Popular Mechanics - Interior protectants harmful to your trim

harshest

harshest

New member
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
126
Reaction score
0
I am not sure if anyone else reads Popular Mechanics but in the latest issue, September 2010, they talk about interior protectants and how harmful thay are to your interior. I've never heard this before and wanted to get your opinion on the subject. On two seperate instances they mention the same thing.

First is in an article about breaking in a new car. Here is the quote:

Avoid the impulse to slather the interior trim with shiny protectants, which can leach the placticizers out of new vinyl and increase the likelihood of age-related cracks.
Click to expand...

The second is in the Q&A part of the magazine where a reader asks about a 1/4" crack in his dash. As part of the answer on how to repair the crack they talk about possible causes:

Sunlight, excessive cleaning and incessant slathering with protectant can leach all the vinyl-chloride plasticizer out of the vinyl - which the gets brittle and cracks.
Click to expand...

So I guess my question is, is there any truth to these statements?

I look forward to your thoughts.
 
I would think that is a generalization that is true in some cases and not true in others. It should depend on the chemical makeup of the protectant. The question is which ones do and which ones don't.
 
I heard that said about armorall, not really sure about how true it is. I guess it depends on whats in the products your using and the overall condition of the materials you are working on. I would tend to think a non treated dash would just crack over time vs a well conditioned and taken care of dash?
 
I've been hearing that about Armor All. I can't say I've had problems with it, but now I'm using 303 on the dash, Lexol products on the leather seats, and satisfied with them. I agree with Cee Dog, it depends. And I also think it depends on how much, how often, and how much sun/cold etc. the dash is exposed to. PM probably didn't mention any brands or what chemicals?
 
I think this relates more to protectants that use petroleum distillates. Not many interior products do anymore, atleast out of what I've used.
See verbiage here on pinnacle: Pinnacle Vinyl & Rubber Protectant protects interior rubber and vinyl, low shine finish, UV protection, stop fading, protect dash, dash dressing, interior protectant

Vinyl & Rubber Protectant is a water-based conditioner that nourishes your interior surfaces so they remain supple and moisturized. It contains NO petroleum distillates that can dry out the vinyl over time and cause premature cracking. Natural ingredients combined with high-tech protectants restore the original color and sheen to vinyl and rubber surfaces while shielding them from UV rays.
 
my proof would be look at show cars that are driven and babied with protectant. still look good years later. technically it makes good copy for a mag but i will go with my own luck over the years (never one dash failure) and the results from detailers forums.
 
I too have heard the same rumor about armorall and i have yet to see any evidence to prove that rumor. I know individuals that swear by armorall and have used it for many years with no issues. I myself use Meguiars Supreme Shine Protectant and love it. But before this, i used armorall and had NO issues whatsoever. Hell if the stuff is so bad, why are using Tony Stewart to endorse their products? If the stuff was so bad, i would not want my name on it saying that the stuff works. JMO2Cents
 
No they didn't mention any brands or types, just made a broad assumption. I can only assume that the author was referring to the over the counter brands that you would find at the local car parts store. As mentioned above I can't imagine that a water based product would do any harm.
 
Aren't the dashboards of today's cars improved over the ones that unfairly made Armor All look bad. I doubt armor would make a dash crack all by itself; wasn't the greater reason of cracked dashboards due to the poor quality of plastic pieces auto makers used in the 70's and 80's?
 
Back in the 90's, pep boys stopped carrying AA, and the people who worked there would tell everyone that it was because AA had water and alcohal, so it would dry things out and damage things. I don't know if they stock it now or not.
 
kronos said:
Aren't the dashboards of today's cars improved over the ones that unfairly made Armor All look bad. I doubt armor would make a dash crack all by itself; wasn't the greater reason of cracked dashboards due to the poor quality of plastic pieces auto makers used in the 70's and 80's?
Click to expand...

I've talked to a chemist that has some background surrounding this topic and without getting deep you've summed up the issue pretty well...

First, vinyl dashes came out for the most part starting in the 1960's and in the 1960's the dash in your car would look pretty good... but it was early plastic technology.

I was told there is/was some truth to products with plasticizers leaching out the plasticizers originally in early vinyl, kind of a like attracts like action, don't know how strong of and action this would have been but this is what I was told. I was also told that since the 1970's formulas for vinyl dressings were improved to avoid any issues surrounding the issue of vinyl dashes cracking.

I think Armor-All got a black eye out of this that they don't really deserve but once an urban legend gets legs it's hard to stop it...

One thing for sure, I don't see the dashes on modern cars cracking at all... and any older car with cracking in the vinyl dash is in part because the vehicle is old to start with... nothing lasts forever...

When topics like this come up one direction I like to steer the focus back to is trusting in the name on the label, that is we can't all be PhD chemists so at some point instead of trying to be an expert on everything under the sun... find a brand that you trust makes premium quality products and trust that their chemists are doing their homework and providing products that are formulated for, tested and proven for the surface or process you're using the product for.


:)
 
detailguy71 said:
Hell if the stuff is so bad, why are using Tony Stewart to endorse their products? If the stuff was so bad, i would not want my name on it saying that the stuff works. JMO2Cents
Click to expand...

Tony Stewart is just collecting a pay check. Do you think he really goes into the lab to check on the formula? Or even cares about the long term use of a product? He arrives at a location, shoots a commercial, collects the money and goes on to his next public appearance. He doesn't have the time nor the desire to care about any of that. And I'll guarantee that 99.99999% of all product endorsers are the same way.

He's done his job though. If someone likes a product simply because he's associated with it....
 
Jumpingbean said:
Tony Stewart is just collecting a pay check. Do you think he really goes into the lab to check on the formula? Or even cares about the long term use of a product? He arrives at a location, shoots a commercial, collects the money and goes on to his next public appearance. He doesn't have the time nor the desire to care about any of that. And I'll guarantee that 99.99999% of all product endorsers are the same way.

He's done his job though. If someone likes a product simply because he's associated with it....
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure he cares about his image too and his image is his brand. If he taints his image, he taints his brand and that may end up costing him money. If he's a smart fellow, he should protect his image and that means taking part in the decision making process when it comes to selecting who to sponsor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top