Damp Mirco Fiber vs QD

[Darren F]

Am I looking for trouble using a damp micro fiber as opposed ot a QD to give my black car a quick wipe down after removing the dust with a California Duster?

[White95Max]

If you have already removed the dust with a Cali Duster, you might be able to get away with using a damp MF. I would still use a QD, especially on a black car, because it`s designed with more lubricity than water.

[brwill2005]

I would think you would be more likely to scratch with the duster than the damp MF. MF are designed to trap dirt and keep it trapped until it is washed out. MF seem like they can hold a lot of dirt and grime. I really never liked the idea of wiping down a dirty/dusty car with anything.

[Accumulator]

Seems like some people can do all these things (CCD, QD, etc.) without marring and other people (myself included) can`t do *any* of those things without marring :nixweiss



The idea is (supposedly) that the CCD gets the big, not-stuck-on, particles off. The subsequent MFing (that acronym might come up if you try it and mar your paint ;) ) then loosens and removes the stuff that the CCD didn`t get.



The QD will a) provide a greater solvent-action than water and b) also provide the greater lubricity that White95Max mentioned.



Note that the whole CCD/MF-wipedown thing depends on the dirt somehow migrating up into the strands of the CCD/fibers of the MF, away from the paint. If the dirt does *not* migrate, but rather stays on the ends of the nap and gets dragged against the paint, you`re almost certainly gonna get marring. Try this stuff at your own risk and hope that you`re one of the people for whom it works.

[imported_paradigm]

another thing to watch out for would be water streaking/spotting if the water dries and isn`t pure. i would highly recommend getting some ONR and mixing that up for a QD...ridiculously cheap compared to $5-$7 bottles of QD and works great.