Really interesting video ! I'm impressed with how you got the patience to reply to every ''turn the knob'' comments. I'm from Canada and I didn't know anything about PIR before I start using Touch-Less. Then I figured everything about how you do it in UK. People around here only care about shaving creme foam, but it really doesn't matter anymore with good product like Bilt Hamber. I now only use Touch-Less when the car is really dirty/dusty. No more Neutral PH snow foam before contact wash, I just use good lubrication shampoo like Carpro Reset don't see any issue. I saw some tests and you can apply Touch-Less straight liquid on the paint and get similar results. More foam doesn't always mean more cleaning power.
Thank you for taking the time to comment AND add such a good one - as you can see from my responses, if the comment about just turning the dial is snarky, they get a similar response! I'm really glad to hear you've had good experiences with PIR now you've had a play with it, and that you've had good experiences with Bilt Hamber, I know it's really expensive for you guys - Koch Chemie SuperFoam is absolutely brilliant as an alternative and I believe that's a bit cheaper? You also max that at 2% PIR, so the pricing probably works nicely for you.
Thanks for the recommandation, Super Foam is 105$ CAD for 5L while Touch-Less is 74$ CAD for the same quantity. But I think Super Foam would require a lot less product. I'm in the market to change my MTM PF22 cause I'm done with the small openning and I hate how dark the bottle is when it's time to dillute. This foam cannon is also top heavy and not really stable. I might go with the Griot's Boss considering what I saw from your video. I think where people might disagree with you is that's it's not a bad foam cannon overall, just not right for our application.
Ohhh, I forgot to mention that ETA on the new Touch-Less version which is supose to cost same price but be double the concentration is June, so I'm waiting for that to restock. PIR ratio will be from 0.5 to 2.0. Gonna be a good way to save if as effective !
In my opinion, a dryer foam means it's a lot more effective than the others that even of you want to, you can't achieve that dry foam. If it has a mixing option then it's up to you to choose what mix you want 😅 I have that exact same v3 and I love it, but if you have the v2 pro don't buy it because it's basically the same
@@SuperchargedLlama I was thinking about pre-wash stage. 😁 Imight be wrong but i think that a dryer foam is less diluted by the water coming from the pressure washer, the same logic as using a foamer instead of a snos foam cannon as the dilution inside the bottle stays the same because there's no more water introduced in the mix! I would have to test it and see if this is true or not, as to be honest i neved did it and i probably should 😅 For instance i work at a pro detailing studio and we usually use APC as a prewash(and then foam it to keep it a little bit longer on the surface) and that usually works better than just an alkaline foam for example 😁
@@afonsofreitas3595 Yup, completely understand the logic there. the dilution aspect is generally addressed by Panel Impact Ratio calculations, whereby you workout and adjust the volume of product in the bottle so that you know you're getting the correct dilution on the panel. For example, I know it takes 14L of discharged water to empty the 1L foam bottle, so if I want 4% PIR I need to do 14000x0.04 - which then tells me I need 560ml, mixed with water to make 1L of product in my foam bottle in order to achieve 4% on the panel. In this case you wouldn't adjust the dial, you have it on max draw and you know you're getting the correct percentage. And in every other lance that isn't an MJJC, you get a nice wet foam still. The thing is....I think I'm coming round to the IK foamer idea, because you use FAR less product to achieve the same thing. However, for applying the shampoo to the car for the contact wash....I think the MJJC is amazing.
@@SuperchargedLlama My problem with PIR is that the majority of the snow foams i use don't give me that information unfortunately, only a general idea on ml when every machine and cannon have different specs. Me personally i think that using 560ml of product in 1l of final product is just too much, the cost it carries is enormous for me, that's why the foamer, as you said, is a better idea for me because it uses less product to produce the same result 😁 Thanks for taking the time to answer and explain the PIR, already knew but knowledge is never too much! 🙌
@@SuperchargedLlama Oh and yes, using it to spread shampoo to do the contact wash is definitely very useful and one of the safest ways, while being fast, to do it!
Yes it does, but doing so dilutes the product and therefore completely voiding your Panel Impact Ratio calculation, so you've got no idea what dilution your pre-wash is at and the performance of it will be way off.
@@SuperchargedLlama right, but probably because when set to its maximum, it gives out more PIR than desired, with the output foam being too dry and thick, so it remains only to find in which position dilution knob produces the targeted percentage for given product volume. So either using less product in the lance or adjusting the knob should do the same trick, shouldn't it
@@kohinoore that's not how PIR works. You calculate it generally from maximum draw, so it's not giving out too much. The problem with the MJJC is that it over aerates the foam. MJJC have prioritised thick foam over wet foam, which is a mistake for pre-wash.
Excellent video darling, very clear about the issues with thick foam. I laughed about BH shampoo in the lance, it's usually 5ml to a 10 litre bucket but it worked relatively well through the lance. Keep them coming! 👌🏻
Thank you darling! I enjoyed making this one. I agree with the volume of Auto Wash. The MJJC stuff was basically 4x in the lance than they suggest you put in the bucket, so I just took that as a reference everywhere else.
I've now rewatched it and can see that you're sharing the same opinions as me. I have to say, Super Foam is an outstanding pre-wash product, I really like it.
Great idea and test. Another reason (if I needed one) not to get a V3. I've been expressing my misgivings around the fashion for transparent (PET?) plastic recently, after the FaceBook posts about the neck breaking off a brand's bottle. I can see (literally) the advantage over HDPE but i'll stick with it.
That was the Duel ones that had the issue, wasn't it? I think they've got clear ones still, but a different material now? I agree btw, especially if there's unnecessary cost added for a clear plastic bottle.
Thank you. I can't think of another way to test it, although it has been suggested to me that I should set the fan to wide and give it a go that way, which I shall as it's a good point to make.
Had the previous model liked it a lot then got a AVA p57 love the cannon it’s brilliant had to buy the 1tr jug as the 0.5 one is a waste of time not used my mjcc cannon since buying the Ava
I could write the exact same comment! I think those Ava foam lances are genuinely one of the best on the market. I'm getting the P200 back from Nilfisk soon and I'm looking for an adaptor so I can fit Karcher K series attachments PURELY so I can use the Ava foam lance.
@@SuperchargedLlama only thing I don’t like about the avs is the pick up tube if it was weighted like the mjcc would be brilliant get brilliant foam with bilt hamber auto foam and touch less would like a adaptor for the ava so I could use my mjcc but my adapter just leaks so never used it,might get the Ava quick release so I can use it for wheels or ceramic snow foam
If you’re using a foam canon and regardless the thickness you’re trying to achieve. If you’re letting the soap dry just put it away and go back to a bucket.
Unless it's the pre-wash. In that situation you just don't let it dwell as long (although it won't have done as much). What you can see in the video is that, through some cannons, it won't dry out as quick. The red cars were filmed in February so it was nice and cool - looks like 4mins I'd dwell is about the max you can get, all of them were pushing it at 5 weren't they?
@@2quick524 that's very much why I went to reasonable lengths to explain the difference between the pre-wash and the contact wash foams, they're a very different proposition. The pre-wash products need dwell time, and you wouldn't contact wash these as there had been no pre-rinse up this point - active pre-washes (high pH) take off so much more dirt than water does alone that it's well worth it
1) It wasn't clear, did you match the heads for flow so the *actual* PIR was matched? 2) Is this a case where you actually need to adjust the flow on the head using that knob?
Yeah so it turned out that at maximum draw, both the foam lances had the same flow rate. That's how you calculate the flow rate btw, max draw. If you're doing it partly open it is inaccurate as it's very unlikely that you'll open it to the exact same point each time.
@@SuperchargedLlamaThanks, so that is good to know for foaming between them. Where i was going with the dryness part, was letting less flow through would make it wetter on the panel, right?
They've remedied that with the pf22.3, which is basically a widemouth bottle kit, and you can buy that to upgrade your existing one. I personally take the pain with the narrow opening though, because the foam is produces is actually good (from a pre-wash perspective). Carscope have got a V2 of their Foamzooka coming to market soon and it looks like it's taken the good bits from the MJJC without any of the stupid double filter stuff. We shall see!
Excellent demo of equipment wetting effect. Usually the focus is on the product but this clearly shows how the delivery affects performance. As for amount of Auto Wash used, it did not seem that much given the lance introduces at least 10L of water?
Aha, good point on the AutoWash - let me explain - it's usually 5ml to 20L in a wash bucket. With my PIR it pushes 14L to clear 1L of mixed solution, so that would have been about 20ml of autowash for a full 1L, or 5ml for 250ml in this example. AutoWash is, like Gyeon Bath Essence, super concentrated, a very different product from regular shampoos that require 30-40ml per 20L bucket.
That reduces the PIR, which is important with an active pre-wash foam (in this case it's high alkaline), you'll dilute it and then reduce its efficacy. There's literally no other lance manufacturer on the market that gives you this issue.
Hello Mr. Llama, are you still using MTM? I see some people take out the filter from MTM and replace the one in MJJC v3 with it to achieve the same runnier foam. Would you do a test of that? I'm curious to have a more modern lance with wider opening, more durable threads, etc. but I don't want to loose the runny foam.
I do still have that MTM, yup, it's actually the one I use the most I think. I've not tried swapping the filters but I can't see it making much of a difference, the biggest issue that faces the MJJC is having two filters and a felt one in between them, so I reckon taking one of them out would be the better solution. I barely use the MJJC to be honest as it produces such rubbish foam and constantly falls over when empty, or even anything under half full.
@@SuperchargedLlama Thank you for your response. I would try to swap the filter if I had both models. MTM now feels outdated from practical/functional standpoint, except it produces the foam we like. I'd love to find similar produced foam with more modern lance.
@@zustroy from what I've seen, the new V2 Carscope Foamzooka will be exactly what you're looking for. I'll hopefully get one and be able to demonstrate.
Really interesting video, thanks for sharing your findings, rather than just going with the 'thick foam must be best' mantra. I'd be interested to see how it does with a weaker solution, and then possibly more applied? For example, if you used straight water (for explanation only), no matter how much the lance aerated the water, it wouldn't be dry, because it's just water. Why couldn't you then just add solution until you got the desired wetness?
Now that's a proper question and observation, I really like that! I think the biggest issue I can foresee is having real difficulty working out the PIR when you've got the lance anything from maximum or minimum draw. That isn't a problem with a shampoo or pH neutral snow foam, but it makes hard to get the safe cleaning performance from a high alkaline "active" snow foam pre-wash. But maybe that's not that important to a lot of people, especially if they apply another pre-wash product under their foam?
@@SuperchargedLlama Thank you for the reply. That's a good point on the PH I hadn't considered. However, since we're talking about the foam being too thick, and therefore diluting it, it will reduce the PIR and any risk of a non-neutral PH damaging a ceramic coating or similar?
@@Triggaaar yup I'd say that's true. There's also an element of not needing a really strong pre-wash if you're washing weekly. If you're washing monthly over the winter then I reckon you will need the high pH pre-wash so you can help get as much dirt off prior to washing - if you've got a dirtier car because you used a weak pre-wash then the contact wash process will cause more damage to your coating than any pre-wash as it's going to be a more abrasive contact wash.
Good video Adrian, the V3.0 S is obviously aimed at the American market as they seem obsessed with with super thick foam & the application of shampoo through a foam cannon at the wash stage.. Not for me though 👍🏻
I’m glad I came across this video. I use the foam cannon you recommend and was thinking to buy the MJJC. Now that I’ve seen your video I wonder if you were to turn the knob to decrease the use of car shampoo would create less foam? That wasn’t addressed and I wonder if that would create a thinner foam like it does using my MTM.
Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment 👌 if you're using this for shampoo then I reckon you're absolutely fine, just adjust the dial and it's okay. Where it comes unstuck is using it for a pre-wash foam and you're trying to be accurate with the PIR, because you want to get the best cleaning performance out of the products. As soon as you turn the dial to get a wetter foam, you're going to reduce the PIR and therefore the effectiveness of your pre wash. Does that make sense? Feel free to ask for more clarification.
Now I understand. I used to foam prior to rinsing but found out that I’d have to mist my vehicle prior to getting a wash cloth on it because the soap would dry. (cooler weather allows foam first)We get an average of 100 degree weather for 30 days during the summer. My steps are now rinse, soap, rinse, soap, washcloth and finally rinse. This is when the vehicle is really dirty. If it’s a maintenance wash I rinse, foam, washcloth and final rinse. Thank you for your clarifying. @@SuperchargedLlama
@@comeoncents3288 you can have even better results by skipping the first rinse step, so foam (as a pre-wash, you could use a high alkaline active foam to clean more). Then rinse, wash (you may foam your shampoo on, you may not), rinse, dry (or apply a spray and rinse sealant).
It's been pointed out to me that I should try it on a really wide fan to get a light, even coverage on the vehicle, so I'll give that a go too in order to see if it makes the difference. I'm skeptical, but I'll do it and record it anyway, because I could have gotten it wrong through not changing my approach.
I was running the 1.25mm here, I guess you could purchase the 1.35mm one, but ultimately I don't think you'll ever fix this for pre-wash. Don't get me wrong, this is great for Shampoo, but in the UK we do a lot of alkaline pre-wash foam.
It would, but then it would reduce the PIR as the pre-wash would be diluted more, so it would be less effective. You can't win with this lance if it's for pre-wash, it's only use is for applying a wash shampoo really, where you can dial it back and not be too worried about the amount of product on the panel.
@@SuperchargedLlama You could offset this by increasing the concentration in the bottle. Just recalculate your PIR and make less overall volume, but more detergent. They also have multiple nozzles, could try a different size to reduce foaming. They sent me one to test, and I was pretty happy with all of it's features, and I don't have crazy thick foam using BH AF through it.
You know there is an adjustment knob on top that lets you dial in the output dilution. So if it's too dry, just turn it down, and you'll get more water in the mix.
@@SuperchargedLlamaYes, yes, I know you're hyper focused on PIR. Which still doesn't preclude the use of the dial. All you do is grab a permanent marker, or a paint marker and mark whatever output you're looking for on the dial for use with your pre-wash. Or just mark the actual various outputs on the dial if you're constantly switching products with different dilution/PIR ratios, so you can do the calculations quickly and accurately. Honestly I don't see how this is different from any other foam cannon, other than it having a higher potential dry foam output. Just mark what you need, and you're all set. Alternatively you can also try and remove one of the foam filters, which should reduce the foam output, but maintain the same mix ratio. Another thing you can do is switch out the 1.1 to a 1.25 size orifice (or larger), that should also give you less foaming action with the same pressure washer (will have to recalculate the PIR mix). End of the day all this only matters if you only run one foam cannon for all your needs. Personally I have a bunch, and just switch out depending on the situation, product, day, and mood. 😊 I run the MTM PF22.2, 2 x Griots Brilliant Foam Cannons, MJJC Pro V2, and now the MJJC S V3. Some that I use mainly for prewashes, I'll mark the PIR ratios on the bottles with some tape and markers (mainly for Bilt Hamber Touch-Less and Auto Foam). I also have some setup specifically for my larger 4200psi 4.5gpm gas belt driven pressure washer, the others are setup for my 2300 PSI 2.3 gpm start/stop electric pressure washer.
@@BigBear-- I understand the point that you're making, but why buy a foam lance when you have to work around it's poor performance by working out the PIR at many different positions, when you can buy many others that you can run at maximum draw and have no issues, so all you need to do it correctly measure out the quantity of product at maximum draw?
@@SuperchargedLlamaBecause not all products are made the same, and not all use cases call for watery foam. So having a foam cannon that has the ability to provide a wider range of foaming capability (to me, and others) is a nice option to have vs. a cannon that has a hard limit on foam production. Especially for people that will (or want) to only buy one foam cannon, and that adjustment option is part of the feature set of the cannon; that is specifically there to solve for the issues you're describing, along with all the other options (2 orifice sizes provided, and various filter options that control foam output). I'm not saying don't voice your personal opinion for your particular work flow, and preference, just maybe not condemn it as a "do not buy", when the features are also the solutions to your issue. People that don't know any better, or don't fully understand all the functionality and intricacies with different pressures, flows, PIRs, internals, etc, could get the wrong impression, when in fact this would be a great cannon for their use case. Wouldn't it have been nicer if along with your personal preferences, you explained how to solve the dry foam production issue and demonstrated how to adjust the cannon for your needs? Just sayin...
@@BigBear-- bearing in mind that this comparison is side by side with another foam lance, I think you can clearly see that there's only one watery foam being createdz and that's with Bilt Hamber AutoFoam) because that's what it does). All the others are thick, and they had better staying power too. The fact that you're trying this hard to defend the MJJC means I'm not going to convince you, I'm alright with that. You need to be alright with the fact that we're not going to agree and that I will stand by the opinion I've shared here. The only foam lance I use now is the MTM, so I do only really have one - I'm really glad I didn't buy the MJJC! I don't think anyone is missing out by not having it, there's many others that are better on the market, you don't need to spend MTM money, although I can't recommend anything else for the US market because there's sufficient differences in branding and model availability.
Surely you'd dial the lance dilution, product ratio back to suit your requirements. I don't own an MJJC but surely I'd get it to work for me. I don't thinkmthisnis a very good comparison or review and down to user error.
If you dial back the draw, then you aren't getting the PIR of the pre wash product that you've calucated for, so it's not effective. This is actually a really good review, but you need to understand panel impact ratio for the pre-wash for that bit of logic to make sense.
If you're unaware of PIR, Specky did a good video about it on his channel ua-cam.com/video/tQjER9u1gaI/v-deo.html It's only applicable if you're using active foams really, ones that actually do something. pH neutral pre wash foams are absolutely useless, but alkaline (high pH) foams do a lot (here's a video I made demonstrating it to some extent ua-cam.com/video/6umB2kTpdRs/v-deo.html)
Adjusting the dial affects the wetness by introducing more water in the mix, so you've got a weaker dilution of the product hitting the panel. In terms of pre-wash this means you're making the product less effective. Other foam lances don't have this problem, so I'd say the MJJC is only good for shampoo applications, not pre-wash.
I have the version 2 of their lances... I then bought the MTM to go with my autobrite lances. Wouldn't bother with the MJJC version, refused it when they offered to send me a free one.
@@SuperchargedLlama If I were a reviewer/tester like you I would have taken freebie. You have certainly answered the question - Is V3 worth upgrading to. Great video and podcast by the way.
Great video Adrian, I’ve actually got this cannon and use the BH auto foam in it, I run it at between 4% and 5% PIR, I do however turn down the mix by between 1/4 and 1/8 to help make the foam wetter and it seems to work for me. I am surprised I’ve not seen any of the “it has a hole and leaks if you tip it over “ comments though as they seem rife on other detailers channels. Keep up the great work and excellent content 👍🥃
Cheers my man. Have you done the PIR calculations with the dial turned back? I did, added more product to keep it at 4% and then had the exact same problem...which I guess makes sense, but also frustrated me a bit. Funnily you mention the hole in the top...all of my cannons have them I think, except maybe the MTM...
@@SuperchargedLlama no I normally mix slightly on the high side closer to 5% so turning the down till I get a foam that works for me, I view it as lowering the PIR but I’ll have to do my PIR tests again at the weekend as I’ve just bought the K4 on Amazon prime day 😂 my old k2 was pretty much on its last legs. Honestly the amount of moaners that I saw on Forensics channel was mad when you consider that the bottle isn’t actually meant to be on its side, was ridiculous, I mean if you lay something down that’s not meant to be don’t call it a bad product because you messed up, I hook mine on my bucket or the jet wash so I don’t have that issue, I did get what you said about the drying though, that stands out more for those that use products that have to dwell for longer periods of time. I will be trying the BH touchless when I run out of auto and see how that behaves
I think you're wise there. I've recently got the MTM and really like it, although my hose set up has sprung a leak somewhere that I need to sort out before I can really test it loads. I thought it was an o-ring that had gone but it doesn't look that way at the moment 🙄
Tbh i never contact wash with foam, i’d rather use a bucket wash for that, foam makes a mess when doing a contact wash and its a waste of product. Similarly i use my prewash foam in an ik foam pro 12 with about 2L of solution and can go around the car multiple times while only using a fraction of what i would use in a foam cannon
Yeah I'm not sure I'm buying the foamed shampoo thing myself, like up say, it uses a lot more product for not much more gain. Which you can level at the foam cannon for the pre-wash, although my experience of the handheld IK foamers were that they put on far less product, and therefore it wasn't that effective. I wonder if the big units with the wand are better? I like my Marolex Axel foamer, I just generally use it on the wheels instead.
@@SuperchargedLlama the big one is a godsent for me. i can just about do an entire sedan with the 1.5L foam pro 2, but with 2-2.5L in the IK foam pro 12 with a compressor attached, i can easily do the entire car multiple times and get great coverage. No it's not shaving cream thick but it is extremely effective in cleaning.
Yup you can, but then this changes the dilution of the product you're using. This isn't important with a shampoo or pH neutral one, but with a high alkaline pre-wash one you really should work out the PIR (panel impact ratio) to make sure you're achieving maximum efficacy of the product. You don't have this problem with none MJJC foam cannons because they don't use a double filter.
@@KotakaSRT there's loads of other brands, but MTM is one of them (I own that as well now - it produces a far better foam for pre-wash), but literally anything other brand than MJJC (apart from ones that get bundled with pressure washers) will make a better foam for pre-wash than MJJC.
@@SuperchargedLlama Hello Llama, I was also interested to buy this item but was sad to hear your thought on it. I like it way better than MTM because it's more modern and easier to use product. I contacted the MJJC and sent them your video and after two replies here's what they said: "In fact, you can adjust the top knot a little back to the "minimum" direction(for example, by 90 degree), and then check the PIR of your foam cannon. Then every time you use the foam cannon, you set the top knot by 90 degree to the minimum direction, the PIR will never change". This does not mean a lot to me because I don't yet have any gear to test it and I'm new to car detailing. Can you please take into consideration their response and tell me what you think? Or maybe make a follow up video? Many thanks!
@zustroy I'd hands down go for the MTM one, just because it doesn't look more modern shouldn't impact your decision; it's the quality of the foam you want. I believe the response you've got is that you can just turn the dial to make the foam thinner (because it introduces more water into the mix); but that dilutes the product, so if you're pre-wash is a strong alkaline one, then it's important. If you're just foaming shampoo or pH neutral stuff then it doesn't matter and the MJJC will be fine. What pre-wash product do you use?
I don't think the findings are relevant if you're not using it for pre-wash with strong alkaline or acidic foams. Drying out doesn't really impact a shampoo's ability to do it's job as it reactivates with water; with a pre-wash it can stop the chemicals from doing anything (at best) or cause chemical staining (at worse).
Top work Adrian, cracking review. Funnily enough, I was thinking the other day that my MJJC Pro V2 does make the foam thicker than I need, in the summer, but of course, that's a good thing in the winter. So... I may buy a "summer lance", any recommendations? I have a K3 but use a stubby, so I think that rules out the AvA 3 bottle system. The Autoglym one gets good reviews and THH raves about the Dodo Juice one, so they're options. Do I want to pay for MTTM.... I don't think I do. Have you grabbed the new Autobrite Direct lance yet, I have the old one and like it, but that's reserved for LSP nowadays. All the best pal. 👍
The big issue I see with the thick foam, even in the winter, is that it dries out and falls off. That red car was filmed in February, to give some context. Fortunately for you, the Ava system is, I believe, comparable as it uses the Karcher K series bayonet style connector! tinyurl.com/m9fwcvha THH has a partnership with Dodo Juice, so that's why he recommends them. It's an identical lance to the one big Stjänagloss one, along with a few other brands. With regards to the ABD one, I've not tried it and I don't intend to tbh, I don't need to with having the Ava ones, and now the MTM, they're more than enough.
You are Not explaining that the Purpose of Thick Foam is a more activated soap. Obviously if you shake your soap vigorous before wash it will Clean Better. The Exact Same Applies to Foam Cannons. In your Video you can even see the MJJC door Is Cleaner. Your wayyyyyyy off here.
I think this really depends what you want from a foam. As I clearly stated in the video, for an active pre-wash, as we do a lot of in the UK and Europe, a wet foam that dwells without drying out for about 4-5 minutes, before rinsing off, is absolutely crucial for the efficacy of those products. I'm not sure what aspect of the video you're looking at whereby you think one of the doors is cleaner, I hadn't rinsed anything off, so you can't infer that at all. The MJJC sides are dryer, which make them look different. You're absolutely right with regards to the thick foam being good for the shampoo wash stage, I can't disagree with that. And I think I demonstrated that too, but you have got to understand how the pre-wash phase works, and what is and isn't important. To repeat it, a thick foam that dries out means that the surfactants aren't working.
I’ve had the pro v2 for ages now and have been back and forth thinking about getting this new lance but there is just something about it that I don’t think is worth the upgrade. Being as I am also English and I only use it for prewash I feel more inclined to get the new AutoBrite Direct lance that comes out soon. Have you seen that?
I'd still go with the MTM one tbh, at ECA Cleaning it's way cheaper than everywhere else. I don't understand why both the V2 and V3 are on the market tbh, they're nigh on the same lance, so what's the point?
@@SuperchargedLlama The V3 is the S line. The Pro line doesn't have a v3 yet, S is the mid tier and pro is the highest tier. Both heads are identical, the S intentionally has a long skinny bottle so that it's more likely to topple over. Hence making the pro seem better with its wide and short bottle. The Pro v3 will have a different head that will once again seperate it from the s v3
@@KiranPatel-fk1pg they need to make the head that produces a wetter foam for the pro, if they do revise it. There's an irony that the skinny bottle on the S will fit better in most bottle racks
@@SuperchargedLlama I think for most people the thick foam is a selling point and the reason why the MJJC is one of the most popular foam cannon brands currently. If you want runny foam you could just a foam gun off a garden hose or a pump sprayer. I completely understand that wetting dirt is most effective but the whole point of a foam cannon is to produce foam, the others are giving you bubbly water. If you want runnier foam you could turn the knob and recalculate your pir. Then for when foaming up a shampoo for contact wash when you want max dwell time to provide lubrication under the mitt you can turn the knob up. Personally I can't understand the issue considering every foam cannon has adjustment so you can create the foam that suits you. I myself prefer the thicker foam even for my prewash as I am only using Koch AF due to not wanting to soak my rubber seats and plastics in high ph foams every wash like BH foams or sf
@@KiranPatel-fk1pg I think my issue with the MJJC is that, even when you dial it back, it still makes a very dry foam. Where as the MTM (purchased since shooting this) makes a thick, but wet, foam. As doesnrhe detail driven one I'm using in the video here. Whilst I've not tested it thoroughly (because it was really hard to evidence when I gave it a couple of goes), I don't see any difference in sickness if the shampoo between being foamed on Vs in the wash bucket, so dwell time seems kinda immaterial as I can't see a benefit of that method. I thought it might be quicker, but it doesn't seem to be. With regards to using a high pH pre-wash every time, yes, completely agree with your assessment there. I typically just dial the PIR back to 1% for Garage Therapy, or 2% for Auto-Foam and it gets to the same as Af by then. Great conversation here by the way, thanks for taking the time to comment and discuss it.
I see everyone telling you the same thing (to turn the knob) and your response is the same (it dilutes it). What you’re not considering is the mjjc gets more foam, by using more product. When you turn the knob to get a runnier solution you are diluting it, but to the same level as the other foam cannon. You’re comparing a more diluted foam to a lesser one, then you’re being dramatic about diluting the stronger one. It doesn’t make any sense my brother. Also you could just use more product🤷🏻♀️ ALSO it only needs to dwell for so long. In fact dwell time is more important when you’re doing the contact wash as that extra soap provides lubricantion.
That's not correct I'm afraid - as I've calculated the PIR for each of the different foam lances, the volume of product on the panel is the same for each of the foam lances used in the test. The funny thing is that both of these lances require 14L to empty a 1L bottle (on my pressure washer and hose setup), so the volumes of product in the bottle is identical in this case. If I was using my MTM lance that I now have for comparison the volumes in the bottle would be different. However, due to PIR, the dilution on the panel would be no different. Dwell time for a pre-wash greatly affects the efficacy of the pre-wash foam products, especially when they are high alkaline foams - you need a wetter foam for the surfactants to be...for lack of a better word..."active". I hope this has helped you and expand your understanding on the topic, feel free to ask more questions if you have any - your points are a really common misunderstanding of pre-wash snow foams.
Yup that's exactly the problem, you dial it back and PIR is affected. You can calculate the PIR at the lower draw rate, but it doesn't actually solve the problem, as you put more product in the lance bottle to get the right PIR and it comes out the same.
A lot of people don't seem to understand; if you adjust the draw rate, you'll reduce the panel impact ratio of the product - I said clearly what products I was using in the video, they're all pre-wash snow foams that are high alkaline. You want to get the right dilution on the onael to make sure you're getting the maximum effectiveness from it. With no other foam lance do I have the issue where the product is dry and over aerated, and therefore not as effective.
Very interesting illustration here! I have noticed sometimes foams can be too dry but this really highlights the nuances of it. I do lean towards thicker, drier foams, here in Southern California we rarely get clouds, I constantly work in direct overhead sunlight at noon. Something I’ve never understood: I’ve used BH Autofoam & Touchless for years. I never got the thickness that you got with BH auto foam. Sometimes I fill the bottle 40% soap & 60% water and only get mildly thicker suds, still a runny recipe. Touchless always came out thicker, Alex Auto Wash also comes out shaving cream like. I use a kranzle 1622TS. I hear people using 10 ML’s of soap to cover a whole car I’m flabbergasted.
Thanks for taking the time to watch! You're observations about AutoFoam and Touch-Less are exactly right. Both are thinner foams, but wetter. There's a bit on the review of an Ava pressure washer I did where you can see AutoFoam drying out on the blacked out glass when it was in full sun, there's only so much that can be done that's for sure. I feel for you guys having to be in full sun (happens to me a lot too) so you can't get the dwell times. But in summary, AutoFoam is a wet, thin foam, because for most of the time in the UK it dwells long enough to be incredibly effective, and being wet means the surfactants are working. Whilst you're putting a lot of product into the foam cannon, and have it set to maximum draw, have you actually done the PIR calculations? You may find you're still under the dilution for 4% (which is the max for AutoFoam, Touch-Less is 5% I think?). Other things that can affect it are the state of the filters on terms of how clean they are, and the size of the orifice in the cannon... although with your PW (which is known as the K10/122 in Europe) is pretty powerful!
When we're talking 4 to 5% PIR, it's still a very small amount of product in the water stream, so a small difference in the mix (if not calibrated) easily affects it. I'm in the neat product team as it makes topping up or swapping products so easy. I calibrate my cannons, making a note of the position of the adjuster, so I can go lower if there's not much dirt (more dust than dirt this time of year in the UK) or stick to 4% Auto-Foam/5% Touchless.
@@SuperchargedLlama I have 2X MJJC S for about 4 years now. Works like new. I use it for pre-wash and shampoo, Koch GS for pre and GSF for contact wash.
I see where you're going there, a fair point to make. However, you can see here that some foams really dry out more quickly. Interestingly I'm reminded of my IK foamer where you can change the aerators between three different options, and they instructions talk about a wetter foam to dry foam. So conceptually it's possible and sort of an agreed term in the industry.
Right away the biggest problem I can see is you are slobbering the foam on thickly & up close to the panel. Open up the fan pattern & put a thin layer on with a quick movement of the lance & the issue you are highlighting is gone. I'm going to use the MJJC today & I'll get some shots to prove my point. Another thing worth pointing out. You done a video a few months ago comparing koch chemie foams to AF. Think it was super foam you complained was thick & a 'dry foam' as a negative then made the comment 'does it make a difference'. The comparison showed the thicker 'dry' foam apparently done better so it doesn't make a difference? Yet here you are now saying it's an issue & people shouldn't buy a product because of that? Strange. 🤔
I can see the angle you're exploring here. My initial reaction is that it won't cause much of a difference, because the foam is too dry, but it'll be interesting to see how you get on. The most important aspect of your comparison will be having two different foam cannons, the PIR correctly calculated, side by side to compare, otherwise it's just looking at one result without another reference point. Let me know what you see though, happy to explore this further (maybe with only one foam, though, this took ages to film!)
It would take a cretin to not understand that the value of a wet foam is that you get a longer dwell time for your pre-wash chemical before you need to rinse off than you would with a dry foam. These things are sold globally and there's a bunch of people who have to wash in direct sunlight, and all of the side by side stuff on the red cars was shot in February, it's only the GLC that's done in full sun.
@@SuperchargedLlama ua-cam.com/video/kQlB5qEI_5E/v-deo.htmlsi=YJn_Kgj3pJ1i91JK&t=701 MJJC can produce various foams by adjusting the orifice nozzle and detergent concentration.I don't understand why you tell everyone not to buy it through such an unrigorous test? Many experienced car washers around me use it, including myself. And there is no problem. Of course, I prefer to use my MJJC Pro v2.
@@SuperchargedLlama Don't just tell me theory, I only care about practical application. As you saw in the video of the previous reply, there is no problem with the foam. If you think MTM is better, you are free to choose it. My friend and I used different agents, different settings, and didn't notice any problems with the foam. And yes, you can continue to fall in love with your MTM foam, but don’t tell everyone not to buy MJJC.
You have to understand theory to understand the practical application. Words are failing me for the ever increasing stupidity with every reply from you at the moment. PIR is critical to the performance of some pre-wash foams; 1:10 in the foam bottle and adjusting the nozzle until you get the right consistency is only relevant to shampoos or pH neutral snow foams (possibly used over the top of another pre-wash that's sprayed from a trigger bottle or pump sprayer to increase the dwell time/stop them drying out). For high alkaline pre-wash snow foams, like Bilt Hamber Auto Foam & Touch-Less, Garage Therapy Snow V2, Koch Chemie Super Foam, it's critical to understand PIR and how it works so that you get the most out of the products. If you've done the PIR calculation and measure out for 2% PIR, then you think the foam is too thick, so you open it up a quarter turn, you can be reducing the PIR enough so that it's down to 1%, so the efficacy of the product is massively reduced. I don't mind that you may not be interested about PIR and how it works etc, but do not argue with me about something you clearly don't yet understand - in the scenario I am describing, which is very popular in the UK, the MJJC V2 and V3 produce a bad foam. But in my next video you'll see me using Koch Chemie Vb as the contact wash shampoo and I apply that via the MJJC V3, because I'm not interested in the PIR there, a nice thick foam is a good place to be....but I wouldn't have bought the MJJC just for that job. Watch this video to see why PIR calculations are important, especially for pre-wash foams. ua-cam.com/video/d0qGM28XU4Y/v-deo.html
Here’s a tip for you if you think that the foam is too think and dry, put less chemical inside the foam cannon so you can have a more watery and less foamy solution. Less chemical = more wet runny foam. The foam cannons are a great option because of the savings on chemical cost, since these foam up more than regular foam cannons while using less soap. Over time these foam cannons are actually cheaper because of the money you save on chemical. Just my 2 cents though
You can't do that with pre-wash if you want to have a consistent panel impact ratio (which is the point of it). You could of course put less product in, but then the dilution is far lower and the efficacy of the pre-wash is worse, completely missing the point of the product.
If you dial it back, you've reduced the PIR, and therefore completely defeated the object of having a PIR calucated pre-wash, which you want when you've got a product that gives you that to help you work out how to get the safest and effect experience of their product. Even dialled back, it still makes a very very dry foam. You say the MTM is outdated, I say this is over compensating, and it's put thick foam over the priority of good foam. It does depend on what you're using the foam for though, if you're just using it to apply the shampoo then yes, this is very effective. If you don't need dwell time for an active product to attack the dirt, it's good. But in the context that I use a foam cannon in, it's not. We can definitely agree that the MTM is expensive though, although the other day ECA cleaning had it for £45 delivered, which is cheaper than this.
@@SuperchargedLlama I use gyeon foam with the MJJC and it dwells just fine. Cleans well and no issues with performance. You can also replace the orifice inside it to adjust for your PIR needs. I know the 1.1mm creates dry foam but 1.25 or 1.35 should be fine. I used to have an mtm before because every detailer basically worshipped it. Countless threading issues and cheap quality bottles later, I just gave up on it. Haven't had any issues with the MJJC other than having to add a new filter after 1 year. There's literally Amazon foam canons cheaper and perform better than the mtm imo. But to each their own I suppose.
@@brokenSnake the Gyeon Foam is absolutely abysmal, even the new formulation in my experience. What volume of product are you using? I did a review comparing it to the Bilt Hamber offerings last year I think, but I was running it at maximum manufacturer dilutions, which means PIR for Bilt Hamber and therefore there's loads more product. The Gyeon made nice foam for sure, it just wasn't effective in comparison. I do completely agree with you on the bottle quality for the MTM, that surprisingly poor and I don't really understand why they don't have a better one. I'll do a comparison between the MTM and MJJC though, it'll be good to see which one produces the best (wettest) foam and how long they can both dwell for.
I'm leaning that way too. I never bothered to buy the V2 when I saw the other reviews. I didn't buy this either, and I wouldn't, given what I'm seeing.
Late comment but I’ve had my mjjc v2 for a few years now using both bilt hamber snow foams. Never had any issues with the foam drying etc and when it comes to pressure washing the BH pre wash off I get the results as you expect with minimal dirt on the Panels. So to say don’t buy the mjjc is a bit harsh in my opinion. I’m not saying your testing is wrong either by the way.
But why? Thick shaving foam is absolutely pointless and offers no benefit and uses way more product.d Foaming the shampoo seems like such a waste. The pre-wash makes sense, because it helps with the clean (as long as you're using an active high pH product, pH neutral is pH useless in this role, so there's no point), but the shampoo? Nah, not getting it. Thick foam only looks good for attention grabbing in the 'gram.
You're either laughing due to appreciating someone has finally explained why thick foam is completely wrong (for pre-wash) OR you think I'm flat out wrong and you think it's hilarious. To which I'd say, you really don't understand pre-wash and how surfactants work. Either way, thick dry foam is for amateurs.
@@SuperchargedLlama you arent important enough to read alll your comment, and noit intelligent enough to, perfect. understand, that there are far too many variables involved , to make PIR perfect. When you assume, yoy make an ass out of you, not out of me.
Really interesting video ! I'm impressed with how you got the patience to reply to every ''turn the knob'' comments. I'm from Canada and I didn't know anything about PIR before I start using Touch-Less. Then I figured everything about how you do it in UK. People around here only care about shaving creme foam, but it really doesn't matter anymore with good product like Bilt Hamber. I now only use Touch-Less when the car is really dirty/dusty. No more Neutral PH snow foam before contact wash, I just use good lubrication shampoo like Carpro Reset don't see any issue. I saw some tests and you can apply Touch-Less straight liquid on the paint and get similar results. More foam doesn't always mean more cleaning power.
Thank you for taking the time to comment AND add such a good one - as you can see from my responses, if the comment about just turning the dial is snarky, they get a similar response!
I'm really glad to hear you've had good experiences with PIR now you've had a play with it, and that you've had good experiences with Bilt Hamber, I know it's really expensive for you guys - Koch Chemie SuperFoam is absolutely brilliant as an alternative and I believe that's a bit cheaper? You also max that at 2% PIR, so the pricing probably works nicely for you.
Thanks for the recommandation, Super Foam is 105$ CAD for 5L while Touch-Less is 74$ CAD for the same quantity. But I think Super Foam would require a lot less product. I'm in the market to change my MTM PF22 cause I'm done with the small openning and I hate how dark the bottle is when it's time to dillute. This foam cannon is also top heavy and not really stable. I might go with the Griot's Boss considering what I saw from your video. I think where people might disagree with you is that's it's not a bad foam cannon overall, just not right for our application.
Ohhh, I forgot to mention that ETA on the new Touch-Less version which is supose to cost same price but be double the concentration is June, so I'm waiting for that to restock. PIR ratio will be from 0.5 to 2.0. Gonna be a good way to save if as effective !
@@patpelletier8073 No idea on the ETA in Canada, we've got it here now, I think the 5L jugs just got released, it was 1L only before.
A really interesting video. I didn’t know that a snow can too thick and therefore dry out, so something new learnt today. Thanks
In my opinion, a dryer foam means it's a lot more effective than the others that even of you want to, you can't achieve that dry foam. If it has a mixing option then it's up to you to choose what mix you want 😅 I have that exact same v3 and I love it, but if you have the v2 pro don't buy it because it's basically the same
I'm interested in finding out why you think a dry foam is more effective? And are you thinking of pre-wash or just the wash stage?
@@SuperchargedLlama I was thinking about pre-wash stage. 😁 Imight be wrong but i think that a dryer foam is less diluted by the water coming from the pressure washer, the same logic as using a foamer instead of a snos foam cannon as the dilution inside the bottle stays the same because there's no more water introduced in the mix! I would have to test it and see if this is true or not, as to be honest i neved did it and i probably should 😅 For instance i work at a pro detailing studio and we usually use APC as a prewash(and then foam it to keep it a little bit longer on the surface) and that usually works better than just an alkaline foam for example 😁
@@afonsofreitas3595 Yup, completely understand the logic there. the dilution aspect is generally addressed by Panel Impact Ratio calculations, whereby you workout and adjust the volume of product in the bottle so that you know you're getting the correct dilution on the panel. For example, I know it takes 14L of discharged water to empty the 1L foam bottle, so if I want 4% PIR I need to do 14000x0.04 - which then tells me I need 560ml, mixed with water to make 1L of product in my foam bottle in order to achieve 4% on the panel.
In this case you wouldn't adjust the dial, you have it on max draw and you know you're getting the correct percentage. And in every other lance that isn't an MJJC, you get a nice wet foam still.
The thing is....I think I'm coming round to the IK foamer idea, because you use FAR less product to achieve the same thing.
However, for applying the shampoo to the car for the contact wash....I think the MJJC is amazing.
@@SuperchargedLlama My problem with PIR is that the majority of the snow foams i use don't give me that information unfortunately, only a general idea on ml when every machine and cannon have different specs. Me personally i think that using 560ml of product in 1l of final product is just too much, the cost it carries is enormous for me, that's why the foamer, as you said, is a better idea for me because it uses less product to produce the same result 😁 Thanks for taking the time to answer and explain the PIR, already knew but knowledge is never too much! 🙌
@@SuperchargedLlama Oh and yes, using it to spread shampoo to do the contact wash is definitely very useful and one of the safest ways, while being fast, to do it!
That v3 has several knob full turns available for foam thickness adjustment
Yes it does, but doing so dilutes the product and therefore completely voiding your Panel Impact Ratio calculation, so you've got no idea what dilution your pre-wash is at and the performance of it will be way off.
@@SuperchargedLlama right, but probably because when set to its maximum, it gives out more PIR than desired, with the output foam being too dry and thick, so it remains only to find in which position dilution knob produces the targeted percentage for given product volume. So either using less product in the lance or adjusting the knob should do the same trick, shouldn't it
@@kohinoore that's not how PIR works. You calculate it generally from maximum draw, so it's not giving out too much. The problem with the MJJC is that it over aerates the foam. MJJC have prioritised thick foam over wet foam, which is a mistake for pre-wash.
@@SuperchargedLlama well, it empties the bottle pretty darn fast at the maximum setting :)
some good points there well shown . you tend to forget about how wet it leaves a panel after applying
Excellent video darling, very clear about the issues with thick foam. I laughed about BH shampoo in the lance, it's usually 5ml to a 10 litre bucket but it worked relatively well through the lance.
Keep them coming! 👌🏻
Thank you darling! I enjoyed making this one.
I agree with the volume of Auto Wash. The MJJC stuff was basically 4x in the lance than they suggest you put in the bucket, so I just took that as a reference everywhere else.
All I see is the V3 cleans your doors better the first time, then subsequent times the V3 soap doesn't stick as well to the more clean door.
I'm going to have to rewatch it and check which foam that was before commenting.
I've now rewatched it and can see that you're sharing the same opinions as me. I have to say, Super Foam is an outstanding pre-wash product, I really like it.
Great idea and test. Another reason (if I needed one) not to get a V3. I've been expressing my misgivings around the fashion for transparent (PET?) plastic recently, after the FaceBook posts about the neck breaking off a brand's bottle. I can see (literally) the advantage over HDPE but i'll stick with it.
That was the Duel ones that had the issue, wasn't it? I think they've got clear ones still, but a different material now?
I agree btw, especially if there's unnecessary cost added for a clear plastic bottle.
Very thorough test as always 👍
Thank you. I can't think of another way to test it, although it has been suggested to me that I should set the fan to wide and give it a go that way, which I shall as it's a good point to make.
Had the previous model liked it a lot then got a AVA p57 love the cannon it’s brilliant had to buy the 1tr jug as the 0.5 one is a waste of time not used my mjcc cannon since buying the Ava
I could write the exact same comment! I think those Ava foam lances are genuinely one of the best on the market. I'm getting the P200 back from Nilfisk soon and I'm looking for an adaptor so I can fit Karcher K series attachments PURELY so I can use the Ava foam lance.
@@SuperchargedLlama only thing I don’t like about the avs is the pick up tube if it was weighted like the mjcc would be brilliant get brilliant foam with bilt hamber auto foam and touch less would like a adaptor for the ava so I could use my mjcc but my adapter just leaks so never used it,might get the Ava quick release so I can use it for wheels or ceramic snow foam
I agree, a weighted tube in the Ava lance would be 🤤
If you’re using a foam canon and regardless the thickness you’re trying to achieve. If you’re letting the soap dry just put it away and go back to a bucket.
Unless it's the pre-wash. In that situation you just don't let it dwell as long (although it won't have done as much). What you can see in the video is that, through some cannons, it won't dry out as quick. The red cars were filmed in February so it was nice and cool - looks like 4mins I'd dwell is about the max you can get, all of them were pushing it at 5 weren't they?
That’s what I was thinking. I start the contact wash right after foaming so the foam it still on the paint. Feeling well lubricated imo.
@@2quick524 that's very much why I went to reasonable lengths to explain the difference between the pre-wash and the contact wash foams, they're a very different proposition. The pre-wash products need dwell time, and you wouldn't contact wash these as there had been no pre-rinse up this point - active pre-washes (high pH) take off so much more dirt than water does alone that it's well worth it
1) It wasn't clear, did you match the heads for flow so the *actual* PIR was matched?
2) Is this a case where you actually need to adjust the flow on the head using that knob?
Yeah so it turned out that at maximum draw, both the foam lances had the same flow rate. That's how you calculate the flow rate btw, max draw. If you're doing it partly open it is inaccurate as it's very unlikely that you'll open it to the exact same point each time.
@@SuperchargedLlamaThanks, so that is good to know for foaming between them.
Where i was going with the dryness part, was letting less flow through would make it wetter on the panel, right?
The trouble with the mtm is the bottle neck is wayyyyy to small and really fiddly getting water and products into and out of it
They've remedied that with the pf22.3, which is basically a widemouth bottle kit, and you can buy that to upgrade your existing one.
I personally take the pain with the narrow opening though, because the foam is produces is actually good (from a pre-wash perspective). Carscope have got a V2 of their Foamzooka coming to market soon and it looks like it's taken the good bits from the MJJC without any of the stupid double filter stuff. We shall see!
Excellent demo of equipment wetting effect. Usually the focus is on the product but this clearly shows how the delivery affects performance. As for amount of Auto Wash used, it did not seem that much given the lance introduces at least 10L of water?
Aha, good point on the AutoWash - let me explain - it's usually 5ml to 20L in a wash bucket. With my PIR it pushes 14L to clear 1L of mixed solution, so that would have been about 20ml of autowash for a full 1L, or 5ml for 250ml in this example. AutoWash is, like Gyeon Bath Essence, super concentrated, a very different product from regular shampoos that require 30-40ml per 20L bucket.
For more watery foam. Does adjusting the foam knob up top helps?
That reduces the PIR, which is important with an active pre-wash foam (in this case it's high alkaline), you'll dilute it and then reduce its efficacy. There's literally no other lance manufacturer on the market that gives you this issue.
Hello Mr. Llama, are you still using MTM? I see some people take out the filter from MTM and replace the one in MJJC v3 with it to achieve the same runnier foam. Would you do a test of that? I'm curious to have a more modern lance with wider opening, more durable threads, etc. but I don't want to loose the runny foam.
I do still have that MTM, yup, it's actually the one I use the most I think.
I've not tried swapping the filters but I can't see it making much of a difference, the biggest issue that faces the MJJC is having two filters and a felt one in between them, so I reckon taking one of them out would be the better solution.
I barely use the MJJC to be honest as it produces such rubbish foam and constantly falls over when empty, or even anything under half full.
@@SuperchargedLlama Thank you for your response. I would try to swap the filter if I had both models. MTM now feels outdated from practical/functional standpoint, except it produces the foam we like. I'd love to find similar produced foam with more modern lance.
@@zustroy from what I've seen, the new V2 Carscope Foamzooka will be exactly what you're looking for. I'll hopefully get one and be able to demonstrate.
@@SuperchargedLlama Perfect, thank you a lot! Looking forward to your video and comparison of those three metioned lances.
Really interesting video, thanks for sharing your findings, rather than just going with the 'thick foam must be best' mantra. I'd be interested to see how it does with a weaker solution, and then possibly more applied? For example, if you used straight water (for explanation only), no matter how much the lance aerated the water, it wouldn't be dry, because it's just water. Why couldn't you then just add solution until you got the desired wetness?
Now that's a proper question and observation, I really like that!
I think the biggest issue I can foresee is having real difficulty working out the PIR when you've got the lance anything from maximum or minimum draw. That isn't a problem with a shampoo or pH neutral snow foam, but it makes hard to get the safe cleaning performance from a high alkaline "active" snow foam pre-wash.
But maybe that's not that important to a lot of people, especially if they apply another pre-wash product under their foam?
@@SuperchargedLlama
Thank you for the reply. That's a good point on the PH I hadn't considered. However, since we're talking about the foam being too thick, and therefore diluting it, it will reduce the PIR and any risk of a non-neutral PH damaging a ceramic coating or similar?
@@Triggaaar yup I'd say that's true. There's also an element of not needing a really strong pre-wash if you're washing weekly.
If you're washing monthly over the winter then I reckon you will need the high pH pre-wash so you can help get as much dirt off prior to washing - if you've got a dirtier car because you used a weak pre-wash then the contact wash process will cause more damage to your coating than any pre-wash as it's going to be a more abrasive contact wash.
Good video Adrian, the V3.0 S is obviously aimed at the American market as they seem obsessed with with super thick foam & the application of shampoo through a foam cannon at the wash stage.. Not for me though 👍🏻
Yeah I'm 100% with you there. Spend the money elsewhere
I have one and I LOVE IT!!! 😍
What do you love about it? And are you using it for pre-wash or just shampoo? If it's pre-wash, what product are you using?
I’m glad I came across this video. I use the foam cannon you recommend and was thinking to buy the MJJC. Now that I’ve seen your video I wonder if you were to turn the knob to decrease the use of car shampoo would create less foam? That wasn’t addressed and I wonder if that would create a thinner foam like it does using my MTM.
Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment 👌 if you're using this for shampoo then I reckon you're absolutely fine, just adjust the dial and it's okay.
Where it comes unstuck is using it for a pre-wash foam and you're trying to be accurate with the PIR, because you want to get the best cleaning performance out of the products. As soon as you turn the dial to get a wetter foam, you're going to reduce the PIR and therefore the effectiveness of your pre wash.
Does that make sense? Feel free to ask for more clarification.
Now I understand. I used to foam prior to rinsing but found out that I’d have to mist my vehicle prior to getting a wash cloth on it because the soap would dry. (cooler weather allows foam first)We get an average of 100 degree weather for 30 days during the summer. My steps are now rinse, soap, rinse, soap, washcloth and finally rinse. This is when the vehicle is really dirty. If it’s a maintenance wash I rinse, foam, washcloth and final rinse. Thank you for your clarifying. @@SuperchargedLlama
@@comeoncents3288 you can have even better results by skipping the first rinse step, so foam (as a pre-wash, you could use a high alkaline active foam to clean more). Then rinse, wash (you may foam your shampoo on, you may not), rinse, dry (or apply a spray and rinse sealant).
@@SuperchargedLlama thank you.
It’s built like a tank it over thickens everything way to much air in the mix and as you say Adrian dry foams don’t work 🙌🏻
It's been pointed out to me that I should try it on a really wide fan to get a light, even coverage on the vehicle, so I'll give that a go too in order to see if it makes the difference. I'm skeptical, but I'll do it and record it anyway, because I could have gotten it wrong through not changing my approach.
What if you changed the orifice?
I was running the 1.25mm here, I guess you could purchase the 1.35mm one, but ultimately I don't think you'll ever fix this for pre-wash.
Don't get me wrong, this is great for Shampoo, but in the UK we do a lot of alkaline pre-wash foam.
Beautiful video Adrian. Very informative and easy watching
Cheers darling!
What if you increased the ratio of water to foam wash, that might increase the wetness of the foam spray?
It would, but then it would reduce the PIR as the pre-wash would be diluted more, so it would be less effective. You can't win with this lance if it's for pre-wash, it's only use is for applying a wash shampoo really, where you can dial it back and not be too worried about the amount of product on the panel.
@@SuperchargedLlama You could offset this by increasing the concentration in the bottle. Just recalculate your PIR and make less overall volume, but more detergent. They also have multiple nozzles, could try a different size to reduce foaming. They sent me one to test, and I was pretty happy with all of it's features, and I don't have crazy thick foam using BH AF through it.
You know there is an adjustment knob on top that lets you dial in the output dilution. So if it's too dry, just turn it down, and you'll get more water in the mix.
Have a read of my replies to the other many comments that have suggested that - I haven't got the energy to explain it again, but there's a reason.
@@SuperchargedLlamaYes, yes, I know you're hyper focused on PIR. Which still doesn't preclude the use of the dial. All you do is grab a permanent marker, or a paint marker and mark whatever output you're looking for on the dial for use with your pre-wash. Or just mark the actual various outputs on the dial if you're constantly switching products with different dilution/PIR ratios, so you can do the calculations quickly and accurately. Honestly I don't see how this is different from any other foam cannon, other than it having a higher potential dry foam output. Just mark what you need, and you're all set. Alternatively you can also try and remove one of the foam filters, which should reduce the foam output, but maintain the same mix ratio. Another thing you can do is switch out the 1.1 to a 1.25 size orifice (or larger), that should also give you less foaming action with the same pressure washer (will have to recalculate the PIR mix).
End of the day all this only matters if you only run one foam cannon for all your needs. Personally I have a bunch, and just switch out depending on the situation, product, day, and mood. 😊 I run the MTM PF22.2, 2 x Griots Brilliant Foam Cannons, MJJC Pro V2, and now the MJJC S V3. Some that I use mainly for prewashes, I'll mark the PIR ratios on the bottles with some tape and markers (mainly for Bilt Hamber Touch-Less and Auto Foam). I also have some setup specifically for my larger 4200psi 4.5gpm gas belt driven pressure washer, the others are setup for my 2300 PSI 2.3 gpm start/stop electric pressure washer.
@@BigBear-- I understand the point that you're making, but why buy a foam lance when you have to work around it's poor performance by working out the PIR at many different positions, when you can buy many others that you can run at maximum draw and have no issues, so all you need to do it correctly measure out the quantity of product at maximum draw?
@@SuperchargedLlamaBecause not all products are made the same, and not all use cases call for watery foam. So having a foam cannon that has the ability to provide a wider range of foaming capability (to me, and others) is a nice option to have vs. a cannon that has a hard limit on foam production. Especially for people that will (or want) to only buy one foam cannon, and that adjustment option is part of the feature set of the cannon; that is specifically there to solve for the issues you're describing, along with all the other options (2 orifice sizes provided, and various filter options that control foam output). I'm not saying don't voice your personal opinion for your particular work flow, and preference, just maybe not condemn it as a "do not buy", when the features are also the solutions to your issue. People that don't know any better, or don't fully understand all the functionality and intricacies with different pressures, flows, PIRs, internals, etc, could get the wrong impression, when in fact this would be a great cannon for their use case. Wouldn't it have been nicer if along with your personal preferences, you explained how to solve the dry foam production issue and demonstrated how to adjust the cannon for your needs? Just sayin...
@@BigBear-- bearing in mind that this comparison is side by side with another foam lance, I think you can clearly see that there's only one watery foam being createdz and that's with Bilt Hamber AutoFoam) because that's what it does). All the others are thick, and they had better staying power too.
The fact that you're trying this hard to defend the MJJC means I'm not going to convince you, I'm alright with that. You need to be alright with the fact that we're not going to agree and that I will stand by the opinion I've shared here.
The only foam lance I use now is the MTM, so I do only really have one - I'm really glad I didn't buy the MJJC! I don't think anyone is missing out by not having it, there's many others that are better on the market, you don't need to spend MTM money, although I can't recommend anything else for the US market because there's sufficient differences in branding and model availability.
Surely you'd dial the lance dilution, product ratio back to suit your requirements. I don't own an MJJC but surely I'd get it to work for me. I don't thinkmthisnis a very good comparison or review and down to user error.
If you dial back the draw, then you aren't getting the PIR of the pre wash product that you've calucated for, so it's not effective.
This is actually a really good review, but you need to understand panel impact ratio for the pre-wash for that bit of logic to make sense.
If you're unaware of PIR, Specky did a good video about it on his channel ua-cam.com/video/tQjER9u1gaI/v-deo.html
It's only applicable if you're using active foams really, ones that actually do something. pH neutral pre wash foams are absolutely useless, but alkaline (high pH) foams do a lot (here's a video I made demonstrating it to some extent ua-cam.com/video/6umB2kTpdRs/v-deo.html)
Worth getting a cheaper filter if you have the 3.0 possibly and fitting it to the mjjc
If you've bought a V3 or V2 then yeah, maybe. I'd just not buy it at all tbh
Yes but then you are spending $90 on a foam canon, and then having to modify. Just buy the PF22 or one that doesn’t need modifying
@@wolfusa2002 I have the PF22.2 now btw, that'd make for good side by side (I didn't when I did all the filming on the red cars)
Adjust your mixing knob if you don't like a thicker foam 🤷
If you adjust the mixing knob then you're reducing the PIR, meaning you've got less surfactant on the panel, leading to a less effective pre-wash.
I'm sorry what your saying doesn't make sense. You determine the wetness with the adjustment knob.
Adjusting the dial affects the wetness by introducing more water in the mix, so you've got a weaker dilution of the product hitting the panel. In terms of pre-wash this means you're making the product less effective. Other foam lances don't have this problem, so I'd say the MJJC is only good for shampoo applications, not pre-wash.
I have the version 2 of their lances... I then bought the MTM to go with my autobrite lances. Wouldn't bother with the MJJC version, refused it when they offered to send me a free one.
I took the freebie because I didn't have the V2 and I wanted to see what the fuss was about. I suspect I won't be offered another one!
@@SuperchargedLlama If I were a reviewer/tester like you I would have taken freebie. You have certainly answered the question - Is V3 worth upgrading to. Great video and podcast by the way.
@@Just_Bald_Chris thank you darling!
Hey you didn't mention the foam dwell time.
I do, at 1:50.
Was this used with deionized water ?
On the red cars it was, yes. I was drawing from the tank in my van here. Everything else was mains water.
Great video Adrian, I’ve actually got this cannon and use the BH auto foam in it, I run it at between 4% and 5% PIR, I do however turn down the mix by between 1/4 and 1/8 to help make the foam wetter and it seems to work for me. I am surprised I’ve not seen any of the “it has a hole and leaks if you tip it over “ comments though as they seem rife on other detailers channels.
Keep up the great work and excellent content 👍🥃
Cheers my man.
Have you done the PIR calculations with the dial turned back? I did, added more product to keep it at 4% and then had the exact same problem...which I guess makes sense, but also frustrated me a bit.
Funnily you mention the hole in the top...all of my cannons have them I think, except maybe the MTM...
@@SuperchargedLlama no I normally mix slightly on the high side closer to 5% so turning the down till I get a foam that works for me, I view it as lowering the PIR but I’ll have to do my PIR tests again at the weekend as I’ve just bought the K4 on Amazon prime day 😂 my old k2 was pretty much on its last legs.
Honestly the amount of moaners that I saw on Forensics channel was mad when you consider that the bottle isn’t actually meant to be on its side, was ridiculous, I mean if you lay something down that’s not meant to be don’t call it a bad product because you messed up, I hook mine on my bucket or the jet wash so I don’t have that issue, I did get what you said about the drying though, that stands out more for those that use products that have to dwell for longer periods of time.
I will be trying the BH touchless when I run out of auto and see how that behaves
MJJC, what have you done!! I'm keeping my three v2 Pro ... I also have three MTM.
I don't even like the shape of the bottle on the v3.
I think you're wise there. I've recently got the MTM and really like it, although my hose set up has sprung a leak somewhere that I need to sort out before I can really test it loads. I thought it was an o-ring that had gone but it doesn't look that way at the moment 🙄
Tbh i never contact wash with foam, i’d rather use a bucket wash for that, foam makes a mess when doing a contact wash and its a waste of product. Similarly i use my prewash foam in an ik foam pro 12 with about 2L of solution and can go around the car multiple times while only using a fraction of what i would use in a foam cannon
Yeah I'm not sure I'm buying the foamed shampoo thing myself, like up say, it uses a lot more product for not much more gain.
Which you can level at the foam cannon for the pre-wash, although my experience of the handheld IK foamers were that they put on far less product, and therefore it wasn't that effective. I wonder if the big units with the wand are better? I like my Marolex Axel foamer, I just generally use it on the wheels instead.
@@SuperchargedLlama the big one is a godsent for me. i can just about do an entire sedan with the 1.5L foam pro 2, but with 2-2.5L in the IK foam pro 12 with a compressor attached, i can easily do the entire car multiple times and get great coverage. No it's not shaving cream thick but it is extremely effective in cleaning.
@@Zoranurai13 which is the whole point isn't it, effective cleaning!
cant you adjust the foam to water ratio from the top tip?
Yup you can, but then this changes the dilution of the product you're using. This isn't important with a shampoo or pH neutral one, but with a high alkaline pre-wash one you really should work out the PIR (panel impact ratio) to make sure you're achieving maximum efficacy of the product. You don't have this problem with none MJJC foam cannons because they don't use a double filter.
@@SuperchargedLlama you mean mtm foam cannons?
@@KotakaSRT there's loads of other brands, but MTM is one of them (I own that as well now - it produces a far better foam for pre-wash), but literally anything other brand than MJJC (apart from ones that get bundled with pressure washers) will make a better foam for pre-wash than MJJC.
@@SuperchargedLlama Hello Llama, I was also interested to buy this item but was sad to hear your thought on it. I like it way better than MTM because it's more modern and easier to use product. I contacted the MJJC and sent them your video and after two replies here's what they said: "In fact, you can adjust the top knot a little back to the "minimum" direction(for example, by 90 degree), and then check the PIR of your foam cannon. Then every time you use the foam cannon, you set the top knot by 90 degree to the minimum direction, the PIR will never change". This does not mean a lot to me because I don't yet have any gear to test it and I'm new to car detailing. Can you please take into consideration their response and tell me what you think? Or maybe make a follow up video? Many thanks!
@zustroy I'd hands down go for the MTM one, just because it doesn't look more modern shouldn't impact your decision; it's the quality of the foam you want.
I believe the response you've got is that you can just turn the dial to make the foam thinner (because it introduces more water into the mix); but that dilutes the product, so if you're pre-wash is a strong alkaline one, then it's important. If you're just foaming shampoo or pH neutral stuff then it doesn't matter and the MJJC will be fine.
What pre-wash product do you use?
I’ve never had that issue great results apart from Mjjc foam shampoo use a quality American shampoo
I don't think the findings are relevant if you're not using it for pre-wash with strong alkaline or acidic foams. Drying out doesn't really impact a shampoo's ability to do it's job as it reactivates with water; with a pre-wash it can stop the chemicals from doing anything (at best) or cause chemical staining (at worse).
You do realize that you can add more water to the foam by the top knob? I mean if its to dry add water to the mix
You do realise you can read other comments and replies, right?
Top work Adrian, cracking review. Funnily enough, I was thinking the other day that my MJJC Pro V2 does make the foam thicker than I need, in the summer, but of course, that's a good thing in the winter. So... I may buy a "summer lance", any recommendations? I have a K3 but use a stubby, so I think that rules out the AvA 3 bottle system. The Autoglym one gets good reviews and THH raves about the Dodo Juice one, so they're options. Do I want to pay for MTTM.... I don't think I do. Have you grabbed the new Autobrite Direct lance yet, I have the old one and like it, but that's reserved for LSP nowadays. All the best pal. 👍
The big issue I see with the thick foam, even in the winter, is that it dries out and falls off. That red car was filmed in February, to give some context.
Fortunately for you, the Ava system is, I believe, comparable as it uses the Karcher K series bayonet style connector!
tinyurl.com/m9fwcvha
THH has a partnership with Dodo Juice, so that's why he recommends them. It's an identical lance to the one big Stjänagloss one, along with a few other brands.
With regards to the ABD one, I've not tried it and I don't intend to tbh, I don't need to with having the Ava ones, and now the MTM, they're more than enough.
You are Not explaining that the Purpose of Thick Foam is a more activated soap.
Obviously if you shake your soap vigorous before wash it will Clean Better.
The Exact Same Applies to Foam Cannons.
In your Video you can even see the MJJC door Is Cleaner.
Your wayyyyyyy off here.
I think this really depends what you want from a foam. As I clearly stated in the video, for an active pre-wash, as we do a lot of in the UK and Europe, a wet foam that dwells without drying out for about 4-5 minutes, before rinsing off, is absolutely crucial for the efficacy of those products.
I'm not sure what aspect of the video you're looking at whereby you think one of the doors is cleaner, I hadn't rinsed anything off, so you can't infer that at all. The MJJC sides are dryer, which make them look different.
You're absolutely right with regards to the thick foam being good for the shampoo wash stage, I can't disagree with that. And I think I demonstrated that too, but you have got to understand how the pre-wash phase works, and what is and isn't important. To repeat it, a thick foam that dries out means that the surfactants aren't working.
I’ve had the pro v2 for ages now and have been back and forth thinking about getting this new lance but there is just something about it that I don’t think is worth the upgrade. Being as I am also English and I only use it for prewash I feel more inclined to get the new AutoBrite Direct lance that comes out soon. Have you seen that?
I'd still go with the MTM one tbh, at ECA Cleaning it's way cheaper than everywhere else.
I don't understand why both the V2 and V3 are on the market tbh, they're nigh on the same lance, so what's the point?
@@SuperchargedLlama The V3 is the S line. The Pro line doesn't have a v3 yet, S is the mid tier and pro is the highest tier. Both heads are identical, the S intentionally has a long skinny bottle so that it's more likely to topple over. Hence making the pro seem better with its wide and short bottle. The Pro v3 will have a different head that will once again seperate it from the s v3
@@KiranPatel-fk1pg they need to make the head that produces a wetter foam for the pro, if they do revise it. There's an irony that the skinny bottle on the S will fit better in most bottle racks
@@SuperchargedLlama I think for most people the thick foam is a selling point and the reason why the MJJC is one of the most popular foam cannon brands currently. If you want runny foam you could just a foam gun off a garden hose or a pump sprayer. I completely understand that wetting dirt is most effective but the whole point of a foam cannon is to produce foam, the others are giving you bubbly water. If you want runnier foam you could turn the knob and recalculate your pir. Then for when foaming up a shampoo for contact wash when you want max dwell time to provide lubrication under the mitt you can turn the knob up. Personally I can't understand the issue considering every foam cannon has adjustment so you can create the foam that suits you. I myself prefer the thicker foam even for my prewash as I am only using Koch AF due to not wanting to soak my rubber seats and plastics in high ph foams every wash like BH foams or sf
@@KiranPatel-fk1pg I think my issue with the MJJC is that, even when you dial it back, it still makes a very dry foam. Where as the MTM (purchased since shooting this) makes a thick, but wet, foam. As doesnrhe detail driven one I'm using in the video here.
Whilst I've not tested it thoroughly (because it was really hard to evidence when I gave it a couple of goes), I don't see any difference in sickness if the shampoo between being foamed on Vs in the wash bucket, so dwell time seems kinda immaterial as I can't see a benefit of that method. I thought it might be quicker, but it doesn't seem to be.
With regards to using a high pH pre-wash every time, yes, completely agree with your assessment there. I typically just dial the PIR back to 1% for Garage Therapy, or 2% for Auto-Foam and it gets to the same as Af by then.
Great conversation here by the way, thanks for taking the time to comment and discuss it.
I see everyone telling you the same thing (to turn the knob) and your response is the same (it dilutes it).
What you’re not considering is the mjjc gets more foam, by using more product. When you turn the knob to get a runnier solution you are diluting it, but to the same level as the other foam cannon. You’re comparing a more diluted foam to a lesser one, then you’re being dramatic about diluting the stronger one. It doesn’t make any sense my brother.
Also you could just use more product🤷🏻♀️
ALSO it only needs to dwell for so long. In fact dwell time is more important when you’re doing the contact wash as that extra soap provides lubricantion.
That's not correct I'm afraid - as I've calculated the PIR for each of the different foam lances, the volume of product on the panel is the same for each of the foam lances used in the test. The funny thing is that both of these lances require 14L to empty a 1L bottle (on my pressure washer and hose setup), so the volumes of product in the bottle is identical in this case. If I was using my MTM lance that I now have for comparison the volumes in the bottle would be different. However, due to PIR, the dilution on the panel would be no different.
Dwell time for a pre-wash greatly affects the efficacy of the pre-wash foam products, especially when they are high alkaline foams - you need a wetter foam for the surfactants to be...for lack of a better word..."active".
I hope this has helped you and expand your understanding on the topic, feel free to ask more questions if you have any - your points are a really common misunderstanding of pre-wash snow foams.
You can adjust the regulator to lessen the thickness.. it may affect the PIR, is it?
Yup that's exactly the problem, you dial it back and PIR is affected. You can calculate the PIR at the lower draw rate, but it doesn't actually solve the problem, as you put more product in the lance bottle to get the right PIR and it comes out the same.
i dont understand. adjust the water-foam ratio.
A lot of people don't seem to understand; if you adjust the draw rate, you'll reduce the panel impact ratio of the product - I said clearly what products I was using in the video, they're all pre-wash snow foams that are high alkaline. You want to get the right dilution on the onael to make sure you're getting the maximum effectiveness from it. With no other foam lance do I have the issue where the product is dry and over aerated, and therefore not as effective.
Very interesting illustration here! I have noticed sometimes foams can be too dry but this really highlights the nuances of it. I do lean towards thicker, drier foams, here in Southern California we rarely get clouds, I constantly work in direct overhead sunlight at noon.
Something I’ve never understood: I’ve used BH Autofoam & Touchless for years. I never got the thickness that you got with BH auto foam. Sometimes I fill the bottle 40% soap & 60% water and only get mildly thicker suds, still a runny recipe. Touchless always came out thicker, Alex Auto Wash also comes out shaving cream like. I use a kranzle 1622TS. I hear people using 10 ML’s of soap to cover a whole car I’m flabbergasted.
Thanks for taking the time to watch!
You're observations about AutoFoam and Touch-Less are exactly right. Both are thinner foams, but wetter. There's a bit on the review of an Ava pressure washer I did where you can see AutoFoam drying out on the blacked out glass when it was in full sun, there's only so much that can be done that's for sure. I feel for you guys having to be in full sun (happens to me a lot too) so you can't get the dwell times. But in summary, AutoFoam is a wet, thin foam, because for most of the time in the UK it dwells long enough to be incredibly effective, and being wet means the surfactants are working.
Whilst you're putting a lot of product into the foam cannon, and have it set to maximum draw, have you actually done the PIR calculations? You may find you're still under the dilution for 4% (which is the max for AutoFoam, Touch-Less is 5% I think?).
Other things that can affect it are the state of the filters on terms of how clean they are, and the size of the orifice in the cannon... although with your PW (which is known as the K10/122 in Europe) is pretty powerful!
When we're talking 4 to 5% PIR, it's still a very small amount of product in the water stream, so a small difference in the mix (if not calibrated) easily affects it. I'm in the neat product team as it makes topping up or swapping products so easy. I calibrate my cannons, making a note of the position of the adjuster, so I can go lower if there's not much dirt (more dust than dirt this time of year in the UK) or stick to 4% Auto-Foam/5% Touchless.
@@MrGymCrazy yeah that's the most optimal way of doing it I think.
Can you please do a review on the Ava P57 easy snow foam cannon and stubby gun. Thanks buddy
It's included in my Ava P57 review 👍 if you want something more detailed, I could potentially do that if needed.
MJJC is awesome, you want a different foam? just use a different Mesh Filter.
What makes it awesome in your opinion? I've found most people who rate it use it for the shampoo wash phase, not a pre-wash.
@@SuperchargedLlama I have 2X MJJC S for about 4 years now. Works like new. I use it for pre-wash and shampoo, Koch GS for pre and GSF for contact wash.
@@מדינט what sort of PIR are you going for?
Foam is not dry
I see where you're going there, a fair point to make. However, you can see here that some foams really dry out more quickly.
Interestingly I'm reminded of my IK foamer where you can change the aerators between three different options, and they instructions talk about a wetter foam to dry foam. So conceptually it's possible and sort of an agreed term in the industry.
Hello Darling, let’s get it watched
After the last video being over 30mins, this is a nice repreive!
Right away the biggest problem I can see is you are slobbering the foam on thickly & up close to the panel. Open up the fan pattern & put a thin layer on with a quick movement of the lance & the issue you are highlighting is gone. I'm going to use the MJJC today & I'll get some shots to prove my point.
Another thing worth pointing out. You done a video a few months ago comparing koch chemie foams to AF. Think it was super foam you complained was thick & a 'dry foam' as a negative then made the comment 'does it make a difference'. The comparison showed the thicker 'dry' foam apparently done better so it doesn't make a difference? Yet here you are now saying it's an issue & people shouldn't buy a product because of that? Strange. 🤔
I can see the angle you're exploring here. My initial reaction is that it won't cause much of a difference, because the foam is too dry, but it'll be interesting to see how you get on. The most important aspect of your comparison will be having two different foam cannons, the PIR correctly calculated, side by side to compare, otherwise it's just looking at one result without another reference point.
Let me know what you see though, happy to explore this further (maybe with only one foam, though, this took ages to film!)
It would take a fool to wash a car in the sun and seriously discuss quick-drying foam.🤦🏻♂
It would take a cretin to not understand that the value of a wet foam is that you get a longer dwell time for your pre-wash chemical before you need to rinse off than you would with a dry foam. These things are sold globally and there's a bunch of people who have to wash in direct sunlight, and all of the side by side stuff on the red cars was shot in February, it's only the GLC that's done in full sun.
@@SuperchargedLlama ua-cam.com/video/kQlB5qEI_5E/v-deo.htmlsi=YJn_Kgj3pJ1i91JK&t=701
MJJC can produce various foams by adjusting the orifice nozzle and detergent concentration.I don't understand why you tell everyone not to buy it through such an unrigorous test? Many experienced car washers around me use it, including myself. And there is no problem. Of course, I prefer to use my MJJC Pro v2.
@@skykirado you don't understand how Panel Impact Ratio (PIR) works, do you?
@@SuperchargedLlama Don't just tell me theory, I only care about practical application. As you saw in the video of the previous reply, there is no problem with the foam.
If you think MTM is better, you are free to choose it. My friend and I used different agents, different settings, and didn't notice any problems with the foam. And yes, you can continue to fall in love with your MTM foam, but don’t tell everyone not to buy MJJC.
You have to understand theory to understand the practical application. Words are failing me for the ever increasing stupidity with every reply from you at the moment. PIR is critical to the performance of some pre-wash foams; 1:10 in the foam bottle and adjusting the nozzle until you get the right consistency is only relevant to shampoos or pH neutral snow foams (possibly used over the top of another pre-wash that's sprayed from a trigger bottle or pump sprayer to increase the dwell time/stop them drying out). For high alkaline pre-wash snow foams, like Bilt Hamber Auto Foam & Touch-Less, Garage Therapy Snow V2, Koch Chemie Super Foam, it's critical to understand PIR and how it works so that you get the most out of the products.
If you've done the PIR calculation and measure out for 2% PIR, then you think the foam is too thick, so you open it up a quarter turn, you can be reducing the PIR enough so that it's down to 1%, so the efficacy of the product is massively reduced.
I don't mind that you may not be interested about PIR and how it works etc, but do not argue with me about something you clearly don't yet understand - in the scenario I am describing, which is very popular in the UK, the MJJC V2 and V3 produce a bad foam. But in my next video you'll see me using Koch Chemie Vb as the contact wash shampoo and I apply that via the MJJC V3, because I'm not interested in the PIR there, a nice thick foam is a good place to be....but I wouldn't have bought the MJJC just for that job.
Watch this video to see why PIR calculations are important, especially for pre-wash foams. ua-cam.com/video/d0qGM28XU4Y/v-deo.html
Here’s a tip for you if you think that the foam is too think and dry, put less chemical inside the foam cannon so you can have a more watery and less foamy solution. Less chemical = more wet runny foam. The foam cannons are a great option because of the savings on chemical cost, since these foam up more than regular foam cannons while using less soap. Over time these foam cannons are actually cheaper because of the money you save on chemical. Just my 2 cents though
You can't do that with pre-wash if you want to have a consistent panel impact ratio (which is the point of it). You could of course put less product in, but then the dilution is far lower and the efficacy of the pre-wash is worse, completely missing the point of the product.
Hello Darling! This is because we like it wet and they're thick :D Only joking yankee doodles :P
Twist a dial abit the other way, problem solved. You didnt have to go off and buy the outdated and overly expensive mtm
If you dial it back, you've reduced the PIR, and therefore completely defeated the object of having a PIR calucated pre-wash, which you want when you've got a product that gives you that to help you work out how to get the safest and effect experience of their product. Even dialled back, it still makes a very very dry foam.
You say the MTM is outdated, I say this is over compensating, and it's put thick foam over the priority of good foam. It does depend on what you're using the foam for though, if you're just using it to apply the shampoo then yes, this is very effective. If you don't need dwell time for an active product to attack the dirt, it's good. But in the context that I use a foam cannon in, it's not.
We can definitely agree that the MTM is expensive though, although the other day ECA cleaning had it for £45 delivered, which is cheaper than this.
@@SuperchargedLlama I use gyeon foam with the MJJC and it dwells just fine. Cleans well and no issues with performance. You can also replace the orifice inside it to adjust for your PIR needs. I know the 1.1mm creates dry foam but 1.25 or 1.35 should be fine. I used to have an mtm before because every detailer basically worshipped it. Countless threading issues and cheap quality bottles later, I just gave up on it. Haven't had any issues with the MJJC other than having to add a new filter after 1 year. There's literally Amazon foam canons cheaper and perform better than the mtm imo. But to each their own I suppose.
@@brokenSnake the Gyeon Foam is absolutely abysmal, even the new formulation in my experience. What volume of product are you using? I did a review comparing it to the Bilt Hamber offerings last year I think, but I was running it at maximum manufacturer dilutions, which means PIR for Bilt Hamber and therefore there's loads more product. The Gyeon made nice foam for sure, it just wasn't effective in comparison.
I do completely agree with you on the bottle quality for the MTM, that surprisingly poor and I don't really understand why they don't have a better one.
I'll do a comparison between the MTM and MJJC though, it'll be good to see which one produces the best (wettest) foam and how long they can both dwell for.
Do not buy MJJC cannons, Period!
I'm leaning that way too. I never bothered to buy the V2 when I saw the other reviews. I didn't buy this either, and I wouldn't, given what I'm seeing.
Late comment but I’ve had my mjjc v2 for a few years now using both bilt hamber snow foams. Never had any issues with the foam drying etc and when it comes to pressure washing the BH pre wash off I get the results as you expect with minimal dirt on the Panels. So to say don’t buy the mjjc is a bit harsh in my opinion. I’m not saying your testing is wrong either by the way.
Always said the same there too thick
People say the same about me!
MTM 🏆
MJJC 👎
Absolutely
Well…. Use a cheap useless foam cannon for presoak and this one for real thick shaving foam
But why? Thick shaving foam is absolutely pointless and offers no benefit and uses way more product.d
Foaming the shampoo seems like such a waste. The pre-wash makes sense, because it helps with the clean (as long as you're using an active high pH product, pH neutral is pH useless in this role, so there's no point), but the shampoo? Nah, not getting it. Thick foam only looks good for attention grabbing in the 'gram.
Mjjc still the best!
It really isn't.
😂
You're either laughing due to appreciating someone has finally explained why thick foam is completely wrong (for pre-wash) OR you think I'm flat out wrong and you think it's hilarious. To which I'd say, you really don't understand pre-wash and how surfactants work.
Either way, thick dry foam is for amateurs.
Worst review I've seen. More snow foam in bottle, turn the knob back...... its realy that simple. P.i.r will be right.
You really don't understand how PIR works. This is actually one of the best reviews you've seen.
Sorry pal but that is how it works you just don't understand basic mathematics....
@@mcspooney Enlighten me; I could be wrong and am happy to be corrected. I am also high dubious.
Thats a lot of effort, to produce a flawed video. Not using the adjustment is highly suspect, or just simply ignorant.
I have answered this so SO many times in the comments. Am I safe in assuming you don't know what PIR is and how it's calculated?
@@SuperchargedLlama you arent important enough to read alll your comment, and noit intelligent enough to, perfect. understand, that there are far too many variables involved , to make PIR perfect. When you assume, yoy make an ass out of you, not out of me.
Total BS
Try and be a bit more articulate darling, it's making you look very silly.
Fool
Is this yet another cretin commenting when they don't understand Panel Impact Ratio? Of course it is. Go and educate yourself.