IFO vs. EFO - A new way of thinking about contamination

C. Charles Hahn

C. Charles Hahn

CCH Auto Appearance, LLC
IFO vs. EFO - A new way of thinking about contamination



I got to thinking the other day while using IronX on a car that perhaps we've been missing the mark in terms of categorizing finish contaminants as they relate to detailing.



As we all know, IFO stands for Industrial Fall-Out, which is a term used to describe many different surface contaminants such as acid rain, rail dust, road tar, brake dust, etc. Many also improperly use this term to describe general water spotting, among other types of contaminants.



I would contend that another category should also be recognized, which is Environmental Fall-Out, or EFO. EFO would include things such as mineral deposits from hard water (such as well water), tree sap, bird droppings, bug splatter, and even pollen and dust.



The reason I would make such a distinction is that IFO describes types of contamination that exist purely because of the man-made industrialized world in which we live. Not all vehicles come into contact with significant amounts of IFO if they are nowhere near the sources of such contamination most of the time. These vehicles instead see a large amount of EFO -- contamination that occurs naturally in the environment without any intervention from humans. Not only are IFO and EFO fundamentally different in terms of their composition and source, but despite some overlap they are also fundamentally different with regards to how they are dealt with.



Man-made Contaminants = Man-made Solutions



In many cases, IFO is dealt with using man-made solvents and strong harsh cleaners. While the detailing industry as a whole is getting better about making these cleaners environmentally friendly, there are still a number of unique challenges presented by the clean-up and disposal of industrial contamination. This in my opinion justifies their classification being held separate from the solutions available for environmentally-sourced contaminants.



Natural Contaminants = Natural Solutions



There are a wide variety of solutions for EFO, including the same types of solvents that are used for IFO removal. However in many cases, these are simply unnecessary and/or overkill. Safe, environmentally friendly solutions such as citrus based cleaners, or even just plain water are often all that are necessary to take care of the natural contaminants that make their way onto a vehicle's finish.



Anyone else have any thoughts about the concept of IFO vs. EFO?
 
Shiny Lil Detlr said:
IFO vs. EFO - A new way of thinking about contamination

... Not only are IFO and EFO fundamentally different in terms of their composition and source, but despite some overlap they are also fundamentally different with regards to how they are dealt with.



Man-made Contaminants = Man-made Solutions



Anyone else have any thoughts about the concept of IFO vs. EFO?
Click to expand...



I've tried to differentiate along those lines a few times too, primarily with regard to LSP choices. Some "waxes" (as opposed to some "sealants") seem to protect quite well...better even... against natural/environmental contamination.



But speaking of overlap, my KSG and FK1000P protect very well against that too :nixweiss



Some natural "fixes", such as citrus-based products, can work very well on some man-made issues too (grease, etc.).
 
Some good thoughts, Accumulator. I agree about looking at LSP choice based on contaminants to be protected against.



As for the fixes, yeah there are definitely some overlaps there too but I feel that it's advantageous to be able to specifically identify the nature of whatever one is dealing with. :)
 
Definitely a great categorization that was some how over looked for all this time!



I think we might out want to throw in UFO as well-- No no, not Unidentified Flying Object-- secret government conspiracy and space aliens! ( I Want to Believe--The Truth IS Out there :chuckle: )--



UFO as in Unidentified Fall Out-- fall out that is present on the car with no explanation and the detailer cannot identify what it is/ where it came from--mystery until a true expert can identify it. I'm sure it can be dealt with differently than IFO or EFO as well. Maybe a man made solution, maybe a natural solution, maybe a combination of both would be needed to correct it :nixweiss



IFO, EFO, and UFO would be a nice way to round out the fallout types we can encounter during our correction sessions.



It's only a half serious suggestion, but I'm certain you might encounter UFO at least once in your detailing experience.
 
Bill D said:
UFO as in Unidentified Fall Out-- fall out that is present on the car with no explanation and the detailer cannot identify what it is/ where it came from--mystery until a true expert can identify it.
Click to expand...



Interesting idea, Bill... I kinda like it!



Sounds like CSI: Detailing Forensics in the making :har:
 
Shiny Lil Detlr said:
Interesting idea, Bill... I kinda like it!



Sounds like CSI: Detailing Forensics in the making :har:
Click to expand...





I so want a part on that TV show! :LOLOL
 
Very fine presentation of this set of concerns.

If I may, allow me to add just a bit of insight regarding the various chemicals.

A company I worked for has a "system", and while I was able to present and obtain approvals for it's use by several vehicle manufacturers, there was always one or two "nagging concerns" in the back of my mind.

The use of the first portion of the system used "keosene" in an emulsion for the first step.

As many who have used this system, a strong petroluem odor is present, and that my friends is the keosene.

I was never comfortable with this going into the water table, however at the ports where it was normally used or in a dealership, most had two or three stage clarifiers to handle this.

The second was the high percentage of sulfuric acid used in the second step, for if not carefully controled in application there were times when a "drastic softening" of the paint film took place.

When I left that company, and had more control and input into what went into products, I spent a lot of lab time and working with the three major paint suppliers to the vehicle manufacturers to improve the performance of a decontamination system and reduce or eliminate any envioromental concerns as well as work place/worker safety.

The result was the ValuGard system, which was then tested by the vehicle manufacturers "work place health/safety departments" which then allowed it to be used in almost all enviorments and for us to private label it for them or their requiring it's use through TSB's or Dealer Service Manuals.

At present there are 9 manufacturers who have issued such requirements to their dealerships.

The old company's recommendations by manufacturers were superceded by the issuing of new TSB's, etc.

Yet they continued to inform potential users that their system was still approved by showing outdated TSB's on their website.

Though I am retired from active working in the industry, I still attempt to keep up with changes, new products, etc.

The first thing I want to see when a new product or system is being touted is "a real MSDS", not some marketing blog.

Suggest all do the same.

Grumpy

 
Thanks for your input, Ron! I appreciate it.



You bring up some very interesting points; one thing I would be really curious to know, given that most dealership detail operations work far below the standards most of us here would be satisfied with, is just how many dealers actually use the ValuGard system on a regular basis or at all? Just because the manufacturer issues a TSB doesn't mean their recommendations are heeded -- for example GM has a line of "vehicle care" products they sell and recommend through their dealerships, but I have never once seen a GM dealer using those products in their prep departments. I'm willing to bet if I asked the service or prep managers at these dealers about the TSB on ValuGard, most would have no clue what I was talking about.



That said, if we are to consider the possibility that many dealers may not be using the recommended systems, what are they using as an alternative? How safe for the technician/vehicle/environment is that alternative?



Just thinking out loud here.
 
Dealership are a animal all to them selves. Each department is considered a "profit center" on to it's own.

Often the one overseeing the cost of new car prep is the New Car Sales Manager, while the Used Car Sales Manager looks after the reconditioning. These posistions rely on a bonus system that can be a huge part of their income. IE, spend less get more dollars in their pockets.

Therefore, damn what ever the manufacturer says, it's more of "buy the cheapest you can get and deal with it, bub!"

It is impossible to provide a number of dealers that actually follow TSB's, however Ford put the private labeled ABC system in each vehicle's shop service manual and the sales to Ford of their Motorcraft branded ABC is very good.

One reason for this is that many of the Ford Field Service Engineers will not pay for corrections that the dealership may do if they can not prove the used the approved system.

GM has never approved the system, yet, two of their body/paint engineers in Warren often recommend or tell a dealer with a concern to use the ValuGard system or go get the Ford Motorcraft parts.

Hyundai, Mazda, Kia, Nissan, Infiniti, Jaguar, Volvo, Mitsubitsi (may be more since I retired three years ago) have their ways of requiring the use of the product, however, in many dealerships it is often overruled and some local backyard chemist product is used since they are usually cheaper and if the dealer screws up the paint and trim, they just put in a warranty claim under some bogus condition to cover the cost.

Chrysler US and Canada field reps follow their technical center lead and often require the dealer to use the ValuGard if a dealer is showing large paint/trim warranty claims.

Some of the TSB's can be found on AI's website so you can print them out and present to the service/recon manager, since many are looking for any excuse to do what they want, don't expect miracles.

The Goodwrench, MoPar, etc products you refer to are actually private labeled brands that they have so as to sell to the vehicle owners when possible, and are way to expensive, once Parts, Service and etc take their passed on markup to the final invoice.

Most vehicle companies allow a 40% markup of parts for warranty work, plus have time studies that allow tested labor times for charging to a warranty claim. (some of the bulletins have the time allowance listed-so always ask the dealer person what their internal warranty labor rate is-if $60 an hour, they still want to make money so one would have to go in at $40 or $50 an hour to possibly get the work)

Most porters/detailers at a dealership have a hard time doing the work in the allowed labor time, due to not taking time to read the instructions, mixing correctly, having the necessary mitts, etc ready, etc, etc.

If the mechanics at a dealership did their work the way most in the back wet work area work, most cars would never run long enough to leave the shop area or be found along the road abandoned.

It is like the way many of these people "clean an interior", --way too much water, too strong of a cleaner and when in doubt, spray the heck out of it with some cheap dressing, and you know what they say, "hey, it's look great now, not my problem a week from now!".

That's about it, some may not like what I have had to say on the matter, but decades in the business, at the higher levels, it is the way it is.

Grumpy





 
Ron Ketchum- Interesting about the sulfuric acid in...uhm... that unnamed decon system. And to think that they've sometimes made big claims about their product being safer than "B" :rolleyes:
 
Yeah, the deceased owner used the small percentage of a highly refined oxalic acid we use to throw darts at the AI second step.

I worked with outside chemists, attempting to refine the second step, and found the high percentage of sulfuric they were using to be the reason for the softening when the paint surface was exposed to sunlight and when a surface was around 100 F or more.

His response was that he was smarter than them, and they were full of "you know".

Once I left and started with AI, worked hard to develope a safe, both for the user and the vehicle, first and second step.

Had the chemists I worked with at PPG and Dupont provide their input and they were in agreement with my findings.

The old company had made a pre-second step product, #1285 to remove ferrous oxides in one step, as he felt it would be a big seller to auctions and their recon departments.

He had me take it to the field to promote it and with in a week or two we were paying for thousands of dollars in damaged trim, paint, etc. That was around 88 or 89.

Once I took the factual findings to the OEM paint suppliers and vehicle manufacturers, new TSB's were issued in all but one case.

If you could look at the original TSB's, you would find the dates are all before I left the company, with one exception, which was later resinded and the AI product became the recommended product.

Just little background on this subject and how careful one must be when using the internet and taking as the final word of another's posistion or advice on things.

Grumpy



 
Ron Ketcham- Thanks for posting that, very interesting. Glad I was sufficiently put off by the negativity and just stuck with "B".



Hmm...wonder about the currently popular "Iron-X" stuff...haven't tried mine yet. There are some cases where I'd like something safe that's still a bit more potent than "B" (and more potent than the "clay while it's dwelling", which does help a bit).
 
I'm an "ABC" only user myself, if the need were to ever arise, but I've noticed the competing system is sold directly to enthusiasts on AG's site. Over time, is there risk and danger still associated with that system? Since it's being sold directly to enthusiasts, many probably never having used a 3 step system like it before, should there be a serious warning to them?
 
I don't know about Iron-X, never seen a MSDS for it. Is it a consumer product or a professional product?

When using B, do you use the "bug pad" that ValuGard sells to apply and work the product? (NOTE-this pad is NOT a stiff, nylon pad, but is "marring free" and looks to the uninformed like a 3M scuff pad) as the B product works as a lubricator for the pad, yet helps pull the particles from their imbedded pits.

It speeds up the process, but it still requires the recommended dwell time to work.

On exceptionally bad cases of iron particles, we would occassionaly use clay to work the B, however the clay is pretty much "toast" after that.

If the clay is used, it is only done when one realizes that a buffing process will be required after the ABC process.

Grumpy
 
Ron Ketcham- I'm not sure which category the Iron-X (link to vendor's description: Iron X Iron Remover, CQuartz IronX, Paint Cleaner, paint decontamination ) really falls into.



No, I never did try the VG bugpad, I was too worried about marring. So the pads are generally more gentle than the claying, huh?



Yeah, the "B" sure does go through the clay fast. I found the "B" + clay to be pretty effective, at least with a long enough dwell-time, but sometimes I still want more.
 
Well, let me say this, you have worked with applying automotive paint, right?

Like so many, learned the hard way that if you rush a technical product or try to out guess the people who developed and produced the product, it usually doesn't work out all that well.

Grumpy
 
Accumulator said:
Ron Ketcham- I'm not sure which category the Iron-X (link to vendor's description: Iron X Iron Remover, CQuartz IronX, Paint Cleaner, paint decontamination ) really falls into.



No, I never did try the VG bugpad, I was too worried about marring. So the pads are generally more gentle than the claying, huh?



Yeah, the "B" sure does go through the clay fast. I found the "B" + clay to be pretty effective, at least with a long enough dwell-time, but sometimes I still want more.
Click to expand...



Here's the manufacturer's information RE: IronX



Iron X



I certainly do wonder about seeing an MSDS... might have to contact them and see if they can provide anything. I have seen no negative effects from it, and it most certainly is an effective product for its purpose.



Before.jpg




Bloodbath_1.jpg




Bloodbath_2.jpg




After2.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top