IronX etc

Jesstzn

Jesstzn

New member
<span style="font-size:18px;">Subject ... IronX or like product.


 Here is my question and we know IronX won't replace clay so its an added step/expence but has anyone tried these side by side tests on a panel on a car that has substantial rail dust per the pix provided?


1) Do nothing at this point to this 1/3 of the panel but do take a picture of the panel for future reference.


2) Next 1/3 of the panel clay the panel just enough so its smooth to the touch and all contaminants removed  BUT the rust blooms are still there ( the orange stains created by the rail dust )


3) The last 1/3 clay the panel to remove all contaminants and the rust blooms, you could use a polish if you want to remove the blooms.


4) NOW use the IronX on the whole panel to see what IronX purple staining we will see.


 Wouldn't his tell us the following;


a) Is the IronX actually removeing the iron particulate or is the  purple staining  from a reaction with the iron oxide in the rust bloom and the clay is removing the iron particulate?

B) The last panel would tell us if the clay is shearing off or pulling out the iron particulate. if it is shearing it off then there should be purple staining where the visable rust blooms were in the picture.

 


 


<span style="font-size:18px;">Sample pix  ( actual pix of my car after 1 good ole Canuck winter, )


 


 
I have done this experiment. The purple blooming on the panel that shows less iron specks is significantly less (almost non existant in my case) than the one that has unclayed iron specks.
Further, a second application of ironx on the same panels shows that there is no new purple bloom on the cleanest panels, and little bloom on the severe panels (which is why some people loke to do two applications on severe vehicles). I keep spraying ironx until I got no bloom on the severe panel. The unclayed section of the panel was not smooth to the touch. The previously clayed portions remained smooth. Claying the severe section made it equal to the other panels.

Thus, I like to ironx until no more bloom, then clay ;)
 
To me that says if you clay then polish away the brown stain there is no need to IronX ,,.. save a step .. save a $$ too .
 
Until you clay for 8 hours straight to remove the rust that two applications of iron x will remove in 20 minutes. For me, time is money.
 
I don't see ironx then clay as efficient.

If you clay, then you take all of the top layer off,

so the ironx would react better.


But, I can also see the point of ironx making your claying quicker and safer, since less iron particles to tumble and scratch the paint.


I think Jess also has a point about time, but it is risky that iron could damage the paint. If you are complete in the clay process, how much chance of damage is there? I would contend that "not much" is the answer.


People have clayed and polished long before ironx.

How can it be used most effectively, to save time in the process?


I saw a thread where Ceedog clayed with ironx paste. Is this the best of both worlds? He was even using a clay pad attached to a Da. If time equals money, does this combo make $ all around?
 
Never spent 8 hours on any car I have ever done including the one pictured. Usually 1/2 hour for two people. The discolouration comes out in the polishing stage and that only adds a couple minutes per panel involved and not all panels have the blooms. As far as the "deep cleaning " isn't that only speculation?
 
Clay definitely removes some of the iron particulate, just not the sub surface stuff. I don't think that it shears everything, but that it definitely shears the stuck on particles. If an iron particle is just laying on the surface, wouldn't the clay remove the whole thing?
 
Even if the iron is imbedded I don't personally think clay is able to shear off the portion that is above the surface and leave some below . Physics etc.
 
If you think of it as a chunk of iron, then clay would not be able to shear half of the chunk off. But this is more of a cluster of iron oxide particles held together by weak molecular bonds. Hence you are not shearing off a chunk rather than breaking off some of the scale. This is the reason the ABC system works, it goes beyond the upper exposed surface (which is just the resulting level at the tips of the rz). Ironx (and any chemical cleaner) is similar.
As far as clay or iron x first, the iron x cleans just the rust, where the clay removes anything. Ideally i'd use tarx and ironx before claying, to reduce the risk of scratches when claying and make the manual process as easy and quick as possible.
It took me 8 hours to clay the rust spots off my truck that got transported to TX from the assembly plant in MX, where it sat for a year before I got it. That shit was in there hard core! It was me and my helper (not marc), 8 true hours. I have had similar issues on other trucks, and one or two older cars, where it takes minutes of claying over one rust spec to remove to the point of it being not visible. My back goes on strike if I don't use iron-x ;)
 
I would say this is a moot point because:


 


<span style="font-size:18px;">Clay removes <u>topical contamination</u>.


 


<span style="font-size:18px;">Iron Remover targets <u> the pores of the paint to remove iron contamination, beneath the functional surface.</u>


 


Yes an unclayed section MAY show more color from the chemical reaction of removing iron.... because it has more iron on it overall


 


Therfore these two procedures are not really comparable. Its a matter of cleaning different depths of the same surface.


 


Claying is comparable of vacumming a carpet as step one of cleaning the carpet.


 


Iron X is akin to DRY brushing that carpet to loosen and remove the DEEPER embedded particles WITHIN the carpet.
 
But if after claying per the 3rd step in my original post and there is no purple color that tells me that the clay removed what was below the surface too. Or its reacting with the iron oxide ( rust bloom ) and not the iron particulate.
 
This thread should clear up the pros and cons ... I thought about it too but I don't see a benefit as claying is needed anyway.
 
When a particle of iron rusts the rust grows around the particle.  The way the iron particles are bonding to the paint is by the rust growing into the pores of the paint.  When claying you are shearing the iron particle off, essentially breaking the bond.  However, the rust that has grown into the pores remains.  Simply clay the rear of a white car then spray with IronX and you will understand.  


 


IronX works on the iron and rust but does not work on organic materials like tree sap and Artillery Fungus.  For this reason I don't think IronX can replace clay.  It is an added step for an additional benefit.  If you are going to do an abrasive polish then IronX is probably not necessary as the rust that has penetrated the surface will likely be removed anyway.  There is the possibility that enough rust below the surface can be picked up in the polish and subsequently ground into the paint further but this would be an extreme situation.


 


My choice is to clay first then IronX.  I want the IronX working on what is below the surface, not wasting its time and power on what is above.  Unless there is so much contamination that claying poses a greater risk of damage than can be easily corrected with a medium polish.  Then I will probably IronX, clay (towel), and IronX again.


 


 


It is important to understand the chemistry and physics of what is happening during your process in order to determine the best course of action and achieve optimum results.  
 
Claying first will get that "sheared off iron" into the clay and all around the rest of the paint, greatly increasing the risk of clay marring. If anyone still believes in "the least aggresive method first" then there is no better way then to use clay at the end of the decon cycle, assuming you trust the chemical to be safe for the paint.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top