Bon-Ami for cleaning windshields

[andya...@verizon.net]

I read somewhere long ago that Bon-Ami scouring powder was good for
cleaning automobile glass. The can even says, "Hasn't scratched yet.",
with a picture of a little chick on it.

So I read the directions on a can of it today and it says, "Don't use
on windows or mirrors."

Anyone have any thoughts about this? Is it good for cleaning a
windshield or not?

TIA

Andy

[rudyxh...@yahoo.com]

Absolutely not. There's tons of glass cleaners that don't have anything
that smacks of an abrasive. Somone's quote: "I checked my can of Bon
Ami(R) and there's no warning against using it on glass. So, I went
down to my local grocery store and saw that it's been relabled. There's
now a warning on the new cans." It's clain uses the word "gentle
abrasive". If you let it dislove first it should be better than
straight from the can.

[Nate Nagel]

IT's the best glass cleaner I've found yet.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

[Al Bundy]

Detroit Diesel service engineers used to throw some into the intake of
a 3-53 and 4-53 in cranes that had trouble seating the rings. It was
abrasive enough to do that job. Of course they may have changed the
formula.

[Kruse]

Al Bundy wrote:
> Detroit Diesel service engineers used to throw some into the intake of
> a 3-53 and 4-53 in cranes that had trouble seating the rings. It was
> abrasive enough to do that job. Of course they may have changed the
> formula.

I read in a magazine that around 55-57, when Chevy was having trouble
with the rings seating on the new small block, that this was a factory
recommended fix...
Not sure how true it is.

[mst]

On 24 Dec 2005 20:53:01 -0800 andya...@verizon.net wrote:

> Anyone have any thoughts about this? Is it good for cleaning a
> windshield or not?

I've always used a pourable wax (such as Turtle Wax) to get
an ultra-clean windshield/glass. Beware though, if you have
'pits' in the glass, the wax will find its way into those
and leave its dry residue behind, so this works best on glass
that is pit-less.

--
remove MYSHOES to email

[Daniel J. Stern]

On Sat, 24 Dec 2005, andya...@verizon.net wrote:

> I read somewhere long ago that Bon-Ami scouring powder was good for
> cleaning automobile glass. The can even says, "Hasn't scratched yet.",
> with a picture of a little chick on it. So I read the directions on a
> can of it today and it says, "Don't use on windows or mirrors."

The reason why you're getting conflicting yes/no answers is that there
have been *two* different Bon Ami formulations. I haven't checked in about
18 years, so this information could be well out of date, but at that time,
the kind that came in the round can was too abrasive for use on glass; you
ran the risk of creating fine but visible scratches. The kind that came in
the rectangular can -- which was the old original Bon Ami cake
formulation, but in canned-powder form -- was an excellent and safe glass
cleaner. Both cans were yellow (the round one was metallic yellow, the
rectangular one was plain yellow) with the red-and-white "Bon Ami" logo,
the "Hasn't scratched yet" motto and picture of the chick, etc.

I have no idea whether they still make the old cake/rectangular-can
formula any more; my *GUESS* is that they've discontinued it. It was
harder to find even 18 years ago.

Unfortunately, Glass Wax has been discontinued. It was an amazingly good
glass cleaner. Fortunately, another company has put an
identically-formulated replacement on the market ("Window Wax" from
http://www.vermontcountrystore.com -- I note with some amusement that for
the season, they've changed the product description to emphasize its use
with stencils to *decorate* windows!)

[Rob B]

"Daniel J. Stern" <das...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.63.05...@alumni.engin.umich.edu...

> On Sat, 24 Dec 2005, andya...@verizon.net wrote:
>
> > I read somewhere long ago that Bon-Ami scouring powder was good for
> > cleaning automobile glass. The can even says, "Hasn't scratched yet.",
> > with a picture of a little chick on it. So I read the directions on a
> > can of it today and it says, "Don't use on windows or mirrors."

[snip]

>
> Unfortunately, Glass Wax has been discontinued. It was an amazingly good
> glass cleaner. Fortunately, another company has put an
> identically-formulated replacement on the market ("Window Wax" from
> http://www.vermontcountrystore.com -- I note with some amusement that for
> the season, they've changed the product description to emphasize its use
> with stencils to *decorate* windows!)
>

the more info link has warning ,
Safety Warnings
Do not use on wood surfaces or automobile windshields. Keep away from heat,
sparks, or open flame: combustible. Containd mineral spirits.

[Nate Nagel]

I don't see why you wouldn't want to use it on an automobile windshield
though, it's quite possibly the finest product ever made for putting a
shine on glass. In fact I wouldn't use anything else after cleaning,
save for a crumpled up black and white newspaper (seriously.)

[Daniel J. Stern]

On Sun, 25 Dec 2005, Rob B wrote:

>> Unfortunately, Glass Wax has been discontinued. It was an amazingly
>> good glass cleaner. Fortunately, another company has put an
>> identically-formulated replacement on the market ("Window Wax" from
>> http://www.vermontcountrystore.com -- I note with some amusement that
>> for the season, they've changed the product description to emphasize
>> its use with stencils to *decorate* windows!)
>
> the more info link has warning , Safety Warnings Do not use on wood
> surfaces or automobile windshields. Keep away from heat, sparks, or open
> flame: combustible. Containd mineral spirits.

Fascinating. Can't imagine why; it works great.

[mst]

On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 11:00:40 -0500 "Daniel J. Stern" <das...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Dec 2005, andya...@verizon.net wrote:

[snip]

> I have no idea whether they still make the old cake/rectangular-can
> formula any more; my *GUESS* is that they've discontinued it. It was
> harder to find even 18 years ago.

http://www.bonami.com/ironing.htm#
You have to hover your mouse over the 'cleaning cake' to read about it.
They also have a class cleaner, just above the cleaning cake.

[Daniel J. Stern]

On Sun, 25 Dec 2005, mst wrote:

>> I have no idea whether they still make the old cake/rectangular-can
>> formula any more; my *GUESS* is that they've discontinued it. It was
>> harder to find even 18 years ago.
>
> http://www.bonami.com/ironing.htm# You have to hover your mouse over the
> 'cleaning cake' to read about it. They also have a class cleaner, just
> above the cleaning cake.

Lookit there, they still have the two different powders, one in the
metallic-yellow can and the original cake formula in the plain yellow can
(though it's no longer rectangular).

Their glass cleaner is just like everyone else's; it's an ammonia-based
Windexlike stuff in a spray can.

[H...@nospam.nix]

"Daniel J. Stern" <das...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.63.05...@alumni.engin.umich.edu...

It may just be a CYA situation. Companies have done that more and more in
the last few years. Even MSD sheets are made to scare people, ala CYA.

I think, but am not certain, that BonAmi was based upon finely divided
feldspar,
and was of the mildest of abrasives.

I wouldn't hesitate to use it on glass, or even on dulled paint (with
caution)
even now.

[Erik]

In article <osCrf.37372$dO2....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
<H...@nospam.nix> wrote:

I've never had any issues with BonAmi either... I can imagine people
scrubbing down windshields with their powder and Scotchbright pads, and
blaming BonAmi on the scratches. It could/would cost a lot to defend
against a bunch of these... I bet their little lawyer types told them to
slap on the warning as a CYA measure as the above poster said.

Uh oh... OT Rant Follows...

Don't you hate going to peoples houses and seeing all their glass and
plastic ware with the glaze Scotchbrighted off! Then when they get new
stuff, they turn around and do it again! Amazing...

I went to a neighbors 'pot luck' affair a few months ago, and took one
of my 'world famous' pot roasts. I carried it up there right in my
trusty 20 year old crock pot that's never been within 20 feet of a
Scotchbright pad. You guessed it, I let my guard down for a couple of
minutes, someone took it to the kitchen and scratched hell of both pot
and lid. Cheesed my ass off to say the least.

Rant-Off.

Erik

[andya...@verizon.net]

You said:

"Lookit there, they still have the two different powders, one in the
metallic-yellow can and the original cake formula in the plain yellow
can "

But the web page doesn't distinguish between the two. The words do
say, "Use to defog windows and mirrors. NASA even used Cleaning Powder
to clean the windows on Skylab."

Andy

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

"Erik" <er...@dejathis.com> wrote in message
news:erik-E556DB.1...@news.verizon.net...

Our glassware is like this but we have never scrubbed it. (both of us
are too lazy) We just stick it in the dishwasher. Today's dishwashing
detergents for use in an automatic dishwasher will etch glass after
years of use. The only way you can avoid destroying glassware is
to hand-wash it.

Ted

[Bob M.]

<andya...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1135486381.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

My '94 Geo Prizm manual said to do just that with that same Bon-Ami powder.
Worked great.

[do_not_...@my-deja.com]

Bon Ami may be preferred because it doesn't contain chlorine bleach.
But several years ago, Consumer Reports found, contrary to the
manufacturer's claim, Bon Ami was not the least abrasive cleanser
tested, and even ordinary Ajax and Comet scratched less.

[Daniel J. Stern]

Given Condemner Retards' recommendations have for the past twenty years
been consistently almost exactly opposite my own experiences, and
considering those instances over the same timespan they've printed utterly
nonsensical drivel about those few specific fields in which I am extremely
knowledgeable, their cleanser findings would tend to make me avoid Ajax or
Comet and use Bon Ami.

DS

[do_not_...@my-deja.com]

Testing cleansers isn't like testing cars or TVs. All they have to do
is scrub different stains and measure how much is left behind, and my
personal experience showed they were right about Bon Ami because I
couldn't polish acrylic with it, as I could with cleansers they rated
as less abrasive.

[Daniel J. Stern]

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005, do_not_...@my-deja.com wrote:

>> Given Condemner Retards' recommendations have for the past twenty years
>> been consistently almost exactly opposite my own experiences, and
>> considering those instances over the same timespan they've printed
>> utterly nonsensical drivel about those few specific fields in which I
>> am extremely knowledgeable, their cleanser findings would tend to make
>> me avoid Ajax or Comet and use Bon Ami.
>
> Testing cleansers isn't like testing cars or TVs.

True, but I've seen CR screw up *very* badly on products that should be
extremely simple and straightforward to test.

[do_not_...@my-deja.com]

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Dec 2005, do_not_...@my-deja.com wrote:

> > Testing cleansers isn't like testing cars or TVs. All they have to do
> > is scrub different stains and measure how much is left behind,

> True, but I've seen CR screw up *very* badly on products that should be

> extremely simple and straightforward to test.

CR is very methodical, has plenty of qualified technical people, checks
everybody's work by comittee after comittee, and overall they seem to
make fewer mistakes than most reviewers, such as those publications
that name cars of the year. CR's taste tests are another matter, and
their judgments are often outright wierd (awful for pancake mix, good
for coffee), and nobody should pay too much attention to their overall
scores over their individual ratings (i.e., vacuum cleaners they judged
best at cleaning scored worse than some others that were better in some
unimportant aspects).

[Daniel J. Stern]

On Wed, 28 Dec 2005, do_not_...@my-deja.com wrote:

> CR is very methodical, has plenty of qualified technical people, checks
> everybody's work by comittee after comittee

The very same can be said of GM, and look at them.

[do_not_...@my-deja.com]

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

Is this the same methodical GM that brought out the CS130 alternator?

[Daniel J. Stern]

Yep! And the Chevrolet Lumina. And the THM200R4 transmission. And the
7-hour starter. And the 50mm x 135mm "Mister Magoo" miniature sealed-beam
headlamp. And the 3.1 litre V6 engine. And the Pontiac Aztek. Do you begin
to see my point?

[Erik]

> >> The very same can be said of GM, and look at them.
> >
> > Is this the same methodical GM that brought out the CS130 alternator?
>
> Yep! And the Chevrolet Lumina. And the THM200R4 transmission. And the
> 7-hour starter. And the 50mm x 135mm "Mister Magoo" miniature sealed-beam
> headlamp. And the 3.1 litre V6 engine. And the Pontiac Aztek. Do you begin
> to see my point?

Don't forget the Fiero!

Erik

[do_not_...@my-deja.com]

But those are all examples of GM cutting corners and not being careful
and methodical, which may be why so few of CR's top choices are GM
vehicles.

[Daniel J. Stern]

On Thu, 29 Dec 2005, do_not_...@my-deja.com wrote:

>>> CR is very methodical, has plenty of qualified technical people,
>>> checks everybody's work by comittee after comittee
>
>> The very same can be said of GM, and look at them.
>
>>> Is this the same methodical GM that brought out the CS130 alternator?
>
>> Yep! And the Chevrolet Lumina. And the THM200R4 transmission. And the
>> 7-hour starter. And the 50mm x 135mm "Mister Magoo" miniature
>> sealed-beam headlamp. And the 3.1 litre V6 engine. And the Pontiac
>> Aztek. Do you begin to see my point?
>
> But those are all examples of GM cutting corners and not being careful
> and methodical

No, they're all examples of GM's competent and careful engineers being
committee-thinked and focus-grouped to death by careful, methodical
beancounters.

[spamT...@yahoo.com]

Maybe from the days of windshields with a plastic coating on the
inside?

Dave

[do_not_...@my-deja.com]

I can understand how that results in Pontiac Aztek ugliness and how
bean counting causes GM to use old parts in new car designs, but how
does they result in bad transmissions and alternators?

CR's review comittees exist mostly to prevent personal opinions from
affecting the reviews and to keep the company from being sued.

[Steve]

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

Liability bullshit. Some dipstick uses it on their windshield, has a
wreck while yakking on their cell-phone, and goes looking for a
scapegoat. Claims they couldn't see through the windshield because the
glasswax made it blurry, and finds a no-good lawyer that will file the
case for them.

[Steve]

do_not_...@my-deja.com wrote:

Which would no doubt have gotten a highest-in-class rating from
Condemner Retards, if they rated alternators...

[Steve]

Erik wrote:

Hey, Fieros are just fine... once you put an LS-1 in place of the
four-popper. :-)

[Daniel J. Stern]

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005, Steve wrote:

>>>> CR is very methodical, has plenty of qualified technical people,
>>>> checks everybody's work by comittee after comittee
>>>
>>> The very same can be said of GM, and look at them.
>>
>> Is this the same methodical GM that brought out the CS130 alternator?
>
> Which would no doubt have gotten a highest-in-class rating from
> Condemner Retards, if they rated alternators...

I'm sorry, Steve, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to rate your post
"black dot" with a "3" in the "notes" column, and if you'll look down at
the bottom of the page you'll see that "note 3" has a little frowny face
next to it. Reliability has been a concern, and while quality has been
improving, our unbiased and Platonically Perfect test results (we don't
accept advertising) show that your post just can't measure up to the
practical Japanese posts, which are consistently rated "red dot with white
spot in center". Some samples of this post flipped over or leaned
dangerously in our IP router crash-avoidance tests, a nuisance. Our post
arrived with seventy-one sample defects, including a misaligned "A" in the
rightmost column, a nuisance. You must rotate a medallion to open the
trunk on this post, a nuisance. The post started and ran well, but
exhibited suspiciously oppositional opinions of CR's
pure-as-the-driven-snow conclusions (we don't accept advertising). Our
recommendation: Honda.

--Consumer Reports, a nuisance.

[Daniel J. Stern]

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005, do_not_...@my-deja.com wrote:

>> they're all examples of GM's competent and careful engineers being
>> committee-thinked and focus-grouped to death by careful, methodical
>> beancounters.
>
> I can understand how that results in Pontiac Aztek ugliness and how bean
> counting causes GM to use old parts in new car designs, but how does
> they result in bad transmissions and alternators?

You really, honestly can't figure this out for yourself...? Did you, er,
try? C'mon, don't be afraid to strain your brain. It probably won't break.

[Norm De Plume]

What happened to your "the joke isn't working and it it's better to
bail out now instead of continue with the misery" radar? Did radical
feminist comedians take it away?

[do_not_...@my-deja.com]

I mean, how does it result in those assemblies being badly designed,
not badly manufactured. After all, an alternator or transmission isn't
like a whole car, where old parts are carried over.

[Daniel J. Stern]

On Mon, 2 Jan 2006, do_not_...@my-deja.com wrote:

>>> I can understand how that results in Pontiac Aztek ugliness and how
>>> bean counting causes GM to use old parts in new car designs, but how
>>> does they result in bad transmissions and alternators?
>>
>> You really, honestly can't figure this out for yourself...? Did you,
>> er, try? C'mon, don't be afraid to strain your brain. It probably won't
>> break.
>
> I mean, how does it result in those assemblies being badly designed, not
> badly manufactured.

I repeat my question: You can't figure it out for yourself? You *really*
need help with this? It's not a difficult concept...

[do_not_...@my-deja.com]

It seems you can't answer the question. Group think shouldn't affect
the quality of a new transmission or alternator because they're all
new, unlike a car, which often contains older parts.

[Daniel J. Stern]

On Tue, 3 Jan 2006, do_not_...@my-deja.com wrote:

>>> I mean, how does it result in those assemblies being badly designed,
>>> not badly manufactured.
>
>> I repeat my question: You can't figure it out for yourself? You
>> *really* need help with this? It's not a difficult concept...
>
> It seems you can't answer the question.

I can -- I'm just astounded that such a simple answer evades you. Keep
workin' on it. If you haven't got it in another week or so, give a shout.