Which Lacquer? PPG DDL or TCP Restoration shop?

also good to add to this, is that 2 part paints [catalyzed] are always better than non catalyzed.... but lacquer has it's place.

 

That I can accept, hell of a difference from "Acrylic lacquer is a dynamic finish, what looks good today may be dying back or checking and cracking tomorrow."

I have painted a few cars with acrylic lacquer over the years, they all managed to last overnight without "checking or cracking"... Some of them are around ten/fifteen years later.

 

One thing I've notice is that I see 10 year old cars, including my D.D., with milky faded factory finish. And often times flaking off and yet I had a 61 Impala that was 20 years old at the time with the original lacquer paint on it and it was cracked, didn't turn white or flake off and the car was always parked outside.

 

Here is a great example of that,done around 1990 with delstar/deltron catalyzed! Just yankin your chain,but it does speak for itself.Same painter , shop and equipment (me), far different durability.

 

ok, let's figure out what happened to that door, so we can learn from it. is it aluminum? what primer? what was the prep? final sandpaper grit used? temperature at which it was sprayed? was it paint failure? adhesion problem?

 

Look close,its not just the door,its the hood and the coach head panel.The door is al,everything else is glass.I probably used lacquer primer surfacer on the glass parts, at that point in time I was useing ddl epoxy sealer before the color. The door being al was done with a self etching 2 part that we used to call "green death" because it stunk so bad! What has happend on the whole coach is that the clear peeled and then the black and silver oxidized ,but the adhesion of the color is fine.Oddly enough it didnt do that on the coach sides which are al too.

edit) the green death was made by US Paint and sold by ppg.

 

PPG all the way you pay for what you get PPG has been around for over 100 plus years. I have painted alot of cars with the DDL and the old 468 performance clear very happy.

 

Just sharing my 50 yrs experience and trying to be helpful

 

I painted several cars with lacquer in the 70s and 80s and only used a clear 1 time on a metalic blue best I recall.
What's the pros/cons of using a clear coat. My opinion back then as a back yard painter was the clearcoat would eventually yellow and peel.

 

On my wifes corvette I cleared it with dca468, reduced 200% with dtl135 thinner plus a shot of retarder to bury the transition lines on the hood scoop. You cant see from the pic, but its a different color with a 1/8" stripe around it. The car is also black metalic,actually a chrysler color from around 1980 and I did not want any layering or stripes when I sanded and buffed,which I never did because it was presentable as sprayed,plus I had a lot on my plate in '83, bussiness wise.

The 28 chev was not cleared because the paint work was never finished. My intention at the time was to flame it with silver mother of pearl (which I still have in the jar) and then bury it with clear. I put the car together for the layout and just never finished it. I was in engineering school at the time,working full time and there was just no time. edit) I may still do that as I am going to revive the car starting this summer,or maybe not!

 

ever look into the paint on a 40 year old grand piano,i know lacquer will not hold up as well as today paints, but no paint has the depth, or shine,of hand rubbed lacquer.

 

Can I get an Amen.....

 

really?

 

I've been painting for over 35 years now, mostly part time, but sometimes fulltime. Always working on custom stuff.
I agree with Chris, 48Caddy, lacquer has it's place, it looks great, but has it's limitations. It DOES shrink, crack and check when it gets old. You cannot change the nature of the beast!
So all you guys showing off old lacquer jobs that look good after 20+ years, if it's been in a garage for all that time, it is not indicative of real world weathering! California cars, simailar, if you done't have temperature changes, it wil let the paint job last much longer.
Two examples ( out of many stories I have): Guy buys an El Camino out of SoCal., olds job, nice Metalflake paint on it. After 2 years in Jersey, it looks like a shattered mirror.
Next...I do a nice custom 53 Merc for a local guy. Quality metalwork and minimun filler, HOK epoxy primer all the way from bare. Guy wants black niro lacquer on it, for an old time show finish. So I do it, looks great for many years. Guy like to buy old cars, switch them around, so while keeping the Merc, it goes down on his priority list, and eventually goes outside in a "tent type" garage. In less than 3 years, it's cracking, and blistering (probably trapped moisture). It looked great for almost 20 years while protected. Now, not so much!
Ever see a really old lacquer candy job...maybe not even so old? Faded and usually cracked. The modern urethanes hold up much better. Might not look quite as clear, and deep, but they last longer, without all the maintenance.

 

Thats because most pianos are stored indoors. My buddy's 58 Corvette that I painted in 1975 with R-M acrylic lacquer still looks great only because he stores it inside.

 

You want to make sure that you keep water out of the line when spraying lacquer as well, moisture needs to be removed as much as possible. We did a car last year that had Lacquer on it for 30 something years......it was cracked all over but still had a shine that could not be beat. We put a base/clear on it and it looks good but just is'nt the same as the old finish. The next one I'm doing right now will be getting old Dupont 99s acrylic lacquer. I can't wait to see how it comes out.

 

How many of us store our hot rods outside? I dont think anyone is arguing that lacquer will stand up to weathering better than modern urethanes, that would be ridiculous. What gets under my skin are all the RIDICULOUS bullshit posts that pop up every time someone mentions lacquer that go something like this. "That paint is shit, it will crack craze and fall off." And guys that dont know any better actually buy into this. I have had (young) guys in parts places tell me "oh man, you dont want lacquer, you'll be re-painting it in 3 years". And it comes from guys reading this crap on the internet. All you guys that are saying "oh gee, my feelings are hurt, I was just trying to help, if you really want to help, try presenting balanced informative posts, instead of flat out propoganda. And I'm not talking to you here ChopOlds, you have always done that on this subject.

 

I did not say it will crack and craze and fall off. You have taken my free advice/opinion and manipulated it to suit yourself. Just as you have managed to take a direct quote from me and manipulate it by choosing to "bold" the words that suit your argument.

"That I can accept, hell of a difference from "Acrylic lacquer is a dynamic finish, what looks good today may be dying back or checking and cracking tomorrow.""

Humorous how you chose not to to bold "may be".

"All you guys that are saying "oh gee, my feelings are hurt, I was just trying to help, if you really want to help, try presenting balanced informative posts, instead of flat out propoganda." That sir is freakin Funny!

I realize that you do not know me, and you seem to be just looking to piss people off. I believe ChopOlds and others on here know my work and I need not justify my knowledge of automotive finishes.

 

Well, ya won't hear that commin outa my mouth, and I've been painting automobiles since Nixon was in office There's no way in hell I'd suggest a guy who's never painted a vehicle spend 1K+ in materials in the hopes he'll produce a great result.............nope! Then, there's the health issues of materials containing isocynanate acids Without a properly fitted resporator and a Tyvex suit-your skin will absorb isocynantes into your blood stream

But, if ya like the ''Hoody Doody'' look of a modern overcleared urethane, that deaf, dumb & blind plastic look, I say go ahead and rock it, the street rodders will give ya hi-fives at shows, but I wont!

" Do not reach greedly for the Kool-Aid ''

 

I support FalconGeorge.

 

I'm no pro by any means, but have painted a few, always at home in my garage. I love lacquer because
(a) It is more forgiving of my mistakes - wait 20 minutes, sand out the problem and try again.
(b) It does not require any fancy personal protection beyond a good respirator, and
(c) If I don't use all I mix, I can store it for later. Always wondered how much catalyzed urethane I'd throw away. (I'm a cheap bastard.)

Also, two questions:
1. If memory serves (questionable), in the late 50s, Ford and Chrysler were using enamel, but GM was using acrylic lacquer. True? If so, that's a pretty good testimonial for lacquer.
2. I don't understand how the lacquer vs urethane debate got mixed with the clearcoat or not debate. Last couple of metallic lacquer jobs I shot I also clear coated (clear lacquer), and that really made the metallic pop. My point is that seems like two different subjects - paint type and clearcoat or not. Did I miss something?

 

Yes, you are correct about Ford and Mopar using Enamel and Gm using Lacquer, starting with Nitrocellulose in the 20s and moving onto Acrylic in the 60s and I believe they continued with Lacquer into the 70s or perhaps the 80s. The reason why GM used Duco Lacquer exclusively was because DuPont, who developed the lacquer paint, owned major stock in GM (they also owed Indian Motorcycles).
Also, the Enamel used back then was like Rustoleum. No hardener used. I believed that they painted the car shell and then baked it to speed up the drying process.

 

I would love to go with the ppg product but at $400 a gallon I am reluctant. The TCP Global product is only $129 a gallon. They sell both and swear it is a comparable product. I wish I could know for sure. TCP claims that ppg is a big company with lots of overhead, advertising, trade show expenses, etc. I am sure that is true to a certain extent but 4 times worth???

As far as all of the other replies- sorry for setting off such a firestorm. I have been working a lot and just saw all of them. I didn't realize this was such a controversial topic- sounds like republicans and democrats debating!

Either way I know the short comings of lacquer. My car has been an ongoing project for many years due to financial reasons. I have finally decided to lower the bar and complete it on a budget so I can finally enjoy it after owning it for a decade. Paying someone else to do paint and body work is not in the cards for me. It will be a driveway paint so lacquer is the only way to go for me.

Thanks gentlemen,
Jim

 

How did this thread asking about different brands of lacquer turn into pages of debate on the use of lacquer? Kinda stupid I think.
To the OP. Like I stated earlier I use both brands, can't tell the differance. 129 compared to 400? No brainer in my book.
FWIW the ONLY reason I use PPG is if I'm in a hurry since I can get it local. If I need more then a pint I get out of a hurry, no way would I pay the price differance on more then a pint.

 

Thanks Metalman- I am glad to hear from someone who uses both. Nothing better than first hand knowledge. I will be painting this summer and follow up with pics and video.

Thanks!
Jim

 

I've used TCP on three cars, getting ready to do a fourth this weekend.

I shot my Mustang with Wimbledon White lacquer. Easy to use, buffed out real nice, always shined up real well. At least, for a time. I used it as a daily driver, parked outside in Florida sun and rain and bird crap. 75-80 mph on the expressway for 60,000 miles. After five years, it really did not look that good, although with some buffing you could bring it back. I spot repaired some sections with the same paint and that was easy to do.

I've taken to using acrylic urethane, though. Just as easy to spray and it holds up better to road rash, I think. Just not the same look as lacquer, but if I can do an acceptable BC/CC paint job in my garage, any idiot can. My roadster is TCP acrylic urethane maroon with a clearcoat.

For my part, go ahead and use the TCP lacquer. It'll work fine and last long enough with some care. The price is right and it's easy to use.

 

Disclaimer, I have never shot a car with lacquer, nitro or acrylic. I HAVE shot guitars and pianos and organs with nitro and acrylic lacquers and old boatanchor radios with enamels. I've shot airplanes and cars with polyurethanes only, except my Land Rover which is International Harvester (OEM parts) tractor enamel with a little hardener added. It came out OK.

Nitro lacquer is used for acoustic reasons on guitars, acoustic and electric and piano soundboards. It cracks and that's what people want, the vintage patina. Acrylic lacquers are definitely tougher but they take months to fully cure. On a show car or a rod run sunny day car that stays in the gerage it holds up fine and can, if you know what you are doing, have a distinct cool look.

None of these old paints hold up like modern car paints or regular fleet/aircraft/choo-choo Imron. I think the pros who say shoot modern paint are telling the truth and not trying to drive business their way. The good ones have more work from the restoration concours crowd than they can handle and don't need to do that.

How important is absolutely clean dry air in shooting lacquer? Well, when I was doing guitars we were reduced to leasing nitrogen tanks and shooting with nitrogen because there was no cheap way to get air dry enough and oil-free enough to do the job right. This was before the zeolite nitrogen separators they use to fill tires now existed or at least we had ever heard of them.

UNLESS you have considerable experience and a good supply of clean dry air and some kind of booth, at least a garage with a suction on one end and filters on the other, you are flushing money down the toilet spending any great sum of materials to paint with. Painting a car, or anything, outside means you will have a rolling entomology display when you get done. If you are going to spend a lot on materials have a pro shoot it. You can do the prepwork and assist. They won't guarantee it if you prep it but that is okay.

In the old days that wasn't what they did but materials were a whole lot cheaper and they didn't mind a lot of buffing and reshooting. Besides, in those days, a lot of the paint that went on hot rods was, how shall we say, of questionable origin. IOW it probably wasn't coincidence that you saw a lot of red or white cars amongst the car crowd at TWA maintenance and blue or white ones at Pan Am and that awful UP yellow around railroaders.

Just my two cents from a non-expert, non-professional.

 

Everyone makes conjecture statements about DDL but I have the real proof that DDL can hold up for decades in the harshest sun on the planet. I painted a cammo job on on my hunting rig, a 1962 Scout back in 1985. It has never been indoors and has been parked in direct sunlight in the California desert since 1990. These are death valley weather conditions! It hit 123 degrees this summer. Much to my amazement, the lacquer has held up better than any other paint. period! I know, it goes against what we have always heard about lacquer, but the proof is right here. Now, granted, there is no clear or metallic in this paint job. The finish was never buffed or waxed. It dried to a semigloss as you can imagine, and still looks very similar. It has minor oxidation on horizontal surfaces but will still buff out to look great. Urethane finishes are coming off in less than 10 years out here. Another interesting thing about this paint job was that we didn't shoot it as if we intended for it to last more than a couple of hunting seasons. It was a late night party paint job with no consistency in film thicknesses etc with no primer, we shot a light green base coat and then mixed various shades of greens, browns and tans from left over stock. I would image that we under thinned the paint as much as possible to get it from the gun to the surface and still get it on wet for a fast build. Perhaps this had some bearing on the longevity. Lacquer is not intended to be applied this way and is typically shot in many thin coats trapping more solvents in the paint. Perhaps the legends of early lacquer failure has to do with buffing and applying wax before the solvents are all out of the paint, which can take months for lacquer, thereby trapping solvents in the paint? Another interesting thing I've learned about DDL is that it holds up to heat as an engine paint better than urethanes or enamels. Just my $.02.

 

After reading this thread, I just couldn't help myself.....At 74 years old, do you think I CARE if the paint job lasts 30 years??? NOPE.....But I have the satisfaction of saying to those who may inquire..."I personally did every nut, bolt, screw, weld, wiring, built the engine, transmission, Jag rear end, AND paint on my baby except for the interior, which I wasn't ABOUT to try to learn on"........

Here's a link to my website that goes directly to my "painting the car" gallery.... there are a LOT of other galleries on the site.. just click the little house in the upper left corner to go to the home page where you can access all the other subjects in building "THE JUDGE" !!!
https://49fordcoupe.smugmug.com/Painting-the-Car/

This one goes to the home page: https://49fordcoupe.smugmug.com/

 

Yes, I know this thread is SO old that the lacquer paint is starting to chip off of it but here goes. As an upcoming first time painter, I am willing to accept the wear and weather limitation of lacquer in exchange for its easy to work with, fast drying, forgiving nature. The car its going on is nearly 60 years old and well be in the garage at least 95% of the time. I know better paints exist for less money, but I don’t like the breathing/health risks associated with them. If anybody “in the know” reads this, does the use of lacquer clear over a lacquer paint allow for a solid shine without wet sanding and buffing or does the clear just add more material and still produce a “flat” finish that requires sanding and buffing? I know from painting “parts and pieces” that a few coats of Rustoleum crystal clear over Duplicolor spray lacquer seems to work out ok without much sanding or buffing (I thought I was told that Rustoleum is not a lacquer paint) and holds up well to some sun and weather. Are there any other clears that will marry over a lacquer base, will not lift, add more protection, and cost less than lacquer clear so cut and buff will be optional? Just curious because I really don’t want to have to cut and buff the entire car to get a shine out of it. A little to bring out the best glow is fine, but starting with a “flat finish” makes me tired just thinking about all that work, and damage risk! I also understand that anything but lacquer clear brings back the ISO risks, but just curious.