Welcome!
» Log In
» Create A New Profile
Home
>
Auto Detailing: Secrets of the Experts
>
Topic
New cars don't need to be waxed
Posted by Mark Hoffman
|
New cars don't need to be waxed February 28, 2006 12:56AM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 40 |
<HTML>That is what the auto body guy claims in this article as well as using a rubbing compound for cleaning off difficult dirt and spots. Thought a lot of you might enjoy this.
[www.desmoinesregister.com];
Thanks
Mark
[www.desmoinesregister.com];
Thanks
Mark
|
Re: New cars don't need to be waxed March 13, 2006 05:53PM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 112 |
?
San Antonio Mobile Auto Detail
Martin Hernandez
210.213.3782
[www.saMobileCarWash.com]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/22/2009 05:16PM by MartinHernandez.
San Antonio Mobile Auto Detail
Martin Hernandez
210.213.3782
[www.saMobileCarWash.com]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/22/2009 05:16PM by MartinHernandez.
|
Re: New cars don't need to be waxed March 14, 2006 06:45AM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 466 |
<HTML>Several things...
Paint should always be waxed or sealed as they are always under attack from the enviroment, especially single stage paints. Yes washing does help a great deal but take a car that hasn't been polished and waxed in 5 years and run your hand over the paint while wearing a plastic baggie and you'll be amazed at what you feel. DI water is great also....love washing cars with DI water but it has no protective qualities in and of itself. It's just water minus minerals.
Lastly, you should not need to use a rubbing compound on new car paint. Perhaps on a re-painted car but not OEM paint. One should take what body shops say about paint polishing with a grain of salt.
Anthony</HTML>
Details, Details, Details....It's all in the details!
www.UltimateReflections.NET
Paint should always be waxed or sealed as they are always under attack from the enviroment, especially single stage paints. Yes washing does help a great deal but take a car that hasn't been polished and waxed in 5 years and run your hand over the paint while wearing a plastic baggie and you'll be amazed at what you feel. DI water is great also....love washing cars with DI water but it has no protective qualities in and of itself. It's just water minus minerals.
Lastly, you should not need to use a rubbing compound on new car paint. Perhaps on a re-painted car but not OEM paint. One should take what body shops say about paint polishing with a grain of salt.
Anthony</HTML>
Details, Details, Details....It's all in the details!
www.UltimateReflections.NET
|
Re: New cars don't need to be waxed March 14, 2006 06:48AM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 1,838 |
<HTML>Here's a little something I wrote to the author:
Dear Mr. Kilen,
Your article was sent to me after being read by a fellow colleague and thought I'd email you. The quotes from some of the car washers and body shop owner (Kent Acheson) are completely false. I hope you don't take my comments as negative since they aren't based on the article but the quotes and comments from the contributors. First thing, as the chairman of the Professional Detailing Technician's Association, I wish I saw the mentioning of a professional detailer caring for the vehicle -- but I do know the article is based on car washes. I also know that 100 gallons is not used to wash a car. Mobile detailers in our association use 115 gallon water tanks for 3 cars. Average vehicle is about 30-40 gallons of water.
New cars need waxing, no matter how much frequent washing the car sees. Each wash, whether by hand or tunnel wash, introduces micro-scratches -- not noticeable at first but after 6 months to a year, the vehicle's paint will actually begin to look duller. Waxing is a good preventative but will not add shine. Only a polish will produces a shine -- waxes may enhance the shine and will protect the finish -- but never produce a shine.
Mr. Acheson's comments that using a mild rubbing compound is extremely misdirected and damaging. Compounds (whether micro, mild or harsh) will create dulling of the paint (which it's meant to do due to the leveling of the paint) and needs to be polished afterwards with a variable-speed polisher.
The article is correct, however, about the damaging effects of car washes. Also, the liquid wax sprayed on the vehicle has hardly any protection benefits. It does make bead water away, which may create spotting if the filtration system of the car wash is compromised. My advice is to wash and wax at home, or take your vehicle to a professional detailer. If you'd like, I'd be more than happy to contribute comment or even a few articles of professional detailing.</HTML>
Take care,
Brian
Precision Auto & Marine
Learn to detail boats! Visit www.detailtheboat.com
Dear Mr. Kilen,
Your article was sent to me after being read by a fellow colleague and thought I'd email you. The quotes from some of the car washers and body shop owner (Kent Acheson) are completely false. I hope you don't take my comments as negative since they aren't based on the article but the quotes and comments from the contributors. First thing, as the chairman of the Professional Detailing Technician's Association, I wish I saw the mentioning of a professional detailer caring for the vehicle -- but I do know the article is based on car washes. I also know that 100 gallons is not used to wash a car. Mobile detailers in our association use 115 gallon water tanks for 3 cars. Average vehicle is about 30-40 gallons of water.
New cars need waxing, no matter how much frequent washing the car sees. Each wash, whether by hand or tunnel wash, introduces micro-scratches -- not noticeable at first but after 6 months to a year, the vehicle's paint will actually begin to look duller. Waxing is a good preventative but will not add shine. Only a polish will produces a shine -- waxes may enhance the shine and will protect the finish -- but never produce a shine.
Mr. Acheson's comments that using a mild rubbing compound is extremely misdirected and damaging. Compounds (whether micro, mild or harsh) will create dulling of the paint (which it's meant to do due to the leveling of the paint) and needs to be polished afterwards with a variable-speed polisher.
The article is correct, however, about the damaging effects of car washes. Also, the liquid wax sprayed on the vehicle has hardly any protection benefits. It does make bead water away, which may create spotting if the filtration system of the car wash is compromised. My advice is to wash and wax at home, or take your vehicle to a professional detailer. If you'd like, I'd be more than happy to contribute comment or even a few articles of professional detailing.</HTML>
Take care,
Brian
Precision Auto & Marine
Learn to detail boats! Visit www.detailtheboat.com
|
Re: New cars don't need to be waxed March 14, 2006 04:46PM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 201 |
|
Re: New cars don't need to be waxed March 16, 2006 03:29AM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 40 |
|
Re: New cars don't need to be waxed March 21, 2006 02:32PM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 112 |
?
San Antonio Mobile Auto Detail
Martin Hernandez
210.213.3782
[www.saMobileCarWash.com]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/22/2009 05:15PM by MartinHernandez.
San Antonio Mobile Auto Detail
Martin Hernandez
210.213.3782
[www.saMobileCarWash.com]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/22/2009 05:15PM by MartinHernandez.
|
Re: New cars don't need to be waxed June 26, 2006 09:04PM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 112 |
?
San Antonio Mobile Auto Detail
Martin Hernandez
210.213.3782
[www.saMobileCarWash.com]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/22/2009 05:15PM by MartinHernandez.
San Antonio Mobile Auto Detail
Martin Hernandez
210.213.3782
[www.saMobileCarWash.com]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/22/2009 05:15PM by MartinHernandez.
|
Re: New cars don't need to be waxed June 27, 2006 12:18AM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 3,550 |
<HTML>Car washes don't scratch paint finishes, it is the dirt that gets inbedded in the wash mitt; sponge, etc that is what scratches cars.
Test by the Technological University of Munich done for Mercedes Benz involved the hand washing of a vehicle 26 times and then machine washing a vehicle 26 times. That being the average number of times a person might wash a car in a year's time.
After the washings microscopic photos were taken of the paint finish and the results showed the paint hand washed incurred far more damage than the car wash machine washed paint.,
Why? The conclusion was that it was the grit embedded in the mitt that was causing the scratching.
This did not happen in a wash where the car wash bombarded with water and shampoo during the entire wash process creating a barrier between the paint finish and the washing material.
This test was substantiated a few years later by the University of Texas.
They also said that when you hand wash a car you need to have the mitt in one hand and a hose in the other insuring a layer of water between the mitt and the paint surface.
Regards
Bud Abraham</HTML>
buda
Test by the Technological University of Munich done for Mercedes Benz involved the hand washing of a vehicle 26 times and then machine washing a vehicle 26 times. That being the average number of times a person might wash a car in a year's time.
After the washings microscopic photos were taken of the paint finish and the results showed the paint hand washed incurred far more damage than the car wash machine washed paint.,
Why? The conclusion was that it was the grit embedded in the mitt that was causing the scratching.
This did not happen in a wash where the car wash bombarded with water and shampoo during the entire wash process creating a barrier between the paint finish and the washing material.
This test was substantiated a few years later by the University of Texas.
They also said that when you hand wash a car you need to have the mitt in one hand and a hose in the other insuring a layer of water between the mitt and the paint surface.
Regards
Bud Abraham</HTML>
buda
|
Re: New cars don't need to be waxed June 27, 2006 01:44AM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 201 |
<HTML>The statement was that you dont need to wax your car. My reply simply means that there is a difference between wanting and needing. Their are a lot of things that a person doesent need but will want. Some people want a very shiney car , most people dont care.I want my car to look great, I wax my car often. Even if they did come out with paint that didnt need wax I would still wax my car I like to do it It relaxs me.</HTML>
|
Re: New cars don't need to be waxed June 27, 2006 12:37PM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 641 |
<HTML>I have taken the time to read several owner's manuals.
If the owner of a vehicle would ever open and read this manual, they would find that most every vehicle manufacturer has a section that is how to care for their vehicles paint finish.
In all that I have read, which are many, they inform the owner the importance of keeping the finish clean and coat of protection on it, regularly.
Ketch</HTML>
Do it right or don't do it at all!
If the owner of a vehicle would ever open and read this manual, they would find that most every vehicle manufacturer has a section that is how to care for their vehicles paint finish.
In all that I have read, which are many, they inform the owner the importance of keeping the finish clean and coat of protection on it, regularly.
Ketch</HTML>
Do it right or don't do it at all!
|
Re: New cars don't need to be waxed July 01, 2006 04:45AM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 112 |
?
San Antonio Mobile Auto Detail
Martin Hernandez
210.213.3782
[www.saMobileCarWash.com]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/22/2009 05:15PM by MartinHernandez.
San Antonio Mobile Auto Detail
Martin Hernandez
210.213.3782
[www.saMobileCarWash.com]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/22/2009 05:15PM by MartinHernandez.
|
Re: New cars don't need to be waxed July 02, 2006 12:34PM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 59 |
<HTML>A few well-intentioned comments for the deep thinkers:
1. NEVER say never.
2. Washing is essential. Waxing isn't.
3. Applying a protective sealant of some type makes good sense because it places another barrier between the topcoat finish and all the nasty stuff.
4. Blanket statements are usually wrong, to some degree... so be prudent when making broad comments.
5. The "studies" done in Germany and Texas are bogus 35-year old "infomercials" created by the industry... to serve automatic carwashing. They NEVER held up to close scrutiny.
6. Perception often imitates reality. FACT is something indisputably the case. Perception may only give that appearance.
7. Owners manuals are written to assist buyers and safeguard manufacturers.
We live in a world of generalities. It is easy to agree with San Antonio, but only as it relates to THEIR expertise and execution. They are clearly professionals, as are many others reading this. Others probably have different standards that generate different results. Whenever time and money enter the equation, variables ultimately change the outcome.
Detailing, as life itself, is a work-in-progress.
-Steve</HTML>
1. NEVER say never.
2. Washing is essential. Waxing isn't.
3. Applying a protective sealant of some type makes good sense because it places another barrier between the topcoat finish and all the nasty stuff.
4. Blanket statements are usually wrong, to some degree... so be prudent when making broad comments.
5. The "studies" done in Germany and Texas are bogus 35-year old "infomercials" created by the industry... to serve automatic carwashing. They NEVER held up to close scrutiny.
6. Perception often imitates reality. FACT is something indisputably the case. Perception may only give that appearance.
7. Owners manuals are written to assist buyers and safeguard manufacturers.
We live in a world of generalities. It is easy to agree with San Antonio, but only as it relates to THEIR expertise and execution. They are clearly professionals, as are many others reading this. Others probably have different standards that generate different results. Whenever time and money enter the equation, variables ultimately change the outcome.
Detailing, as life itself, is a work-in-progress.
-Steve</HTML>
|
Re: New cars don't need to be waxed July 02, 2006 01:11PM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 3,550 |
<HTML>Steve:
I challenge you to prove that these tests were "bogus" and produce proof that they never "held up to close scrutiny."
What? Were they challenged by the International Handwashing Association?
As I recall, the first test was done in Germany for Mercedes Benz and later ICA commissioned another followup test to be done by the University of Texas.
It is not logical that just because a test was commissioned by the International Carwash Association that it would be bogus?
Regards
Bud Abraham</HTML>
buda
I challenge you to prove that these tests were "bogus" and produce proof that they never "held up to close scrutiny."
What? Were they challenged by the International Handwashing Association?
As I recall, the first test was done in Germany for Mercedes Benz and later ICA commissioned another followup test to be done by the University of Texas.
It is not logical that just because a test was commissioned by the International Carwash Association that it would be bogus?
Regards
Bud Abraham</HTML>
buda
|
Re: New cars don't need to be waxed July 02, 2006 02:30PM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 59 |
<HTML>Bud, we've had this discussion elsewhere, so I merely copied my response... so you can read it AGAIN.
As a matter of perspective, in fairness to the "research" previously cited, the Mercedes test was done over thirty years ago... and only offers a snapshot of the applied technology available then. With regard to the Texas study, again of the same vintage decades ago, the information was considered both contrived and seriously flawed when it was released mostly due to the standards used and limited controls. The automatic carwash association to bolster consumer acceptance of automatic washing and lacked genuine integrity funded it. Equipment suppliers instigated the study and its use as an educational tool lacked credibility, but it did fill an informational void.
In truth, a paint finish can be damaged by both processes — automatic or manual. As in most things, it's not simply "what" you do... but also "how" you do it. Variables such as chemical usage, finish-friendly processing, and attention to detail make the difference.
As I recall, the so-called Mercedes study was actually funded by a chemical company, and their objective was to convince the carmaker that automatic washing was okay. The Texas study was underwritten by ICA along with an equipment supplier who sought to convert the driveway washing motorists into automatic was customers, which is fine. But the integrity of the "study" was flawed in that the hand-wash utilized dishwashing soap with little lubricity... while the automatic carwash used unusually high amounts of high-lubricity lather.
To highlight the lack of the "test" being a fair & balanced, controlled study, one of the objectives was to show that automatic carwashes used less water that hand-washing, the hand-wash was done in a driveway with NO on-off nozzle used... but instead the hose was left running throughout the entire wash, allowing water to run down the driveway while the manual washing took place. Hence, the haste in washing the vehicle with dish soap caused quicker scrubbing with the non-slippery detergent. Result: The handwash used more water (duh) and the surface washed with the non-finish-friendly soap did not represent the state of the art handwashing that most detailers embraced. Instead, it resembled a substandard handwash process that compromised the finish.
At the time I owned and operated several carwashes as well as a number of detail operations and, along with others, found the studies to be too deceptive and were consequently too spurious to highlight. Yes, ICA did provide flyers and "news releases" but in good conscience, few quality professionals chose to use them. It represented "science" that was bought and paid for, not genuine truths.
To my dismay, the leading carwash equipment manufacturer (Hanna) enthusiastically supported the studies because the prevalent thought was that these "studies" helped in automatic carwash consumer acceptance. It was viewed by some as being similar to the phony car tests underwritten by car manufacturers who "bought" their backroom media coverage to create a false but profitable misrepresentation.
In a word: FRAUD. But it has sadly become part of the fabric of certain segments of our society. Sadly, our own White House currently champions that phenomenon.
My intent is not to continue a pissing contest. I simply felt that pointing to the two infomercial-type "studies" was a bottom-feeder approach to readers seeking genuine information, not fluff. If that’s the best you can hang your argument on, it’s not very credible. It may not be politically-correct to fault the ICA leadership of thirty-plus years ago... but please don't try to piss on my head... and then tell me it's raining!
Sorry if this offended anyone. Bud, you do a disservice with stuff like this... and you're better than that. Forget about citing bogus claims... and simply give your well-respected opinion. We'll listen.
-Steve</HTML>
As a matter of perspective, in fairness to the "research" previously cited, the Mercedes test was done over thirty years ago... and only offers a snapshot of the applied technology available then. With regard to the Texas study, again of the same vintage decades ago, the information was considered both contrived and seriously flawed when it was released mostly due to the standards used and limited controls. The automatic carwash association to bolster consumer acceptance of automatic washing and lacked genuine integrity funded it. Equipment suppliers instigated the study and its use as an educational tool lacked credibility, but it did fill an informational void.
In truth, a paint finish can be damaged by both processes — automatic or manual. As in most things, it's not simply "what" you do... but also "how" you do it. Variables such as chemical usage, finish-friendly processing, and attention to detail make the difference.
As I recall, the so-called Mercedes study was actually funded by a chemical company, and their objective was to convince the carmaker that automatic washing was okay. The Texas study was underwritten by ICA along with an equipment supplier who sought to convert the driveway washing motorists into automatic was customers, which is fine. But the integrity of the "study" was flawed in that the hand-wash utilized dishwashing soap with little lubricity... while the automatic carwash used unusually high amounts of high-lubricity lather.
To highlight the lack of the "test" being a fair & balanced, controlled study, one of the objectives was to show that automatic carwashes used less water that hand-washing, the hand-wash was done in a driveway with NO on-off nozzle used... but instead the hose was left running throughout the entire wash, allowing water to run down the driveway while the manual washing took place. Hence, the haste in washing the vehicle with dish soap caused quicker scrubbing with the non-slippery detergent. Result: The handwash used more water (duh) and the surface washed with the non-finish-friendly soap did not represent the state of the art handwashing that most detailers embraced. Instead, it resembled a substandard handwash process that compromised the finish.
At the time I owned and operated several carwashes as well as a number of detail operations and, along with others, found the studies to be too deceptive and were consequently too spurious to highlight. Yes, ICA did provide flyers and "news releases" but in good conscience, few quality professionals chose to use them. It represented "science" that was bought and paid for, not genuine truths.
To my dismay, the leading carwash equipment manufacturer (Hanna) enthusiastically supported the studies because the prevalent thought was that these "studies" helped in automatic carwash consumer acceptance. It was viewed by some as being similar to the phony car tests underwritten by car manufacturers who "bought" their backroom media coverage to create a false but profitable misrepresentation.
In a word: FRAUD. But it has sadly become part of the fabric of certain segments of our society. Sadly, our own White House currently champions that phenomenon.
My intent is not to continue a pissing contest. I simply felt that pointing to the two infomercial-type "studies" was a bottom-feeder approach to readers seeking genuine information, not fluff. If that’s the best you can hang your argument on, it’s not very credible. It may not be politically-correct to fault the ICA leadership of thirty-plus years ago... but please don't try to piss on my head... and then tell me it's raining!
Sorry if this offended anyone. Bud, you do a disservice with stuff like this... and you're better than that. Forget about citing bogus claims... and simply give your well-respected opinion. We'll listen.
-Steve</HTML>
|
Re: New cars don't need to be waxed July 02, 2006 03:23PM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 3,550 |
<HTML>Steve:
You made this same statement on another forum and on that forum I asked you give proof for your allegations. Until now, I have seen nothing but rhetoric.
Name the chemical company you alledge was behind the test.
At the time of the test, I worked for Hanna, directly with Dan Hanna and was in charge of public relations. I was never aware of our involvement in this test nor did we have anymore excitement about it than anyone else in the industry.
The fact the tests were done 20 and 30 years ago does not lessen their validity when one reads the testing protocols. As far as I am concerned, the protocols and results are valid today as they were then.
Tell me, has handwashing technology changed since 1975? What improvements can you name?
I can tell you that when the University of Munich test was done the automatic car wash used had plastic brushes. I would think that today, with cloth and foam the results would be more valid.
Again, you make a great many allegations but offer no proof other than "you say so."
As I told you on the other forum, if you can show proof of your allegations of "fraud" and "bogus" I will be the first to recant my position.
Until then I hold my position that these test results are valid.
Regards
Bud Abraham</HTML>
buda
You made this same statement on another forum and on that forum I asked you give proof for your allegations. Until now, I have seen nothing but rhetoric.
Name the chemical company you alledge was behind the test.
At the time of the test, I worked for Hanna, directly with Dan Hanna and was in charge of public relations. I was never aware of our involvement in this test nor did we have anymore excitement about it than anyone else in the industry.
The fact the tests were done 20 and 30 years ago does not lessen their validity when one reads the testing protocols. As far as I am concerned, the protocols and results are valid today as they were then.
Tell me, has handwashing technology changed since 1975? What improvements can you name?
I can tell you that when the University of Munich test was done the automatic car wash used had plastic brushes. I would think that today, with cloth and foam the results would be more valid.
Again, you make a great many allegations but offer no proof other than "you say so."
As I told you on the other forum, if you can show proof of your allegations of "fraud" and "bogus" I will be the first to recant my position.
Until then I hold my position that these test results are valid.
Regards
Bud Abraham</HTML>
buda
|
Re: New cars don't need to be waxed July 02, 2006 11:55PM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 59 |
<HTML>Another questionable "test" you've been intimately involved in?
You presented these tests as though they were relevant, maybe even as timely as "several years ago", I think you said.
I seem to recall that Ron challenged the integrity of another one of your more contemporary wfforts — supposed independent tests just a about a year ago. What was that one? Waxes? Sealants? Seems to me requests for product samples were made, and a lot of heated debate with Ketch regarding "standards" and his contempt for the misuse of the role of independent tests. I wasn't involved in that diatribe, but some here must remember all the fuss.
No thanks, Bud. I needn't prove anything. I choose to ignore this round in the pissing match. I've heard enough to know this is a no-win issue.
Strange, though... that this famous study that you (and only YOU) seem to tout as being a credible milestone of science... was quietly swept away... except for remaining on the Hanna website. In fact, besides you bringing it up every so often when it suits your assertions, nobody even remembers or has taken it seriously for over thirty years! I wonder why that is.
Why now, again. Maybe the thought is that after 30 years, the stink has gone away.
Nope. Funny how the truth endures, huh.
Sorry if my responses at the integrity of the "tests" cited caused any angst. Nothing personal, Bud. My focus was the bogus tests, not their misguided messenger.
Apologies extended to any injured spectators.</HTML>
You presented these tests as though they were relevant, maybe even as timely as "several years ago", I think you said.
I seem to recall that Ron challenged the integrity of another one of your more contemporary wfforts — supposed independent tests just a about a year ago. What was that one? Waxes? Sealants? Seems to me requests for product samples were made, and a lot of heated debate with Ketch regarding "standards" and his contempt for the misuse of the role of independent tests. I wasn't involved in that diatribe, but some here must remember all the fuss.
No thanks, Bud. I needn't prove anything. I choose to ignore this round in the pissing match. I've heard enough to know this is a no-win issue.
Strange, though... that this famous study that you (and only YOU) seem to tout as being a credible milestone of science... was quietly swept away... except for remaining on the Hanna website. In fact, besides you bringing it up every so often when it suits your assertions, nobody even remembers or has taken it seriously for over thirty years! I wonder why that is.
Why now, again. Maybe the thought is that after 30 years, the stink has gone away.
Nope. Funny how the truth endures, huh.
Sorry if my responses at the integrity of the "tests" cited caused any angst. Nothing personal, Bud. My focus was the bogus tests, not their misguided messenger.
Apologies extended to any injured spectators.</HTML>
|
Re: New cars don't need to be waxed July 03, 2006 02:30AM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 3,550 |
|
Re: New cars don't need to be waxed July 03, 2006 04:56PM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 866 |
<HTML>Bud, No test needed.
A wash mit in the hands of a Superior Shine employee will not scratch the paint on any vehicle nearly as much as an car wash.
I see the results every day all the time.
I am in business partly due to the low quality work of the car washes, body shops and auto dealers.</HTML>
-----------------------------------------------------
Plays in the rain --- www.SuperiorShineDetailing.com
A wash mit in the hands of a Superior Shine employee will not scratch the paint on any vehicle nearly as much as an car wash.
I see the results every day all the time.
I am in business partly due to the low quality work of the car washes, body shops and auto dealers.</HTML>
-----------------------------------------------------
Plays in the rain --- www.SuperiorShineDetailing.com
|
Re: New cars don't need to be waxed July 03, 2006 05:26PM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 3,550 |
|
Re: New cars don't need to be waxed July 03, 2006 05:33PM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 866 |
<HTML>Bud,
It might be easier to convince someone that there isn’t a God than to try to convince them that car washes don’t scratch. I have never seen God but have seen many many vehicles butchered by car washes.
I am sure there are some awesome car washes but they are far and few in my area.
My walk by faith and not by sight doesn’t apply to car washes-SORRY.</HTML>
-----------------------------------------------------
Plays in the rain --- www.SuperiorShineDetailing.com
It might be easier to convince someone that there isn’t a God than to try to convince them that car washes don’t scratch. I have never seen God but have seen many many vehicles butchered by car washes.
I am sure there are some awesome car washes but they are far and few in my area.
My walk by faith and not by sight doesn’t apply to car washes-SORRY.</HTML>
-----------------------------------------------------
Plays in the rain --- www.SuperiorShineDetailing.com
|
Re: New cars don't need to be waxed July 03, 2006 05:38PM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 866 |
<HTML>Also-- Let me add this. How ever the car washes leave cars is OK. It is perfectly acceptable be it scratched, marred, etc.......
The line around the block to get in has told me that.
I hear all the time how unhappy many are with the car wash, then they complain about me charging $45 to do their car!!
Go figure.</HTML>
-----------------------------------------------------
Plays in the rain --- www.SuperiorShineDetailing.com
The line around the block to get in has told me that.
I hear all the time how unhappy many are with the car wash, then they complain about me charging $45 to do their car!!
Go figure.</HTML>
-----------------------------------------------------
Plays in the rain --- www.SuperiorShineDetailing.com
|
Re: New cars don't need to be waxed July 03, 2006 05:58PM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 3,550 |
<HTML>It is called convenience and value. Most people do not value a $45 car wash and most people want convenience. Car washing is an impulse decision that is why when a research company interview 1500 car wash patrons and asked them why they picked this particular wash they were in that day they said, "I happen to drive by."
The International Carwash Association did a consumer reseach study and found that many consumers felt that they could do a better job of washing their cars at home vs a car wash, but.............and a big BUT, they prefered the convenience of an automatic wash.
And, you alledged shots at car washes damaging cars does not completely hold water since home washing is in a decline in the last 5 years and automatic car washes are washing billions of cars per year.
You can be an ostrich and put your head in the sand and say that automatic washes are no good and damage cars, but the reality is that it is a growing industry and more and more people are using automatic carwashes.
Regards
Bud Abraham</HTML>
buda
The International Carwash Association did a consumer reseach study and found that many consumers felt that they could do a better job of washing their cars at home vs a car wash, but.............and a big BUT, they prefered the convenience of an automatic wash.
And, you alledged shots at car washes damaging cars does not completely hold water since home washing is in a decline in the last 5 years and automatic car washes are washing billions of cars per year.
You can be an ostrich and put your head in the sand and say that automatic washes are no good and damage cars, but the reality is that it is a growing industry and more and more people are using automatic carwashes.
Regards
Bud Abraham</HTML>
buda
|
Re: New cars don't need to be waxed July 03, 2006 06:08PM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 3,550 |
|
Re: New cars don't need to be waxed July 03, 2006 06:17PM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 866 |
<HTML>Let’s go with the assumption that everything you say is true.
We are keeping busy and charging $45+ per wash (off route and large vehicles are more) due solely to the perception of the car washes in my clients eyes that car washes are bad.
Because millions use it dosn't hold water. McDonalds has to be the worst food I have ever had and they make billions!!
People surly eat there for cheap price and convenience.
Recently I decided it would be a good idea to recruit from my local car wash. The idea was to run my car through and talk to the employees while at the wash. I couldn't bring myself to run any of my cars through. I offered to pay for my two employees, my wife and my neighbors cars and nobody would go for it- LOL
We are beating this dead horse. Lets agre to dis-agree.</HTML>
-----------------------------------------------------
Plays in the rain --- www.SuperiorShineDetailing.com
We are keeping busy and charging $45+ per wash (off route and large vehicles are more) due solely to the perception of the car washes in my clients eyes that car washes are bad.
Because millions use it dosn't hold water. McDonalds has to be the worst food I have ever had and they make billions!!
People surly eat there for cheap price and convenience.
Recently I decided it would be a good idea to recruit from my local car wash. The idea was to run my car through and talk to the employees while at the wash. I couldn't bring myself to run any of my cars through. I offered to pay for my two employees, my wife and my neighbors cars and nobody would go for it- LOL
We are beating this dead horse. Lets agre to dis-agree.</HTML>
-----------------------------------------------------
Plays in the rain --- www.SuperiorShineDetailing.com
|
Re: New cars don't need to be waxed July 03, 2006 07:44PM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 3,550 |
|
Re: New cars don't need to be waxed July 03, 2006 08:10PM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 866 |
|
Re: New cars don't need to be waxed July 03, 2006 08:12PM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 866 |
|
Re: New cars don't need to be waxed July 03, 2006 08:42PM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 3,550 |
<HTML>Joe
Your few hundred clients are not going to make or break the automatic car washes in the SoCal area which is the automatic car wash capital of the world.
You know there are washes there that do over 30,000 cars per month.
There is plenty for everyone.
Regards
Bud Abraham
PS: How does a Cuban go from being a Roman Catholic to a born-again Christian?</HTML>
buda
Your few hundred clients are not going to make or break the automatic car washes in the SoCal area which is the automatic car wash capital of the world.
You know there are washes there that do over 30,000 cars per month.
There is plenty for everyone.
Regards
Bud Abraham
PS: How does a Cuban go from being a Roman Catholic to a born-again Christian?</HTML>
buda
|
Re: New cars don't need to be waxed July 03, 2006 08:48PM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 866 |
<HTML>I never was a Catholic. I was born and raised here in the good ol' USA and raised in the south at that.
As far as the comment about my client share making or breaking the car wash industry in So Cal........ did I miss the point of this thread?
you just emailed me -
To answer your private email, We are off today and tomorrow.
Happy 4th !</HTML>
-----------------------------------------------------
Plays in the rain --- www.SuperiorShineDetailing.com
As far as the comment about my client share making or breaking the car wash industry in So Cal........ did I miss the point of this thread?
you just emailed me -
To answer your private email, We are off today and tomorrow.
Happy 4th !</HTML>
-----------------------------------------------------
Plays in the rain --- www.SuperiorShineDetailing.com
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.