Waterless/Rinsless vs. Non-Foaming Shampoo

E

EXPDetailing

New member
A great thing happened to me yesterday; I finally used a year-old sample of Pinnacle Body-Work Shampoo to wash my van. Quickly, I noticed it didn`t foam. I thought maybe the product went bad. I used it anyway, 2 ounces to 2 gallons. It cleaned gently, felt slick, and best of all, it rinsed very quickly.
So, I began to wonder, what`s the difference between a non-foaming shampoo and a waterless/Rinsless wash besides the fact the shampoo needs rinsed. And truthfully, if the vehicle is clean enough, the shampoo could get away without rinsing.
What are your thoughts on this subject and non-foaming shampoos.
 
I get leery about non foaming shampoos and wonder about lubricity. I prefer to see lots of suds. Just more comforting I guess. On the plus side it would be easier to rinse.
 
Although my wash regimen is based on the Foamgun, I have little use for foam or suds. I *am* all about lubricity though :D Foam/suds and lubricity/marring-free washing are simply *not* correlated IME. Could just be a matter of how I wash, but the various supposed effects of "the suds contributing to a successful wash" just never proved themselves to me, just seemed like a lot of air(bubbles), contributing nothing of functional value.

I used *many* gallons of the Pinnacle Bodywork Shampoo over the years (on my good cars). Good stuff *BUT* it was surprisingly harsh on my LSPs, which (combined with the cost) finally got me looking for an alternative. (Used it so much that it`ll *always* seem odd to wash the Jag with something else!)

I wouldn`t use it as a rinseless as IME it *does* leave residue behind if allowed to dry. Eh, I`d just use [your favorite rinseless]...don`t really see the point of using a conventional shampoo without rinsing but maybe I`m missing something.
 
114 will foam for me. It doesnt foam like a regular soap does but it certainly will foam if you spray a hard stream into the bucket.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top