Questions on undercoating

[Guest kevinshea]

When did Buick start undercoating cars? Was it always factory or option? When did they stop?

I have seen a number of 54-55 cars that all seem to indicate that the way they did it was quite inconsistent, with a lot of overspray. Your observations?

What product do you use to reproduce the thick, goopy look of the undercoating (many that I have tried are too thin)

[Mark Shaw]

I remember in the 60's when my family was living in SLC Utah, the new family Buick was undercoated by the dealer to protect it from winter road salt. If it was primarily a dealer option, that would explain the inconsistent applications.

[NTX5467]

There are some of the 3M spray undercoat products (in aerosol cans) that can get close to what you might desire for a "factory reproduction" undercoat situation. I don't recall if they are "rubberized" or not, in their nomenclature. I think that many lighter coats will work better (with a more rough finish) than trying to make one heavy coat out of it.

In the restoration vendor side of things, Mopar specifically, there is one company that sells what it claims is "correct" undercoat, which needs a spray unit to apply. You might find an ad for it in the back (vendor) area in one of the two Mopar magazines on the newsstands. I think most of the factory stuff was pretty much consistent between Ford, GM, and Chrysler back then . . . for the OEM production plant-applied undercoat.

Generally, I think that GM products only had undercoat in the wheel wells from the factory . . . if any at all. Quietness on a dirt road (from flying gravel and such) was not as much of an issue in the 1950s as it was in later years, as I recall. IF it was "dealer-installed" for the underbody of the vehicle, how it was applied/sprayed and in what thickness would be totally dependent upon the installer. Even with the factory-installed undercoat, there were variations between vehicles, although possibly slight, due to who put it on and in what plant on what shift and day of the week.

Just some thoughts,

NTX5467

[Dandy Dave]

Back in the early 80's, I helped out a friend who owned a GMC Truck Dealership for a while when things were very busy for him and help was short. All the trucks came in uncoated and it was a buyers option to have it done. Most of the time it was done because it was highly recommended to do so by the dealership. To do the undercoating process it was necessary to drill holes in the bottoms of the doors and rockers and insert the undercoating nozel to coat the inside as well as the under side of the vehicle. These holes were pluged with plastic inserts afterward. At that dealership we used "Zebart" for an undercoating agent. The standing joke between the mechanics was, If you liked the guy buying the truck give him a good job, and if you did not like him, quick and sloppy. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> Dave!

[NTX5467]

As I recall, the Ziebart "system" was a full anti-corrosion treatment rather than just a quick (sometimes more) shot of black petroleum-based undercoat compound onto the underside of the body and some chassis parts. I suspect that what was sprayed into the doors (and other rust-prone areas) for the Ziebart treatment was a hot wax compound rather than an undercoat as such--something that would run down into the cracks where the outer door skin was crimped onto the door structure and seal it from moisture collecting down there and perforating the door skin from the inside out.

In the 1970s and 1980s, when I was looking around on used car lots, if you found a car with the Ziebart decal on the vent wing window (or some other sealant/protector product's decal), you knew that something extra was done to make the car last longer, cosmetically . . . and possibly gave away that it came from "up north" where they might need it more than in the southern regions.

I also remember some "Ming" decals, which I took to mean it had some fancy wax treatment for the paint on it. They usually had a slicker look to them. At that time, the only "high effort" wax system I knew of was Blue Coral (which GM also sold in their chemicals selection), which was usually a two-part system (and much more work than other waxes), but was supposed to be worth in and many Cadillac dealers sold that service.

Enjoy!

NTX5467

[Ron Green]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When did Buick start undercoating cars? Was it always factory or option? When did they stop?

I have seen a number of 54-55 cars that all seem to indicate that the way they did it was quite inconsistent, with a lot of overspray. Your observations?

What product do you use to reproduce the thick, goopy look of the undercoating (many that I have tried are too thin) </div></div>

If you are looking to replicate the undercoating to show your car as it was when original there is a hard type undercoating produced that body shops have access to. I used this on a show car and it looks authentic, is easily cleaned by a dampened rag and dirt doesn't seem to collect on it. I believe it comes in quarts and you can thin it somewhat and spray it on out of a paint gun. I looks factory in appearance ripples and all.

The rubberized undercoating that is commonly used quickly collects dirt and dust and many times falls off in chunks.

[Rick Hoover]

Ron,

Sounds like you're talking about 3M Body Schutz? If so, I agree with using it instead of rubberized undercoating. About the only thing I can add, is it should be applied with the 3M application spray gun and not a regular paint gun.

[Ron Green]

Rick,

I am unsure what was used as this is the 10th year since it has been sprayed on. What you describe sounds correct or comparable. I'm sure the 3M Body Schutz would be perfect. Seems 3M makes nothing but quality products.

[Dandy Dave]

The stuff that we used was not a wax. It was a most definitly a black tar like substance and dried that way. Ziebart may not be the company that made the stuff though. It was more than 25 years ago and I may be incorrect on the product name. Dave!