flat coat-clear coat? or enamel

[1959olds]

I keep hearing about cracks, gray-outs, etc. on flat coat clear coat paints. Yet the shop that is going to rent me their spray booth to paint my car says the flat/clear is the ONLY way to go. The other crusiers I show with also proclaim that enamel is the best. Your Opinions??????

[Matt Harwood]

Modern urethane paints are vastly superior to finishes of the past, including enamel. Fears of clearcoats lifting, yellowing, cracking, etc. are pretty much things of the past when the technology was in its infancy or when automakers (GM in particular, but not alone) started trying less expensive/more environmentally-friendly techniques including water-borne paints. Of course, no paint can survive bad prep, so take any horror stories you hear with a grain of salt--if a shop is going to cut corners, it'll be in the laborious and tedious prep process, not in the actual spraying (though they may use cheap paint, which can also be a major factor).

It has been my experience that the modern urethanes (single stage and multi-stage AKA "clearcoat" paints) are easier to use, produce better results and have vastly improved durability over enamels, lacquers and other older paints. Technology has definitely improved this breed, so don't be fooled by guys who claim their car has 20 coats of "hand-rubbed" lacquer or something like that. What they have is a few thin layers of brittle, low-adhesion paint, the rest of which were rubbed and buffed off in an attempt to get it to lay flat and shine properly. Urethane paints do this with very little effort, even for a first-timer. Urethanes are more flexible, less prone to UV damage, don't react with chemicals as easily and will last longer. Basically, you're spraying a kind of plastic on your car.

Enamels and lacquers are more brittle and don't stick to surfaces as tenuously as urethanes. Older cars that have more vibration than modern cars will often demonstrate cracking or crazing ("alligator skin") around bolt holes, say where a windshield stanchion bolts to the cowl. This is the paint cracking because it is so brittle. My father used to instruct us not to slam the doors on his old cars because the paint would literally fall off from the impact. Unfortunately, that's what happens when lacquers and enamels get old.

Some may worry about originality, but I don't believe there are many judging handbooks that insist on original-specification paints on restored automobiles. Most folks can't even tell the difference, though if you're a real stickler for originality, use single-stage urethane which doesn't need a clear coat. Nobody will ever know the difference, and you'll still get most of the benefits of multi-stage urethanes. Just remember that most old cars didn't have much, if any, metal-flake in them like modern paints do--that's one of the biggest tip-offs that the paint isn't original or original-type, so take it easy on the metallics.

But if you're using urethanes, be careful and be safe. Most have isocyanates in them, which are very, very hazardous to your health (root word: cyanide). Use a proper breathing apparatus when spraying these paints. A good shop will have the proper equipment to protect the painter.

In short, don't be afraid of the basecoat/clearcoat paints. The teething problems have been solved and 2-stage urethanes are used by almost all (I know somebody will correct me if I say all) modern auto makers on their production cars (high-end Rolls-Royces, BMWs and Mercedes-Benzes wouldn't look half so luxurious if they didn't have 2-stage urethane paint on their skins). If your prep is good, your materials high-quality and you exercise a little care, you'll have a paint job that will far outlast anything an enamel or lacquer job could ever produce, and it'll look great for a much longer period with less maintenance.

Take a look at AutoBodyStore.com's message board for success stories of first-timers and get the real skinny on the current paint technology from real experts. These guys really know their stuff.

Hope this helps and good luck!

[imported_jw24spec6]

ITS really not going to make much difference if you are going to spray it flat. the surface of the paint is disrupted with the flattening base, example; like talc in the black would chalk out. i would use the mat clear if you can afford it. but that said either one will look the same and will be a pain in the butt to keep nice. good luck jim

[1959olds]

Matt, thanks for all your in-put. The car is a 1940 Olds with 16k miles from my grandfather's estate. The color is Sylvan Green. I am restoring the car myself and am taking great care as to originality. One of the guys I show with has a beautiful 56 Ford convertable, black, which he says is all enamel. He had mentioned to me the horror stories of flat/clear and it got in my head big time. That is why I made the post. I am grinding the all the paint off, then using aerosol etch primer to cover. I then plan on hitting it with a 2-part epoxy DP black primer, then 2 part epoxy topcoat with clear on that. I feel much more confident now that I have your opinion under my belt. Thanks Again!!

[imported_MrEarl]

Matt,
I'm so glad to hear someone get off the fence re this topic. I think I have decided to paint my two Roadmasters w/single stage urethane. Any particular advice regarding that

[Jack Harlin]

Just an open Question
Why do we buy original parts,correct decals for acc. under hood, etc. & go through the trouble of painting it, using different materials? I have yet to hear any answers to back up whats been offered as reasons for not using materials the car had when new. I'm thinking it must be one of personal opinions & likes & diss-likes of the choices one makes. Jack

[imported_MrEarl]

Jack, I think in my case, I would have to say it's because I can't find true lacquer nor anyone that would shoot it if I did. Painters I speak to say that the lacquer of today is not the same as it use to be.
I agree, I would love to put lacquer back on my one 54 Roadmaster which has only 13,000 miles on it. But the reason I am having to paint it now is the fact that the original paint was initially so thin that it has been practically buffed off and what is still there is aligatored. I've been told that single stage urethane can be wet sanded and will look so close to the look of lacquer very few people would be able to tell the difference. Plus I understand the urethane lasts longer without cracking and buffing away.I'm 54, so hey, I need something that's going to last another 30-40 years, cause I sure the heck ain't gonna be up to sanding and repainting 2 Roadmasters when I'm 70.
I fully appreciate your question though and if I'm missing something please don't hesitate to fill me in. Thanks

[imported_oldmitchell]

We use the modern materials because most painters out there don't know how to spray lacquer and have never seen it. It is not cost effective for them to learn. The reason paint companies have largely ceased manufacture of lacquer paints is they are inferior to the modern stuff. We have to remember paint is made for daily use vehicles not collector cars that are stored indoors. The problems your friend has pointed out to you all stem from the way the cars are painted at the factories. I personally have never seen a base/clear aftermarket paint job fail. For the very old cars (pre 20's) base/clear is more authentic than single stage as these cars were finished by applying a coat of varnish over the paint. Most other cars are more appropriately finished with a single stage. It is very difficult to tell the difference between a buffed lacquer and a buffed urethane single stage.

[De Soto Frank]

"Original" lacquers up through the 1930's-'40s were nitro-cellulose based; they are not very durable, especially on cars that receive frequent exposure to the sun and rain...

Nitro-cellulose also chemically decomposes - this is why so many early motion pictures filmed on nitro-cellulose stock are lost...


N-C is also highly flammable...

[Packard Blue]

I agree with everything all of you guys in here have said. But, let me add two things:

First - there is another reason why a commercial paint shop will not spray lacquer. It is ILLEGAL in most jurisdictions due to "air pollution" regs.

Secondly - I do disagree about the "look". Those vastly superior modern finishing systems "look" different, and more shiny to even the untrained eye. There is something about the way light reacts to the modern finishes, that makes them "look" more spectacular then the old style lacqueers.

Of COURSE I would pick a modern finishing system for any car that got daily use. But my collector vehicles are rarely out in harsh weather. So durability isnt a factor. I always take a car as far apart as is practical, when I paint it - so as to avoid that "re-paint" look of tell-tale masking lines. Then, if it is a "collector era" car, I re finish it in original materials. There is a certain "look" to authentic laquer paint jobs, that simply can not be recaptured with the admittedly much more durable modern finishes.

[Matt Harwood]

This is a tough subject. I'm of the opinion that if a modern material can't be discerned from original, then it is acceptable on any restoration of any caliber. I don't think anybody uses non-detergent single-grade oil or 71-octane fuel in their collector cars, and I don't think there are many 60+ year-old cows around from which I can make the leather interior of my '41 Buick. Have you ever seen NOS chrome? I wouldn't put that stuff on a daily driver, let alone a car intended for judging--you'd get docked points right off the bat for trying to use it! But that's how it looked originally, even though it is completely unacceptable to us today. Paint is the same way.

I certainly respect those who strive to recreate the car as accurately as possible and I even understand the desire to do so in spite of decades of technology advances. But I feel that I'm spending a lot of money fixing rust, straightening body panels and spraying paint. I want that paint to last as long as possible, and look good doing it. If I can get that improvement with no discernable difference in appearance, then it's a win-win as far as I'm concerned.

Part of lacquer's problem is the number of coats required to get it right. It is very hard to lay down a smooth coat of lacquer, so as each layer is applied, it must be laboriously sanded and buffed. But because it is so thin, you'll buff through that layer, so you have to apply another. And another. And another. Guys often boast about 20 or 30 layers of "hand rubbed" lacquer. That isn't a sign of doing an exceptional job--that's how lacquer has to be applied just to look normal! And all those layers dry differently, shrink differently and have varying degrees of stick to the layer below, and might even be slightly different colors--these are all opportunities for failure, which is inevitable no matter what you do to prevent it.

With urethanes, you only need 2-4 coats for adequate film thickness (they chemically become one strong layer if you apply them within a certain time window), and it can be done in an afternoon if all things go smoothly. When it cures in a day or so, you can wet-sand and buff it with a buffer to a perfectly flat finish that will rival anything Ettore Bugatti was able to achieve in the 1930s.

Yes, in a side-by-side comparison, one could possibly discern the lacquer from the urethane paint. But I'll bet that is because either (1) the urethane has too much metallic in it (which happens frequently but can be controlled), or (2) the lacquer simply looks lousy in comparison. But when you get the mixture of the urethane just right and park more than a foot away from the car with lacquer on it, nobody will ever know. Is that correct enough for your needs? Only you can decide when it comes time for your own project.

MrEarl, I say go for it with the modern 1-stage urethanes. Not only will they look awesome without a lot of rubbing and buffing (definitely not the case with lacquers!), but it'll be much easier to find someone able to apply it for you and repair it if, God forbid, something should happen to your car down the road. Even if it's for judged competition at the highest levels, I promise you'll be much happier with the urethane, now and tomorrow, and nobody will ever call you on it. If you know my project, you know that my goal is an AACA 1st and a BCA Senior with my '41 Century, and you also know that I don't hesitate for a moment to use modern paints and even powdercoating to make my restoration as "permanent" as possible!

Happy motoring.

[Jack Harlin]

Matt Harwood
You are correct in saying this is a tough subject. Other than that what you have been told about lacquer & repeated in here isnt correct. This came up 3 years ago. No matter how many times its said doesnt change the truth.
When Nitro Cellouse was the only fast method for shops to complete a job it was the only paint that would do that. It could be blended over factory enamel, instead of overnight drying using enamel. The 20 & 30 coats mentioned were normaly used for "Candy" paint jobs. Number of coats of Nitro didnt matter.
In the middle of 1958 Du Pont working with GM like they did from the time Du Pont bailed them out, developed Lucite, their trade name for acyrlic lacquer It unlike the Nitro, should not be applied over 9 to 10 M.M. thick, incl. under coats. So the multi coats doesnt apply any more, or cracking could happen. GM had this problem with Vettes at one time.
All the sanding mentioned never happened, unless dirt or a run appeared. How a different color could appear is way beyound me unless it was a two tone. As far as sticking together as you put it, lacguer melts imto prior coats and is as one coat when finished. No shops did all the sanding mentioned except tough areas where the contour wasnt friendly to keeping a wet edge & would be grainy from overspray. I guess we will have to waite 50 years before any one can vouch that these new materials are longer lasting. I wouldnt think of telling an owner what to use. Since removing the so called undesirable vehicle, it is different than the original. Im just trying to take the myth out of falsehoods repeated about lacquer. Because it isnt being used is no reason to do so. The new materials today are much more dangerous than lacquer ever was. Jack
Matt I'm not picking on you, Im sure you never used it.

[Indiana_Truck]

Look at any car that has spent its life outside for 10 years or more with a PPG two stage urathane finish and you will see how well the color holds up to the sun and also how the clear is starting to lift. I have seen a lot of this but only after 10 years which is longer than new cars are made to last anyway. The color looks as good as the day it was shot but the clear coat comes off on the tops of everything like a bad sunburn. If you keep it inside like my Goldwing, it has held up real good for 15 years now so far. I will check back in another 35 years and let you all know how it held up.

Bob

[Matt Harwood]

No offense taken, Jack. I'm just glad that there is discussion where different opinions can be shared and all the information can be presented.

You're exactly right, I have little experience with lacquer beyond what I learned as an apprentice to a restorer back in the mid-80s. At that time, the hot technology was enamel with a catalyst, and the painters would scoff at lacquer jobs. Yes, the lacquer dries fast, very fast in fact, and that is what they told me was the problem. It would occasionally shrink so fast as the solvents evaporated that sometimes it would either lose adhesion or crack. When the next coat was applied, it was subject to the same problems that were on the previous coat, which they apparently didn't like. They also said that to get a finish worthy of a concours-restoration on a Duesenberg, for example, it took hours and hours of rubbing and buffing and sometimes many additional applications of color to get that deep, rich finish. I vividly remember doing much of that buffing myself on the enamels, and they told me that I should be glad it wasn't lacquer. There is a big difference between the amount of work involved in a restoration shop and a production shop paint job, which is perhaps where we started to diverge in our opinions.

In the mid-'90s, I worked in a race shop where we painted all our race cars ourselves and did some paint work for customers as well. We used urethanes exclusively, and I was amazed by the difference. A few hours after the car rolled out of the paint booth, it was ready to be reassembled. If we wanted to fix some orange peel, we'd wet sand it, but overall, the stuff was ready to go. It survivied much better on the race track than anything I've seen before, and when the inevitable "bumps and taps" happened, we could blend the panel, shoot another coat of clear and it would 100% undetectable. That's what sold me on urethanes and why I went to the Sikkens school to learn more about their paint system. Of course, they didn't tell me much about anything BUT urethanes, so my lacquer education was limited to those wacky guys (aren't all painters a little wacky?) back in the restoration shop. They flat-out hated the lacquer stuff for all the reasons I mentioned.

As far as using it on restorations, again, that's for each individual to decide. I'm still of the opinion that urethane is superior and will give the best results and durability for a majority of restorations, drivers or show vehicles. But I also respect the purists who believe in going that extra mile, and appreciate their dedication to dying trades that go into restoring an old car. It boils down to what will make you feel better about your restoration. Personally (and this is just me), I like the peace of mind that modern materials bring. As I said, I'll be using modern oils in my engine, modern gasoline in the tank, a modern machine shop to rebuild the engine, powder coating on the chassis and urethanes on the body. And I expect that few judges (well, except for judges reading this stuff here, I guess) will be able to tell the difference between original and new materials on my car.

Also, Jack, you make an excellent point about safety--the urethanes, as I mentioned in the first post, are dangerous. Lacquers still have a lot of solvents, but at least they aren't carcinogens. If you're spraying paint, invest in the proper equipment to be safe. It doesn't cost much more to keep yourself healthy.

[bkazmer]

I'm sure Jack means .009 - .010", not 9-10 mm!! "mils" is a confusing term which some use to mean mm, others thousandths of an inch. On the aluminum flake, not only do modern colors tend to use more flake, but they tend to use larger flakes. Original metallics of the 30's and 40's were more subtle and did not have the same flash. And I don't think that mica (basis of pearls and afflairs) was used at all. Beware of the xyrillics - they look like an old fine metallic in some lights, but go "bass boat" in other lighting. While on this, the old mixing formulae are almost useless in most cases because the pigments used are discontinued and the base used for the match is different.

[Jack Harlin]

Matt Glad you werent offended. Going back when varnish was used as mentioned, it took 25 to 30 days to paint a Packard. Not good for production. Thats when lacquer entered the picture to speed up the process. But, factories used a different, narrow latitude lacquer to reduce the compounding of finished product, under controled conditions. The lacquer sold for others had a much more friendly mix due to their extreme temp. changes, including humidity. It would blush in high humidity, & retarder had to be added. If too much was added making it harder it could give problems later. I never heard why Chrys. & Ford stuck to enamel but with baking for fast drying & it was finished, is my guess.
Back to the sanding lacquer, a difficult task was to produce orange peel on Fords to match the texture of original factory paint, as lacquer was too smooth. I believe its a case more of production & less time, more than any thing that has changed painting. It sure isnt for for todays painters, doning a space suit for protection, its production. Like you said, when painted its finished. Flat rate time (Packard) 4 dr 30.7 hrs & 3hrs less on 2 dr. Doesnt include removing mldgs. I dont know how that compares with todays materials.
bKazmer
Correct you are on the mixing & pigments, it is a problem matching. On an all over its usually so close your eye wont detect it. Just order enough for safety should it be needed. Some colors cant be mixed at all. There were 3 different cuts of metallic. The fine was used to lighten it where white would make it cloudy or muddy. If it was for the metallic to be seen the course was used. Air pressure played a big part. Higher pressure it sank, less pressure it floated on top. Was tricky to get it right. Thats why you never changed pressure in an all over with heavy metallic. It also helped to ground the car being painted.
The chain in the booth wasnt used for towing, HA Jack

[Rick Hoover]

Jack,

It does my heart good to see you on here talking about lacquer paints. If anyone knows automotive paint, it's you! Thanks!

However, now you're saying that the chain in my booth isn't for pulling the cars in and out? hummm? Now what will I use it for?

Rick

[Jack Harlin]

Rick
I bet a buck its the same chain your DAD used. I may have too. I know it doesnt have hooks on it, so you must know its not for towing or keeping the matallic from settling in the cup. LOL Jack