Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Automotive
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-05-2009, 10:01 AM
 
Location: I think my user name clarifies that.
8,292 posts, read 26,666,913 times
Reputation: 3925

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Worley View Post
I had a Shadow with the issue. from my research, this is what I found:

The manufacturers had to switch to low VOC (volatile organic compound) paint to meet EPA regs. most went to a basecoat clearcoat system. However, they were really just learning about the vagaries of this system. early paints needed 45 minutes drying time before the clearcoat was applied. When the factories needed more product, they didn't wait as long as they needed to, so the paint wasn't truly dry. this caused adhesion problems as the paint aged.

The only solution is to strip all the paint and re-apply properly.
That's consistent with what I've heard. But I'm not an "industry insider" so all I have is what I've heard.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-05-2009, 01:20 PM
 
Location: Eastern Washington
17,213 posts, read 57,052,961 times
Reputation: 18574
I would think the paint looks good inside where the UV didn't get to it, and looks bad outside where it got irradiated good by the sun.

I was doing paint and body work part time during this era, the galvanizing of the panels was one issue, I remember classes on new, different metal prep solutions to use on galvanized panels. The paint would peel off them if not properly prepped, but the panel would at least not rust. So you could re-paint it at your leisure, so long as you didn't care that it was ugly.

Captain Worley's explanation would be typical of Detroit, particularly GM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2009, 11:36 PM
 
Location: The Ranch in Olam Haba
23,707 posts, read 30,734,455 times
Reputation: 9985
Actually it had to do with the removal of lead from the paint in the late 70's. The technology was not available to test for and design for all conditions it had to handle. On top of that people also wanted that always shine look. So instead of waxes helping protect it, it instead removed top coats. So for the 80's there was alot of trial and error testing. But cars still had to come out to market. So thru time we went from peeling to fading to dull looking to actually holding a shine. But as time on and technology changed the process got better. The problem started to dissappear in the 80's. But in the 90's it started up again due to the base metal (or fiberglass) changed (you rarely see a newer car with rust). And some cars peeled or faded or the paint switched over to the color of the base coat. Some of this was due to manufacturing errors others were to do aftermarket waxes. But as time went on the technology to create the paint, pigments, clearcoats, bonding have gotten much much better. But as the environment changes the problems may come back again in certain parts of the country (acid rain, higher UV, etc).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2009, 12:34 PM
 
Location: Earth
4,237 posts, read 24,774,443 times
Reputation: 2274
Quote:
Originally Posted by M3 Mitch View Post
The paint would peel off them if not properly prepped, but the panel would at least not rust. So you could re-paint it at your leisure, so long as you didn't care that it was ugly.
Man I sure hope so. I've heard primer is porous so anytime water gets on bare primer, all it's doing is eventually making it's way down to the bare metal. And we all know what happens when bare metal is exposed to water.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2009, 12:39 PM
 
48,502 posts, read 96,827,890 times
Reputation: 18304
The cure they found at that time was to use a sealer over the same primer and then paint.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2009, 12:52 PM
 
9,846 posts, read 22,671,465 times
Reputation: 7738
I had that problem with my 1988 Ford mustang where the paint just flaked off it. There was a recall in 1994 or so and after much turbulation Ford wrote me a check for $1500.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2009, 01:01 PM
 
3,150 posts, read 8,715,148 times
Reputation: 897
Quote:
Originally Posted by caution View Post
I don't know jack about paint, but I know GM sucks.
Spoken like a true ignorant shopper!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2009, 01:11 PM
 
Location: Earth
4,237 posts, read 24,774,443 times
Reputation: 2274
Yeah, not all GM products are bad.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2009, 10:17 AM
 
Location: NJ
23,536 posts, read 17,214,216 times
Reputation: 17562
Default neglilent behavior

How the heck can a major automaker screw up production paint technology!

Only one way, untested process!
Love to see the minutes of the paint process development committee.

My new 1988 pickup suffered from this malady. No recourse from the dealer/GM.

Screw GM for relinquishing responsibility for this and other systemic problems they incorporated into their vehicles!

Don't get me started on rusted out brake and fuel lines and failing fuel pumps.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2009, 09:07 PM
 
Location: Northeast Tennessee
7,305 posts, read 28,218,445 times
Reputation: 5523
Our neighbor in the late 1980s, bought a brand new 1988 Chevrolet Beretta. I remember the day she bought it. A brand new gleaming and new styled car, she was the envy of the neighborhood. In 1991, the cars beautiful gray paint started peeling and whats worse is that the dash board started warping and by 1994, the top of the rear seats started tearing.

By 1995, the car had lost its wheelcovers and had battle wounds.... in 2002 (we no longer lived in the same neighborhood), I saw the car in a storage lot with the front end badly smashed.

Not all GM cars had bad paint in the late 80s/early 90s, but many did have their paint issues.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Automotive
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top