Stuff We Use: Under Pressure (Washers)

Matthew Guy
by Matthew Guy

On our never-ending quest to improve this place by listening to feedback from the B&B, we are taking a new tack with these product posts, choosing instead to focus on items we use and have purchased with our own meager income. After all, if we’re giving you the truth about cars, we ought to give you the truth about car accessories.


We’ve mused before on these digital pages that a clean car seems to run better – a missive that apparently holds true for sports cars and hot hatchbacks, though burly off-road pickup trucks and SUVs may take umbrage with that assessment. Nevertheless, most gearheads tend to like keeping their ride relatively clean, explaining the sheer number (and type) of pressure washers marketed toward consumers.


For ages, this writer used a gasoline-powered pressure washer, firm in the belief it ran better and more reliably than any cheap electric plug-in unit ever would. Besides, having an extension cord flailing about whilst water is sprayed wildly does not inspire confidence in the back of my brain. Perhaps I’ve watched too many episodes of CSI, studying Gil Grissom’s investigations into strange and grisly deaths.


All but identical to this example, the pressure washer was biblically loud under load but always provided great performance – even during times when the water pressure from my artesian well was less than ideal. It came with a metal lance and spray gun, a quartet of tips in different spray angles, and a decently robust metal frame. For those unfamiliar, those spray tips that attach to the end of a nozzle dictate the aggression with which the water flows forth from your pressure washer. A 25-degree tip is not as vigorous as a 10-degree, for example – though you might not wish to use the latter on yer new car. Read the manual and know what’s best for your particular task. And, yes, I speak from experience after accidentally blasting away paint that was precariously hanging on over rust bubbles on my old Ram pickup truck.

This author has recently discovered that (gasp!) battery-powered household tools have come a long way from the Bad Old Days – and are even light years ahead in terms of performance than those on sale just a few years ago. In my garage now resides, of all things, a pressure washer powered by a lithium-ion battery from a company called DK2, belting out 2,200 psi and blasting away dirt from my Challenger and house siding alike.


The battery is a large cube and sits where the gasoline engine resided on my old pressure washer, consuming about the same amount of space. Its total capacity is just over 1.0 kWh and is paired with a brushless electric motor which the manufacturer claims is very similar in construction to units found on road-going EVs. It sure seems stout and I have no reason to doubt that claim.

All the literature I could find failed to make much (official) mention of run time on a full charge but my experience so far has been very positive. It’s no trouble to wash two or three cars at a time and not run out of juice, even at my notoriously leisurely pace. The same goes for washing the siding of my home, a surface that gets reliably gnarly thanks to a droke of trees surrounding our place. It is estimated recharging takes about twice as long as discharging, though I tend to just simply plug the thing in overnight; it’s always full the next time it is needed.


In fact, the battery can apparently be used as part of a DK2 ecosystem of products which include the likes of woodchippers and log splitters. Extra batteries can be stacked for more endurance at work or turned into a power bank for home use when the grid goes dark. By itself, the battery in my pressure washer can juice items through a couple of USB ports located on its anterior side. A separate device can be purchased to provide household-style outlets if you plan to double the thing as a 2000-watt source of backup power. My sole complaint is that this is a heavy bugger, weighing more than a hundred pounds which is way more than my old gas unit. Good job it rolls easily on its tires.


As planned, this series of posts will continue to focus on items we actually use and have bought with our own money. We hope you found this one helpful.

[Image: Author]

Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by subscribing to our newsletter.

Matthew Guy
Matthew Guy

Matthew buys, sells, fixes, & races cars. As a human index of auto & auction knowledge, he is fond of making money and offering loud opinions.

More by Matthew Guy

Comments
Join the conversation
6 of 12 comments
  • ToolGuy ToolGuy on Oct 30, 2023

    1600 bucks? Not for me.

    Since we have a freeze warning tonight, on my to-do list for today is to run some 'pump saver' through both pressure washers - the 'serious' gasoline-powered one and the wimpy plug-in electric one. And bring the 56V batteries inside the house (and 40V, and probably the M12 batteries too why not).

    My electric pressure washer has its own GFCI, so the chances of electrocution are less than 27.4%.

    My sister's kid works on a farm sometimes. He chose to clean his truck wheels using the Very Serious hot-water pressure washer on the farm. Which is fine if you want to remove the finish along with the dirt...

    • See 1 previous
    • ToolGuy ToolGuy on Oct 30, 2023

      I ordered a "EVEAGE 2-in-1 Undercarriage Pressure Washer Water Broom, 16" Under Car Pressure Washer Attachment with Extensions" back when it was cheaper and I was more optimistic. I use it as a 'broom' (pointing forward and down) after using my 15" Surface Cleaner on paved areas, but if I lived in a place where road salt was an issue, it would be just about ideal (spraying 'up') for cleaning off the bottom of a vehicle.

  • FreedMike FreedMike on Oct 31, 2023

    Thinking of getting (a much cheaper) one to clean off my wheels.

    • See 1 previous
    • ToolGuy ToolGuy on Nov 01, 2023

      I am thinking that if I had totaled the vehicle of any of the women in my immediate family by rear-ending another vehicle, I would probably not be alive now.


  • FreedMike Not surprisingly, I have some ideas. What Cadillac needs, I think, is a statement. They don’t really have an identity. They’re trying a statement car with the Celestiq, and while that’s the right idea, it has the wrong styling and a really wrong price tag. So, here’s a first step: instead of a sedan, do a huge, fast, capable and ridiculously smooth and quiet electric touring coupe. If you want an example of what I’m thinking of, check out the magnificent Rolls-Royce Spectre. But this Cadillac coupe would be uniquely American, it’d be named “Eldorado,” and it’d be a lot cheaper than the $450,000 Spectre – call it a buck twenty-five, with a range of bespoke options for prospective buyers that would make each one somewhat unique. Make it 220 inches long, on the same platform as the Celestiq, give it retro ‘60s styling (or you could do a ‘50s or ‘70s throwback, I suppose), and at least 700 horsepower, standard. Why electric? It’s the ultimate throwback to ‘60s powertrains: effortlessly fast, smooth, and quiet, but with a ton more horsepower. It’s the perfect drivetrain for a dignified touring coupe. In fact, I’d skip any mention of environmental responsibility in this car’s marketing – sell it on how it drives, period.  How many would they sell? Not many. But the point of the exercise is to do something that will turn heads and show people what this brand can do.  Second step: give the lineup a mix of electric and gas models, and make Cadillac gas engines bespoke to the brand. If they need to use generic GM engine designs, fine – take those engines and massage them thoroughly into something special to Cadillac, with specific tuning and output. No Cadillac should leave the factory with an engine straight out of a Malibu or a four-banger Silverado. Third step: a complete line-wide interior redo. Stop the cheapness that’s all over the current sedans and crossovers. Just stop it. Use the Lyriq as a blueprint – it’s a big improvement over the current crop and a good first step. I’d also say Cadillac has a good blend of screen-controlled and switch-controlled user interfaces; don’t give into the haptic-touch and wall-to-wall screen thing. (On the subject of Caddy interiors – as much as I bag on the Celestiq, check out the interior on that thing. Wow.)Fourth step: Blackwing All The Things – some gas, others electric. And keep the electric/gas mix so buyers have a choice.Fifth step: be patient. That’s not easy, but if they’re doing a brand reset, it’ll take time. 
  • NJRide So if GM was serious about selling this why no updates for so long? Or make something truly unique instead of something that looked like a downmarket Altima?
  • Kmars2009 I rented one last fall while visiting Ohio. Not a bad car...but not a great car either. I think it needs a new version. But CUVs are King... unfortunately!
  • Ajla Remember when Cadillac introduced an entirely new V8 and proceeded to install it in only 800 cars before cancelling everything?
  • Bouzouki Cadillac (aka GM!!) made so many mistakes over the past 40 years, right up to today, one could make a MBA course of it. Others have alluded to them, there is not enough room for me to recite them in a flowing, cohesive manner.Cadillac today is literally a tarted-up Chevrolet. They are nice cars, and the "aura" of the Cadillac name still works on several (mostly female) consumers who are not car enthusiasts.The CT4 and CT5 offer superlative ride and handling, and even performance--but, it is wrapped in sheet metal that (at least I think) looks awful, with (still) sub-par interiors. They are niche cars. They are the last gasp of the Alpha platform--which I have been told by people close to it, was meant to be a Pontiac "BMW 3-series". The bankruptcy killed Pontiac, but the Alpha had been mostly engineered, so it was "Cadillac-ized" with the new "edgy" CTS styling.Most Cadillacs sold are crossovers. The most profitable "Cadillac" is the Escalade (note that GM never jack up the name on THAT!).The question posed here is rather irrelevant. NO ONE has "a blank check", because GM (any company or corporation) does not have bottomless resources.Better styling, and superlative "performance" (by that, I mean being among the best in noise, harshness, handling, performance, reliablity, quality) would cost a lot of money.Post-bankruptcy GM actually tried. No one here mentioned GM's effort to do just that: the "Omega" platform, aka CT6.The (horribly misnamed) CT6 was actually a credible Mercedes/Lexus competitor. I'm sure it cost GM a fortune to develop (the platform was unique, not shared with any other car. The top-of-the-line ORIGINAL Blackwing V8 was also unique, expensive, and ultimately...very few were sold. All of this is a LOT of money).I used to know the sales numbers, and my sense was the CT6 sold about HALF the units GM projected. More importantly, it sold about half to two thirds the volume of the S-Class (which cost a lot more in 201x)Many of your fixed cost are predicated on volume. One way to improve your business case (if the right people want to get the Green Light) is to inflate your projected volumes. This lowers the unit cost for seats, mufflers, control arms, etc, and makes the vehicle more profitable--on paper.Suppliers tool up to make the number of parts the carmaker projects. However, if the volume is less than expected, the automaker has to make up the difference.So, unfortunately, not only was the CT6 an expensive car to build, but Cadillac's weak "brand equity" limited how much GM could charge (and these were still pricey cars in 2016-18, a "base" car was ).Other than the name, the "Omega" could have marked the starting point for Cadillac to once again be the standard of the world. Other than the awful name (Fleetwood, Elegante, Paramount, even ParAMOUR would be better), and offering the basest car with a FOUR cylinder turbo on the base car (incredibly moronic!), it was very good car and a CREDIBLE Mercedes S-Class/Lexus LS400 alternative. While I cannot know if the novel aluminum body was worth the cost (very expensive and complex to build), the bragging rights were legit--a LARGE car that was lighter, but had good body rigidity. No surprise, the interior was not the best, but the gap with the big boys was as close as GM has done in the luxury sphere.Mary Barra decided that profits today and tomorrow were more important than gambling on profits in 2025 and later. Having sunk a TON of money, and even done a mid-cycle enhancement, complete with the new Blackwing engine (which copied BMW with the twin turbos nestled in the "V"!), in fall 2018 GM announced it was discontinuing the car, and closing the assembly plant it was built in. (And so you know, building different platforms on the same line is very challenging and considerably less efficient in terms of capital and labor costs than the same platform, or better yet, the same model).So now, GM is anticipating that, as the car market "goes electric" (if you can call it that--more like the Federal Government and EU and even China PUSHING electric cars), they can make electric Cadillacs that are "prestige". The Cadillac Celestique is the opening salvo--$340,000. We will see how it works out.
Next