When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Repainting: lacquer or latter day multistage? What are your views?
Up front let me state I’m a hobbyist, no paint pro. Hell, I’m colorblind too, so it’s not like I have the most color-critical eye…
I was waxing my ‘66 98 convertible this evening and noticing the flaws that have crept in over 25 years of road use. It still looks fine, but as I recall the paint system they used (pro body shop) was a 2 stage color & clear probably acrylic, if I remember right.
In the Pleistocene era of the ‘60s, cars were painted (unless I miss my guess) with multiple coats of lacquer. And sanded in between coats. Olds called this “Magic Mirror” if the marketing materials are to be believed.
Almost 60 years later, I know of no body shops in CA who spray lacquer. I don’t even know if its legal here.
What I don’t know is if any states still permit lacquer paint systems and whether or not the latter day 2 stage (or more stages) systems are superior to the original lacquers. I can see both sides: original worked fine & also paint systems have come a long way in 55 years…
Imagine you were going to repaint your car aiming at the best available system. If you could, would you go with original style lacquer? Would you go with modern day 2 or multistage acrylic? Or some other system?
I don’t want to foment flame wars, but I am truly interested in your views on what the state of the painting art is today. In a kind way, let your views fly!
Not really sure why everyone thinks lacquer is illegal, it’s not. Though California marches to the beat of its own drum when it comes to prohibition, so who knows what they’ve banned.
As a career painter who started as two stage Basecoat/clearcoat was taking over as the industry standard, I believe it skyrocketed in popularity primarily because it’s the closest thing to idiot proof that’s ever been introduced to the automotive refinish market. It really is super easy to spray, especially metallic colors that were always notoriously difficult in single stage. Also, it’s polyurethane based, so it’s naturally much more resistant to uv degradation and other factors that caused previous lacquer and enamel paints to fail.
The biggest down side of bc/cc in my opinion is that there is not any true mechanical or chemical adhesion between the base and the clear. In production painting about 80% of the vehicles we refinish are due to clearcoat delamination. It happens to all of them sooner or later.
My personal preference is basecoat clearcoat for metallic colors on show cars, simply because you can cut and buff the living hell out of it. Everything else gets single stage urethane. In my opinion, it’s the best option for most non-show car applications. However for an amateur painter, it’s not as forgiving. With solid colors, you can stack a few extra coats to cut and buff, but you can’t cut and buff metallics.
I also firmly believe that you get a better depth of color with single stage. To me, it’s the best of both worlds. But I still use a lot of bc/cc.
I’ve never restored a vehicle where originality was more important than quality. If I did, I would have no problem using lacquer, but I would never use it based on preference.
Last edited by ijasond; July 28th, 2023 at 04:18 AM.
'66 isn't much different than my '85 with trying to land on redoing the car in lacquer or something else. I've been mulling that over as well. Stick with original style lacquer, or go with the base/clear? I'm dealing with black, so it's a little different than say, a light color car. I don't want to have it look plastic, or having a candy coated appearance as some of the paint systems level out very nice with deep gloss and not much needed for smoothing the surface. Black lacquer looks exceptional when in nice shape, but time has taken its toll on the original lacquer, even though it's been well taken care of. I fear even if it was lacquer again, it might not be the best choice for longevity. I have had cars repainted with base clear and they were lighter colors, and look very good with the base/clear. So this is what I'm leaning towards. Your view may differ.
'66 isn't much different than my '85 with trying to land on redoing the car in lacquer or something else. I've been mulling that over as well. Stick with original style lacquer, or go with the base/clear? I'm dealing with black, so it's a little different than say, a light color car. I don't want to have it look plastic, or having a candy coated appearance as some of the paint systems level out very nice with deep gloss and not much needed for smoothing the surface. Black lacquer looks exceptional when in nice shape, but time has taken its toll on the original lacquer, even though it's been well taken care of. I fear even if it was lacquer again, it might not be the best choice for longevity. I have had cars repainted with base clear and they were lighter colors, and look very good with the base/clear. So this is what I'm leaning towards. Your view may differ.
It's a tough, but personal, choice in my view.
For black, I would go single stage polyurethane all day.
In 85 the true cellulose lacquers had been phased out in favor of acrylic lacquer and subsequently, acrylic enamel. Single stage polyurethane would give you the single stage originality with all the benefits of a modern polyurethane.
My personal preference is basecoat clearcoat for metallic colors on show cars, simply because you can cut and buff the living hell out of it. Everything else gets single stage urethane. In my opinion, it’s the best option for most non-show car applications. However for an amateur painter, it’s not as forgiving. With solid colors, you can stack a few extra coats to cut and buff, but you can’t cut and buff metallics.
While on the subject of urethane, apparently not good for metallics- say if you have a two-tone car, solid black on top with metallic silver on the bottom, to which between the wheel wells most of it would have rock guard re-installed on it. Could you urethane the black and base/cc the bottom or would you go total urethane or base/clear with all of it? Forgive me as I am not fluent on paint material mixing/matching, but a pertinent question for the subject at hand.
I repainted my 71 98 with single stage urethane. It looks great, and it was cheaper than BC/CC paint. Truthfully, the only panels I sprayed myself were the fender skirts. I had the auto body instructor paint the rest of the car. So I never experienced the difficulty in spraying a single stage paint.
The paint on my 96 98 is an early BC/CC GM used when water based paints were introduced. The paint is HORRIBLE. I've tried to "cut and buff" it with some pretty aggressive chemicals and they do nothing. The paint is just too damaged.
I have painted my last 5 project cars with lacquer, for me its the only way as I must spray outside. The paint dries to the touch in a minute so any debris or bugs dont stick. With 5 coats or so its pretty labor intensive but it works for me who is just a hobbyist.
If you are after the correct 'look' of the paint, lacquer is the way to go. It does hold up, as some survivor cars still have nice lacquer paint. It does need a bit more maintenance (waxing), and is not as tough as urethanes. But it pays back in depth of finish, and proper looks, as well as being the easiest paint to spray. There are ways to find it, and use it, anywhere, even if production bodyshops can't use it.
If you're not so fussy, BC/CC is a good choice for metallic or pearl finishes. I prefer single stage for solid colors. But they have more of a plastic-y shine, and should be sprayed in a clean booth, to keep out dirt, and bugs. If you are good with a gun, you don't need to sand and buff, as you do with lacquer ( though lacquer is SO easy to sand and buff, compare with uros!)
While on the subject of urethane, apparently not good for metallics- say if you have a two-tone car, solid black on top with metallic silver on the bottom, to which between the wheel wells most of it would have rock guard re-installed on it. Could you urethane the black and base/cc the bottom or would you go total urethane or base/clear with all of it? Forgive me as I am not fluent on paint material mixing/matching, but a pertinent question for the subject at hand.
You could absolutely do the bottom silver in basecoat/clearcoat, then mask that off and spray the top with urethane. I would prep the whole car (and seal it if you're using sealer) and paint the bottom with no masking so there's no hard line. Then mask off the bottom, scuff the top with a red scotch brite and spray with single stage. This would actually be the method I would recommend for a novice who maybe isn't skilled enough to tackle single stage metallics. The only thing I would caution against is if using sealer, don't seal anything after the first color goes on. It may be slight and not noticeable to some, but this will make the edge of the sealer visible where the two colors meet.
Sometimes in production we do this and we will even spray the bottom with basecoat because you can tape it in about 15-20 minutes. Then we will spray the top with single stage and immediately untape the bottom and clear it while the upper single stage is still wet so that the edge of the clear melts right into the single stage. This also eliminates the need to scuff the sealer since most have a redcoat window of only about 8 hours.
Single stage can also be top-coated with clearcoat after the appropriate flash times. This may seem pointless compared to bc/cc, but it provides the true chemical adhesion that basecoat lacks and enables metallic single stage colors to be cut & buffed.
The next biggest piece of advice is read over all the tech sheets for all the products you are going to be using before you mix or apply anything. All product tech data sheets are available just by googling the paint part number and "tds" or "pds" Some call it a technical data sheet and others call it a product data sheet. Not to be confused with the safety data sheet. You can ignore those...
Last edited by ijasond; July 28th, 2023 at 05:54 AM.
Just for what it's worth, anyone should use whatever they want and are comfortable with. However I always find it odd that guys are out here going out of their way to find obsolete paint products for the sake of "originality", especially when it comes to primers. I get wanting to use lacquer paint, but there's absolutely no benefit to searching the internet high and low looking for that gallon of 60 year old red oxide primer.
If you can run radial tires, you can run urethane paint.
Just for what it's worth, anyone should use whatever they want and are comfortable with. However I always find it odd that guys are out here going out of their way to find obsolete paint products for the sake of "originality", especially when it comes to primers. I get wanting to use lacquer paint, but there's absolutely no benefit to searching the internet high and low looking for that gallon of 60 year old red oxide primer.
If you can run radial tires, you can run urethane paint.
Gang
Many thanks for your comments. This is exactly the kind of discussion I was looking for. My cars are drivers, not really show cars. They're nice, but not over the top so I have no great need for the originality of lacquer, particularly if what Olds used is long since obsolete. If and when I get there, I'll have the car professionally painted. When done right, it's a skill I just don't have and am happy to reward and artist for. My '66 Starfire was done in Autumn Bronze 25 years ago and other than road use dings, it's looks new. It was shot by a Pontiac guy and the work was top notch.
I'm a little leery of water based paints though. Is my concern just me being uninformed, or would water based paints be a second choice relative to urethane?
I run radial tires and would be perfectly happy with 2 stage BC/CC which I'm pretty sure is on there now. I'm just getting to the point of beginning to think about new paint somewhere down the road and wanted to get your thoughts.
Also, when I've had the convertible painted in the past, the convertible stress cracks the finish just in front of the rear decklid on either side in days. Should I be asking a painter about a way to keep that from happening? It doesn't bother me really, but I remember those urethane bumpers from the early 70's that GM used and I'm thinking that modern bumper paint must have some flexibility in the final coat to work well on surfaces that will move a bit. Would some kind of additive or different paint solve the convertible stress crack problem?
Let's turn to price for a second. I don't need estimates, but I'm interested in what ballpark figures might be these days since it's been 20 years since I even thought about painting. Assuming I pull bumpers, interiors and brightwork myself, what's the range for a good paint job? Or is the range so big as to be meaningless? Each car has different bodywork, panel alignment and blocking needs, so maybe this is a question too far...
TCP Global in San Diego sells lacquer paint. Maybe they can tell you about paint shops in CA who will use it. 858-909-2110
I have used TCP global to paint match for 1970 442 I own that is lacquer based, and they did a really good job. However, I don’t believe California will let you paint lacquer in that state. They do produce lacquer at TCP global in California, but they can only ship it out of state I believe. I could be wrong.
I’m attending the Dayton Olds show. Feeling lucky to have seen some near-perfect paint jobs, but I’m a little shy about asking what they might have cost.
It’s been 25 years since I had a car painted, so I know I’m out of date. Plus inflation, retiring (or worse) talented body men, etc.
Here & there I’m casually polling about today’s repaint price range. What I’m hearing is good refinishing jobs these days start at maybe $20k-$40K & thereafter the sky is the limit. Costs vary regionally in an understandable way. That makes sense, but wow. I’m glad I like my cars as they are. Or maybe I’m just getting old.
Anybody got recent paint jobs they want to admit to & post costs? Admittedly all of our cars need different blocking, maybe rust work, and so on, but I’d love to hear your estimates on what it take to repaint a reasonably straight car in 2023.
Gang
Many thanks for your comments. This is exactly the kind of discussion I was looking for. My cars are drivers, not really show cars. They're nice, but not over the top so I have no great need for the originality of lacquer, particularly if what Olds used is long since obsolete. If and when I get there, I'll have the car professionally painted. When done right, it's a skill I just don't have and am happy to reward and artist for. My '66 Starfire was done in Autumn Bronze 25 years ago and other than road use dings, it's looks new. It was shot by a Pontiac guy and the work was top notch.
I'm a little leery of water based paints though. Is my concern just me being uninformed, or would water based paints be a second choice relative to urethane?
I run radial tires and would be perfectly happy with 2 stage BC/CC which I'm pretty sure is on there now. I'm just getting to the point of beginning to think about new paint somewhere down the road and wanted to get your thoughts.
Also, when I've had the convertible painted in the past, the convertible stress cracks the finish just in front of the rear decklid on either side in days. Should I be asking a painter about a way to keep that from happening? It doesn't bother me really, but I remember those urethane bumpers from the early 70's that GM used and I'm thinking that modern bumper paint must have some flexibility in the final coat to work well on surfaces that will move a bit. Would some kind of additive or different paint solve the convertible stress crack problem?
Let's turn to price for a second. I don't need estimates, but I'm interested in what ballpark figures might be these days since it's been 20 years since I even thought about painting. Assuming I pull bumpers, interiors and brightwork myself, what's the range for a good paint job? Or is the range so big as to be meaningless? Each car has different bodywork, panel alignment and blocking needs, so maybe this is a question too far...
Thanks for all your thoughts.
Chris
Any good shops will require the old finish be stripped to metal, any metal work done along with skim coating the then block, prime paint. Just the materials of primer, sealers, base, clear and sanding supplies from a shop will be minimum 3-4 grand as they do mark up the product. A good quality job is a minimum of 12-18k. Depending on hours spent..Show paint will start at 30k and go very high depending upon the car. I used to do all the stripping and hard work back many years ago, then paint work would be done by a body shop. Nobody seems to want to do that any longer.
"Anybody got recent paint jobs they want to admit to & post costs? Admittedly all of our cars need different blocking, maybe rust work, and so on, but I’d love to hear your estimates on what it take to repaint a reasonably straight car in 2023."
Not sure I want to say this on a public forum, but here goes:
I just painted a 55 Chevy [size=13px]for[/size] a neighbor. He had almost all of the bodywork done by a local Ford dealership that had a slow period. Except for a few small patches I made, tthat are [size=13px]unavailable[/size], I just went over the body with guide coat and block, 180 first, 50o second, fixing small issues. He had also stripped the inside of the trunk, and door jambs. Hood was brand new, so, no bodywork, striping there. He bought a 2 gallon Tamco hi-build primer kit, and the HOK paint for the car.
Painted the roof, in REAL candy [size=13px]Apple[/size] Red. and the body in the basecoats used for the red, Orion Silver, coarse metallic. 4 coats of clear.
Did my usual 3 step sand, and 3 step buff on the car after the paint cure (1-2 weeks). Owner will assemble it.
Labor cost was just about 5K. Only added a couple hundred to cover sandpaper, compounds, polish and minor [size=13px]incidentals[/size]. I do it as a serious hobbyist, with a reasonable labor rate.
Paint job looks REAL good, but not Pebble Beach concours.
Chris, we live in the same general area and these estimates are what a buddy of mine has been quoted recently - the past six months or so. His car is a 70 Supreme hardtop with vinyl roof, minimal body work - a couple of very small dings. The car wears it's original paint (azure blue) for the most part except for the pass side fender and the door. There is no rust at all anywhere, the Olds is in pretty damn good shape. My buddy has actually owned it since 1996 when he paid about a grand for the car. He's not looking for a concourse paint job, just quality. Strip down, repaint car and all jambs in the same color as it was borne. He was quoted anywhere from 12k at the low end and he would purchase materials for them, so figure another 4 to 5k or so, and all the way up to 24k (for everything including materials) on the high end from a reputable shop that's been around for forty plus years. Out of about seven or eight shops he went to, only four said that they were willing to take on the job. The other two estimates were both about 20k with materials included. Seems that many of these body shops just want the turn and burn insurance work on newer cars and don't want to fool with the older cars...one of the shops owner said plain and simple, it's just too much work to deal with. I am sure you can find cheaper, but prep work and quality, who knows what you'll get. I'd like to find a serious hobbyist painter like ChopOlds in this area. There used to be a guy that did painting on the side (from his day job at a body shop) where you'd buy materials and he'd do the body work and spray the car in a booth, all in would be about 2.5k with PPG materials. Circa mid 90's. Those were the days! Now, I'm same boat as you, Chris, my car was repainted in 98 and it still looks very good, but I'd probably have to take out a second mortgage to afford getting it painted again! Nothing in this hobby is inexpensive anymore.
Part of the increase in cost is over restoration. In the 80's few shops would skim coat the entire car. Today we have the over use of high solid primer and filler. These extra steps ad to material and labor costs. The other problem is everyone is charging like they are a A list restoration shop when in fact they are more like B,C, or F. Restoration work is dirty and time consuming and comes with flaky customers. Insurance work is clean and in and out with guaranteed payment. I recommend you vet who ever you use well, I have seen to many over priced poor outcome restorations.
Part of the increase in cost is over restoration. In the 80's few shops would skim coat the entire car. Today we have the over use of high solid primer and filler. These extra steps ad to material and labor costs. The other problem is everyone is charging like they are a A list restoration shop when in fact they are more like B,C, or F. Restoration work is dirty and time consuming and comes with flaky customers. Insurance work is clean and in and out with guaranteed payment. I recommend you vet who ever you use well, I have seen to many over priced poor outcome restorations.
Well said, you got subpar work out there along with total pain in the *** customers that want every little thing perfect. It’s not an easy game for either one. Back in the day people just block it down, not strip it put a primer sealer on it and shoot it. But that’s no longer acceptable I guess. I personally, I would still do that. If the paint on the car was in good shape and not flaking and peeling and things like that and it was compatible..90% of us don’t have show cars, if you want a show car the expect to spend your money that way that’s your prerogative. I drive my car as I drive my damn W30 to the gym, to Home Depot, to Publix supermarkets etc. I appreciate the show cars, but I never would want one.
Just for what it's worth, anyone should use whatever they want and are comfortable with. However I always find it odd that guys are out here going out of their way to find obsolete paint products for the sake of "originality", especially when it comes to primers. I get wanting to use lacquer paint, but there's absolutely no benefit to searching the internet high and low looking for that gallon of 60 year old red oxide primer.
If you can run radial tires, you can run urethane paint.
Back in the day, red lead was the shop primer for everything, **** was so good I still see it everywhere to this day. My fav system is Zinc, Epoxy, than a Thane but I'm more of a Industrial painter than a car painter, alot of the problems with the clear is people dont use the recoat window after base and sure as **** there to lazy to re sand when this happens, paint and clear need something to bite into if you miss that window.
Last edited by skyhigh; August 13th, 2023 at 10:00 AM.
Back in the day, red lead was the shop primer for everything, **** was so good I still see it everywhere to this day. My fav system is Zinc, Epoxy, than a Thane but I'm more of a Industrial painter than a car painter, alot of the problems with the clear is people dont use the recoat window after base and sure as **** there to lazy to re sand when this happens, paint and clear need something to bite into if you miss that window.
Nitrocellulose primer (red lead) was the go to primer in the 70's and early 80's until the two parts took over. Epoxy offered corrosion protection and high solid offered high build with less shrinkage and faster drying times.
I have painted my last 5 project cars with lacquer, for me its the only way as I must spray outside. The paint dries to the touch in a minute so any debris or bugs dont stick. With 5 coats or so its pretty labor intensive but it works for me who is just a hobbyist.
Basecoat dries to the point that you can touch it in a minute or two and can applying masking tape to it in 10-20 minutes. Any imperfections can be lightly sanded and easily touched up before clear is applied. You can buy clears that are able to be cut and buffed in as little as 20 minutes air dry and unlike a single stage metallic, any light debris that does get on the surface when drying can be cut and buffed out.
In my personal opinion, bc/cc would be the best choice for the conditions you described.
The only legitimate arguments than anyone could possibly make for lacquer over modern urethanes is 1) it’s what I’m familiar and comfortable with and I want to avoid the learning curve of new systems. 2) it’s too pretty. If you are going for that extreme originality to the point that you don’t want the car to be “too shiny”.
both of those arguments would be completely understandable.
Last edited by ijasond; December 31st, 2023 at 09:19 AM.
Basecoat dries to the point that you can touch it in a minute or two and can applying masking tape to it in 10-20 minutes. Any imperfections can be lightly sanded and easily touched up before clear is applied. You can buy clears that are able to be cut and buffed in as little as 20 minutes air dry and unlike a single stage metallic, any light debris that does get on the surface when drying can be cut and buffed out.
In my personal opinion, bc/cc would be the best choice for the conditions you described.
The only legitimate arguments than anyone could possibly make for lacquer over modern urethanes is 1) it’s what I’m familiar and comfortable with and I want to avoid the learning curve of new systems. 2) it’s too pretty. If you are going for that extreme originality to the point that you don’t want the car to be “too shiny”.
both of those arguments would be completely understandable.
I personally feel that you can not beat the look of Lacquer on a muscle car. I find its no harder to apply base clear than it is to properly apply lacquer. Prep is everything application is just good spray technique. Every paint system has its own characteristics that the painter has to take into consideration.
The only legitimate arguments than anyone could possibly make for lacquer over modern urethanes is 1) it’s what I’m familiar and comfortable with and I want to avoid the learning curve of new systems. 2) it’s too pretty. If you are going for that extreme originality to the point that you don’t want the car to be “too shiny”.
both of those arguments would be completely understandable.
Good info, preferences take over here also. One thing that bothers me about BC CC is the modern finish and the often seen clearcoat peeling...
It is incongruous to me that so many auction cars claim to have "numbers matching" parts etc, but have ultra-shiny, plastic-looking base/clear paint jobs to catch attention.
It is incongruous to me that so many auction cars claim to have "numbers matching" parts etc, but have ultra-shiny, plastic-looking base/clear paint jobs to catch attention.
X2
Personally not a fan of modern restorations as they have little to do with how the cars rolled of the assembly lines. The over use of plastic filler and high sold primer would have my instructors & mentors rolling over in there grave. Now if they classified the car as a custom I would have no issue, as so many of the body lines are formed with filler and hi sold prime.
"Restoration" is a word that is frequently mis-used.
It's a subjective term, so whether or not it's being mis-used is also subjective(opinion). You can't restore a car without changing some things, so is there really any such thing as a true "restoration"? The definition of restore is to return something to its previous condition. Doesn't mean you can't change the color, use a different type of paint, run modern radial tires, etc. It's impossible to find nitrocellulose lacquer anywhere nowadays, so does that make it impossible to restore any car made before the 60s? Can you put acrylic lacquer on it if it originally came with cellulose? If so, then why can't you use acrylic urethane?
If restoration isn't the correct term, what term should we use? Maybe there just isn't a better term for those of us who like to run radial tires, modern brakes and shiny paint. People use the term "rest-mod" , but then they get slammed for not having done enough of the "mod" part to qualify for using that term.
No matter what you do, there will always be some guy on the internet who thinks you're doing it wrong, so I just do them the way I like and people can call it whatever they like.
Yup, I'm doing my 1972 442 the way I did back in the 1980's. The last car I painted up until now back in the 1980's was am MGB/GT and I sprayed British Racing Green lacquer over KONDAR red oxide and on top of the BRG, I sprayed 3 or 4 coats of High Performance clear and believe it or not, I did not have to cut n buff it. It looked great.
I did a 1969 BOSS 302 in the late 70's in Acapulco Blue with the High Performance clear over it. I cut n buffed that one and it looked wet all the time.
So, yeah, I'm the guy who searched and found an unopened gallon of KONDAR red oxide and my 442 is now covered in it! Sprays nice and sands like a dream. I don't believe it was 60 years old though. I bought some KONDAR grey in the 2000's from my paint guys (it didn't sand like the red oxide for some reason). I also ordered the Viking Blue metallic and the High Performance clear for the Olds at the same time (all stored inside).
Some have told me to throw all that stuff away and do BC/CC! Well, I'm not a rich man and I'm retired and I'll do this one just like I did the BOSS and the MG and hope it turns out as well. If it doesn't look good I'll drive it the way it looks. I'm hoping my past experience will get me through! I'll be setting up a "scrappie type spray booth" and hopefully it will help. I'll be using more filters in line than in the past to avoid water spitting and hazing! I'm "elderly" (LOL) so the day I paint it will be a stressful day!
Up front let me state I’m a hobbyist, no paint pro. Hell, I’m colorblind too, so it’s not like I have the most color-critical eye…
I was waxing my ‘66 98 convertible this evening and noticing the flaws that have crept in over 25 years of road use. It still looks fine, but as I recall the paint system they used (pro body shop) was a 2 stage color & clear probably acrylic, if I remember right.
In the Pleistocene era of the ‘60s, cars were painted (unless I miss my guess) with multiple coats of lacquer. And sanded in between coats. Olds called this “Magic Mirror” if the marketing materials are to be believed.
Almost 60 years later, I know of no body shops in CA who spray lacquer. I don’t even know if its legal here.
What I don’t know is if any states still permit lacquer paint systems and whether or not the latter day 2 stage (or more stages) systems are superior to the original lacquers. I can see both sides: original worked fine & also paint systems have come a long way in 55 years…
Imagine you were going to repaint your car aiming at the best available system. If you could, would you go with original style lacquer? Would you go with modern day 2 or multistage acrylic? Or some other system?
I don’t want to foment flame wars, but I am truly interested in your views on what the state of the painting art is today. In a kind way, let your views fly!
Many thanks in advance,
Chris
First it will be almost impossible to find someone to paint lacquer in CA. And a lot of automotive lacquer paint is discontinued, like PPG.
New urethane two part paints are the most durable I think, but may be limited in trying to match an original GM color. Why is this?? it is because the toner colors to make the final paint are not that same as the ones back in the day no matter what the type of paint. All the toners are different for Acrylic lacquer, Acrylic enamel,, Urethane, Waterbase, etc etc
BEFORE you paint your car , have the paint maker make a small batch to see if it is the color you want. Heard Waterbase has better matches then Urethane, but check it out. Don't have any expierence with WaterBase so ask around.. no clue how it holds up.. Do some homework..
My two part(i.e. has a hardener) single stage(No clear coat) solid color Urethane paint shot in 2005 still looks like day one and is still made today, and would save you some money. Basecoat/Clearcoat has best apperance for metallics, and a lot of metallics are not available as solid color only Basecoat/Clearcoat. I think the Urethanes are best overall now and can be blended in better in a damage fix.
Fred
Last edited by FStanley; February 13th, 2024 at 09:23 PM.
A few years back I painted my wife's Camaro with Sherwin Williams Urethane with hardener. The color was that dark cherry metallic like was on the 1980's Monte Carlo SS. It sprayed great and had a shine that was awesome and needed no buffing. I had one small run that I sanded and buffed out!
If I were just now going to buy paint for my 442, I'd probably buy Urethane!
Basecoat dries to the point that you can touch it in a minute or two and can applying masking tape to it in 10-20 minutes. Any imperfections can be lightly sanded and easily touched up before clear is applied. You can buy clears that are able to be cut and buffed in as little as 20 minutes air dry and unlike a single stage metallic, any light debris that does get on the surface when drying can be cut and buffed out.
In my personal opinion, bc/cc would be the best choice for the conditions you described.
The only legitimate arguments than anyone could possibly make for lacquer over modern urethanes is 1) it’s what I’m familiar and comfortable with and I want to avoid the learning curve of new systems. 2) it’s too pretty. If you are going for that extreme originality to the point that you don’t want the car to be “too shiny”.
both of those arguments would be completely understandable.
cfair, thanks for starting this thread and ijasond, thank you for your well-informed input. This is all very helpful for me, since I'm trying to figure out how best to repaint my 1978 Holiday 88. The car wears its original lacquer, has never been repainted or touched up, but the paint is toast. it's tired, dull and cracking, worn, sunbaked, etc. there truly is no bringing it back -- although if I wanted a 'rat rod' i suppose it would be a good candidate...
I'd like to repaint it, but again, I'm having trouble figuring out the best path forward here...
From what I have read, the newer finishes (enamels, epoxies, urethanes) CAN NOT simply be shot over the lacquer paint that is on the car. As I understand it this is because lacquer is a "Soluble finish" that will soak up the solvent that is in whatever you are spraying on top of it. This causes the soluble lacquer paint to swell up as it absorbs the stuff on top. Problems may not show up initially but as these solvents evaporate back out, the soluble finish underneath the new repaint shrinks. Maybe not right away, but somewhere down the road there will be problems. So, as I understand it, the he only thing that can be shot on top of lacquer is more lacquer. Even a sealer can't solve this problem.
If the above is in fact the case, that means I'd either have to reshoot it with lacquer on top of what's left of the existing lacquer OR remove all the lacquer that's on the car and go with a newer, non-lacquer finish...
Adding to the challenge here is that I'm in ... wait for it... the Peoples Republic of California... so while I have a unicorn in a good shop that is very reasonable, shooting lacquer is unfortunately a no-no where I live.
Seems like my options are --
1) Take off all the original paint, down to the bare metal and then use a newer, insoluble bc/cc finish. I can have my painter do this but I assume it will cost me -- and this is not going to be a show car (I've done that drill, no thanks) AND it's a 978 Holiday 88 not a 1970 W-30 Convertible so it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to dump a ton of money into it
2) Take it to a neighboring state like Arizona or Nevada or somewhere where it's legal to shoot lacquer. The car is a solid color (white) so I'm fine doing lacquer -- I actually kind of like the look of it over the super-shiny BC/CC
I'm leaning towards option #2, but that means finding another shop I trust... Maybe I have other options? Maybe I'm wrong about not being able to shoot anything but lacquer over lacquer? I look forward to everyone's thoughts here
The key item here is if the car has original paint, there is not a lot of paint to sand off, so prep is relatively easy.
Even sanding it to bare metal is not that big of a chore.
Many sand the original finish & seal with epoxy primer then repaint with a modern 2 stage.
Not a problem if done correctly.
Many would argue that repainting with lacquer has more of a chance to penetrate & swell lower layers due to the large quantity of thinners present in the lacquer.
In the long run 2 stage may be cheaper as shops have the necessary materials on hand to mix your paint, plus the cut & buff time is virtually nonexistent if painted properly.
White is one of the easiest colors to paint so you have that in your favor.
July 27th, 2023, 10:51 PM
