# Iron Removers : Iron X vs Iron Max vs Fall Off v2 Testing stage 2(bodywork)



## CraigQQ (Jan 20, 2011)

Firstly, I'd like to say Thanks to Matt at Britemax/I4Detailing, Tom at Wax Tec and Andy at CarPro UK for agreeing to the test and all showed confidence in their product against it's competitors. A good sign!

It was time to test these two new fall out removers against the market leader, Iron X.. maybe theres a new leader in town.

I'll add that I have previously tested fall out removers by Autobrite, Auto Finesse, Valet Pro, Wolfs Chemicals, Autosmart, Autoglym, Sonax, Mark V and Bilt Hamber against Iron X.
Some of these fell far short in performance, some even more expensive than Iron X for less performance.
Bilt Hamber's offerings came close to matching IronX and fell just short on iron removing ability but with more pleasant smells.
Sonax, Their dedicated fall out remover I didn't like but the full effect wheel cleaner was good.

So, on with the test.

The challengers

























Upon spraying on, I sprayed one in each hand while my helper sprayed the third to be as close as possible to reaction times being accurate.
Wax Tec Fall off v2 accelerated into first place on the reaction time, turning purple very very shortly after contact, 









With Iron X close behind less of a instant reaction more of a run off bleed to start with.









and Britemax being a somewhat distant 3rd, in my opinion held back by it's foaming cleaners holding the iron remover further from the surface (a similar principle in thick vs thin snow foam)









After 2 minutes, the bootlid was looking like this
Wax Tec









Britemax just starting to react really









CarPro on the catch up, 









The consistency difference in CarPro Vs Wax Tec being evident in the clinging effect of the wax tec vs the run off effect of iron x, both have plus points and minus
mostly the clinging effect means it stays exactly where you spray it for the most part, where as the thinner formula runs behind seals and gaps more effectively.
I've never found Iron X to have a problem in being too thin to adhere to the surface for maximum iron reaction, but if you've had this problem or generally prefer a thick clinging iron remover then wax tec offers this.

Now the bootlid was the main test, for side by side but ofcourse the whole car required decontaminating but this was done on a panel by panel type not side by side so the contamination varies per panel and these photos are just for show.
Wax Tec

























Car Pro

































After a lengthy dwell, the britemax showing it can indeed remove iron









Now while all those were going on, the test bed/bootlid got another 5 minutes to dwell, so around 7 minutes total now.
As you can see, once the foam leaves the Britemax product it does indeed remove iron contamination and all 3 have a similar look now









After another minute or so, it was wiped, rinsed and then each product was reapplied. Me and my assistant (the charming Gally) were too distracted by the latest customers car turning up to take more photos hah.
So there isn't any photos of the second application.
This is what distracted us 









So, On reapplication and re dwell it produced pretty much the same results as first application.
it was a badly contaminated car, so a third application of just Iron X this time as it's what both Gally and myself considered the standard.
This time, there was small amounts of reaction on the panel, 2 dots on the iron x test section, 4 dots on the wax tec test section and around 10 dots on the centre/britemax test section.
Now this may be a case of coincidence, but with this, and the other deciding factors in use.
Both Gally and Myself picked Iron X as still the leading fallout remover on the market, with Wax Tec a surprising new challenger which came a close second with a very good performance.
Britemax unfortunately came in third, mostly due to the reaction time being very slow on paintwork.

This is a flip of what you will find in the testing stage 1(wheels) here where britemax came in first with a very close second to Wax tec and iron x slightly behind.

Now it's no secret that Iron X is famous for a foul smelling reputation, masked slightly with cherry while the other two were considerable nicer smelling of a Cherry/Almondy/Bakewell type smell (being critical maybe sickly sweet)
Now I've tested Iron X Lemon Scent and it works as well as Iron x cherry scent in my opinion but with no foul smell, a non distinctive stirile/lemon cleaner smell (Avi tells me that batch 2 will have even more lemon) 
I haven't done any side by side tests with IXLS and any other fall out remover but based on my experience, and my brief IXLS tests suggest that it will remain the market leader.

I hope this helps some of you decide, or at the very least didn't bore you to death haha,
I'm sure if Gally stumbles over this thread he will reply with his opinion.


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 5, 2007)

You will find the active ingredients are different one is Ammonium glycolate and the other is sodium thioglycolate, regardless of dwell time, reaction time or how much fallout it removes, I would go with the safe option on my paint work even though it maybe slower, OK the cost maybe more as you may need to apply twice, but at least I know its safe, so dealing with high end supercars I know I would choose the safe option every time. You really need to be testing the same products as the ones here are not as the base is different.


----------



## Ns1980 (Jun 29, 2011)

Great reading - kind of mirrors my opinion too.


----------



## Wax Tec (Jun 19, 2013)

Cheers for the review Craig!! 

So would you say the following is correct?

IronX best on paint
Iron Max on wheels
And our Fall Off as the best all rounder?

Also Stephen you may want to check your ingrediants info as your not correct there.


----------



## Wax Tec (Jun 19, 2013)

Cheers for the review Craig!! 

So would you say the following is correct?

IronX best on paint
Iron Max on wheels
And our Fall Off as the best all rounder?

Also Stephen you may want to check your ingrediants info as your not correct there.


----------



## luke w (Dec 11, 2012)

Cheers for taking the time to do this!


----------



## TheMattFinish (Jul 17, 2011)

Very interesting read

Cheers for the test Craig


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 5, 2007)

Iron X, OK is Ammonium Sulfanylacetate, BriteMax correct, yours please feel free to share. I was speaking about these two previous. Just because they have the fallout label doesn't mean they are all the same, its like a vx corsa in red is not just a corsa in red there are different models, its what's underneath that counts and that's should be what's put in a side by side real test.


----------



## Guru (Aug 28, 2013)

Thanks for the test. Nicely done and narrated.

That car had some fallout!


----------



## Bevvo (Feb 1, 2013)

Nice write up and review. Thanks for taking the time to do this. I do have a query which someone could hopefully answer:

Do fallout removers mean that claying is not required or would claying mean that fallout removers are not required......or are both claying and fallout removers required for the best results?

Thanks.


----------



## Wax Tec (Jun 19, 2013)

Bevvo said:


> Nice write up and review. Thanks for taking the time to do this. I do have a query which someone could hopefully answer:
> 
> Do fallout removers mean that claying is not required or would claying mean that fallout removers are not required......or are both claying and fallout removers required for the best results?
> 
> Thanks.


Not quite dude although a proper decon regime with a fallout remover and a tar remover will remove most contaminants there will still be some left over for clay to pick up.


----------



## CarPro.UK (Nov 22, 2011)

Good to read a more objective review of fall-out removers from somebody who looks beyond the trigger mechanism! :thumb:

Thanks for your honest review. 

Andy


----------



## Bevvo (Feb 1, 2013)

Wax Tec said:


> Not quite dude although a proper decon regime with a fallout remover and a tar remover will remove most contaminants there will still be some left over for clay to pick up.


Thank you. However if you say that claying is still able to pick up contaminants after fallout remover has done its job then why not use clay only and save carrying out that extra fallout removing step.

Better still, is there an iron removing clay lube so that two stages can be done at the same time? If not then should some clever chemist be thinking about making one?


----------



## CraigQQ (Jan 20, 2011)

Bevvo said:


> Thank you. However if you say that claying is still able to pick up contaminants after fallout remover has done its job then why not use clay only and save carrying out that extra fallout removing step.
> 
> Better still, is there an iron removing clay lube so that two stages can be done at the same time? If not then should some clever chemist be thinking about making one?


The problem with choosing one or the other in terms of clay or fallout remover is, the fall out remover only removes iron particles. Organic contaminants still remain. Where clay removes the tops of the iron contamination but cannot remove the deeper iron particles often below the clearcoat level which are dissolved by iron removers.

And yes. Car pro iron x snow soap mixed 3:1 would be an effective clay lube and remove iron particles while doing so. 
However it won't be as strong as the actual iron x is at removing iron.


----------



## DJBAILEY (May 7, 2011)

You could use Carpro IronX Snow foam as your clay lube. I've done it numerous times. Had to use up that expensive snow foam for something.

Clay can shear particles off leaving some of it still embedded in the paint. So using a iron remover will dissolve the iron particle. Sometimes completely. Sometimes only partially, the iron particles will be smaller and claybarring afterward will be more likely to pull the remaining iron bits out instead of shearing them off. Its the same concept as using the acid based fall out removers.

Don't forget that claybarring removes all sorts of stuff stuck to the paint that the iron remover won't do much with. So you really need to do both.


----------



## BRITEMAX (Dec 22, 2010)

Many thanks for taking the time to perform these tests!

Great to see Britemax Iron Max come out as #1 for use on wheels as our original product brief was for a pH neutral safe wheel cleaner, degreaser and iron remover in one combined with a pleasant fragrance. :thumb:

Although I would have preferred to have seen you test Iron Max on paint as per the instructions; using a damp sponge to work it in as this is much more effective method due to the added cleaners. I guess for fairness you tested each product using the same method?

Auto Express tested Iron Max as per the instructions against the latest Iron X LS (published this week) with Iron Max just coming out on top. Not just for overall product performance but also preferring the fragrance, detailed instruction, performance of the spray head and the larger more economical bottle size.

Matt


----------



## Audriulis (Dec 17, 2009)

Good test CraigQQ, used a few iron removers myself and from what I've used waxtec and IronX performed best, never used britemax thought, but liking their other products a lot


----------



## CarPro.UK (Nov 22, 2011)

BRITEMAX said:


> Auto Express tested Iron Max as per the instructions against the latest Iron X LS (published this week) with Iron Max just coming out on top. Not just for overall product performance but also preferring the fragrance, detailed instruction, performance of the spray head and the larger more economical bottle size.
> 
> Matt


Ah yes- the fabled AutoExpress test. 

My personal favourite was the line where they say: "[Unlike contender] you dont see Iron-X LS working away." Of course, anybody who has even a working knowledge of Iron-X will know that it is the industry standard for 'bleeding' style products- to not see it working away is somewhat uncompromisable! 

As a fallout remover we strongly contest that Iron-X is second to none. As a full wheel cleaner, as a perfume, as a dispenser then perhaps we still have work to do- it is its Iron-Removing capabilities that we are proud of and what we sell the product. And indeed Mat, why you Iron-X is still your best selling product at i4detailing. :thumb:

Andy


----------



## 7MAT (Apr 14, 2006)

CarPro.UK said:


> Ah yes- the fabled AutoExpress test.
> 
> My personal favourite was the line where they say: "[Unlike contender] you dont see Iron-X LS working away." Of course, anybody who has even a working knowledge of Iron-X will know that it is the industry standard for 'bleeding' style products- to not see it working away is somewhat uncompromisable!
> 
> ...


If you are sore about the test results then I suggest you speak to Auto Express. 

As I told Avi the other day sales of Iron X are not what they used to be.

Lot's of competition now in the market - which I guess is great for the consumer.


----------



## CraigQQ (Jan 20, 2011)

BRITEMAX said:


> Many thanks for taking the time to perform these tests!
> 
> Great to see Britemax Iron Max come out as #1 for use on wheels as our original product brief was for a pH neutral safe wheel cleaner, degreaser and iron remover in one combined with a pleasant fragrance. :thumb:
> 
> ...


Appologies if you felt the Iron Max was hindered by application by spraying rather than wiping on Matt, not the intention ofcourse.

However are you sure that Auto Express tested as per instructions, as they mention a plus point on Iron Max is that you can see the foamy soap on dark coloured cars, the one time I tested Iron Max by wiping onto a test panel (both iron max and iron x were wiped onto a test panel to assure no overspray, on a door that's laying in the unit) it didn't foam up like the spray head does.

I do like the trigger head, re used the bottle for diluted wheel cleaner as I like the way it foams up in use for wheels.


----------



## Cquartz (Jan 31, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> *You will find the active ingredients are different one is Ammonium glycolate and the other is sodium thioglycolate*, regardless of dwell time, reaction time or how much fallout it removes, I would go with the safe option on my paint work even though it maybe slower, OK the cost maybe more as you may need to apply twice, but at least I know its safe, so dealing with high end supercars I know I would choose the safe option every time. You really need to be testing the same products as the ones here are not as the base is different.


Thats exactly the point, we dont use sodium base glycolate like almost all the brands in UK. thats why the hard smell as well in IronX, i would like to see MSDS from anyone who claim otherwise.

the test is good Craig, but i would like to see one on each other , who will continue dissolving irons left behind, some products even change color with oxygen , not really working on irons.



[email protected] said:


> Iron X, OK is Ammonium Sulfanylacetate, BriteMax correct, yours please feel free to share. I was speaking about these two previous. Just because they have the fallout label doesn't mean they are all the same, its like a vx corsa in red is not just a corsa in red there are different models, its what's underneath that counts and that's should be what's put in a side by side real test.


Sorry but no, not ammonium sulfanylaceteate, i dont know from where you take such info

Matt , we dont have any problem with competition, the opposite ! in the past 3 years there were nonstop iron removers popping out each month, there are maybe 10~15 brands now in the market ( mostly made by two factories in the UK) thats why ironX won the 2011 and 2012 DW awards.
this review that you refer to at Auto Express , the reporter asked Andy for the new IronX LS, Andy gave him free of charge without any problem, thinking thats a good promotion, BUT!!! you suppose to be ethic and say where to buy it.. who gave you this.. as its mentioned there .. to give the credit to CarPro.UK . instead it say I4D !!. 
this made us think ....ummmm.... this review smell bad ( worse than ironX even) 
this Forum is known for the highest level in Detailing steps and readers know some in car care, with best products for professionals, reading that review just making you think how pro is that guy and does he understand what for is the product.

beside that, any wheel cleaning need some brush agitating on the surface for removing the the left over dirt, brushing the IronX on the wheel will clean it as well from other dirt than irons without a problem.


----------



## 7MAT (Apr 14, 2006)

Cquartz said:


> Matt , we dont have any problem with competition, the opposite ! in the past 3 years there were nonstop iron removers popping out each month, there are maybe 10~15 brands now in the market ( mostly made by two factories in the UK) thats why ironX won the 2011 and 2012 DW awards.
> this review that you refer to at Auto Express , the reporter asked Andy for the new IronX LS, Andy gave him free of charge without any problem, thinking thats a good promotion, BUT!!! you suppose to be ethic and say where to buy it.. who gave you this.. as its mentioned there .. to give the credit to CarPro.UK . instead it say I4D !!.
> this made us think ....ummmm.... this review smell bad ( worse than ironX even)
> this Forum is known for the highest level in Detailing steps and readers know some in car care, with best products for professionals, reading that review just making you think how pro is that guy and does he understand what for is the product.
> ...


Hi Avi,

I never suggested you had a problem with competition?

We were as surprized as you that I4D got a mention as we don't even stock Iron X LS yet? As you know we will have stock shortly. 

I agree it is very unprofessional of them, especially if you (CARPRO UK) supplied them with the sample! Although we did originally sample them with Iron X over a year or so ago - maybe this is where the mix-up comes from?

Our sample of Iron Max was supplied to them several weeks ago on the strength of a press release.

And after Iron Max getting a mention the previous week the mini test was an unexpected surprise for us.

Matt


----------



## Rayner (Aug 16, 2012)

Nice test Craig,

My findings were the same tbh. I've not used Waxtec's offering but after trying Iron Max, washing off then Iron x on the same spot then the other way round Iron x is still the daddy for me. 

I've tried this approach with a few now and not one has come up to par with Iron x.

I Look forward to not having to shower 3 times after use though with the new formula!


----------



## Cquartz (Jan 31, 2009)

rayner said:


> Nice test Craig,
> 
> My findings were the same tbh. I've not used Waxtec's offering but after trying Iron Max, washing off then Iron x on the same spot then the other way round Iron x is still the daddy for me.
> 
> ...


Thanx Ryan

the new lemon once sprayed wont have the bad odor in the room, or the area you used it. no to mention your cloths..


----------



## Ronnie (Nov 15, 2006)

Just to to add my 2pence worth, How come we are always being left out of these all inclusive tests? There have been several now and Iron Cleanse actuall all our products come to think of it are never tested hardly an "all inclusive tests " more like loading the odds. Not wanting to throw the toys out or look like I am miffed which I sort of am it can only be a "fair" test when you include them all especially when in some tests they are teh same source product. Good review Craig but I have to admit I see these time and time again and we are refused the chance to prove our products against the rest. The fact we are the ONLY dilute to use concentrate on the market I thought would have counted for something. Sorry Craig for this post but to be honest I am getting fed up of being left on the fringe when it comes to DW testing simply as I know we outperform the rest by a large margin. Poss time to do our own.


----------



## Rayner (Aug 16, 2012)

Ronnie said:


> Just to to add my 2pence worth, How come we are always being left out of these all inclusive tests? There have been several now and Iron Cleanse actuall all our products come to think of it are never tested hardly an "all inclusive tests " more like loading the odds. Not wanting to throw the toys out or look like I am miffed which I sort of am it can only be a "fair" test when you include them all especially when in some tests they are teh same source product. Good review Craig but I have to admit I see these time and time again and we are refused the chance to prove our products against the rest. The fact we are the ONLY dilute to use concentrate on the market I thought would have counted for something. Sorry Craig for this post but to be honest I am getting fed up of being left on the fringe when it comes to DW testing simply as I know we outperform the rest by a large margin. Poss time to do our own.


I'm sure people would be happy to Ronnie, I certainly would be happy to do a test with yours as well but might be an idea to contact one of the supporters on here so as to be independent from yourself.

I've got a car that might be a good candidate if any of the manufactures are interested in a test done to their specifications?

I'm not affiliated to anyone either.
PS Envy's fallout remover is dilutable too. (failed my Iron x test though and stinks to high heaven)


----------



## james_death (Aug 9, 2010)

Fantastic stuff....:thumb:

I really should have got my act together months back, about 6 in fact....:lol:

Before you pipped me to the post with this comparison test....:lol::wall:

However i will still offer out my challenge when im ready to test fallout removers.

I did a brief test a while back and never posted but probably will to explain why i have rattle canned primed coloured and lacquered a land rover bonnet to ensure no paint chips no iron contamination untill i instill the fallout in an as measured way as i can baring in a lab.....:lol:

Great Job Craig appreciate the time taken and man that Countach.... SSSWWWEEEETTT..:thumb:


----------



## Rayner (Aug 16, 2012)

james_death said:


> Fantastic stuff....:thumb:
> 
> I really should have got mu act together months back, about 6 in fact....:lol:
> 
> ...


Carry on chap. Saves me a job, just thought I'd offer my services


----------



## james_death (Aug 9, 2010)

rayner said:


> Carry on chap. Saves me a job, just thought I'd offer my services


No worries dude the more testing the better, didnt spot your post till after i posted mine.....:wall:

Ill still do my test anyway dude....:thumb:

Sorry Craig if it seams like a Hijack, just overpower me and throw me out the escape hatch....:lol:


----------



## k9vnd (Apr 11, 2011)

CarPro.UK said:


> Ah yes- the fabled AutoExpress test.


:thumb:Agreed, I think if we all followed the express review's more than half the product's supporter's on here would be struggling to shift there brand product's.

Great review craig and congrat's to the other 2 brand's trying to keep up.

And @Ronnie, no offence but mabey trying to widen the advertising of the product to the market?


----------



## CraigQQ (Jan 20, 2011)

james_death said:


> Fantastic stuff....:thumb:
> 
> I really should have got my act together months back, about 6 in fact....:lol:
> 
> ...


I look forward to your review, not too long ago me and Tom from Wax Tec were discussing how/if it would be possible to create an iron rich solution to evenly contaminate a test panel for this purpose, so if you manage it I'll be sure to watch out for the test!



james_death said:


> No worries dude the more testing the better, didnt spot your post till after i posted mine.....:wall:
> 
> Ill still do my test anyway dude....:thumb:
> 
> Sorry Craig if it seams like a Hijack, just overpower me and throw me out the escape hatch....:lol:


Right... get out :lol:

Just to clear things up for anyone viewing this, After Ronnies post I've spoken to him and the reason his products weren't in the test was that I didn't recieve the sample(s) for testing after a mis-communication with one of his distributors. 
There was no favouritism in this test, another 3 manufacturers were contacted who didn't reply, and for this reason were not included. Ronnies distributor replied but must have slipped through the cracks.
If the test is repeated at some time, I'll try to include more products but for the time being this was all I was provided with.

Thanks for all the compliments on the test, it's impossible to be unbiased in a test unless your given all the products in blank bottles from a 3rd party with no links as to which is which.
However as all 3 in this particular test are people I would call friends, and all 3 samples were provided free of charge, I would like to think I was evenly biased toward all 3 rather than unbiased.


----------



## nick_mcuk (Jan 4, 2008)

To be brutally honest though you never hear anything about Ronnie's products. 

If you want people to be aware of your products you need to market and advertise them..doesn't matter how good or bad the product is if nobody knows about they won't go looking for it


----------



## HeavenlyDetail (Sep 22, 2006)

I must admit i have ironX and also now have a gallon of WaxTec after a few fellow detailers recommended i get it and it is very very good.

AutoExpress tests are excellent, as reliable as Berllusconi arranging a party for over 18,s.

Will try the Britemax gear shortly....


----------



## Ronnie (Nov 15, 2006)

Marketing takes up a lot of cash we don't have at present as developing our own products has taken up a amounts of capital that when you buy in and rebrand you don't have to spend.. We have been promoting our products through our details and our motorsport contracts we have won but you will be seeing us more and more as we slowly get a marketing budget together.. We are developing a second strand of Iron Remover that is runny plus a few more thing up our sleeve that we hope to get a chance to show what they can do.


----------



## nick_mcuk (Jan 4, 2008)

Ronnie said:


> Marketing takes up a lot of cash we don't have at present as developing our own products has taken up a amounts of capital that when you buy in and rebrand you don't have to spend.. We have been promoting our products through our details and our motorsport contracts we have won but you will be seeing us more and more as we slowly get a marketing budget together.. We are developing a second strand of Iron Remover that is runny plus a few more thing up our sleeve that we hope to get a chance to show what they can do.


Point taken but surely a good business model/plan would have the correct distribution of funds for all aspects of a product life cycle?

As I said no point you having the best product in the world if nobody knows about it!

If you don't market it you can't get pissy because nobody includes it in their reviews.

You are a supporter on here yet we hear next to nothing. There is Facebook, Twitter etc use them to full effect to get people knowing about your products.


----------



## Ronnie (Nov 15, 2006)

we are using them all. We also sent ot over 2000 samples to DW users of that we got just over 100 people come back to us not getting pissy about it at all.. Also on here we are not allowed to post about our products in teh general forums or it gets deleted so we have to rely on people posting about our products for us.


----------



## HeavenlyDetail (Sep 22, 2006)

Ronnie said:


> we are using them all. We also sent ot over 2000 samples to DW users of that we got just over 100 people come back to us not getting pissy about it at all.. Also on here we are not allowed to post about our products in teh general forums or it gets deleted so we have to rely on people posting about our products for us.


You sent 2000 samples out to members on here?
Have you the list to maybe post in an individual thread so they can post their feedback next to the their name?
Thats alot of members?
How did you manage to get a database of 2000 members and all their addresses?


----------



## Trip tdi (Sep 3, 2008)

Rollo I remember doing you one in the past on your Iron Cleanse and too reveal your iron remover is very effective and fast, Iron Clenase and the wax Tec version are my favorite ones going on the market for me currently by a long margin.


----------



## Ronnie (Nov 15, 2006)

no 2000 samples as in bottles most were set out in 2-10 multiple bottle samples Marc. was about 500 ish people in total, I did put a thread in our section and one person actually gave off saying it was rude of me to send them samples and expect them to post up a review lol...hence at £3 a parcel I am reluctant to send free samples out now.


----------



## luca (Mar 3, 2012)

Only a little question: how are this products hazardous for healt? I've ever think than they are the most hazardous with the super degreasers, so I use them only in extreme situations and with more precautions. What is the "official" position about this?


----------

