is dawn dish soap really necessary?

[funyfarm]

stupid question #1)



im fixing to put some polish on my car (tomorrow) and i have read to use dawn dish soap to strip the wax....

i have also read that clay can take off wax as well



my question is: can i just clay the car and not use dawn? or should i do both?



i did a search but it was not totally helpful

[Perfections]

I do both, but it`s not necessary if your going to clay.

[funyfarm]

i just figured that dish soap does not have the same lubricants that regular car wash soap has so maybe it would rub some of the dirt on my car into the clear coat, im not sure though



i am going to spend multiple hours doing this most likely and dont want to do steps that i could possibly avoid..i have done the bag test on my car and it did not feel contaminated, so i went ahead and clayed the hood, roof and trunk and bearly got anything on my clay bar, so i guess all i have left to clay, since i clayed those parts last week, is the front back and sides

[Dan]

Sounds like you are using Zaino. As long as you do a really thorough job flushing the dirt off your car, the Dawn (or any other strong dish soap) won`t be an issue.

[blucpe]

If ur unsure, wash the car first with a car soap of your choice then follow up with dawn.

[Accumulator]

meangreenclean- IMO claying so aggressively as to ensure complete LSP removal is *too* aggressive; clay`s supposed to shear off above-surface contaminants, not abrade away the (relatively) smooth LSP film.



IME Dawn isn`t all *that* effective for stripping LSPs or polishing oils, but I don`t think there`s anything wrong with using it as long as you do a wash with conventional shampoo first (as you suspected, Dawn isn`t the best stuff with regard to lubricity and encapsulation, which are important for avoiding wash-induced marring).



I myself would do a conventional wash with a strong shampoo mix and then strip whatever`s left with something like TOL`s PrepWash.

[togwt]

“Should I use (Dawn) to wash my paint?� - http://www.autopia.org/forum/autopia...-my-paint.html



I hope the information in this article is of some help to you. If you have any further questions please let me know

[David Fermani]

meangreenclean- IMO claying so aggressively as to ensure complete LSP removal is *too* aggressive; clay`s supposed to shear off above-surface contaminants, not abrade away the (relatively) smooth LSP film.



IME Dawn isn`t all *that* effective for stripping LSPs or polishing oils, but I don`t think there`s anything wrong with using it as long as you do a wash with conventional shampoo first (as you suspected, Dawn isn`t the best stuff with regard to lubricity and encapsulation, which are important for avoiding wash-induced marring).



I myself would do a conventional wash with a strong shampoo mix and then strip whatever`s left with something like TOL`s PrepWash.

Accumulator has it pegged. I wouldn`t ever rely on clay to strip wax, just like I wouldn`t rely on Dawn to strip contaminants. You realy don`t need anything stronger than Dawn to strip the surface for adequate sealant/coating adhesion.

[Ron Ketcham]

David, give the "A" of the ABC system a shot for removing all waxes, sealants, etc.

You may be very surprised at how "clean" the surface is, short of the ferrous particles being removed.

To "completely" remove all, use the whole system.

Grumpy

[Accumulator]

David, give the "A" of the ABC system a shot for removing all waxes, sealants, etc...

Yeah, it works great! Ron and I discussed this application a while back, confirming that "A" was safe to use for it. I`d still do the conventional-shampoo wash first though.



One more reason to keep some decontamination stuff (i.e., "A" and "B") around.

[David Fermani]

David, give the "A" of the ABC system a shot for removing all waxes, sealants, etc.

You may be very surprised at how "clean" the surface is, short of the ferrous particles being removed.

To "completely" remove all, use the whole system.

Grumpy

I have/do, and it`s my favorite system for paint decon IMHO.

[Ron Ketcham]

The ValuGard ABC System has been in use since the early 90`s.

It has been the "go to" for many of the vehicle manufacturers of the world, been used on well over a million vehicles and is the "one" in their "current" Technical Service Bulletins.

It has been the one they chose to replace the Finish Kare 1119/883 decon system due to it being safer for the vehicles and the users.

It is private labeled and sold by Ford under their MotorCraft brand and by Chrysler Canada as well

There is NO reason to do a normal washing of a vehicle before using the system.

The vehicle manufacturers conducted in depth safety and "time studies" for labor of using it before approvals, plus it was submitted to their paint material suppliers as well, before issuing their approvals.

A training video of the ABC system is available to watch on ValuGard.net.

Ford now has it in all vehicle service manuals for their model`s of vehicles, vs just a TSB.

It is safe, it is effective, it is proven, so why worry, why use some "we say it is etc" by some brand of chemical companies systems that have no such testing and approvals.

That is my question when I see such others being promoted.`

Those are not tested or approved or required by vehicle manufacturers so why use them?

If one wants "safe", then why use one`s that are "said to be" by those other chemical companies?

Doesn`t make sense to me.

Grumpy

[Accumulator]

...There is NO reason to do a normal washing of a vehicle before using the system...

I`ll (good naturedly, of course ) give you a little :argue on that point. Noting that I consider 99% of carwash shampoos inadequate in this regard also, *IMO* the "A" lacks sufficient lubricity to ensure the likelihood of a marring-free wash. If the vehicle is dirty enough that wash-induced marring is a valid concern, I`d still use a conventional shampoo first.



BUT, OTOH, if the vehicle is already clean and you`re just using the "A" to remove LSP/polishing oils/etc., then I agree, just go right to the "A". (Hmmm...maybe we weren`t in such disagreement after all.)

[Ron Ketcham]

First, we are not discussing the "waterless wash" methods, but a true cleaning of the entire vehicle, getting the grunge out from the edges of trim, neutralizing acids in the paint film, etc.

As the directions state, in writting and in the training video, wet the vehicle first.

That means getting the car "wet" and since "water" is the universal solvent (which all wash chemicals only work to make "wetter") the A will not mar or scratch, if directions are followed, as the hard dirt is already softened and ready to be released from the vehicles surface.

Choice of "mitt", etc is up to those who have their "worries", however, the system is the first step before any buffing/cutting/polishing take place.

Once the entire system is used, the surface is clean, right down into the very pores of the paint film, and ready to be burnished, etc.

That appears what most fail to consider.

Grumpy

[David Fermani]

The ValuGard ABC System has been in use since the early 90`s.

It has been the "go to" for many of the vehicle manufacturers of the world, been used on well over a million vehicles and is the "one" in their "current" Technical Service Bulletins.

It has been the one they chose to replace the Finish Kare 1119/883 decon system due to it being safer for the vehicles and the users.

It is private labeled and sold by Ford under their MotorCraft brand and by Chrysler Canada as well

There is NO reason to do a normal washing of a vehicle before using the system.

The vehicle manufacturers conducted in depth safety and "time studies" for labor of using it before approvals, plus it was submitted to their paint material suppliers as well, before issuing their approvals.

A training video of the ABC system is available to watch on ValuGard.net.

Ford now has it in all vehicle service manuals for their model`s of vehicles, vs just a TSB.

It is safe, it is effective, it is proven, so why worry, why use some "we say it is etc" by some brand of chemical companies systems that have no such testing and approvals.

That is my question when I see such others being promoted.`

Those are not tested or approved or required by vehicle manufacturers so why use them?

If one wants "safe", then why use one`s that are "said to be" by those other chemical companies?

Doesn`t make sense to me.

Grumpy

Used the ABC system on all the paint warranty jobs I got from dealers not just because it worked great, but because it was required by the dealer per their TSB to correct the problem which it never left me down.