-
Super Member
Re: Claybar vs. Iron Remover 50/50 Test
Interesting write up! Thx!
Like a some others here, I don't always use an iron remover either... don't feel so bad.
2022 Jeep Gladiator Rubicon • 2021 Ford Ranger Lariat •2016 Alfa Romeo 4C Spider • 2006 Buell Lightning-Bolt • 2004 Jeep Wrangler Rubicon
-
Super Member
Re: Claybar vs. Iron Remover 50/50 Test
Nice to see results like that. I assumed clay would pick up the things that are normally broken down by iron remover and it did. So that proves that iron remover is not a must but if used before claying, it makes the claying process easier and with less chances of marring, as others said above.
On a bigger job, that involves a coating, I think iron remover doesn't add much to the cost and just gives peace of mind while making the claying job easier.
On a smaller job, just a wax or sealant after a polish job, then I think leaving the iron remover out is probably fine to keep costs low.
For a coated car that needs a decontamination job, then iron remover is the way to go IMO. I wouldn't clay a coated car if I don't plan on polishing it and applying the coating again.
-
Super Member
Re: Claybar vs. Iron Remover 50/50 Test
Interesting results. Thanks!
I've always clayed and wondered if I'd gain anything by doing an iron removal too. This is helpful.
-
Re: Claybar vs. Iron Remover 50/50 Test
Originally Posted by
Bruno Soares
Nice to see results like that. I assumed clay would pick up the things that are normally broken down by iron remover and it did. So that proves that iron remover is not a must but if used before claying, it makes the claying process easier and with less chances of marring, as others said above.
On a bigger job, that involves a coating, I think iron remover doesn't add much to the cost and just gives peace of mind while making the claying job easier.
On a smaller job, just a wax or sealant after a polish job, then I think leaving the iron remover out is probably fine to keep costs low.
For a coated car that needs a decontamination job, then iron remover is the way to go IMO. I wouldn't clay a coated car if I don't plan on polishing it and applying the coating again.
That's how I feel, I'd only use a iron remover on paint if I'm doing a decon.
If the paint is *so* neglected/trashed that I'm worried about marring from claying realistically it's going to need a compound anyways in which case any marring is moot. I'd probably reach for a degreaser before an iron remover for paint.
-
Super Member
Claybar vs. Iron Remover 50/50 Test
Originally Posted by
DetailZeus
That's how I feel, I'd only use a iron remover on paint if I'm doing a decon.
What the heck is a “decon”? Lol.
Edit: Nevermind, I got my iced coffee.
-
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 2 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Re: Claybar vs. Iron Remover 50/50 Test
I'm still learning the jargon so I have the same question. I assume "decon" is short for decontamination? If so, what does that mean in parlance? Chemical (iron removal) + mechanical (clay/synthetic equivalent) decontamination only without paint correction or protection?
-
Super Member
Re: Claybar vs. Iron Remover 50/50 Test
Originally Posted by
David Puddy
If so, what does that mean in parlance? Chemical (iron removal) + mechanical (clay/synthetic equivalent) decontamination only without paint correction or protection?
If you decontaminate, you won't have protection. You can decontaminate without correction, but you should protect.
-
Re: Claybar vs. Iron Remover 50/50 Test
I understand, he made it sound like decontaminates without doing anything else so I was curious why someone would do that.
-
Re: Claybar vs. Iron Remover 50/50 Test
I meant decontaminating a coated car when you're trying to refresh an existing coating. I generally don't clay unless I'm going to polish afterwards.
-
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 1 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Re: Claybar vs. Iron Remover 50/50 Test
Got it-that makes sense. Thanks for educating me.
Bookmarks