| Welcome to the Autopia.org. You are viewing as a guest. By joining our FREE community you will be able to interact with others. Plus, when you join you will receive instant coupon codes for special discounts with our sponsors. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
|
02-09-06, 10:53
|
#1 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Chan is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 166 | Charlie's Soap is well worth the $20 I wash my MFs the other day with barely any of Charlie's Soap and it came out as clean as using an ounce of Tide. Came out a lot softer too! | |
| |
02-10-06, 03:36
|
#2 (permalink)
| | BE(beginning experience)
cwcad is offline
Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Harker Heights, Texas Posts: 1,067 | I concur! Have been using Charlie's Soap for about two or three months now. I think that it is doing a great job with my MF towels.
__________________
cwcad
DO WHAT YOU SAY... SAY WHAT YOU DO! www.ldkbox.com a blog agbout life's details
| |
| |
02-10-06, 03:58
|
#3 (permalink)
| | Wax Sniffer
zippymbr is offline
Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: NC Posts: 978 | Welcome to the club! If you like the laundry detegent you should try the APC. Gets out most anything, rinses clean, and is very economical. | |
| |
02-10-06, 07:39
|
#4 (permalink)
| | Practical Perfectionist
Accumulator is offline
Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: NE Ohio Posts: 20,880 | Yeah, Charlie's might not be my *favorite* detergent for MFs (still prefer the MF-specific stuff, at least with my washer/water) but it's better than store-bought stuff. And I also find myself using it for the household textiles all the time. | |
| |
02-10-06, 07:44
|
#5 (permalink)
| | One Shiny tC
Neothin is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Port St. Lucie FL Posts: 1,746 | I've been using tide or whatever else is in the laundry room to clean my MF's up to this point. Am I really going to see/feel that much of a difference by switching to charlie's or something like micro-restore?
__________________ 2006 Nautical Blue Metallic Scion tC
Mods can be found HERE
AIO-RMG-Souveran
| |
| |
02-10-06, 07:48
|
#6 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Chan is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 166 | Quote: |
Originally Posted by Neothin I've been using tide or whatever else is in the laundry room to clean my MF's up to this point. Am I really going to see/feel that much of a difference by switching to charlie's or something like micro-restore? | You won't be using anywhere near as much Charlie's as you did with Tide. In turn, you'll be saving some money. | |
| |
02-10-06, 07:59
|
#7 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Spilchy is offline
Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: NJ Posts: 3,882 | For small and medium loads I use an ounce of Charlies. For large and extra large I use 1.5 ounces to 2 ounces.
Accumulator, try Charlie's APC to clean MF's - about an ounce with hot water. I have used it and am extremely happy with it. I have a gallon of MicroRestoe and it's very similar but much cheaper.
__________________ Seth club F L E X i use sea sponges | |
| |
02-10-06, 08:01
|
#8 (permalink)
| | Banned
Miami_vice is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Ft. lauderdale Posts: 153 | | |
| |
02-10-06, 08:03
|
#9 (permalink)
| | The Four Rings
chml17l is offline
Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Louisiana Posts: 851 | Neo- feeling a difference is kind of subjective. I believe the real value in using something like Charlies or a specific mf wash is for what they don't contain (UV brighteners, fabric softening agents, perfumes or scent masking agents). All of these additives, in a traditional detergent like Tide, are designed to not rinse out of your laundry. They leave a measureable about of residue that over time requires you to use additional softeners. They probably cause accelerated wear of the clothing themselves since they are constantly abrading the fibers. Without additives, the clothing fibers can achieve their full lofting capability and will probably feel softer without the need for specific additional softening agents.
Last edited by chml17l : 02-10-06 at 08:58.
| |
| |
02-10-06, 08:07
|
#10 (permalink)
| | Practical Perfectionist
Accumulator is offline
Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: NE Ohio Posts: 20,880 | Spilchy- I'll consider the Charlie's APC...heh heh, this experimenting of mine is making them some money
Neothin- It depends on all the variables in your situation (washer, water, stuff on the MFs, etc.) but for me the "special" detergents worked miracles compared to Tide/Cheer/etc.
There are sources that seel large quantities of Charlies quite cheap too. | |
| |
02-10-06, 08:12
|
#11 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Setec Astronomy is offline
Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 7,665 | Quote: |
Originally Posted by Spilchy Accumulator, try Charlie's APC to clean MF's - about an ounce with hot water. I have used it and am extremely happy with it. I have a gallon of MicroRestoe and it's very similar but much cheaper. | I guess this is the ultimate Charlie's soap question--use the Laundry Liquid or the APC for MF's? I like the LL for regular laundry and MF's, I have the APC but have not washed with it (yet), only pretreated stains/waxy spots.
Here is what a Charlie's Soap rep had to say elsewhere about the APC and why they created Laundry Liquid: "The problem was, 20 years ago and still now, that people don't normally want to use it in their laundry because A) it does have a chemical smell to it out of the bottle and B) it doesn't go all that far for laundry: about 64 loads per gallon. "
__________________
Grumpy like Ketch...
"Well, it certainly does!"
| |
| |
02-10-06, 08:31
|
#12 (permalink)
| | member from the old board
tom p. is online now Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: boston Posts: 3,314 | Charlie's is Autopian-grade!! | |
| | |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | | | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Rate This Thread | Linear Mode | |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts HTML code is On | | | | All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:53. | | | |