# Autoexpress Snow Foam Review



## Bristle Hound (May 31, 2009)

Autoexpress have just done a review on snow foams. See

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/products/products/238075/pressure_washer_shampoos_tested.html

:detailer:


----------



## MidlandsCarCare (Feb 18, 2006)

Here's the winner:

http://www.theultimatefinish.co.uk/Store/Product/ProductDetails.aspx?ProductId=411


----------



## -Kev- (Oct 30, 2007)

valet pro foam would've done well if they tried it imo..


----------



## mattyb95 (Apr 21, 2008)

Aren't they just testing it in the detergent compartment rather than through a proper foam lance?


----------



## dannyd2134 (Jan 2, 2009)

mattyb95 said:


> Aren't they just testing it in the detergent compartment rather than through a proper foam lance?


Yes, no foam lance, just the compartment.

So it's not a real snow foam test, i'm sorry but i wouldn't put a wash and wax through my foam lance.


----------



## chrisc (Jun 15, 2008)

dannyd2134 said:


> Yes, no foam lance, just the compartment.
> 
> So it's not a real snow foam test, i'm sorry but i wouldn't put a wash and wax through my foam lance.


why wouldnt you put a wash and wax through out of intrest


----------



## dannyd2134 (Jan 2, 2009)

chrisc said:


> why wouldnt you put a wash and wax through out of intrest


Well not many people rinse warm water through their foam lances after using them and over a period of time the chemicals clog up the lance making it foamless per say LOL.

Using a wash and wax product without rinsing through, in my eyes will clog up the lance alot faster as the wax dries inside the lance. Which in turn may damage the internals of the lance putting pressure through it.


----------



## Avanti (Jan 17, 2006)

Always good to see an independant review, I suspect they did use a foam lance of some sort.


----------



## Ste T (Jul 17, 2008)

its not a snow foam test its a "Pressure Washer Shampoos Test"


so they have used the detergent tank, all other than the 1 SF product are wash and wax products,


----------



## Avanti (Jan 17, 2006)

20RSport said:


> its not a snow foam test its a "Pressure Washer Shampoos Test"
> 
> so they have used the detergent tank, all other than the 1 SF product are wash and wax products,


A lot of the products there I have or have had, the halfords PW shampoo "it produces a bubbly foam that clings well to the dirt." Some of those products are not going to do any foam unless fired via a foam bottle.
I agree with most of their findings , but you do have a point about the detergent tank as I don't feel that many power washer owners would splash out the extra expense of a foam lance.

The instructions on most of the products leave much to be desired, and the technique on the AG solution is the one I adopt and use with all of the products :thumb:


----------



## Ste T (Jul 17, 2008)

The art of snowfoam is its chemistry that is designed to foam and attack dirt.

Its designed to be put onto the paintwork which then agitates by movement down the panel and the fact it eats into the foreign matter on the panel in a soaking action. Once it has attacked the dirt or foreign matter it is then sprayed off, the snowfoam has now done its job.

The next stage is to then wash the panel with a quality shampoo which has a good lubricity, forget bubbles its the silkiness of the shampoo that matters which is why good quality shampoos hardly foams at all. Less friction = less swirls.

To apply a second layer of snowfoam and use with a wash mitt in my eyes is incorrect simply because its not the same product as shampoo it doesnt hold any lubricity properties in any form and if you add shampoo to foam it foams less.

Personally my opinion is that, to snowfoam more than once doesnt benefit the paint work if anything i believe its an extra process that can add swirls as any contact before shampooing can do this, hence snowfoaming in the first place for less contact.


----------



## Avanti (Jan 17, 2006)

20RSport said:


> Its designed to be put onto the paintwork which then agitates by movement down the panel and the fact it eats into the foreign matter on the panel in a soaking action. Once it has attacked the dirt or foreign matter it is then sprayed off, the snowfoam has now done its job.
> 
> The next stage is to then wash the panel with a quality shampoo which has a good lubricity, forget bubbles its the silkiness of the shampoo that matters which is why good quality shampoos hardly foams at all. Less friction = less swirls.
> 
> ...


 Seems to be going off on a tangent there are you saying that folk don't complete a contactless wash ?


----------



## Ste T (Jul 17, 2008)

no just saying using wash and wax shampoo's are not the same thing as snow foam, two different products for 2 different jobs..


----------



## Avanti (Jan 17, 2006)

20RSport said:


> no just saying using wash and wax shampoo's are not the same thing as snow foam, two different products for 2 different jobs..


Couldn't fully agree, in the case of the comma w&w, it does foam and clean well, with any of the products, once a heavy duty clean has been performed, then they should all do pretty well for a weekly wash and in many cases contactless too.


----------



## Ste T (Jul 17, 2008)

Avanti said:


> Couldn't fully agree, in the case of the comma w&w, it does foam and clean well, with any of the products, once a heavy duty clean has been performed, then they should all do pretty well for a weekly wash and in many cases contactless too.


no, i do agree with you, just the title of this thread and the autotrader article are two different things, it wasnt a snow foam test....

i used W&W type products in my lance and its does work well for the weekly wash, so i agree with you.

i just wanted to clear up the difference of the products and best use...i think is what im getting at.:thumb:..


----------



## Avanti (Jan 17, 2006)

20RSport said:


> no, i do agree with you, just the title of this thread and the autotrader article are two different things, it wasnt a snow foam test....
> 
> i used W&W type products in my lance and its does work well for the weekly wash, so i agree with you.
> 
> i just wanted to clear up the difference of the products and best use...i think is what im getting at.:thumb:..


I see , I understand now, I was dissapointed that the Swarfega vehicle wash was not included and that the AG did not 'win' I have not used the winning product but it adds variety from reading the same answers to what snow foam? what leather cleaner, what wax type questions :thumb:


----------



## Ste T (Jul 17, 2008)

Avanti said:


> I see , I understand now, I was dissapointed that the Swarfega vehicle wash was not included and that the AG did not 'win' I have not used the winning product but it adds variety from reading the same answers to what snow foam? what leather cleaner, what wax type questions :thumb:


Yes, if someone is looking for a snow foam product, i think articles, like this are misleading,

Example,

New to detailing person reads and article in the studio on here, thinks huuummm snow foam i wont that, then see's the auto trader review, and buys the top reviewed item, receives it and uses it and does not get he same results, the person may feel let down by the product, when infact its not a true reflection of the product. they need to be more clear when writing there reviews. 
:thumb:


----------



## Guest (Jul 20, 2009)

Has anyone on here actually tried the ultimate snow foam and compared it with the bilt-hamber?

The winner looks to me like a generic snowfoam made by a certain well known company. *No evidence for this though.*


----------



## PJS (Aug 18, 2007)

I don't know why everyone's using the words winners and losers - the methodology of using the products from both companies is completely wrong!
Suffice it to say, the magazine's editor and the tester have both been contacted and spoken with regarding this, and well........my lips are sealed! 









.......they will be discussing the possibility of doing a feature relating to proper usage of snow foam through a foam lance. So hopefully we as a community can have some bearing on their testing procedures, but don't expect to see TW or the like languishing at the bottom each time - they advertise quite heavily!!


----------



## Guest (Jul 20, 2009)

I'd be suprised if they did a followup to be honest, it would be as good as admitting that the original test was was flawed (if indeed it was)


----------



## PJS (Aug 18, 2007)

What do you mean if?
Of course it was flawed since neither BH AF and UF SF are designed to operate at anything but high pressure.
On board detergent tanks only operate at low pressure setting on the rinse lance, and gobble up solution faster than a typical binge drinker on a Friday night!
Then there's the situation that on the AF label, it says 1:100 - which means they might have been using it more dilute than the others, yet it still managed 4th.

Flawed is being too generous - completely ar5e about face is more like it, and hopefully my chat and subsequent e-mail will resolve the situation.


----------



## Guest (Jul 20, 2009)

From what I read, I cannot determine whether they used a snowfoam lance or not, I will not jump the gun and say it was "flawed" when I don't know the full facts and figures. :thumb:

I should add, autoexpress should have said what dilution ratio's they were using though, and what equipment, would have saved a lot of doubt!


----------



## PJS (Aug 18, 2007)

There's no gun jumping to be done, as said I've already spoken to them, and pointed out the error in their testing.
I've yet to ascertain the concentration used, but BH have been in touch also as they used the wrong price too.

As also relayed, they will be discussing doing a feature piece, which as you intimate removes the "we got it wrong" admission.


----------



## farcrygamer (Sep 6, 2007)

Avanti said:


> I see , I understand now, I was dissapointed that the Swarfega vehicle wash was not included and that the AG did not 'win' I have not used the winning product but it adds variety from reading the same answers to what snow foam? what leather cleaner, what wax type questions :thumb:


What ratio do you mix the swarfega vehicle wash in a foam lance? Does it make any good foam? Is it wax friendly?
CHeers


----------



## dgman (Feb 2, 2009)

it's no surprise to me that the auto express test would be seen as flawed as the manufactures instructions are so vague.example,if you visit bilt hamber it says user guide coming soon and i reckon it's been saying the same thing for a year now.pjs,are you on a good retainer now.


----------



## Avanti (Jan 17, 2006)

farcrygamer said:


> What ratio do you mix the swarfega vehicle wash in a foam lance? Does it make any good foam? Is it wax friendly?
> CHeers


My foam bottle only holds 350ml, depending on the soiling I use between 150-300ml product often 200ml , foam doesn't live long on my car  and indeed it is wax friendly.

http://www.detailingworld.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=48390&highlight=swarfega


----------



## PJS (Aug 18, 2007)

dgman said:


> it's no surprise to me that the auto express test would be seen as flawed as the manufactures instructions are so vague.
> example,if you visit bilt hamber it says user guide coming soon and i reckon it's been saying the same thing for a year now.
> pjs,are you on a good retainer now.


Fair point about the online guide, but there is a presumption that buyers of snow foam, will be aware as to what the requirements are to using it as intended.
Where AE went wrong, (assuming it was a genuine mistake, and not UF and BH's products they had handy, and used to flesh out the numbers) was in not understanding there are requirements beyond a detergent tank in your machine.

Whilst it's fair to say BH, and probably UF, need to make a clearer understanding of what their product is and how it's designed to be used through their site or labelling, it's also fair to presume that 99% of users of either product are already au fait with the requirement of a foam lance, which given the prices, will put off the bulk of AE readers from spending their money on the wrong product for the job they're looking to do with it.

As for your retainer question:
a) I resent it, and am insulted by it
b) Who's supposed to be retaining my services? AE or BH? Or both?


----------



## bilt-hamber kid (Dec 4, 2007)

I am happy to confirm that we do not pay PJ a retainer. We do send him samples of various products in development because we value his ability to not only test the products, but also, to communicate his subsequent thoughts on the products. 

We pay no retainers at all, to anyone.


----------



## SuperchargedLlama (Apr 25, 2008)

bilt-hamber kid said:


> I am happy to confirm that we do not pay PJ a retainer. We do send him samples of various products in development because we value his ability to not only test the products, but also, to communicate his subsequent thoughts on the products.
> 
> We pay no retainers at all, to anyone.


Apart from me of course, but that's for something completely different.


----------



## chrisc (Jun 15, 2008)

bilt-hamber kid said:


> I am happy to confirm that we do not pay PJ a retainer. We do send him samples of various products in development because we value his ability to not only test the products, but also, to communicate his subsequent thoughts on the products.
> 
> We pay no retainers at all, to anyone.


you can send me owt you want nudge nudge wink wink


----------



## VIPER (May 30, 2007)

^^ prefered the wee doggie, mate :wave:


----------

