Technical Is it still OK to paint a car with Acrylic Enamel?

I don't know what you guys have against cut and buff, but it always improves the look of the paint when done right. In my opinion cut and buff is for people with high standards. They are never perfect "off the gun" there will always be some nibs, dust, and orange peel and a cut and buff can perfect those things when done right.

 

That was interesting but pretty generic in scope. I noticed 1 big error, and it would be easy to miss for many if they don't have an "eye" for color. The whole car should have been sealed. Under florescent lights or sodium/mercury vapor lights those dark sealed areas will show less depth in the color. Red and orange tones really need a consistent base color. If you can't see it does that make it ok? I was told that there's a very large number of the male population that's color blind. True? Never knew it, and sometimes I wish I was...

 

I think you're right.

but we don't all have high standards...there are plenty of folks who are content with "good enough". Not just in automotive paint, but in many things in life.

Different strokes for different folks. If you want it, do it.

 

Some of us live a mile down a dirt road, go to parking lots and leave their vehicles outside.
They want to enjoy driving an old car everyday and only go to car shows to BS with their buddies.

As squirrel said, different strokes......

But, that being said, it's nice to see how the other half lives.

 

I do have high standards. My standard is different. I don't want to see a total build on a traditional type 50s built styled car to look like it was not created with human hands. The cut/buff guys won't get what I mean, they will say I want a car to look like crap, and that's not true.

As far as never perfect from the gun..... you never saw the rods that Juliano sprayed himself for only his closest friends, 35-40 years ago. He had a shop with body/paint guys, but did the friends street cars himself. (gloss black ones, not white, .... )

.
.

 

Water is only the carrier.... same as the solvent is in solvent based finishes. And although there are water based clears being used in o.e.m. production, the majority of water based base coats are clear coated using solvent based clear.

 

i totally get what you guys are saying, you should see the truck I drive. I've had lots of cars, trucks, and bikes with unbuffed single stage. My race car is flat black for the reasons stated above, my point is these guys saying if you cut and buff it's because you can't paint, I'll post a couple of pics of some "off the gun" urethane I am jambing a mustang out with, definatley good enough for most, but it would be better cut and buffed. Your work will always speak for itself, what it says is up to you. I like for mine to say that the man that did this work takes great pride in putting out the best quality product possible.

 

everything in life is a comparison..........

 

no drama, no offence, no hating...but if we read that the was it is written, you think the look we are after is substandard.

This obsessiveness carries over to the entire build, and then the whole thing does not "feel" like the old builds.

I think the two sides cannot ever see the other side's mindset. I am being truthful about that opinion.

I can't see the cut and buff look on a 66 Chevelle SS. because I know what they looked like when new. The modern techniques on that car look so very wrong to me, and always will. We talk of tradition on this site, or that is what was intended....traditional look is what "once was", and how people knew things looked....not the Y2K version.

However, there is a place for Y2K rods here on hamb, as well as traditional....so, the same respect should be given to both painting techniques/looks.
.

.

 

i am guilty of it on my build, i wanted a deep shiny surface, definitely not what my dad put on the car when he did it.
i do understand the look/feel, i see the same thing with old/antique/vintage homes, some of it do to new building codes, some to "default" choices i.e. vinyl siding, stock mill work, aluminum gutters etc....during the "restoration" all the quirky, odd, even awkward features get remove. they are nice but look and feel like a new house

 

See, Jocko, controversy! Can't even agree whether buffing a car is "traditional". GM painted cars in lacquer, and on many cars, the finish was very nice, sanded and buffed. A lot of the old customs were done to a show car finish, for the day. Even some of the backyard ones. Some folks just always try to do the best they can, not just what is commercially 'acceptable'. There are guys here who will swear that synthetic enamel is the best paint EVER!
I was at a car show years ago, with some friends who had cars I did. When awards were given, a buddy got first place, his car was lazer straight (66 Lemans), with a BC/CC Black Rose Pearl paint job. mirror finish. A guy with a 70 something Cougar came up and started yelling at him, because he thought HIS car was so much better. I took the challenge, as my friend would have just punched him out. I went over and looked at this car, it had what I thought was the worst Earl Scheib Dulux paint job I've ever seen. Mottled metallic, more orange peel than the state of Florida. I pointed this out to the guy, but he was unconvinced, and thought his car had better paint. Some guys can't see it even if it's right in front of them!

 

Right you are chop. I can't even recall all of the comments and statements some make about their stuff, or in fact mine. Do things all the way and you'll always bring on the haterade. And if you think this hot rod shit is bad do restoration. Some marque-specific venues are so "out there" I wouldn't even begin to participate, and a lot of it is pure "Liberty Valance" as in, "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

 

And the funny thing is, I've been doing some not too serious car show judging for a long time...I can spot a good paint job from a ways away, because I have to find the few nice ones in a limited time. A quick glance down the side of a car will tell you a lot. I have a pretty good idea how much work it takes to do a not so nice paint job, but I also know that it takes more than just labor to make a great paint job...it takes a lot of knowledge, skill, extreme patience, and even some luck.

My hats off to the guys who can do it.

 

I often wonder, how will a hot rod with base coat clear coat look 50 years from now.....not that I personally have to worry about it. It sure seems like there will not be many hot rods with nice patina paint. BCCC that is failing looks like a bad skin disease...... and not anything like patina. Acrylic Enamel (or any single stage) paint seems to me like a good choice to me.

 

You guys are right on point.
This is the bottom of the mustang hood that I was talking about, SS urethane, it has some peel, and dust, but most that see it in person are blown away. I could sand and polish that to a flawless finish, but since it's on the underside of a drag car hood I won't bother. It's "good enough"

 

You have shown what I was referring to on what a muscle car looked like when new, versus the way "some" people do things today.

we all get sick of those "my friend did.." stories but ...a friend has a 67 Chevelle SS396 marina blue coupe. He wanted a new one back then, but had to wait 30 years. He bought two exceptional matching 67 marina blue survivors to pick the best one for a show restore. That was just before the Marque-Specific national shows started to clamp down on over-restored.

He only goes to a random cruise, and refused to bring it to a national Chevelle event on the year it was held somewhat in our area. He explained it just looks so wrong under the hood and even in the rear wheel wells, and didn't want to face the critics. A wet look everywhere, to the point of looking gaudy. Looks fantasic to most onlookers, though...

.

 

Even I won't buff the under side of a hood! If its that bad its sand, clean and refinish time! Had a friend do the frame and bottom side of a 51 Merc once, Insane! That's Riddler award country and I don't go there! But again as far as the OP, acrylic enamel is a good paint, especially if your looking for the original look. Using the right speed reducers and hardner's will give you a smooth as a baby's butt finish and if you do not get a bunch of environmental fall out in it ,you do not need to buff. But when you charge people for it they expect perfect ! Even if they say they do not! Larry

 

Most people these days seem bored with the truth and prefer anything but. Veritaphobia rules

 

Bingo Boner. Take a look at all the "new" cars that are barely a decade old and their bc/cc is already breaking down.

 

I played around some on my Chevy II with trying to get the underside to look sort of "right". In case you don't know, GM used red oxide primer on the body shell, doors, and trunk on cars from the 50s-60s, and they used black primer on the front sheetmetal. Might have something to do with Fisher Body building the body, and Chevrolet Assembly putting the front end on? I don't know. But that's how they seem to do it, same on several cars (and trucks) I've stripped the original paint off.

To recreate the look of a not very old car turned into a race car, I painted the interior and underside of the body with red oxide (lacquer) primer before I applied the topcoat. I also painted the front sheet metal with black lacquer primer before I did the topcoat. The underside of the fenders and hood are black, the top and bottom of the floor, and inside the doors, roof, etc, is red oxide.

A little pain in the ass detail, that probably no one but me notices. But it's important to me.

 

Jim , Those are the kind of extra steps that I enjoy looking for and seeing! I am not a concourse guy by any means but I just figure if I got it apart add some detail instead of everything being flat black or undercoated. By the way my friend Gary Hulberg met you at drag week, Him and his son where running his red 66 Lemans and he still raves about your car!!! Larry

 

good thought. like checking out what your dates mom looks like before taking it to the next level.

 

I worked at a Mopar dealer in 68 thru 71. Those cars came off the transport really ugly sometimes. We took and cut the runs off the bottom of decklids ,had to repaint where they weren't covered, but you know we sold them and the buyers loved them. I am happy with my stuff ,I usually chnage it after a couple of years anyway. Wouldn't be smart to recoat a $3000 paint job now would it?

 

…. yeah we also hear a lot of this original orange peel back in the day talk as well. I came from and was around back in the day and don't recall orange peel as an issue with factory lacquer and enamel jobs that were shot from syphon bomb bink guns. Runs and drips yes. These old guns atomized the paint and it takes psi not just cfm volume to truly atomize paint. Take that out of the equation and you are basically hosing the paint on under controlled conditions. Orange peel as it is known today has no doubt grown out of and through the use of hvlp gun technology and application. An hvlp gun is basically operating under the same principle as you apply your thumb over your back yard garden hose end. Personally, when I am applying for my personal work, and a critical period correct look and using a lacquer or enamel and even urethanes, my first choice is a traditional siphon gun setup not an hvlp setup. Yes I use more paint, but the chances of peel, heavy to light overlay fades and mill differences is well under control and limited than when compared to when using hvlp. Of course this is just my opinion ...

 

Are any stores still mixing Dupont Centari ? My local CARQUEST used to do it but Advance auto parts took them over and closed it. Oreilly's mixes Dupont Nason, any thoughts on Nason Single stage Acry.Enamel ?

 

I used Nason acrylic enamel on the last two I painted, 4-5 years ago, I like it.

 

My experience has been the opposite.

I fought orange peel out of my DeVilbiss JGA-502 siphon gun every time I sprayed in the 80's.

Since I went Iwata HVLP, I haven't seen orange peel, almost ever. My driveway jobs today look better than my booth jobs with a siphon gun.

Not only are the paint guns better, the paint chemicals and systems are far better, too.

 

Nice to read a thread about painting with guys that just offer their opinion and not getting angry about what others think. This kind of thread would of ignited a storm of controversy on other websites.

Thanks to everyone for sharing all the various kinds of techniques they're using.

 

^^^^ For race cars/hot rods
For street rods/customs.....a little fancier looks ok.

 

These three all seemed to like it. They are all shot in Martin senior acrylic enamel.