# Magifoam v's No Touch Test



## shine247 (Mar 1, 2010)

Today I thought I would try Magifoam against CG No Touch. Performed with the same PW.

The car is a Venetian Red ZX. It has been parked up for 4 months through rain and snow. Strangely, no bird poop throughout the whole time?

The contenders










Next, the car looking dirt streaked soon to be worked on.




























The roof










Foamed

One half Magifoam (left of picture), the other No Touch. This was a 30ml to 300ml mix for each. Not the strongest I know, but I find on most occasions that ratio seems ok for me. I got a decent foam although it had thinned a bit by the time the pictures were taken.










After 10 mins

The Magifoam










The No Touch










Rear, No Touch on the left as you look at it.










Bonnet










After PW










Two pieces of towel wiped on the surface of each side showing residual dirt.










Roof, I wrote N T on the surface, similar result on the Magifoam side.










The soiling on the car was not removed and a mitt and TBM would have been required to finish the job. However, I am sure the foam will have softened it making it easier to remove.

It is to be borne in mind that the car had little in the way of LSP so that would not have helped. The dirt was also established in a thin layer, like a traffic film I suppose. However, it is still obvious that neither of the two removed the dirt fully. Yes, a stronger mixture may have done better but I personally find that even then a mitt is needed to remove the final layer. On my other car this scenario works fine for me, foam, rinse, foam, mitt and then rinse again.

In conclusion, the products both gave the same result for the concentration I used. I can only imagine they will be equal at other levels.


----------



## Russ and his BM (Jan 1, 2008)

Cool, so I guess it just comes down to price, or seeing if you need anything else at the same time from either trader to save on doubling up on the postage?


----------



## uruk hai (Apr 5, 2009)

Thanks, I've been looking forward to a realistic comparison and you've done just that. Seems like its all down to price as they give very similiar results :thumb:


----------



## Lovescars (Dec 17, 2010)

good write up love the car


----------



## GSVHammer (Feb 7, 2009)

Russ and his BM said:


> Cool, so I guess it just comes down to price, or seeing if you need anything else at the same time from either trader to save on doubling up on the postage?


Code DW2 gets you FREE postage from Carwashnwax so the No Touch Snow Foam could work out cheaper if you just need 1 item.

You'll have to check the group buys as both of these were on offer so the cost could be about the same from Autobrite & Carwasnwax.


----------



## bromoco (May 15, 2009)

Contrary to popular belief foam (Bubbles) have no cleaning effect at all. They just look like they are doing a job as the car is all foamed up. Bubble just pop and run off. They are not magic bubbles that do the washing, at best you are able to see that the detergent is evenly spread over the car's surface. Ask any chemist and they will tell you the action of foaming will not clean on its own, it needs agitating.
In my opinion you shouldn’t waste your money on foam lances and snow foams, just invest in a good shampoo, grit guard bucket and mitt.. Oh of course a bit of elbow grease.

Great thread shine 247 it totally proves the point, and I agree it will loosen up the dirt as you said, but no more than any good quality shampoo.

Although I bet someone who has paid £££££ for a snow lance will disagree with me


----------



## smegal (Aug 14, 2009)

bromoco said:


> Contrary to popular belief foam (Bubbles) have no cleaning effect at all. They just look like they are doing a job as the car is all foamed up. Bubble just pop and run off. They are not magic bubbles that do the washing, at best you are able to see that the detergent is evenly spread over the car's surface. Ask any chemist and they will tell you the action of foaming will not clean on its own, it needs agitating.
> In my opinion you shouldn't waste your money on foam lances and snow foams, just invest in a good shampoo, grit guard bucket and mitt.. Oh of course a bit of elbow grease.
> 
> Great thread shine 247 it totally proves the point, and I agree it will loosen up the dirt as you said, but no more than any good quality shampoo.
> ...


You say that but you can see [some of] the crap in the foam on the floor before you rinse the car.


----------



## Avanti (Jan 17, 2006)

shine247 said:


> Today I thought I would try Magifoam against CG No Touch. Performed with the same PW.
> 
> The car is a Venetian Red ZX. It has been parked up for 4 months through rain and snow. Strangely, no bird poop throughout the whole time?
> 
> ...


Thanks for taking the time to do the review, I would liked to have known how long you spent rinsing off and with what kind of power washer (flow rate not brand), also was the sun on the side that the GNTW was applied to?

Having used the 2 products myself, I would like to add that the dwell time seems dependant upon the dilution used , both however offer evidently longer dwell times compared to what is already on the market :thumb:

Now that the car has been cleaned it would be interesting to learn how a 2nd clean at a shorter interval fairs out as 4 months without a wash is unusual for the seasoned 'detailer'


----------



## silverblack (Jan 23, 2011)

Im more shocked that Avanti quoted the whole post inc pics :lol:


----------



## Avanti (Jan 17, 2006)

silverblack said:


> Im more shocked that Avanti quoted the whole post inc pics :lol:


Actually if you check, I didn't


----------



## fizzle86 (Apr 1, 2010)

Snow foam does make a difference i went through a stage thinking it done nothing until i used it on my dads navy 5 month unwashed volvo with no sealant or wax applied in over a year even using valet pro's ph snow foam half the dirt came off the car

Dilution was strong about 1.5 inch in a ltr bottle it made the whole job much easier and less chance of scratching the paint which is why much products are developed!!

No snow foam is ever goin to do the full job but even if it done a 10% job it helps! 

There is also the fun part of foaming a car (jus not into a wind but thats another story!!) 


Nice REALISTIC write up 247 it gives a good indication for what to expect with a weak dilution with a normal power washer not a petrol hot wash thats used in promo vids!!


----------



## silverblack (Jan 23, 2011)

Avanti said:


> Actually if you check, I didn't


As good as  have some symphathy for smartphone users


----------



## shine247 (Mar 1, 2010)

Avanti said:


> Thanks for taking the time to do the review, I would liked to have known how long you spent rinsing off and with what kind of power washer (flow rate not brand), also was the sun on the side that the GNTW was applied to?
> 
> Having used the 2 products myself, I would like to add that the dwell time seems dependant upon the dilution used , both however offer evidently longer dwell times compared to what is already on the market :thumb:
> 
> Now that the car has been cleaned it would be interesting to learn how a 2nd clean at a shorter interval fairs out as 4 months without a wash is unusual for the seasoned 'detailer'


Hi Avanti, thanks for looking in. Rinsing took about 4 minutes, I made sure that all surfaces were effectively pressure washed and not just rinsed. Pressure washer is 460lph which is pretty fair. The sun was not on the car when foamed. Looking head on the sun would have been on the drivers side but it is shaded by the house. I moved the car after rinsing to see the result better.

I agree, the dwell time does seem a little longer on these products but just now I do not believe I would pay a substantial premium for them. I intend to test against my other (two pretty full ) products shortly. My view of snowfoaming is it removes some dirt before my mitt touches the car. However, with cold water in use, I think a pressure washer alone will do something pretty close but the foam must add a little value. I can PW my wheels and the dust is removed just as well with or without foam but power of the PW probably plays it part. The main reason I like foam is it leaves a layer on the car when I use the TBM. It makes the mitt glide and I believe the layer encapsulates any grit etc. It has certainly served me well on my regular day to day car.

Now as for the 4 months without a wash, the car is not in use right now. Until the end of November it was covered. The cover got damaged so was removed for repair. With all the snow, ice and two other vehicles to keep clear of salt and all the cr*p thrown at them I have simply not had the opportunity. But, as stated the situation will be addressed shortly. I guess it gave me a good test vehicle though. :lol:


----------



## shine247 (Mar 1, 2010)

Lovescars said:


> good write up love the car


Thanks, had it many years. I rarely see one in original condtion like it, in fact I rarely see one now at all!


----------



## shine247 (Mar 1, 2010)

Having looked at the car today I can still see streaking on the rear bumper and a film of dirt on the car as in the pictures. So clearly neither of these snowfoams made much difference alone


----------



## bromoco (May 15, 2009)

shine247 said:


> Having looked at the car today I can still see streaking on the rear bumper and a film of dirt on the car as in the pictures. So clearly neither of these snowfoams made much difference alone


I rest my case.

Great review 247


----------



## smegal (Aug 14, 2009)

To be fair to get the film off you would need a HARSH TFR. 

traffic film is resilient stuff.


----------



## Mr Yellow (Apr 30, 2009)

I spent the whole of yesterday characterising our range and the results are the same, you can get rid of a bunch of the dirt, but you wont get shot of it all. I do, however, think that snow foams have their place. When we are so concerned about swirls that we have multibucket washing techniques etc, every bit of dirt less on the surface when you go in with a mitt is one bit less to worry about doing damage.

I certainly will persist with foaming, even though I will need to finish it by hand.


----------



## shine247 (Mar 1, 2010)

x12yhp said:


> I spent the whole of yesterday characterising our range and the results are the same, you can get rid of a bunch of the dirt, but you wont get shot of it all. I do, however, think that snow foams have their place. When we are so concerned about swirls that we have multibucket washing techniques etc, every bit of dirt less on the surface when you go in with a mitt is one bit less to worry about doing damage.
> 
> I certainly will persist with foaming, even though I will need to finish it by hand.


That is more or less the attitude I am taking. The question is, as far as dirt removal goes, is it mainly the PW doing the work? Would a bucket of warm water poured over the car soften the dirt and a pressure wash remove just as much. I am beginning to think so. For me the foam is now just a bit more soap on the surface to assist with washing.


----------



## Avanti (Jan 17, 2006)

shine247 said:


> Having looked at the car today I can still see streaking on the rear bumper and a film of dirt on the car as in the pictures. So clearly neither of these snowfoams made much difference alone





bromoco said:


> I rest my case.
> 
> Great review 247





smegal said:


> To be fair to get the film off you would need a HARSH TFR.
> 
> traffic film is resilient stuff.





x12yhp said:


> I spent the whole of yesterday characterising our range and the results are the same, you can get rid of a bunch of the dirt, but you wont get shot of it all. I do, however, think that snow foams have their place. When we are so concerned about swirls that we have multibucket washing techniques etc, every bit of dirt less on the surface when you go in with a mitt is one bit less to worry about doing damage.
> 
> I certainly will persist with foaming, even though I will need to finish it by hand.





shine247 said:


> That is more or less the attitude I am taking. The question is, as far as dirt removal goes, is it mainly the PW doing the work? Would a bucket of warm water poured over the car soften the dirt and a pressure wash remove just as much. I am beginning to think so. For me the foam is now just a bit more soap on the surface to assist with washing.


Hmmm, if there is streaking that would suggest to me that the dwell time or rinse was not sufficient?

What case is there to rest? There was a time before power washers , you need force to remove the soiling and it needs to be softened, so if it is not coming off then there is not enough force.

Do you mean the wax is resilient?

Saying you cannot get rid of the dirt sounds defeated to me, what would entice a prospective purchaser to buy your product if it is the 'same' as everything else on the market?

Do persist with the powerwash technique, remember that car had 4 months of soiling, would it have got rid of a week or two's worth?

:thumb:


----------



## bromoco (May 15, 2009)

The reason for the streaking and residue is down to the thick foaming addatives used to make the foam. This is usually thick and sticky in its raw state and added or diluted will still remain sticky or thick once the bubbles have burst and I dont know of any that are rinse free, meaning that once you have rinced it off there is no residue left. Have you ever seen the mess that the kids bubbles leave behind when they pop on a shiny surface or you spill it??? Good and sticky. Its that type of thing.
So this could be down to dilution rates, however if you over dilute then less bubbles for that great snow look, under dilute and little or no bubbles, a dilema? Either way you still gotta wash it by hand.


----------



## Avanti (Jan 17, 2006)

bromoco said:


> The reason for the streaking and residue is down to the thick foaming addatives used to make the foam. This is usually thick and sticky in its raw state and added or diluted will still remain sticky or thick once the bubbles have burst and I dont know of any that are rinse free, meaning that once you have rinced it off there is no residue left. Have you ever seen the mess that the kids bubbles leave behind when they pop on a shiny surface or you spill it??? Good and sticky. Its that type of thing.
> So this could be down to dilution rates, however if you over dilute then less bubbles for that great snow look, under dilute and little or no bubbles, a dilema? Either way you still gotta wash it by hand.


Dude the thread is a demo of two products, I have not washed my car by mitt/bucket method for years, I have every confidence it is no dirtier after a wash than many of the regular vehicles we have.

No one is trying to convince you of a mitless wash , likewise mitless washers have seen the back of wash mitts.
What makes you think car shampoo is any different to snow foaming products?


----------



## bromoco (May 15, 2009)

I appreciate that you might be happy with your method of cleaning and are getting the results you are happy with and I dont want to burst your bubble....did you see what I did there?? :lol: Lets just say I am more than a little bit qualified to comment in this area and leave it at that.
Its only friendly advise and help. Sorry if I upset you. :detailer:


----------



## Avanti (Jan 17, 2006)

bromoco said:


> I appreciate that you might be happy with your method of cleaning and are getting the results you are happy with and I dont want to burst your bubble....did you see what I did there?? :lol: Lets just say I am more than a little bit qualified to comment in this area and leave it at that.
> Its only friendly advise and help. Sorry if I upset you. :detailer:


I'm not upset , itmaybe a while since I studied chemistry, but thanks fully there is a large resource of info on the net, 
remember the floating of a pin in a glass of water? then add detergent and the water skin breaks and the pin sinks, hence why detergents assist cleaning, hit at the traffic soiling early and it will be easier to remove, the same principles apply to car cleaning, 'wet' the soiling and apply force, whether that be from a power washer or mitt , it is still force, low flow rate machines are just not going to cut it often irrespective of the detergent used, you know that many don't want to listen :car:


----------



## bromoco (May 15, 2009)

Agreed


----------



## Russ and his BM (Jan 1, 2008)

Not sure there's traffic film on there....it stood still for 4 months didn't it?


----------



## shine247 (Mar 1, 2010)

Russ and his BM said:


> Not sure there's traffic film on there....it stood still for 4 months didn't it?


You got it in one. The car has been parked up and not in a heavily polluted area, in fact in a cul-de-sac so hardly any traffic.

The dirt is just from the rain etc. Just to clarify, when I refer to streaking, I mean the streaks where rain water or melting snow or whatever has run down the car. Streaks were pretty much all over but there is an example in the picture showing the nearside rear bumper. Those are the streaks I mean and the foam did not remove them. You often see them forming under wing mirrors or door handles after a week or two.


----------



## chrisc (Jun 15, 2008)

for the price per wash to me just not worth it.For what they do


----------



## JJ_ (Oct 26, 2005)

I'd just like to add no shampoo through a foam lance does what no touch does. I've tried for years to achieve it. Check my review out much better results. 

I use no touch and it removes some muck but I do follow up with mitt. I don't want a total touchless wash as it would be very harsh.


----------



## Avanti (Jan 17, 2006)

shine247 said:


> You got it in one. *The car has been parked up and not in a heavily polluted area, in fact in a cul-de-sac so hardly any traffic.
> *
> The dirt is just from the rain etc. Just to clarify, when I refer to streaking, I mean the streaks where rain water or melting snow or whatever has run down the car. Streaks were pretty much all over but there is an example in the picture showing the nearside rear bumper. Those are the streaks I mean and the foam did not remove them. You often see them forming under wing mirrors or door handles after a week or two.


The car will still get a film of traffic grease over time, remember the pollutants move around in air, I have just been back and looked at the streaks, which are from the rubber strips area and below not above it, which suggests that dust/pollen etc was trapped there and a thorough rinse would have gotten the muck out (which leads back to an earlier reply that the product mix may not have been enough but more so , the dwell time and rinse was not long enough) and another reason why product should be applied bottom upwards and rinsed the same way.

Chrisc has made a valid point that the cost per wash of these products should be considered too :thumb:


----------



## JJ_ (Oct 26, 2005)

Can I also add that is oxidised too, quite amazed no staining, suppose if its a test bed doesn't matter but not really a fair test IMHO.


----------



## Clean-my-sxi (Feb 5, 2008)

I have to say i recently tried magifoam on a un protected car, star silver paintwork so great for looking at what dirt has been removed.

The magifoam done a much better job then another well known foam which hardly touched the dirt, howevert i did let the foam dwell for around 10 mins, i tried the foam on another vehicle and pressure washed off sooner, aroun d 5 mins and got pooere results.

Im looking to try Espuma as it gets good comments so if anyone has some and wants to send me a sample ill send them some magifoam.


----------



## pete001 (Dec 21, 2006)

Good review,Thanks for sharing.


----------



## rob750 (Apr 17, 2006)

Guys I used both on a Black Range Rover that hadn't been cleaned since before Xmas l let them both dwell for just 30 mins . Magic foam was the clear winner CG No Touch was streaky and didn't fully clear all the dirt off the car


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

I use snow foam. I can see the dirt it removes before I go at the car with the washmit.

I think a true test of snow foam will need two cars. The first one half covered in snow foam, the other half untouched, and then the whole car rinsed with a pw. Then sf can be compared to just plain old powerwashing.

Same again on the second car, one half sf the other not. Then rinsed down with an open hose, not with a pw. Then compare the results.

I think a test like this will put to bed the arguments/opinions on the effectiveness of sf.


----------



## CraigQQ (Jan 20, 2011)

Shiny said:


> I use snow foam. I can see the dirt it removes before I go at the car with the washmit.
> 
> I think a true test of snow foam will need two cars. The first one half covered in snow foam, the other half untouched, and then the whole car rinsed with a pw. Then sf can be compared to just plain old powerwashing.
> 
> ...


this is a perfect test... :thumb:


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

Oh, and wait for the car to dry before taking the comparison pics. The real dirt doesn't show up much when wet!


----------



## Avanti (Jan 17, 2006)

CraigQQ said:


> this is a perfect test... :thumb:


It is a good idea no doubt, but the idea of this particular thread is not to compare power washing to mitt washing, as one would dry after a mitt wash also and essentially pressure washer detergents are essemtially shampoo, so it would be comparable to washing the car with just water (which I have done with a power washer) :thumb:


----------



## Bilt-Hamber Lab (Apr 11, 2008)

If you want a very high degree of cleaning don't guess with a nominal x ml in 1 litre. Ask the manufacturer the optimum rates for their product at the panel - then judge the cleaning.


----------



## deanie-b (Nov 8, 2010)

Bilt-Hamber Lab said:


> If you want a very high degree of cleaning don't guess with a nominal x ml in 1 litre. Ask the manufacturer the optimum rates for their product at the panel - then judge the cleaning.


But then won't we stray in to how 'dilutable' each product is etc?
If we were to use an inch of each product, we'd be comparing them pound for pound so to speak.

That's my take anyway. I think Shiny's method is rock solid for a test :thumb:


----------



## anthonyh90 (Mar 30, 2011)

based on them results it doesn't seem to be worth it considering the outlay for a pressure washer, foam lance & snow foam. think i'll just stick to the good old 2BM and garden hose


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

Don't get me wrong, my idea is purely to resolve the "sf vs no sf" argument and is in no way a comment on the op's test.

It's just that another side by side comparison has gone down the route of sf vs no sf.

Anthonyh90, you are dead right, it is an expensive outlay just to get foam, but if you buy a pressure water to clean your car, patio, bbq etc, then the outlay for a lance that will last for years plus £20 on a gallon of sf that will see months of washing doesn't seem so bad.


----------



## Avanti (Jan 17, 2006)

deanie-b said:


> But then won't we stray in to how 'dilutable' each product is etc?
> If we were to use an inch of each product, we'd be comparing them pound for pound so to speak.
> 
> That's my take anyway. I think Shiny's method is rock solid for a test :thumb:


You may have missed the point of what Mr BH was saying, since using the same amount of each product would be comparing dilution ratio's 

Optimum amount is different.
As an anology if you have say a dead mouse and put it into a pool of say 3 pirhana, between them they may eat the mouse, same 3 hungry fish but now we put a dead fox into the pool, just 3 fish may not eat the whole fox, the amount of pirhana would have to be increased as each pirhana will consume X amount of volume food.

Now going back to the shampoo, depending on the formula, certain 'soap' solutions will only suspend X amount of soiling, so putting in an inch of various products will naturally have differing effect


----------



## Bilt-Hamber Lab (Apr 11, 2008)

Spot on Avanti. These surfactants take careful balance to get the right results- you could have a 40% active material v a 17% and the 17% works best as the balance is right - try to increase the actives to 40% and the product may split. Now when using the lower active material you need to dose in the PW at a higher rate to get the correct at panel concentration but when you do you get better cleaning. Simple pound for pound ml to ml calcs don't work if you're after a product that works! If you're not, frankly why bother?


----------



## deanie-b (Nov 8, 2010)

Avanti said:


> You may have missed the point of what Mr BH was saying, since using the same amount of each product would be comparing dilution ratio's
> 
> Optimum amount is different.
> As an anology if you have say a dead mouse and put it into a pool of say 3 pirhana, between them they may eat the mouse, same 3 hungry fish but now we put a dead fox into the pool, just 3 fish may not eat the whole fox, the amount of pirhana would have to be increased as each pirhana will consume X amount of volume food.
> ...


A fantastic example :thumb: .. I see.


----------



## MilesBetter (Aug 9, 2010)

Avanti said:


> You may have missed the point of what Mr BH was saying, since using the same amount of each product would be comparing dilution ratio's
> 
> Optimum amount is different.
> As an anology if you have say a dead mouse and put it into a pool of say 3 pirhana, between them they may eat the mouse, same 3 hungry fish but now we put a dead fox into the pool, just 3 fish may not eat the whole fox, the amount of pirhana would have to be increased as each pirhana will consume X amount of volume food.
> ...


Mr Analogy  ....must remember this one, Love it :lol:


----------



## guy_92 (Oct 26, 2010)

How can you work out the exact concentration of the product leaving the lance as it hits the car? After it has been pre-diluted and further diluted through the lance.


----------



## Avanti (Jan 17, 2006)

guy_92 said:


> How can you work out the exact concentration of the product leaving the lance as it hits the car? After it has been pre-diluted and further diluted through the lance.


As my stuff has been out today, just checked against my usual settings, the bottle dispenses at 350ml/min, As the power washer flow rate is 8500ml/min then 350/8500= 4.11%
Hence if I apply neat product then that is the rate at the nozzle, however since I dilute it before it is in the bottle, the % is often much less , so for my machine the PIR is product/flowrate/min%
eg if I use 150ml product = 1.76% (Max)


----------



## guy_92 (Oct 26, 2010)

Avanti said:


> As my stuff has been out today, just checked against my usual settings, the bottle dispenses at 350ml/min, As the power washer flow rate is 8500ml/min then 350/8500= 4.11%
> Hence if I apply neat product then that is the rate at the nozzle, however since I dilute it before it is in the bottle, the % is often much less , so for my machine the PIR is product/flowrate/min%
> eg if I use 150ml product = 1.76% (Max)


Ah so mine would be, assuming my bottle also dispenses at 350ml/min...

350/9000 * 100 = 3.88%...if used neat in the bottle


----------



## Avanti (Jan 17, 2006)

guy_92 said:


> Ah so mine would be, assuming my bottle also dispenses at 350ml/min...
> 
> 350/9000 * 100 = 3.88%...if used neat in the bottle


Yes, but it does not take long to check, what I did is empty the bottle and apply 500ml of water, connected the foam lance to the machine and run the machine for 6 seconds twice (just for a little consistency,( although you could run it several times but it should not vary much)) emptied the bottle and there was 430ml so 500-430 = 70ml in 12 secs or average 35 in 6 seconds *10 =350ml in a minute (although I could have mulitplied the 60/12*70)
you may find that as your machine has a higher flow rate then the dispense from the bottle may also increase.
When I used to fool about with the detergent feed pipe, I found it was actually quitedifficult to achieve much more than 6% dilution rate from various machines


----------

