mjlinane
My name is Mike
Review: Chemical Guys Microfiber Detergent
Introduction:
[Standing up and uncomfortably fidgeting] "Hello, my name is Michael. I am an audiophile and I haven't bought a piece of high-end gear in 1916 days." Soft applause and words of encouragement. Yes, I am a recovering audiophile. I had it bad. And I'm not even talking about very expensive gear - we're talking stupid expensive gear. One wall outlet cost me $250. Yes, the world of 4 figure power cords and my "record player" (turntable, tonearm and cartridge) cost more than either of my cars!
Obviously, this is going to be a different kind of review (one with more Introduction than review). I brought up the first paragraph because I was rummaging around in the Product Review sections here and at AGO looking to see if potential review candidates had already been reviewed by other members (I doubt I could add anything substantive and posting a link with "Yeah, what he said" isn't my idea of a quality post). Then I came across one of Corey's posts informing members he was exploring changes to how he does reviews.
Now, before anyone misconstrues what I'm about to write as an attack on Corey, let be absolutely clear: I have the utmost respect for Corey and have zero - ZERO - concerns about his integrity. If you read ALL of this, you will see what I'm really getting at. It did inspire me, though.
In the mid-80s when I started high-end audio, the 2 primary sources of reviews were Stereophile and The Absolute Sound. At that time, every 3rd review absolutely panned a product and the manufacturer would call the reviewer names or claim the product was actually faulty or outdated or there was a strong system dependency/interaction problem. The great part of this, aside from it being rather entertaining, was that you learned as much about the reviewer as the product. By this, you learned which reviewers' listening tastes were most similar to yours.
In more recent times (before I let my subscriptions lapse), I think they went 4-5 years (combined) when, not only hadn't they panned a product, every product was the best of its kind. Many long-time readers complained that they sold out to the manufacturers who paid $$ for the ads and gave the reviewers "long term loans" of equipment (read "free") that cost more than average folk's homes.
The reviewers always responded with "Hey, I get to choose what products I review and only choose the ones I want to review. So, naturally, they are going to tend to be positive. I'm not reviewing things I think are crap."
Do I believe these reviewers were shills for the audio manufacturers? IDK but you can see how it would lead readers to wonder. The other unintended consequence is that, if all reviews are extremely positive, why do I need reviews? Everything is great. That was always the distinction between Stereophile/TAS from the mainstream stereo magazines in the day.
So, my own reviews have been very positive (except for the neutral review on CG SQD) mostly for the reason the high-end reviewers gave. That is partly why I asked what products the members wanted reviewed. (I haven't forgotten - the remaining requests will require an appropriate donor vehicle for useful pics.) I'm also sure that PBMG appreciates that to some degree because it does help sales.
So, if I've properly lead and not lost the witness, you can probably guess the answer to "will this be another positive review of a CG product?" Not so much.
And as Corey demonstrated in his recent Fog Fight review, you have nothing to worry about from him, either.
Thanks to Corey again for providing the format.
Product Claims:
From Autopia Car Care site -
"Restores Microfiber Towels to Like-New Condition!
Highly concentrated formula.
Contains no fabric softeners.
Rinses clean.
Microfiber Rejuvenator Cleaning Detergent Concentrate will keep your microfiber towels at the peek of softness and performance. Used regularly microfiber wash will retain microfiber softness and protect your microfiber towel keeping them soft and absorbent. Microfiber Rejuvenator Cleaning Detergent Concentrate Is a hospital-grade super concentrated detergent.
Microfiber Rejuvenator Cleaning Detergent Concentrate not only leaves your towels clean but removes lingering bacteria and oils that may otherwise not be removed. Wax, polish, compound and most chemicals build-up and compromise the cleaning ability of microfiber as well as dramatically reduce the cleaning, buffing or polishing efficiency of the microfiber. Using inferior towel washes or household detergents leads to rapid discoloration, deterioration and stiffness greatly reducing the microfiber natural absorption ability as well as its longevity.
Microfiber Rejuvenator Cleaning Detergent Concentrate can be used for more then just microfiber, it is also recommended for cotton, chamois, buffing pads and even delicate work shirts.
Directions for use: Only 2-3 ounces of Microfiber Rejuvenator Cleaning Detergent Concentrate is enough for a full load, one ounce for a small load. Do not use any type of bleach or fabric softener when washing microfiber."
Note - the incorrect use of "peek" and "then" are on the website and not my doing.
Chemical Guys Microfiber Rejuvenator Cleaning Detergent Concentrate
Details:
1.- Packaging: Plastic Bottle
2.- Directions: Clearly labeled
3.- Viscosity: Thick
4.- Color: Off clear
5.- Scent: Soapy
6.- Price at time of review: 16oz = $ 8.99
7.- Manufacturer: Chemical Guys
9.- Made in: California
Product
I've actually already used all of this product. The bottle is full of a free & clear detergent.
Other Products Used:
Dirty MF
LG Steam Front Load Washer and matching dryer
Note - I have softened water.
Preparation:
Dirty your MFs however you see fit. I have found that, to get the "miraculous" results shown in the ads, a presoak is necessary in a water/detergent mix.
Application:
Depending on the size of the load, add 0.5-2oz to wash. Use warm wash/cold rinse, very high spin, heavy dirt setting. Follow with added rinse cycle(s).
I also used it in my presoak bucket at 0.5oz to 4 gallon of warm water. I would soak 30min to multiple days. Some light agitation and, often, a rinse but always wrung out prior to going in the washer.
Observations:
Lots of suds. Leaves film on MF that wouldn't come off with multiple (like 5) rinse cycles (& the @#$% stuff was still sudsing) and required washing in alternate MF detergent to remove. I resorted to only using this in the presoak bucket.
Does it meet its claims? Not for me.
Comparisons:
I alternate washes with Pinnacle, DP and Micro Restore. I like Pinnacle for the texture it leaves on my MFs but it is really expensive. I use Micro Restore when the MFs are heavily soiled - just think it cleans better but the texture isn't quite as nice as the other 2. DP, to me, falls almost exactly between the other 2. I'd still like a less expensive alternative.
All are significantly better IME in my washer. In fact, I found - again in my washer - that OTC Free & Clear worked better.
And, for those using OTC products but are curious, if you haven't used the Pinnacle MF detergent, you don't know what how soft your MFs can feel. And, yes, I have used vinegar in the rinse cycle of the OTC products (not with Pinnacle).
Pros:
1.- Cleans well
2.- One of the least expensive MF-specific detergents available
Cons:
1.- Suds too much.
2.- Leaves a hard to remove film on MFs.
Final Observations and Summary:
I absolutely hated this stuff. I really wanted to like it because it is more cost effective than Pinnacle, DP or Micro Restore but would never buy it again. Using this in my washer required using a Tub Rinse cycle to get it all out. For the limited use I have for it, any HE Free & Clear detergent will work.
So, why do other members like this and why does CG still sell it? My guess is the system dependency/interaction problem: my washer requires a HE detergent and this product isn't. (I hope Todd took this into account with the new BF MF Detergent - you can use HE detergents in non-HE washers but not vice versa.) I'm sure my softened water doesn't help. Or the product could have been faulty or outdated. This might be a very definite case of YMMV.
I do believe that, like high-end audio, the unappreciated parts of the system contribute disproportionately to the end result. (Oooh, two 6 syllables words in one sentence, extra credit!
) The detailing equivalent is the cleanliness & softness of your MFs. If they aren't up to snuff, you will be working harder to get your desired results.
At least now you know for sure I am not on the CG payroll.
Comments and questions are encouraged. Thanks for viewing!
Introduction:
[Standing up and uncomfortably fidgeting] "Hello, my name is Michael. I am an audiophile and I haven't bought a piece of high-end gear in 1916 days." Soft applause and words of encouragement. Yes, I am a recovering audiophile. I had it bad. And I'm not even talking about very expensive gear - we're talking stupid expensive gear. One wall outlet cost me $250. Yes, the world of 4 figure power cords and my "record player" (turntable, tonearm and cartridge) cost more than either of my cars!
Obviously, this is going to be a different kind of review (one with more Introduction than review). I brought up the first paragraph because I was rummaging around in the Product Review sections here and at AGO looking to see if potential review candidates had already been reviewed by other members (I doubt I could add anything substantive and posting a link with "Yeah, what he said" isn't my idea of a quality post). Then I came across one of Corey's posts informing members he was exploring changes to how he does reviews.
Now, before anyone misconstrues what I'm about to write as an attack on Corey, let be absolutely clear: I have the utmost respect for Corey and have zero - ZERO - concerns about his integrity. If you read ALL of this, you will see what I'm really getting at. It did inspire me, though.
In the mid-80s when I started high-end audio, the 2 primary sources of reviews were Stereophile and The Absolute Sound. At that time, every 3rd review absolutely panned a product and the manufacturer would call the reviewer names or claim the product was actually faulty or outdated or there was a strong system dependency/interaction problem. The great part of this, aside from it being rather entertaining, was that you learned as much about the reviewer as the product. By this, you learned which reviewers' listening tastes were most similar to yours.
In more recent times (before I let my subscriptions lapse), I think they went 4-5 years (combined) when, not only hadn't they panned a product, every product was the best of its kind. Many long-time readers complained that they sold out to the manufacturers who paid $$ for the ads and gave the reviewers "long term loans" of equipment (read "free") that cost more than average folk's homes.
The reviewers always responded with "Hey, I get to choose what products I review and only choose the ones I want to review. So, naturally, they are going to tend to be positive. I'm not reviewing things I think are crap."
Do I believe these reviewers were shills for the audio manufacturers? IDK but you can see how it would lead readers to wonder. The other unintended consequence is that, if all reviews are extremely positive, why do I need reviews? Everything is great. That was always the distinction between Stereophile/TAS from the mainstream stereo magazines in the day.
So, my own reviews have been very positive (except for the neutral review on CG SQD) mostly for the reason the high-end reviewers gave. That is partly why I asked what products the members wanted reviewed. (I haven't forgotten - the remaining requests will require an appropriate donor vehicle for useful pics.) I'm also sure that PBMG appreciates that to some degree because it does help sales.
So, if I've properly lead and not lost the witness, you can probably guess the answer to "will this be another positive review of a CG product?" Not so much.
And as Corey demonstrated in his recent Fog Fight review, you have nothing to worry about from him, either.
Thanks to Corey again for providing the format.
Product Claims:
From Autopia Car Care site -
"Restores Microfiber Towels to Like-New Condition!
Highly concentrated formula.
Contains no fabric softeners.
Rinses clean.
Microfiber Rejuvenator Cleaning Detergent Concentrate will keep your microfiber towels at the peek of softness and performance. Used regularly microfiber wash will retain microfiber softness and protect your microfiber towel keeping them soft and absorbent. Microfiber Rejuvenator Cleaning Detergent Concentrate Is a hospital-grade super concentrated detergent.
Microfiber Rejuvenator Cleaning Detergent Concentrate not only leaves your towels clean but removes lingering bacteria and oils that may otherwise not be removed. Wax, polish, compound and most chemicals build-up and compromise the cleaning ability of microfiber as well as dramatically reduce the cleaning, buffing or polishing efficiency of the microfiber. Using inferior towel washes or household detergents leads to rapid discoloration, deterioration and stiffness greatly reducing the microfiber natural absorption ability as well as its longevity.
Microfiber Rejuvenator Cleaning Detergent Concentrate can be used for more then just microfiber, it is also recommended for cotton, chamois, buffing pads and even delicate work shirts.
Directions for use: Only 2-3 ounces of Microfiber Rejuvenator Cleaning Detergent Concentrate is enough for a full load, one ounce for a small load. Do not use any type of bleach or fabric softener when washing microfiber."
Note - the incorrect use of "peek" and "then" are on the website and not my doing.
Chemical Guys Microfiber Rejuvenator Cleaning Detergent Concentrate
Details:
1.- Packaging: Plastic Bottle
2.- Directions: Clearly labeled
3.- Viscosity: Thick
4.- Color: Off clear
5.- Scent: Soapy
6.- Price at time of review: 16oz = $ 8.99
7.- Manufacturer: Chemical Guys
9.- Made in: California
Product
I've actually already used all of this product. The bottle is full of a free & clear detergent.
Other Products Used:
Dirty MF
LG Steam Front Load Washer and matching dryer
Note - I have softened water.
Preparation:
Dirty your MFs however you see fit. I have found that, to get the "miraculous" results shown in the ads, a presoak is necessary in a water/detergent mix.
Application:
Depending on the size of the load, add 0.5-2oz to wash. Use warm wash/cold rinse, very high spin, heavy dirt setting. Follow with added rinse cycle(s).
I also used it in my presoak bucket at 0.5oz to 4 gallon of warm water. I would soak 30min to multiple days. Some light agitation and, often, a rinse but always wrung out prior to going in the washer.
Observations:
Lots of suds. Leaves film on MF that wouldn't come off with multiple (like 5) rinse cycles (& the @#$% stuff was still sudsing) and required washing in alternate MF detergent to remove. I resorted to only using this in the presoak bucket.
Does it meet its claims? Not for me.
Comparisons:
I alternate washes with Pinnacle, DP and Micro Restore. I like Pinnacle for the texture it leaves on my MFs but it is really expensive. I use Micro Restore when the MFs are heavily soiled - just think it cleans better but the texture isn't quite as nice as the other 2. DP, to me, falls almost exactly between the other 2. I'd still like a less expensive alternative.
All are significantly better IME in my washer. In fact, I found - again in my washer - that OTC Free & Clear worked better.
And, for those using OTC products but are curious, if you haven't used the Pinnacle MF detergent, you don't know what how soft your MFs can feel. And, yes, I have used vinegar in the rinse cycle of the OTC products (not with Pinnacle).
Pros:
1.- Cleans well
2.- One of the least expensive MF-specific detergents available
Cons:
1.- Suds too much.
2.- Leaves a hard to remove film on MFs.
Final Observations and Summary:
I absolutely hated this stuff. I really wanted to like it because it is more cost effective than Pinnacle, DP or Micro Restore but would never buy it again. Using this in my washer required using a Tub Rinse cycle to get it all out. For the limited use I have for it, any HE Free & Clear detergent will work.
So, why do other members like this and why does CG still sell it? My guess is the system dependency/interaction problem: my washer requires a HE detergent and this product isn't. (I hope Todd took this into account with the new BF MF Detergent - you can use HE detergents in non-HE washers but not vice versa.) I'm sure my softened water doesn't help. Or the product could have been faulty or outdated. This might be a very definite case of YMMV.
I do believe that, like high-end audio, the unappreciated parts of the system contribute disproportionately to the end result. (Oooh, two 6 syllables words in one sentence, extra credit!
) The detailing equivalent is the cleanliness & softness of your MFs. If they aren't up to snuff, you will be working harder to get your desired results. At least now you know for sure I am not on the CG payroll.
Comments and questions are encouraged. Thanks for viewing!
