XJet Compatibility

[CleanStart 14]

Quick recap: I want to add PW to my window cleaning business, but I'll have to wait a little longer than expected.

The owner of the car dealership I service wants me to PW his house and then clean the windows. He knows I won't be able to add PW this spring but has offered that I can use the PW they have at the dealership. So I looked at it and it's a weak machine, only 2300psi and 2gpm. It's a Briggs&Stratton, model G23.

Should I even attempt to use it on his house? He said it's 2 stories. Is the XJet compatible with that kind of model and would it help me with the job?

Also, what's the best place to learn techniques, as I have no experience.

Thanks everyone.

[Mike Williamson 198]

Quick recap: I want to add PW to my window cleaning business, but I'll have to wait a little longer than expected.

The owner of the car dealership I service wants me to PW his house and then clean the windows. He knows I won't be able to add PW this spring but has offered that I can use the PW they have at the dealership. So I looked at it and it's a weak machine, only 2300psi and 2gpm. It's a Briggs&Stratton, model G23.

Should I even attempt to use it on his house? He said it's 2 stories. Is the XJet compatible with that kind of model and would it help me with the job?

Also, what's the best place to learn techniques, as I have no experience.

Thanks everyone.

The best technique I have learned is to stick the Xjet back in the box, hide it on the trailer, and get a good downstreamer! However, to answer your question, yes, the Xjet will work with that machine, you may just need to cut down your chemical mix a bit, since the Xjet will be injecting 2.5gpm into your 2gpm of water, making your chem/water ration over 50%.

It'll work, you'll just spend more time rinsing...and remember, you don't need pressure...you need good chems and plenty of water. The machine you're talking about isn't weak because it is only 2300psi. That's too much for anything other than concrete or brick. That machine is weak because it is only 2gpm...making rinsing take much longer.

[Don M. 14]

Marius,

I have used a 2.8 gpm for the last two years. Though it got the job done, it took a LONG time.

I've got a 5.6 gpm machine coming. My advice is to save and at least get a 5.6.

[CleanStart 14]

What does downstream mean anyway? Sorry, don't know anything yet.

[We Wash Concrete 64]

A x-jet uses a tube at the end of the wand, attached to the nozzel, to siphon the chemical and mix it into the water. A downstream injector attaches using quick connects onto your high pressure hose. The injector is usually installed between the outlet of the machine and the beginning of the high pressure hose. This allows you to keep your chemical right with your machine, hopefully on a trailer. When you use a low pressure tip, the injector mixes the chemical in with your water, passes through the hose and out your wand. When you use a higher pressure tip, the injector knows NOT to mix chemical, so you only get clean water. A dual lance wand is nice because you don't have to change tips, you only turn the handle to select low pressure chemical mix or high pressure clean water. Downstreaming keeps you from hauling a bucket of chemical all the way around the house.

[Mike Williamson 198]

What does downstream mean anyway? Sorry, don't know anything yet.

A downstreamer is basically an Xjet that you place between the pump and your pressure hose that draws chems from a tank, bucket, or whatever you keep your chems in. They typically don't draw as well as the Xjet, but for most jobs, you don't need to draw as well as the Xjet. Oh, and they typically cost 1/6 what an Xjet costs...The downstreamers I use cost around $20.00. I went the stainless route, but found the cheaper ones work as well, and last as long, for less than 1/2 the cost.

The benefit is that you use less chem, and you leave your chems on the trailer rather than mixing them at the jobsite and dragging them around the house.

This is a downstreamer

[Jeff 232]

Love my Xjet

[John T 744]

Love my Xjet

Me to. I've used tons of downstream injectors over the years and the x-jet rules by far in my books..

[Jeff 232]

Me to. I've used tons of downstream injectors over the years and the x-jet rules by far in my books..

It puts it on heavy & quick, just what I need

You know I was thinking of trying downstreaming and I talked with a few smart guys and they said for what I do the downstreaming wouldnt be faster. Bob from PT said with as much hose we run, we would be changing out downstreamers way to often and probably wouldnt draw well. We need a ton of chems quick and thats what the Xjet does and its great to rinse with. So I decided to stay with old faithful XJET

[We Wash Concrete 64]

The injectors will usually break at the worst time - good thing is at 20 dollars you can keep a spare or two. The x-jet lets you easily dilute the chemical to the right percentage rate too. I put a quick connect directly on a gun with no wand and keep the x-jet on it. This helps keep the suction hose more manageable.

[douseahouse 21]

speakin of bob, i got a great tip from him today. i was looking for the x jet portable container and called bob. he told me about one at wal-mart (it's blue and holds 7 gallons). the cap is already threaded as it also doubles as a spout holder. i had to buy a couple of 3/4" plastic barb connectors and screwed one into each side. now i have my own portable x jet tank for less than 10 dollars total.

thanks bob,

rando

[RyanH 14]

The benefit is that you use less chem, and you leave your chems on the trailer rather than mixing them at the jobsite and dragging them around the house.

The downside is that your entire line fills up with the chemical mixture, so you will have to be vigilant of when to switch your tips so that you don't up wasting too much chemical (a little over 1 gallon of solution per cycle with a 3/8" line at 200 ft...kind of defeates that "uses less chem" argument). However with experience you will be able to tell when you should switch to still make use of the chemical in the line. If you are doing large commercial applications or something like condos where you will be applying chemical for a relatively long period of time, a downstreamer is ideal. However, if you are doing smaller residential-type jobs where you will be changing between rinse water and chemical water often (every minute or two), an Xjet is the better solution.

[Doug Dahlke 114]

Check with local car washes too. They gey a lot of their chems in buckets that are just like the X-jet 5 gallon. My son knows a guy who has a car wash and he got me a spare container for free.

[RyanH 14]

Hey Doug! Where in Newnan are you?

[Mike Williamson 198]

The downside is that your entire line fills up with the chemical mixture, so you will have to be vigilant of when to switch your tips so that you don't up wasting too much chemical (a little over 1 gallon of solution per cycle with a 3/8" line at 200 ft...kind of defeates that "uses less chem" argument). However with experience you will be able to tell when you should switch to still make use of the chemical in the line. If you are doing large commercial applications or something like condos where you will be applying chemical for a relatively long period of time, a downstreamer is ideal. However, if you are doing smaller residential-type jobs where you will be changing between rinse water and chemical water often (every minute or two), an Xjet is the better solution.

It takes about 7 or 8 seconds to clear my line, so the time isn't an issue as some people have implied....And the mistake you make in your logic is that it isn't pure chem in the line...So no, there's not 1 gallon of chem in the line "defeating that 'uses less chem' argument". There's about 1 gallon of water/chem mix, of which about 10% of that is chem, of which about 90% of that is pool chlorine.

And IF you learn to work the system, you don't waste any at all...you put in your rinse tip and take that 8 seconds to finish soaping, or re-hit areas that might be particularly bad.

Sorry, the Xjet is certainly not the better solution when doing smaller residential jobs. You're not switching between rinse and soap every minute or two...you're switching between rinse and soap every 5-10 minutes or so. Leaving your chem pre-mixed in a tank on the trailer saves time and effort, and the chem strength through a good downstreamer is sufficient for most residential jobs.

By the time you've pulled out your Xjet setup, mixed your chems in the bucket or container, and hauled it over to the first section of house you're going to be washing, I'll have already soaped and rinsed that first side of the house and be starting on the 2nd side.

[Jeff 232]

The downside is that your entire line fills up with the chemical mixture, so you will have to be vigilant of when to switch your tips so that you don't up wasting too much chemical (a little over 1 gallon of solution per cycle with a 3/8" line at 200 ft...kind of defeates that "uses less chem" argument). However with experience you will be able to tell when you should switch to still make use of the chemical in the line. If you are doing large commercial applications or something like condos where you will be applying chemical for a relatively long period of time, a downstreamer is ideal. However, if you are doing smaller residential-type jobs where you will be changing between rinse water and chemical water often (every minute or two), an Xjet is the better solution.

Actually for condos we use 300-500 ft of hose and the injecter just wont pump that constantly with out using up injectors fairly quick, so if we use only a couple hundred ft we would be rolling up hose supply & pressure, unhooking th supply and moving the trailer a lot more.. Plus we fly with the Xjet it just puts out the chem quick & heavy like I said and thats what i need

Injectors are a great tool for most, just not us

[RyanH 14]

It takes about 7 or 8 seconds to clear my line, so the time isn't an issue as some people have implied....And the mistake you make in your logic is that it isn't pure chem in the line...So no, there's not 1 gallon of chem in the line "defeating that 'uses less chem' argument". There's about 1 gallon of water/chem mix, of which about 10% of that is chem, of which about 90% of that is pool chlorine.

Err...note that i said 1 gallon "solution." And while it is true that flushing your lines once or twice isn't significant, when done many times over the course of a job it can add up. The additional cost may be neglible to some, not so much others. There is a definite advantage in not having to carry around buckets and extra hose though.

[Mike Williamson 198]

Err...note that i said 1 gallon "solution." And while it is true that flushing your lines once or twice isn't significant, when done many times over the course of a job it can add up. The additional cost may be neglible to some, not so much others. There is a definite advantage in not having to carry around buckets and extra hose though.

Sorry, I just assumed you were talking straight chems because I couldn't imagine anyone worrying about losing 1 gallon of chem/water mix that is at most 20% chems and is typically 10%. My apologies.

Ok, so we have 1 gallon of solution, of which .10 gallons is chem, which costs approx. $1.20/gallon, so every time I flush the line, there's .12 in chem being lost, IF you can't seem to figure out how to work the system and use that chem. Oh, and 8 seconds lost. Wow. On a residential house, I may have to flush my lines at most 6 times...so if I totally lose that chem, I've lost $0.72 in chems and 1 minute 36 seconds for the entire job. I'm sorry, if $0.72 isn't negligible to anyone out there running a business, then they have much more serious problems then what method they're using to apply chems.

If you're flushing your lines "many times" (more than, say, 10 or even 15 times) you don't know what the heck you're doing and probably ought to find someone who does to show you the ropes.