Auto Paint thoughts and methods anyone?

[Dynaflash8]

I'm about to take my 56 Buick out to San Angelo, TX to be restored. If I had my druthers, it would be done in nitro lacquer, but that's hard to do anymore. My 39 Buick that's on the AACA magazine cover was done in nitro lacquer during it's restoration during 1978-80 and it still looks almost as good as the day it was finished, but like I said, it's hard to get oldtime lacquer jobs anymore. So what to do? Acrylic lacquer is almost as "gone" as nitro, but I never liked it as well as nitro anyway. So, my choices are "base coat/clear coat", "single stage polyurethane" and acrylic enamel with hardener added... or Centuri I think it's called. I'll tell you up front that I've stipulated "base coat/clear coat", but I'm not into concrete yet. Any of you folks got any strong opinions based on fact and practice? My last two cars have turned out pretty good in base coat/clear coat, but they aren't as completely smooth as oldtime lacquer. If you looked hard, you could find some orange peel and oh golly how I hate orange peel. Shiney isn't necessarily the same thing as smooth as glass, as some people seem to think. So, let your opinions fly.

[Pierce66]

By '56, it is my understanding that GM had switched over to the so called "acrylic" lacquers. That stuff is still avail. NO question that the modern two-part finishes are superior, in that they offer a far higher gloss, much greater durability, color fastness, etc.

The problem is, even the un-trained eye can "spot" the difference in the way light reacts to the acrylic and "old style" nitrocellulose lacquers, compared to the "new stuff".

I am assuming that your "collector car" will not spend years outdoors, subject to all the hazzards our "daily drivers" suffer. If that is the case, I'd go for the authentic acrylic lacquer - it will just "look right".

Remember, there are THREE essential parts to a good finish..preparation...PREPARATION....and MORE P R E P A R A T I O N !

Dog Spot

[R W Burgess]

"Remember, there are THREE essential parts to a good finish..preparation...PREPARATION....and MORE P R E P A R A T I O N !"

..and color sanding. Every painter in the world has orange peel. You color sand it out. I'm sure "Mr. Hoover" or "Restorer" will shed some light on this subject. Wayne

[Buicks Rule]

Earl,

What's allowed by the EPA in lacquer today, might not be allowed tomorrow. Also, depending on the color, it may not be possible to mix the color you want in lacquer. I'd go with base coat/clear coat, especially if you're looking at a metallic color.

What color were you planning on?

Note to Pierce 66. Acrylic Lacquer or Lucite was used for only 5 colors on 1958 Buicks and a "few" 57's-like the 57 Pontiac Bonneville. The cars with Lucite had special glove box decals denoting the special paint. There were also quite a few service BUICK service bulletins emphasizing that the older DUCO and newer LUCITE finishes were not compatible.

Al

[ex98thdrill]

Earl, if I were you, I'd go basecoat/clearcoat. It is easy to work with, easy to match, looks good, and will be a lot easier to touch up as the older style paints go away. Although lacquer might be the way they were, it's tough to get, and it will be even tougher to get five years from now if you need to touch something up.

[Dynaflash8]

Wayne, even the best painter, and you and I know who one of them is, can't get base coat/clear coat as smooth as lacquer, BUT that said, it's what we have to live with today. So far nobody has commented on single stage polyurethane or Centari with hardener. I guess I am on the right track by telling the painter that I want base coat/clear coat, or at least as far as the comments go sofar.

[R W Burgess]

Earl, I've never had any lacquer experience. I've seen some of the best high dollar Rod and Custom paint jobs though and they don't use lacquer. I'd think Centari is olddated personally. I had a couple of tractors painted with that Dupont paint, but the Imron always held better. Base coat clear coat is the way to go. More paint, more depth! Wayne

[Guest Skyking]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"Remember, there are THREE essential parts to a good finish..preparation...PREPARATION....and MORE P R E P A R A T I O N !"

..and color sanding. </div></div>

This is soooo true!! I recently painted my Metropolitan in SS urethane (PPG Concept). This paint is one of the best I've used. After painting I wet sanded with 1000, then 1500 grit, buffed & polished it with outstanding results. I highly recommend this unless you intend to go metallic, then I would suggest BC/CC.......

[D Binger]

Sky,

I agree with you about recomending PPG Concept. I painted my 22 Buick with it and did the color sanding, buffing and then used Astro Shield and it looks better and deeper than some of the BC/CC jobes I have seen. The more I polish it the better it shines. There is a a lot more work involved to get it there, but if you are doing it you self the labor cost isn't as great. We have also painted several fat tire bicycles and a couple of motor cycles with concept also and they look great.

Dan

[Guest imported_PackardV8]

I bought DD ACYLIC laquer CUSTOM MIXED here in Nashville from a DD dealer about three years ago.

Lacquer lends itself to PERFECT MATCH AND EASY touch-ups incase of a small scratch or other damage. ****HOW DOES URETHANE COMPARE TO THAT?????????? ******

Not to mention that there is ABSOLUTLY no other type of paint that has the beauty of lacquer. The urethane comes close but still no cigar.

I'm really godamned tired of everyone knocking lacquer.

The lacquer can be shot by anyone with very little experience, under very adverse painting conditions, and it will still yield superb results.

The Centari is great for rough metal finishing, commercial use vehicles or painting engines.

[Guest imported_PackardV8]

Furthermore: i sprayed a new METAL garage entry door about 6 years ago with DD acylic lacquer. Painted over whatever primer the factory put on it and we can all rest assured that whatever the factory sprayed on the door was the cheapest garbage they could find. THAT WAS 6 YEARS AGO and it still looks like brand new. Subject to alot of weather too.

OH, by the way, i forgot to mention the DD Acrylic lacquer i used was cut about 30 years ago. Left-overs from a pontiac tempest job i did back then.

[Rich Niezabitowski]

I don't know that this is "advice", but I can relate my experience with BC/CC. We used BC/CC on my Sprite, which turned out great. It is, however, a metallic color. Started with a base of solid blue and then applied the metallic. If you wet sand and buff the clear it takes away the "liquid plastic" urethane look. We also used a less glossy clear on the insides of the car (under bonnet, floors, etc. On a Sprite, with the tilt bonnet most of the inside is visible and I didn't want it too be too shiny. I shouldn't say this, but we found that the paint goes on much better with a standard siphon gun, as opposed to an HVLP gun (much less orange peel - theory is that the high pressure gun atomizes the paint better - it seems to play out in practice). Of course, here in Connecticut, a professional shop is breaking the law if they use high pressure guns.

I will agree that nitrocellulose looks great. The nitrocellulose on my Model A was done in 1978 and still looks very presentable and it looks right. (As Warren Paul used to say it LOOKS right because it IS right.)

I have always used Centari for running gear, etc., but am now convinced that the new PPG Chroma in black is superior and will switch on the next project.

[ex98thdrill]

Hey I'm not knocking Lacquer. The problem with lacquer is that it is getting harder and harder to find. Who wants to squirt a car with lacquer if you plan on keeping the car? If you plan on selling the car, lacquer isn't a bad thing, but if you paint a car, keep it for any amount of time, and need lacquer later on to touch up scratches and can't get it, what good is it? If you have to jump through hoops trying to by lacquer now, what are you going to do five years from now?

Earl, right now we're doing that fire truck and we're using single stage paint. I would've preferred to go basecoat/clearcoat, but being that the area being painted is such a big area, we've been advised to go single stage. The biggest problem what I've seen with two stage paint is that the clear likes to run.

[6219_Rules]

I would like to say that while not original, the modern paints particularly the polymers, make sense for today especially since you can get them in the original colors. The only reason I could see for use laquer is to get the original color. I fully intend to paint the '47 the proper antionette blue and the '56's tahoe blue / cavern grey in a modern two stage paint. Sometimes advances in technology can be used without violating the value of the car.

At least that is my point of view such as it is.

[jw24spec6]

packard, the new paints are far better than lacquer ever thought of being. the chemical resistance is great. as for centari, it is probably be applied to more vehicles than any other aftermarket paint in history. if it cures properly with hardener it buffs great, unless it is metallic. i prefer urethane for almost everything. just my opinion jim

[Guest Skyking]

lacquer is a thing of the past......why would anyone want to use it compared to what is available today?

[jaxops]

As a reader through the commentary, I appreciate this post because I am getting close to painting my 56 Cadillac, and repainting my 70 Electra. The Electra was painted in 1985 in acryllic lacquer, and held up mostly because of the number of coats shot. Despite the excellent finish, the BC/CC is a more standard method for shops to do, and will give a better gloss in the end based on asking car owners at shows what they used.

Good post.

[Paul Dobbin]

Earl,

With all the modern choices in paint, to get that old fashion lacquer

look, use Urathane.

First use an epoxy primer. It's a great sealer and eliminates all the

problems of 50 years of non compatible finishes.

Second, like others have said, good preparation makes a smooth finish.

Third, use base/clear with lots of clear. Four or five good wet coats

of clear.

Fourth, wet SAND the clear, progressing to 1500 grit.

Fifth, BUFF the clear. You'll get a flat surface with the lacquer

look.

Word of caution: This will lead to a much better finish than a 56 Buick

had from the factory. But, it will stay pretty.

[Pierce66]

For Skyking:

Of COURSE you are correct- lacquer IS a "thing of the past". Which is precisely why it should be used on cars of the past !

At the risk of repeating myself, of COURSE the modern two part paints, "topped" with a "clear coat", are far more durable and glossy than the finishing materials of the 50's and earlier. That is the POINT ! They are SO much "better" than the historically correct finishes, they are OBVIOUS even to the un-trained eye.

Even the untrained eye will notice the difference in the way light reacts to a correct laquer or "synthetic enamel" paint job, than a modern high gloss clear coated "two part" finishing system.

After re-finishing a car, I always keep enough left over, so that I have the same batch available to re-finish a good portion of the car should damage repair be necessary. I recently re-shot a fender on my collector car, with the same batch of thinned lacquer I painted it with in the 1970's. No problem ! ( Of course I properly seal my surplus paint before long-term storage !)

So the argument about lacquer becoming obsolete, even if true (which it isnt - you can get lacquer just about anywhere if you know where to look) is not a good argument for using "modern" materials.

Now - let me qualify all this - my latest aquisition ( a '28 Rolls Phantom ) has been beautifully restored using a modern "two part + clear coat" finish. Of COURSE it looks "too shiny", but if you are more interested in impressing some idiot who knows nothing and could care less about history that's what you SHOULD do.

The other good reason for using a "two part", is if you are planning to use your "collector car" as a daily driver and/or dont have indoor storage. Under those circumstances, of course I would recommend the FAR more durable modern finishes.

All depends on what your personal priorites and choices are.

Dog Spot

[Guest imported_MrEarl]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Earl,

With all the modern choices in paint, to get that old fashion lacquer

look, use Urathane.

First use an epoxy primer. It's a great sealer and eliminates all the

problems of 50 years of non compatible finishes.

Second, like others have said, good preparation makes a smooth finish.

Third, use base/clear with lots of clear. Four or five good wet coats

of clear.

Fourth, wet SAND the clear, progressing to 1500 grit.

Fifth, BUFF the clear. You'll get a flat surface with the lacquer

look.

Word of caution: This will lead to a much better finish than a 56 Buick

had from the factory. But, it will stay pretty. </div></div>

I'm learning a lot here so forgive this dumb question. Based on what you said then, am I to understand that Urathane is the "Base" part of the Base/Clear. I really don't have much knowledge of just what Base/Clear is. Can someone explain. All my paint jobs growing up were lacquer. (52 Ford PU, 57 Chevy, 67 Chevelle, 54 Buick Special, 70 Triumph GT6+, etc) and I loved how they could be polished and waxed. But I have heard that urethane is easy to paint and looks great and resembles lacquer but did not realize it was part of the Base/clear deal. I will be having one possibly two 54 Roadmasters painted and want them to look as original as possible. They are very straight and practically rust free.Thanks guys in advance for helping me to better understand.

BTW, does anyone know what was originally used on 54 Buicks. Whatever it was, it was thin!!!

[Guest Skyking]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For Skyking:

Of COURSE you are correct- lacquer IS a "thing of the past". Which is precisely why it should be used on cars of the past! </div></div>

This just doesn't make any sense..............so what you are saying is, because the car is old, you have to paint the old fashion way. A good painter can make the new paints look like lacquer. It's all in the prep & finish!

[Pierce66]

I agree - of course it dosnt make any sense to be historically accurate in the preservation / restoration of old cars. Why stop at the finishes ? Why not use modern materials in the chassis, engine, transmission, electrical systems ? C'mon...be serious...within the context of the AACA and the CCCA, we are supposed to be interested in ACCURATE history and restorations. Many of us, myself included, are ALSO hot rodders and customizers, taking advantage of so much of what modern technology has blessed us with. But...that is not what we do HERE as auto HISTORY buffs!

I DISagree with you as to your belief that you can make the modern "two part with clear coat" LOOK like an authentic lacquer job. Again, I just took delivery on a beautifully restored '28 Rolls Phantom. Marvelous "two part with clear coat" paint job. I am sure when I exhibit it at public auto shows, where people go to impress other people with how shiny their cars are, it will do well in the "people's choice" category. My '38 Packard Twelve was re-painted with the correct nitrocellulose lacquer. Again, I submit even the UNtrained eye can spot the richer, admittedly "less shiny" finish.

But dont you see - again, if we are seriously interested in the goals of AACA, the CCCA, and the various other historically-oriented organizations, we should try and PRESERVE history and re-finish our cars ACCURATELY.

Incidentally, if you think it is EASY to paint with these new "two parts", you are in for a big surprise. I trained as a body and paint man back in the early 1950's under a man who had been the paint shop foreman for the Murphy Body Company during the classic era. So I think I know JUST A BIT about refinishing techniques. I can ASSURE you, the two part finishes are MUCH "fussier" to get that right balance of a good level finish, between "orange peel" and "run" (known as "painter's tears).

Again...let's think about what we are doing here as AACA and CCCA members...we have to be honest and recognize technology keeps producing better and better materials thru out the construction and finishing of automobiles. BUT THAT IS NOT WHY WE ARE HERE !

Dog Spot

[ex98thdrill]

Don't worry about it. Yeah you can still use lacquer, no it's not easy to find now, and it'll be even harder to find in another five years. For the diehards that want to shun everything but lacquer just remember this........

Their car didn't leave the factory with unleaded gas with a lead additive. With those thoughts in mind, those cars are non-authentic based on the fuel that they put in their car to get to the show. .....and how about those asbestos brakes!!

....in simpler terms, there are some things in the past that you need to let go on. Paint is one example, fuel is another example, and I haven't even mentioned the silicone brake fluid

There are products out there today that are more user friendly, and allow the car owner the opportunity to have their vehicles nicer than they were than when they left the factory. Are they over restored?? YES!! Is it wrong?? NO!! Do I recommend basecoat clearcoat?? YES!!

There are people who are still hung up on using lacquer paints. I don't condem them for their beliefs, but I do condem them for finding fault with those who are using new paints because "it isn't the way it left the factory."

[poci1957]

Just my $.02, I just did my 1957 Pontiac with BC/CC and am very happy. I agree old school collectors can see that lacquer looks different, but you won't lose points or anything and you get better durability. If you are using metallic paint the BC/CC is the only way to go. Best wishes, Todd C

[Dynaflash8]

Guys: I returned from Texas to terrific problems at home from torrential rains, so I haven't been commenting. I did tell the man to go BC/CC and the colors are not metallic. Although I still have time to change my mind, I do agree that this is the closest thing you can get to the lacquer look if it is sanding and buffed correctly. I disagree that lacquer doesn't hold up; all you have to do is look at the AACA magazine cover car that is metallic nitro lacquer, without any clear, that has been driven 10,000 miles since painted in 1978-81. But, it's hard to get now, and harder to get somebody to paint it, and I do think it will be still more difficult to get in the not so distant future. I thank all of you for your comments.

[Dynaflash8]

I RECEIVED THIS BY EMAIL, AND SUDDENLY REMEMBERED THAT THIS IS WHAT THE FELLOW TOLD ME WHO PAINTED THE BLUE 39 BUICK ON THE MAGAZINE COVER. THAT FELLOW HAS GIVEN UP PAINTING BECAUSE HE DISLIKES THE LACQUER HE WAS ABLE TO BUY AND BECAUSE HE DIDN'T WANT TO GET INTO LEARNING BC/CC.

QUOTE

Saw your note on the web. I would agree that 1978 lacquer is pretty durable-at least as durable as it was in 1956 and probably more durable than the original 1939 lacquer.

But, thanks to the EPA and others......

Your paint guy can fill you in, or Bill,can later. VIcini probably knows a good bit too. The problem is that EPA regs required major changes in paint chemistry during the 80's, 90's and up. For example, lead was removed from paint. Lead was in a lot of traditional auto paints to provide durability and I believe certain colors as a tint as well. There were also dramatic changes in the type and amount of solvents as well as solids allowed in all paints.

It boils down to-the lacquer made this year is way, way different than the lacquer of earlier days. Same for Centari and other paints.

UNQUOTE

[Guest imported_DaveZZZ]

This seems like a good place to post this:

I will be having the Olds painted at some point. However, I know some folks do their own paint and swear that it isn't too difficult. However, before I jump in, I want to practice.

It just so happens that my brother-in-law has a beater 91 Ford Ranger he'll be happy to let me practice on. SO, can anyone point me to a good tutorial (on-line or in print) I can follow as a first-timer?

Thanks

Dave

[Guest Skyking]

Dave, go to http://p080.ezboard.com/fpaintucationfrm1 there is a ton of info on all the pages from the pros to the first timers.

[ex98thdrill]

I'm not an expert, but for one spend the time on preparation and get yourself a good paint gun. We use a cheap gun for primer and the good gun for final paint. If you use a gun with the canister held above the gun instead of below the gun, you'll have less waste and your paint will go farther.