Iron X Questions

[Reddwarf]

I`m noting a lot of threads mention the Iron X product. I`ve read the product description.

Does it really work or is it a new fad?

Does it replace using a clay bar? Or at least reduce the need?

How much product does it take? $20 is not a huge investment, unless it takes a bottle per car!

Thanks!

[Rsurfer]

I`m noting a lot of threads mention the Iron X product. I`ve read the product description.

Does it really work or is it a new fad?

Does it replace using a clay bar? Or at least reduce the need?

How much product does it take? $20 is not a huge investment, unless it takes a bottle per car!

Thanks!

Yes it works and it`s not a new fad. No it does not replace claying. You need to do some DD.

[Reality33]

I`m noting a lot of threads mention the Iron X product. I`ve read the product description.

Does it really work or is it a new fad?

Does it replace using a clay bar? Or at least reduce the need?

How much product does it take? $20 is not a huge investment, unless it takes a bottle per car!

Thanks!

In answer to your questions:

1) Yes it really does work. I find it now as a necessity on any vehicle that it new that came over on a boat or for any car that is several years old. It is a fantastic product.

2) It does not replace the clay, but it makes claying much easier. I find that when I use it before claying, it gets the majority of the contaminants out of the paint and the clay is used to just do a final clean up. Gone are the days of claying for several hours.

It also functions differently then clay. where clay just removes surface contaminants, Iron X goes below the surface into the pores of the paint and pulls out deeper particulates leaving a much cleaner paint.

3) I find (depending on size of the vehicle) that the avg is about two per bottle.

If a lot is used, it gets cheaper to buy it in bulk (5l container)

[PiPUK]

It also functions differently then clay. where clay just removes surface contaminants, Iron X goes below the surface into the pores of the paint and pulls out deeper particulates leaving a much cleaner paint.

This is a point of contention. I personally am uncomfortable with the thought that a product I apply so liberally would swell my paint in the manner we have been led to believe. If you think about it, we are rather cautious with things like solvents because we know they can swell paint and we intentionally try to avoid chemicals which do so. From a chemical perspective, I make several products which compete with Iron-X in the UK but there is nothing at all to indicate that any paint swelling occurs. There is nothing to indicate that the products penetrate into pores and nothing to indicate any sub-surface activity. Now I will admit that I avoid the more toxic ammonium compound which is used in IX but fundamentally the chemistry is the same irrelevant of the counter-ion present. The functionality is a result of a reaction between a complexing agent and iron if a specific oxidation state. The Iron-X (or whatever alternative) basically pulls the iron out of the fallout and the combined iron/complex happens to be purple. This reaction simply happens, it is no more mysterious than throwing an apple into the air and discovering it comes back down a few seconds later. I suspect that the opening of pores is something which has been introduced via marketing or non-scientific chatter because it appears to explain what occurs. As I said already, inspite of making similar products, we have zero evidence of it happening yet the products achieve the same cleanliness as Iron-X. Moreover, we did extensive research on the matter when initially formulating the products and there is nothing in scientific literature to support it and the chemical synthesis people (who are the ones who make the raw materials) were confident that there was no plausible chemistry with this chemical mechanism which would result in `pore opening`.

[ihaveacamaro]

This is a point of contention. I personally am uncomfortable with the thought that a product I apply so liberally would swell my paint in the manner we have been led to believe. If you think about it, we are rather cautious with things like solvents because we know they can swell paint and we intentionally try to avoid chemicals which do so. From a chemical perspective, I make several products which compete with Iron-X in the UK but there is nothing at all to indicate that any paint swelling occurs. There is nothing to indicate that the products penetrate into pores and nothing to indicate any sub-surface activity. Now I will admit that I avoid the more toxic ammonium compound which is used in IX but fundamentally the chemistry is the same irrelevant of the counter-ion present. The functionality is a result of a reaction between a complexing agent and iron if a specific oxidation state. The Iron-X (or whatever alternative) basically pulls the iron out of the fallout and the combined iron/complex happens to be purple. This reaction simply happens, it is no more mysterious than throwing an apple into the air and discovering it comes back down a few seconds later. I suspect that the opening of pores is something which has been introduced via marketing or non-scientific chatter because it appears to explain what occurs. As I said already, inspite of making similar products, we have zero evidence of it happening yet the products achieve the same cleanliness as Iron-X. Moreover, we did extensive research on the matter when initially formulating the products and there is nothing in scientific literature to support it and the chemical synthesis people (who are the ones who make the raw materials) were confident that there was no plausible chemistry with this chemical mechanism which would result in `pore opening`.

Great post!

[Reddwarf]

Interesting responses. Thanks all. I will likely give it a try some day. However, I find it hard to believe the description that it opens the pores of the paint.

The comment I like best is by Reality 33 " Gone are the days of claying for several hours". That sounds good to me!

[Gurge]

yes it works.



it does not replace clay but makes claying easier (especially if someone has gone way too long without changing their brakes - the pad indicator shim can shower the car as its grinded away - see above)

I get 4-5 cars from a 500ml bottle. Don`t keep the bottle stationary, move the bottle left to right as you spray to cover more ground.

also, take a damp MF applicator and spread the product all around. gets full coverage this way and the little bit of agitation helps to remove the bits of iron (checking your applicator later for purple spots is a good way to see if its doing anything on dark paint)

on light colored paints I find iron x makes a noticeable visual difference as it dissolves rust blooms that you can see beforehand when you look closely. on dark colored cars not really any difference visually but it makes claying easier as noted above

and it smells terrible. I think everyone can agree on that.

[Todd@RUPES]

It will not replace claying because it removes only iron oxidize particulate. While iron oxidizes are likely the most prevalent forum of bonded contamination, they are not the only ones.

If find that Iron-X makes claying easier and likely cleans iron fallout that has penetrated below the surface.

[Todd@RUPES]

This is a point of contention. I personally am uncomfortable with the thought that a product I apply so liberally would swell my paint in the manner we have been led to believe. If you think about it, we are rather cautious with things like solvents because we know they can swell paint and we intentionally try to avoid chemicals which do so. From a chemical perspective, I make several products which compete with Iron-X in the UK but there is nothing at all to indicate that any paint swelling occurs. There is nothing to indicate that the products penetrate into pores and nothing to indicate any sub-surface activity. Now I will admit that I avoid the more toxic ammonium compound which is used in IX but fundamentally the chemistry is the same irrelevant of the counter-ion present. The functionality is a result of a reaction between a complexing agent and iron if a specific oxidation state. The Iron-X (or whatever alternative) basically pulls the iron out of the fallout and the combined iron/complex happens to be purple. This reaction simply happens, it is no more mysterious than throwing an apple into the air and discovering it comes back down a few seconds later. I suspect that the opening of pores is something which has been introduced via marketing or non-scientific chatter because it appears to explain what occurs. As I said already, inspite of making similar products, we have zero evidence of it happening yet the products achieve the same cleanliness as Iron-X. Moreover, we did extensive research on the matter when initially formulating the products and there is nothing in scientific literature to support it and the chemical synthesis people (who are the ones who make the raw materials) were confident that there was no plausible chemistry with this chemical mechanism which would result in `pore opening`.

Great post! If I may

This is a point of contention. I personally am uncomfortable with the thought that a product I apply so liberally would swell my paint in the manner we have been led to believe

Keep in mind that any product that contains even small amounts of petroleum distilates can (will) swell paint. This includes paint polishes, waxes and sealants (among other products).

Swell in the sense that it can cause the outer surface to expand.

This may sound frightening, but its not... Increases in temperature have the same effect. Your paint is never static and its density is always in a state of flux. Pull it out into the direct sunlight and it expands. Increase the temperature due to the friction of machine polishing and it expands.

Swelling/Expansion should not be confused with damaging the paint. Some expansion is perfectly normal otherwise your paint would crack when the body panel underneath expands/shrinks due to temperature changes.

If you think about it, we are rather cautious with things like solvents because we know they can swell paint and we intentionally try to avoid chemicals which do so. From a chemical perspective, I make several products which compete with Iron-X in the UK but there is nothing at all to indicate that any paint swelling occurs. There is nothing to indicate that the products penetrate into pores and nothing to indicate any sub-surface activity

One of the benefits of Iron X is that it will, at some level dissolve the iron oxide it is exposed to, whether the particle is above the paint`s surface or even with it. This is easy to observe. Take a vehicle that has heavy iron fall out and clay it until every square inch is completely smooth. Then spray Iron X and watch it work, bleeding iron particulate out of areas that were level with the paint.

I suspect that the opening of pores is something which has been introduced via marketing or non-scientific chatter because it appears to explain what occurs.

Agreed, it is a simple way to understand (what to most of us, myself included) a complex process. No different then a Porter Cable having a "clutch" or detailing clay "pulling" contamination from the paint.

Thank you for sharing your expertise!

[Merlin]

Does it really work or is it a new fad?

Does it replace using a clay bar? Or at least reduce the need?

How much product does it take? $20 is not a huge investment, unless it takes a bottle per car!

Thanks!

Small bottle 2-4 cars. It works for me...it says cherry scent...I think it smells like rotten eggs.

IMHO It removes lots of contaminants & makes claying (Speedy Towel) much faster and easier.

At first I purchased the small bottle (to test). It worked so well I now purchase the big bottle.
Note: The small bottle has a sprayer. The big bottle does not. I use the big bottle as my refill.

Get a small bottle & give it a try. You`ll like it. It`s fun to watch on a white or light colored car.
It has now become part of my regular routine. Be sure & rinse all the purple off your driveway.

[psynx]

In answer to your questions:

1) Yes it really does work. I find it now as a necessity on any vehicle that it new that came over on a boat or for any car that is several years old. It is a fantastic product.

2) It does not replace the clay, but it makes claying much easier. I find that when I use it before claying, it gets the majority of the contaminants out of the paint and the clay is used to just do a final clean up. Gone are the days of claying for several hours.

It also functions differently then clay. where clay just removes surface contaminants, Iron X goes below the surface into the pores of the paint and pulls out deeper particulates leaving a much cleaner paint.

3) I find (depending on size of the vehicle) that the avg is about two per bottle.

If a lot is used, it gets cheaper to buy it in bulk (5l container)

[Custom Care]

How does stuff like IronX snow foam play into this whole equation?

[01GreyStangGT]

How does stuff like IronX snow foam play into this whole equation?

I want know how to use that without a foam gun. Can someone help?

[PiPUK]

Great post! If I may



Keep in mind that any product that contains even small amounts of petroleum distilates can (will) swell paint. This includes paint polishes, waxes and sealants (among other products).

Swell in the sense that it can cause the outer surface to expand.

This may sound frightening, but its not... Increases in temperature have the same effect. Your paint is never static and its density is always in a state of flux. Pull it out into the direct sunlight and it expands. Increase the temperature due to the friction of machine polishing and it expands.

Swelling/Expansion should not be confused with damaging the paint. Some expansion is perfectly normal otherwise your paint would crack when the body panel underneath expands/shrinks due to temperature changes.




One of the benefits of Iron X is that it will, at some level dissolve the iron oxide it is exposed to, whether the particle is above the paint`s surface or even with it. This is easy to observe. Take a vehicle that has heavy iron fall out and clay it until every square inch is completely smooth. Then spray Iron X and watch it work, bleeding iron particulate out of areas that were level with the paint.




Agreed, it is a simple way to understand (what to most of us, myself included) a complex process. No different then a Porter Cable having a "clutch" or detailing clay "pulling" contamination from the paint.

Thank you for sharing your expertise!

Thanks for the add on Todd. I do realise that many products do contain solvents which will genuinely lead to a level of swelling, something which is not a genuine concern. In the case of IX, according to the `swelling` mechanism this swelling would be implied to be much more significant. For example, in the UK, tar removers are a routine part of a detail. These products are typically a 100% active blend of mineral spirits/white spirits/kerosene/xylene/toluene - solvents which product rather significant amounts of paint swell. They are also products which have zero effectiveness against iron. Thus one must assume that if swelling can `release iron`, the swelling produced by these types of products is simple insufficient. By extension, if the IX mechanism was indeed through paint swelling, IX must swell the paint very notably more than these aggressive solvents. It is with this that my expression of concern was targeted (as you probably appreciate, I was trying to minimise the length of response so omitted this originally!).

All the best

[Reality33]

Thanks for the add on Todd. I do realise that many products do contain solvents which will genuinely lead to a level of swelling, something which is not a genuine concern. In the case of IX, according to the `swelling` mechanism this swelling would be implied to be much more significant. For example, in the UK, tar removers are a routine part of a detail. These products are typically a 100% active blend of mineral spirits/white spirits/kerosene/xylene/toluene - solvents which product rather significant amounts of paint swell. They are also products which have zero effectiveness against iron. Thus one must assume that if swelling can `release iron`, the swelling produced by these types of products is simple insufficient. By extension, if the IX mechanism was indeed through paint swelling, IX must swell the paint very notably more than these aggressive solvents. It is with this that my expression of concern was targeted (as you probably appreciate, I was trying to minimise the length of response so omitted this originally!).

All the best

If I understand how Iron X works correctly, it technically does not release the Iron by swelling the paint. The whole "pore" explanation I used was so that it can be easily understood by all, and I use it to explain to my clients that way to help them know what I am doing.

Scientifically speaking, Iron particulates, over time, will slowly etch the paint. This is on a very small level and completely naked to the human eye unlike an etching made by letting bird droppings or bugs sit on the paint for a long time.

Here is a pic to demonstrate.



Claying will only remove the top level of this contamination, but still allow the iron that has etched its way down to still slowly continue and cause problems later on in the cars life.

When Iron X is used, it finds its way into the etchings and removes the iron particulates that have worked their way below the surface. By doing this, you are removing deep embedded particles that could slowly corrode the surface over an extended time.

That is why Iron X, along with a clay treatment is a full two step process to completely removing such harmful particles. In my opinion, this is required to achieve the proper treatment of paint surfaces for the care and longevity of our beloved cars.

While it does swell the paint to some extent, like Todd explained, it is not on the levels as some pre treatments like Autosmart Tardis. Since Iron X does not use only swelling to function properly, that is the reason why you do not see a solvent (such as Tardis) removing Iron particles.

So yes, while some swelling does occur, it is the reaction of the Iron X to the Iron particles, which then liquifies the sintered iron embedded in the paint and then allows it to be removed by a strong stream of water. This is how Iron X properly works.

It is just so much easier to describe it with the "pores" explanation.

Where Iron X snow foam comes in, is that it is an multi product to help speed up the washing / decontamination stage.

The foam allows you to dilute it or use it straight in a foam lance. You can use it undiluted as a very thick pre-wash and iron remover (slightly less powerful then the spray) or you can dilute it a bit for cars that do not need such a strong iron remover. (for example brand new cars)

Since it is a foam, this knocks out a few steps for you during the wash phase (pre cleaning, and iron removal in one step instead of two or three) and allows you to move on to correcting the paint a bit quicker.