Newbie here, do I need iron remover before clay?

[MatloccAllison1]

Just got a new, used truck. I plan to clay, then apply wolfgang uder sio2 silica spray.
Been reading quite a bit and wonder if I need the iron x before clay?

[opie]

Just got a new, used truck. I plan to clay, then apply wolfgang uder sio2 silica spray.
Been reading quite a bit and wonder if I need the iron x before clay?Let me state im no expert, but imo/some experiecnce using it also from what ive gathered from reading/being on here for 2 years now....it is NOT a nessesity. Epecially if one were going to do any paint correction.

But it can be beneficial in not all but certain senarios. Most notable during a decon regimen for ceramic coated vehicles. Also i will use it on customer vehicles as most are neglected when they come to me.

Do you own/plan on doing any type of paint correction to this truck? What is the state of the paint...meaning is it swirled out or pretty perfect paint? You are aware that you will most likey get some sort of micro marring from claying?

Also kind of matters too on how you plan on caring for said vehicle...wash methods, products used and such.

If you are just looking to smooth out the surface a bit and apply some protection and go no further with it, then i say No to iron remover.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[2black1s]

My opinion... No!

Claying will remove all "bonded" surface contaminants, including iron particles. Provided that assumption is correct, and I believe it is, an iron removing chemical is not absolutely necessary. Here's a link to a thread by Eldo where he did a 50/50 test that illustrates that point quite clearly. https://www.autogeekonline.net/forum/auto-detailing-101-a/130093-claybar-vs-iron-remover-50-50-test.html?highlight=iron+x+vs+clay

That is not to say that iron removers do not work or are not sometimes desired, but it does provide evidence that they are not always absolutely necessary.

I don't buy into the premise that iron particles are so deeply embedded into the surface that they will not be completely removed during claying and an iron removing chemical is necessary to completely remove them. They are just like any other contaminant that has "stuck" to the surface and will be removed during claying.

[MatloccAllison1]

Thank you! Saved me 38 dollars! The paint is in very good condition. I am going no further than wash, clay, wg sio2 then admire!
No idea on a wash routine yet. Waiting for winter to end before jumping into this. I am in northern Michigan and it doesn't really warm up until June!

[opie]

My opinion... No!

You were the first person i thought of when i read the op question. Remebering your stance on the topic i was hoping you would provide some input.

Ive only ever used a fine clay, nothing more agressive than that so...Honest question in your opinion would the fine grade clay remove all iron contaiminants?

I would think it would depend on how heavy and bonded the contaminants are to weither a iron remover could assist in said senario.

I should try a more agressive clay next time b4 a paint correction to see how much better it works compared to fine clay

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[2black1s]

You were the first person i thought of when i read the op question. Remebering your stance on the topic i was hoping you would provide some input.

Ive only ever used a fine clay, nothing more agressive than that so...Honest question in your opinion would the fine grade clay remove all iron contaiminants?

I would think it would depend on how heavy and bonded the contaminants are to weither a iron remover could assist in said senario.

I should try a more agressive clay next time b4 a paint correction to see how much better it works compared to fine clay

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

Lately, I've always been using a more aggressive clay if I'm going to be polishing. It's just so much faster and easier. Will the fine clay work? Probably yes, but it will take more effort.

Save the fine clay for touch-up's and less severely contaminated vehicles that you don't plan on polishing.

[PaulMys]

Thank you! Saved me 38 dollars! The paint is in very good condition. I am going no further than wash, clay, wg sio2 then admire!
No idea on a wash routine yet. Waiting for winter to end before jumping into this. I am in northern Michigan and it doesn't really warm up until June!

Just keep in mind that claying can induce marring if you're not careful........

[opie]

Lately, I've always been using a more aggressive clay if I'm going to be polishing. It's just so much faster and easier. Will the fine clay work? Probably yes, but it will take more effort.

Save the fine clay for touch-up's and less severely contaminated vehicles that you don't plan on polishing.Thanks i will do that, appriciate it. Great to always have experienced hands with have way more knowledge than I have amassed thus far.

I have a screnshot pic of megs clays that eldo posted up a long while ago that he uses. I have not yet purchased them but will get them on my next order.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[Coatingsarecrack]

If not polishing after claying I would iron remove.

Why not remove as much contamination before you wipe a clay or clay alternative across your paint?

Less chance of added marring from claying process.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kamakaz1961]

My opinion of iron remover....no. But clay or clay towel yes.

[DFB]

In a technical sense, using a clay bar will remove surface contamination, including iron, negating the need to use a dedicated iron removing chemical. But...........

From the way I see it, using the chemical method first helps dissolve and remove iron contamination before the claying process begins. This then helps to reduce marring during the clay phase, which in turn reduces the amount of paint correction (if any) required at the end of the process.

If I had to choose between the two, and if I wasn't going to follow up with a polish, then I would be doing using the iron remover over a clay bar.

[Eldorado2k]

I don’t take many pictures nowadays, but I legit claybarred a car yesterday that was so contaminated that prior to even using the claybar I had to physically go across the entire vehicle, panel by panel picking off these tiny black specs similar to blackheads off the paint. Some areas where I didn’t get them all off created what looked like gravel on the claybar but not quite on that level because while it looked and almost felt like gravel it was at the most something that might’ve came from a tree and those specs were all over and stuck on good.

This might’ve been the only time I can recall seeing the Meguiars Red Aggressive Claybar visibly change colors from red to dark orange as I went along every panel. And even with that level of contaminants I had zero clay marring. I can prove it tomorrow morning as soon as the sun comes out as the car’s still outside in the driveway.

The only picture I’ve taken of the car is when I tried to take a picture of the streaks on the bumper that had been mentioned just yesterday in another thread. I tried to get a better pic, but the streaks from the claylube would quickly disappear once the panel was wiped down.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230206/61551b8551886e49b22a97c94837ad65.jpg


…Anyways, my real reason for posting is to ask you guys a question. When was the last time you actually had clay marring in the form of “cheetah marks” due to using a claybar or synthetic clay?

Personally it’s been so long I can’t even remember, and in the many years I’ve been detailing cars it’s happened less than a handful of times total. Maybe 3 times tops. It’s rare.

That’s why I think the argument about iron remover somehow making the claybar step safer needs somekind of proof to back it up. I’ve personally never seen it play out in real life that way nor do I think I ever will.

Next time you use an iron remover, leave a section for just the claybar to decontaminate and see if there’s a difference in regards to marring. The only way to prove it is through a collective effort of unbiased testing. Maybe the 1st person to test can start a dedicated thread.

[Paul A.]

I personally like to remove imbedded ferrous metal particles as part of my decon process and before i clay.

My reason is 2 fold. Some iron particles go below the paint surface abd clay simply breaks it off. I like to attempt dissolving all or most of it below the surface. I certainly don't want to pick it up in a buffing pad.

Evidence of iron remaing are eventual tiny rust spots.

Do you have to? No but i like pristine paint and like to decon thoroughly.

[2black1s]

... Some iron particles go below the paint surface and clay simply breaks it off. I like to attempt dissolving all or most of it below the surface...

Like I said in an earlier post, I don't buy into this theory that iron particles somehow bury themselves below the paint surface. How does that happen? You can see my thoughts on this matter in post #3.

I don't have absolute proof one way or another, but my practical experience indicates that this is true. And Eldo's 50/50 test that I linked to in post #3 is another data point that validates my experiences quite clearly.

I have to believe that any iron particles embedded into the paint, rather than simply being stuck to the surface, are the exception and not the norm.

[2black1s]

... When was the last time you actually had clay marring in the form of “cheetah marks” due to using a claybar or synthetic clay?

Personally it’s been so long I can’t even remember, and in the many years I’ve been detailing cars it’s happened less than a handful of times total. Maybe 3 times tops. It’s rare...

It's been a while for me too, but I do remember it happening on my black truck in some tight contours leading up to an edge.

While some marring is always a possibility, it is not always a forgone conclusion that it will occur.

I think the biggest factor relative to marring is inadequate lubrication and/or too much pressure.