehicle care party". Nor do I believe he would ever betray them or their mutual trust.

After all, chemicals are just a commodity used to make, in this example, vehicle care products. These products and their chemicals are also a commodity that can sometimes be reversed engineered (that way everybody knows what everyone else is up to/what's basically in the products). For those willing to take a chance on blending, selling, and perhaps profiting enough to earn a living in doing so, chemicals could very well fill that bill.

A couple of well-intended thoughts with no malice aforethought.

Bob

 

[Cat ji]

I'm glad to see that not everyone on these detailing forums believes the marketing hype.

 

[mg6045]

I see that you feel your '03 Jeep is a quality car and therefore falls into the category of: modern chemistry and manufacturing have really come a long way......and are very resistant to the harsh conditions..

Could you please list a few of today's OEM vehicles that you feel are not "quality" cars that don't meet that criteria? I'm anxious to see if my vehicles are so listed. Maybe I can save a dollar or two by not having to purchase those interior car care products.

(I understand this criteria may not be applicable to vehicles of the unmodern era---maybe you have the date of the advent of the modern era vehicle production---this would be of tremendous value. Thanks.

Bob

Hi Bob,

I hope your not trying to attack the credibility of the experience I posted. So i'll go ahead and answer your questions.

No, I can not make a list of vehicles that I feel are not "quality" to see if your car fits in. Thats impossible for me to do as I'm not qualified to do so, and it would just be a broad statement that makes absolutely no sense. I only have experience with the vehicles that I personally own. So sorry I cant help you there.

I neither can make a statement on the exact date or model of car where there was a specific leap in chemical technology, but you can be sure that most likely anything being produced today that is made out of plastic and or vinyl is using far superior science to a car that was build in the early 60's. Maybe you can look into that for us and post what you find.

also, to try and help you save a few bucks I can suggest the interior protectants that I use and like. (considering that I religiously use them regardless of the experience I had with the Jeep). One of them is Meg's quick interior detail and another is 1z cockpit premium. Sonax is a very nice one as well, like I stated in my original post. I think it looks and smells very nice. Ive got a lot of experience using these products considering I apply them EVERY SINGLE time I clean my vehicle. (I used caps just incase you confused my original post and tried to LUMP me into a group of members who posted in this thread that called interior protectants a "myth" (although I find that members post very interesting). - cause if you paid attention and read properly you would see that I NEVER bashed or downed to use of any of these products -.)

So there yah have it BOB. Let me know if theres anything else I can help with, and if you get around to researching the questions you were concerned about that I could not help you with, I'm sure it would be really cool if posted them up.

 

[FUNX650]

Hi Bob,

I hope your not trying to attack the credibility of the experience I posted. So i'll go ahead and answer your questions.

No, I can not make a list of vehicles that I feel are not "quality" to see if your car fits in. Thats impossible for me to do as I'm not qualified to do so, and it would just be a broad statement that makes absolutely no sense. I only have experience with the vehicles that I personally own. So sorry I cant help you there.

I neither can make a statement on the exact date or model of car where there was a specific leap in chemical technology, but you can be sure that most likely anything being produced today that is made out of plastic and or vinyl is using far superior science to a car that was build in the early 60's. Maybe you can look into that for us and post what you find.

also, to try and help you save a few bucks I can suggest the interior protectants that I use and like. (considering that I religiously use them regardless of the experience I had with the Jeep). One of them is Meg's quick interior detail and another is 1z cockpit premium. Sonax is a very nice one as well, like I stated in my original post. I think it looks and smells very nice. Ive got a lot of experience using these products considering I apply them EVERY SINGLE time I clean my vehicle. (I used caps just incase you confused my original post and tried to LUMP me into a group of members who posted in this thread that called interior protectants a "myth" (although I find that members post very interesting). - cause if you paid attention and read properly you would see that I NEVER bashed or downed to use of any of these products -.)

So there yah have it BOB. Let me know if theres anything else I can help with, and if you get around to researching the questions you were concerned about that I could not help you with, I'm sure it would be really cool if posted them up.

Hi mg6045,

I hope to set the record straight: No, I was not trying to attack the credibility of the experience that you posted. Furthermore, I have never attacked anyone personally, or their experience, in any matter that has ever been posted on this forum.

Ergo, I was only seeking some clarification on the inference of several statements that were contained in your original posting, and, IMHO, that is now what you have sought from me.

Inasmuch, I am hopeful that this will clear up this issue, any misunderstandings, and/or misgivings.

Later, mg6045, my good sir.

Bob

 

[mg6045]

Hi mg6045,

I hope to set the record straight: No, I was not trying to attack the credibility of the experience that you posted. Furthermore, I have never attacked anyone personally, or their experience, in any matter that has ever been posted on this forum.

Ergo, I was only seeking some clarification on the inference of several statements that were contained in your original posting, and, IMHO, that is now what you have sought from me.

Inasmuch, I am hopeful that this will clear up this issue, any misunderstandings, and/or misgivings.

Later, mg6045, my good sir.

Bob

Ok, thanks for making that clear.

I will note that in my original post I never claimed any statements with certainty. I was VERY careful and sure to state that I "felt" that what I was stating was a logical in my own mind. And I thought it may be interesting to post my findings along with my little theory that I thought up in my head to get some feedback. Obviously it was an interesting statement that made people think based upon all the feedback that quickly followed. So I'm glad I posted it.

I followed up your post in the manner that I did because I find most of your input on this forum rather eccentric and sometimes difficult to read as being smug or just trying to hard to sound intelligent. I'm not saying that to attack you i'm just being honest. Your post came off as either sounding smug or making an attempt to take apart and discredit my post. But its all good, if i'm wrong than so be it. you take care.

 

[FUNX650]

Ok, thanks for making that clear.

I will note that in my original post I never claimed any statements with certainty. I was VERY careful and sure to state that I "felt" that what I was stating was a logical in my own mind. And I thought it may be interesting to post my findings along with my little theory that I thought up in my head to get some feedback. Obviously it was an interesting statement that made people think based upon all the feedback that quickly followed. So I'm glad I posted it.

I followed up your post in the manner that I did because I find most of your input on this forum rather eccentric and sometimes difficult to read as being smug or just trying to hard to sound intelligent. I'm not saying that to attack you i'm just being honest. Your post came off as either sounding smug or making an attempt to take apart and discredit my post. But its all good, if i'm wrong than so be it. you take care.

mg6045: Thanks for your interesting reply. Even though I perceive that you have drawn certain conclusions about my persona.....I do not, or will not, take that as an affront.

Instead, it causes me to remember an old adage that I learned long, long ago. It served me well over those years, and still does, even unto this day. Along the way it enabled me to enrich my life by making new acquaintances, friendships, and attain knowledge in a variety of subjects that I could not possibly have done otherwise.

I have tried to pass along that adage whenever possible, with mixed reviews and reactions, I may add. If perchance that you will read this post, the way that you review or react to said adage is entirely your decision........Bob
__________________________________________________________

I don't like that man. I must get to know him better. ~ Abraham Lincoln

__________________________________________________________

 

[FUNX650]

UV protection.

Sorry Mark. It seems like I always wind up hi-jacking your threads.

Stop your dang provocative posting!! J/K ......Bob