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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

Cheers darling!

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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)

Yeah I'm 100% with you there. Spend the money elsewhere

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?

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.

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 :)

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

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.

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.

It's included in my Ava P57 review 👍 if you want something more detailed, I could potentially do that if needed.

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.

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.

I do, at 1:50.

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 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).

On the red cars it was, yes. I was drawing from the tank in my van here. Everything else was mains water.

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 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qreaeLVq2pfLkX0.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 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/bNuddZWcudbIgqc.html)

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.

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?

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 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 🙄

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!

You do realise you can read other comments and replies, right?

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 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!

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.

After the last video being over 30mins, this is a nice repreive!

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.

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.

@@user-yb2tp4qf1r what sort of PIR are you going for?

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!)

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.

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.

People say the same about me!

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 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/obecdZiiqq_DZXk.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. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mpaherBjnb65ZI0.html

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.

Absolutely

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.

Try and be a bit more articulate darling, it's making you look very silly.

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.

Is this yet another cretin commenting when they don't understand Panel Impact Ratio? Of course it is. Go and educate yourself.