U.S. Paint problems
Are the American Truck Mnaufactures
still having the problems with paint
staying on the vehicle!!!.
I had a 88 4x4 surbuban that it blew off
of after 12 months. had too get a lawyer too get
it fixed. and when i did they did the usual
half-a-- job. not only did they not do
a good job on the paint. They also ripped-off
my new spare and jack from the vehicle. This
was an old dealership in Houston Texas(Knapp)
will never own a G.M. vehicle Again.
Todd
still having the problems with paint
staying on the vehicle!!!.
I had a 88 4x4 surbuban that it blew off
of after 12 months. had too get a lawyer too get
it fixed. and when i did they did the usual
half-a-- job. not only did they not do
a good job on the paint. They also ripped-off
my new spare and jack from the vehicle. This
was an old dealership in Houston Texas(Knapp)
will never own a G.M. vehicle Again.
Todd
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Most of them, in fact, had been GM products and one was even a Chevy Suburban. The paint still looked good the last time I saw it when it had 100,000+ miles on it.
But the very first Japanese car I bought in 1987 was a Camry, and the paint job was so bad, the dealer took the car back a few weeks after I bought it and gave me another new car with only 3 miles on it. The paint job on the second Camry was ok.
So come on all you Toyota lovers, tell me again about that superb, there's-never-been-a-problem, Toyota quality. Sorry about the sarcasm and I'm not really anti-Toyota. In fact, I bought another Camry in 1996. But bad paint jobs can come from both sides of the ocean, and I think it's unreasonable to make statements like the one above that infers that all American trucks have inferior paint jobs based on one person's singular experience.
No, the problems with paint peeling on GM, Ford and Chrysler cars and trucks didn't come from any environmental restriction or from the use of waterbased paint.
The Big Three bought into a money-saving type of paint that supposedly didn't require a primer. They built many different models of cars and trucks with that paint process, and the result often was that the paint peeled after a few years.
If there had been a decree that automakers had to use waterbased paint, then ALL cars built during that time frame would have had problems - not just Detroit models.
The GM's I've seen have some kind of primer where the paint once was, and the Fords look as if the clear coat is wearing off. I was thinking more along the lines of waste disposal..... saving them money. But I'm figuring it cost them more money in repainting.
As of last year none of the big three use PPG as a top coat because,they have their own specs on how to mix the paints that they want.[very little uv ] . PPG does have most of the primers on the three companys along with alot of the imports. hope this helps answer your questions
But I really appreciate your explanation of what has been going on in the new-car paint world.
And I have to admit I must have been wrong in what I said above in which I inferred there never has been a real problem with the paint on American-made cars and trucks. I never had one, and I've bought a lot of vehicles, but now I realize that I was just lucky to have not bought in the time frame you indicated.
But what's the final answer to the question that started this topic. Does anyone know if the Big 3
are still having the paint problems that I previously didn't think ever really existed. Is it really true that with the billions of dollars behind Chrysler, Ford and GM, none of them can find someone who knows how to paint a vehicle?
Yes, there is primer under the paint - even the stuff that delaminates (peels).
The story I've seen most often is that the Big Three were sold on a paint process by a major manufacturer (both PPG and DuPont were implicated) that allowed the skipping of a priming step - while it didn't eliminate primer entirely, it did save money since one less coat of primer had to be used.
Not every car or truck peeled - but a lot of them did. GM and Ford acknowledged the problem to some degree, repainting some (a friend's Olds, for one). To my knowledge, Chrysler didn't acknowledge responsibility - and there's a Dodge Shadow sitting outside belonging to a neighbor, which has no paint at all on any of its horizontal surfaces.
If the real culprit were the EPA, then the Japanese companies operating U.S. plants would have had similar problems - which they did not. There may be isolated incidences of paint problems, but nothing like the ones you see on some Big Three vehicles.
You are wrong about one less coat on the primer because, it is done by electrostatic. That is why they call it e-coat which is all done in one step for applying the primer. There are sever other steps before primer which consist of many washing steps to get it ready for the e-coat.
AS far the companys being sold on a paint process is not true. All of the big three have their own chemist and on site representative[paint company] working full time for them they can afford a chemist and the paint company supplys their representative. So they know what they are putting on for paint they are just cutting corners to save money. I have been in a big company[freightliner and honda] before and seen how it works. They were not one of the big three but they all work the same way. I do know people who have been in the other three so i know they work the same way.
Before you completely condemn the hypothesis I mentioned, check out
http://www.mindspring.com/~tracey/gmpaint.html#Q3
It's just one of many sites out there that provide information about the paint problem.
I don't know how you can cite Honda as a reference, because as far as I know, they haven't had any paint-delamination problems - the peeling has been confined largely to the Big Three.
Well, this is another good piece of information you've provided us with. There's another great article there regarding "acid rain" that I really became interested in because, as I said above, I once bought a Camry that had what I believed had a bad paint job. Although the dealer at first tried to dismiss it as acid rain and, therefore, not his responsibility, I persisted with my complaining and got the car replaced. I had told the dealer at the time that I didn't belive this acid-rain excuse, and until now I've always wondered what the true story is. Now, 11 years later, I have an official report that goes into a lot of detail, but in the end says: "In short, since auto manufacturers have presented no solid evidence that acid rain damage occurs following proper paint application and hardening, this assertion should not be permitted to avoid warranty coverage". It sure makes me feel good to know that my hunch appears to have been substantiated, and the dealer excuse of "acid rain" appears to be just a big lie. It wasn't acid rain at all. It was just a lousy paint job by Toyota.
I bought a brand new metallic grey '93 F150 in February '94.
In spite of the fact it was parked out of the sun in a parking garage 5 days a week while I was at work, the paint began to fade after I had it for 9
months. I took it to the dealer, who agreed with me that it had bad paint, but they had to get a
representative from Ford corporate to approve a new paint job.
The representative looked at the truck, and flatly
(and rudely) denied there was any problem with the factory paint job. I wrote letters to Ford, but all they did was send me surveys asking if the situation had been resolved to my satisfaction, and would I buy another Ford product again? (to which I angrily replied NO! and NO!).
I tried going through all the proper channels, but
kept getting stonewalled. I finally consulted an
attorney about suing Ford so I could get them to
paint the truck. He told me I may as well spend my
own money to paint the truck and save myself the
aggravation, because after the money I would have
to pay him for the litigation, it would cost about
the same.
I thought about the situation for a few more
months. And it really pissed me off to write out
those monthly payment checks to Ford Credit while I looked out the window at my faded truck. I may as well mention this truck was a mechanical lemon also.
I finally decided to save myself any more
aggravation, and traded it in on a new Chevy truck, that I've been happy with so far (2 years).
What can you expect from a company that would
rather pay lawsuits on people killed in PINTOS
than repair the problem. I have had bad luck
w/chevy also not only the paint but dealerships
also. i will only own an import vehicle from now
on. I have a 90 4-runner that has almost 200,000
on it and toyota had a recall on head gaskets.
i called a week ago and they said they would honor the repair. and provide me with a loaner car while
it is being repaired. this vehicle only had a
60/100,000 warranty. not bad for a foreign co.
the american co's dont get it that people by
at least 3-5 new cars in there life time.
repeat business does'nt mean anything too them.
good luck with your chevy. hope the paint
holds up.
Todd Pierce
I would buy a Toyota too, if only they made 3/4 or 1 ton trucks with big engines (I have a large travel trailer to tow). When / if they do, I'll be one of the first in line to buy one.
I have friends with Toy's, and they've never had problems with them. My buddy's Toy had the head gasket problem too (at 120,000 mi.) and Toyota took care of it.
Thanks for the "good luck" on my Chevy. One more comment on Ford - if "Quality is job one" were true, they would be building Toyotas.
I,m not sure where they got their information on that site you sent me because, I have documentation from Ford dated 1990 on how to repaint their vehicles. [all Fords dated before 1990 with paint failure]. If we did not follow their steps stated on the paper work we did not get PAID. The first few steps are: 1. WASH WITH SOAP AND WATER.
2.DEWAX VEHICLE
3.REMOVE ALL MOLDINGS
4.STRIP PAINT OFF LEAVENING AS MUCH OF THE E-COAT AS POSSIBLE.
There are 14 pages on the way we had to strip and paint the vehicles with the word e-coat mentioned several times.
If you go to #4) Isn,t this EPA,s fault, paragraph two on the site you sent me to it says "manufactures to skip a step between the color coat and clear coat". That tells me it is the Paint Co. fault not the Primer Co. I have never heard of spraying a color coat on and then applying something over the top of it to make it stick to the primer under it and then spraying clear on top of it. The powder or liquid would have to be clear so it would not change the color. I do not remember too many of the vehicles even being clear coated when I stripped them. I think it is still the UV problem like I said before, I,m not trying to stick up for PPG as the Primer Co. because, I do not believe PPG was any better than the other paint companys in the 80's. The 90's are a different story with the urethane paints and primers.
OK, so how should we be taking care of today's clear coated paint jobs? Are there any brands of wax worse than others? Wax, how often? Any advice would be appreciated.
Rich
There's no need to spam multiple topics with the same information. I deleted your repeated posts in this topic, where it's off-topic, and have hid it elsewhere in the conference.
Thank you! Your advice is appreciated!
Rich
For what it's worth, I have always waxed my own vehicles. I use "Liquid Glass" and poo-pood all those "Lasts 6 months" crap, but it DOES last longer than anything else I ever used. It ain't cheap (about $15 a can), and I get about 4 waxings from it doing it twice a year. My vehicles are outside all the time too. It's also very gentle with the clearcoat which is critical on vehicles today. You get what you pay for ........ Dunbarton
Thanks for the info,...... but are you confusing me with someone else? I don't recall being involved in any discussions about the best way to wax my pickup, but I'll give the Liquid Glass a try. I'll have to admit, I've not been impressed with any other car wax I've ever tried, and I've been trying them for about 50 years. It would be great if this one was different.
Could have confused you with another and I apologize if I did. Too many "conferences" but they are all good ones.
Anyhow, keep in mind that "Liquid Glass" is NOT a cleaner, start with a cleanly washed vehicle. You won't notice a difference immediately but keep a careful eye on it 4-5 months later and you will see it's still there. It won't cure bad paint but will keep it nice longer.
While not a chemist, I found out about it by asking the prossessionals and contacting the manufacturer. It simply contains MORE of what is good in car waxes, silicones and polymers, which are exspensive. I am getting too old to be compounding and paste waxing cars anymore.
I live in New Jersey with a lot of pollution, acid rain, widely varying climate conditions, outside care parking, etc. and can see a difference. Dunbarton
Tom
P.S. I know about this, im a body tech/painter and have seen it before.
If the water spots don't wash off, try a cleaner/wax (Meguiars comes to mind) that is abrasive-free and designed for clear coated paint.
Does anyone know anything about a Ford paint warranty (as bigfur suggested above).... Assuming there is no warranty, has anyone had luck getting Ford to repaint, or at least help repaint their trucks? If so, does anyone have tips concerning how best to deal with Ford? I'd like to hear any helpful stories (positive or negative).
I'm pretty serious about ordering a 99 F-150 in the Spring, and I was going to start by telling the dealer that there's no way I'm going to buy a new Ford if this is what I can expect the paint to look like in ~5 years. Anyone think this will motivate them to help me?
I've heard several stories of Ford agreeing to repaint trucks even though it is not required by warranty. If you let them know (in a subtle way) that you are thinking about buying a new Ford in the future, that can't hurt.
Also remember that the service department at the dealership you go to will likely need to talk with Detroit before they can authorize a new paint job, so they may need a couple of days before they can give you a definitive answer.
Let us know what kind of luck you have.
Good luck,
Bigfur
Needless to say it saved money up front, but we have many field problems with the Basecoat/clearcoat system. It ended up costing us more because of field repairs. The city bus industry is very rough on paint surfaces as they use harsh soaps and brushes from machines to keep them clean. I am a believer in the Single stage.
My next story with a poor paint job has to do with my 92 K1500 chevy pick-up. It is white and (at no cost) brown specks in the clearcoat. GM said it was Raildust from the truck being shipped from the factory. The bulletin Number is 431701. GM will not take responsability for the damaged paint job. Be careful when one buys a new car as the Clearcoat is so SOFT that is will stratch when one washes the dirt off the surfaces.
One would think GM and all manuf. could prevent this if they wanted to.
Rail dust, which comes from the tiny iron particles produced from the friction between the train wheels and the track gets deposited on the surface of the paint (clearcoat).
Maybe PPG can answer this problem??????