In your opinion...

[Garry Dean]

Which do you think is better on your paint?



A automatic tunnel wash with brushes



Or...



A properly executed waterless wash



Please elaborate.

 

[Dan]

In a vacuum, the tunnel (assuming the kind with non bristle kind of brushes). In real life it gets more complicated. An extremely dirty car, I'd still take to the tunnel. Average car vs average tunnel, probably waterless or even better rinseless.

 

[Garry Dean]

In a vacuum, the tunnel (assuming the kind with non bristle kind of brushes). In real life it gets more complicated. An extremely dirty car, I'd still take to the tunnel. Average car vs average tunnel, probably waterless or even better rinseless.

I am specifically trying to focus on the waterless car wash here. I believe in the rinseless wash and it is obvious that there is far more lubricity involved in a rinseless wash.



I am ONLY looking for opinions on whether you feel that driving your car through a gas station type tunnel car wash with brushes is safer on your paint than doing a properly executed waterless wash.

 

[Dan]

I am ONLY looking for opinions on whether you feel that driving your car through a gas station type tunnel car wash with brushes is safer on your paint than doing a properly executed waterless wash.

If that is your ONLY interest a survey might be better. A forum is more geared towards a discussion.

 

[C. Charles Hahn]

If that is your ONLY interest a survey might be better. A forum is more geared towards a discussion.

We can't have a discussion about whether a gas station tunnel wash or a waterless wash is safer for a car's paint?





Personally, my thought would be this: in the best case, a waterless wash is safer and likely more effective since it is performed manually (meaning the operator can make sure they don't "miss a spot" like an automated tunnel wash might, and they can regulate exactly how much pressure is being applied to the wash media). In the worst case a waterless wash may be impractical (dealing with large mud deposits, etc.) but still it is probably safer than a rough brush that may have trapped abrasive particles and/or may be made of abrasive materials themselves.

 

[Garry Dean]

If that is your ONLY interest a survey might be better. A forum is more geared towards a discussion.

I wasnt trying to be a d i c k... I was just looking for more specific opinions.

We can't have a discussion about whether a gas station tunnel wash or a waterless wash is safer for a car's paint?





Personally, my thought would be this: in the best case, a waterless wash is safer and likely more effective since it is performed manually (meaning the operator can make sure they don't "miss a spot" like an automated tunnel wash might, and they can regulate exactly how much pressure is being applied to the wash media). In the worst case a waterless wash may be impractical (dealing with large mud deposits, etc.) but still it is probably safer than a rough brush that may have trapped abrasive particles and/or may be made of abrasive materials themselves.

Thanks Charlie, right on. I tend to agree with you. Obviously a waterless wash would be a horrible idea on a filthy, mud caked vehicle. Assuming the vehicle hadnt been washed in a week or two and hadnt been to the Redneck Yacht Club in Punta Gorda, FL for the weekend.

 

[VW 91]

Waterless car wash for sure. Even if the car was pretty filthy I'd still choose a waterless wash over a tunnel wash. Nothing worse than stiff brushes spinning fast, marring your car to crap lol.

 

[SeaJays]

I'm going to say the waterless wash method would be better.



Even though waterless wash methods are not really my thing, I would thing it would be better than a tunnel wash. You can control the lubricity a little bit more on a waterless wash. Plus you can change out your MFs more frequently for heavily soiled cars.



Still not my preferred method but if I had to choose it over a tunnel wash I'd do it in a heart beat.

 

[RaskyR1]

We can't have a discussion about whether a gas station tunnel wash or a waterless wash is safer for a car's paint?





Personally, my thought would be this: in the best case, a waterless wash is safer and likely more effective since it is performed manually (meaning the operator can make sure they don't "miss a spot" like an automated tunnel wash might, and they can regulate exactly how much pressure is being applied to the wash media). In the worst case a waterless wash may be impractical (dealing with large mud deposits, etc.) but still it is probably safer than a rough brush that may have trapped abrasive particles and/or may be made of abrasive materials themselves.

I'd have to a agree with Charlie on this one.



There is a pretty clear line when waterless washes should not be used, just like there is with rinse-less washes. For a car that's still within the safe range for waterless washing, hands down, it's safe then a swirl-o-matic wash.



IMO, there is NEVER a reason to use a Swirl-O-Matic wash, period! If the car is beyond safe waterless or rinse-less washing then run it though a touch-less wash first.

 

[Dan]

There seem to be three types of automatic car washes. First are the touchless, but then there are two varieties of touch washes.



This kind is a definite no-no:

This kind (when well maintained) seems to work just fine and not induce swirls.

 

[RaskyR1]

There seem to be three types of automatic car washes. First are the touchless, but then there are two varieties of touch washes.





This kind (when well maintained) seems to work just fine and not induce swirls.

While I definitely feel the second kind is "better", they can/will induce some amount of marring, especially over time. Finding a well maintained one is key, but they will still damage the paint over time. FWIW I managed a well maintained high volume tunnel wash back in the late 90's and I can say the following:

• Our soft cloth mops were pressure washed weekly or whenever we were slow (rain days). See dirt on the ones above...
  
• Lots of young, minimum wage and temporary help, especially of the drying side.
  
• Towels are used over and over again, poor help would often drop and continue to use towels.
  
• Even with mops cleaned frequently, all it takes is one really dirty vehicle in front of you.
  
• Lower side panels see the most amount of marring.
  
• Amount of marring varies between cars or paint types.
  
• 
  

I also maintain of few clients cars that see nothing but these style washes...



Rasky

 

[David Fermani]

Garry - did you see my thread on the AutoCareForum?? (car wash centric)



I actually started an almost exact same discussion there a few days ago and caused so much chaos that I was asked to leave. They ended up deleting all of my posts because their sponsors complained. I pissed off so many people that they didn't have any valid proof to support their cause. I actually placed an open bet $$$ that if they took 2 indentical black brand new cars and washed each one each way 25 times that I would bet that the waterless one would win hands down. Nothing but a bunch of excuses from those sorry arses.

 

[C. Charles Hahn]

They actually kicked you out over that thread? :rofl

 

[Lotuseffect]

Id have to go with a waterless wash as well for the sole reason you are dictating the amount of product, the pressure applied, and the medium you use. This in and of itself lends itself to being more gentle.