Urethane or lacquer paint

[Curtis L.]

What paint is best for my 63 roadster

[Kenneth G.]

Re: Urethane or lacquer paint

if you are going strictly by the NCRS guidelines, lacquer, if you can get it , is the way to go. Supposedly some can get urethane to "look" like lacquer. Personally, I would not even consider lacquer as I think the paint on a car is highly important in terms of the overall car. I could care less about point deductions when it comes to paint and my own vette (1969) has an outstanding , NON original, flat urethane finish. just my .02...........

Kenny #31871

[G B.]

It's a matter of taste

If you're concerned about having everything in your garage appear "perfect", then urethane is probably best for you. After all, it's been used successfully to keep all sorts of airplanes and industrial equipment shiny for decades. But if you care more about making your car look as-delivered in 1963, there is no substitute for lacquer.

If this post offends you urethane types, go ahead and spurt your speen juice. It can't possibly offend me any more than seeing so many (formerly) neat Corvettes ruined by over-restoration.

[Wayne P.]

Re: It's a matter of taste

I'm with Jerry on this one. I just don't understand people's reluctance to use lacquer. Cars that are trailer queens, especially, should last almost forever. Plenty of examples of 20 year old lacquer paint jobs that still look great and CORRECT.

[Terry D.]

Re: It's a matter of taste

Agree with Jerry, and I don't know about the rest of the country, but my supplier in Akron Ohio, Hopkins & Kipp, says anyone who carries PPG products should have no problem getting lacquer. Just my 2 cents.
Terry

[Clare Carpenter]

It's a matter of taste and what is practical.

The availability of lacquer is not a problem but it's getting harder to find someone that knows how to shoot it, or wants to. The painters and shops I've talked to all say, "Why do you want to use lacquer, especially on a car you want to drive?"

This subject continues to be debated. I personally love the way lacquer looks, once it has been wet sanded, polished and waxed. There was always room to improve the way the factory delivered them if you were good with a wheel or knew someone who was. I always thought GM acrylic lacquer finishes looked better than Chrysler or Ford's enamels, especially after being massaged with a polishing wheel.

Lacquer can be brought back, if neglected, much better than an enamel finish but if it's neglected, it won't take long for it to start to fade. It chips easier too but if it gets chipped, it's also easier to fix. However, with a repaint, body and prep need to be absolutely perfect or lacquer will come back to haunt you, as it "bleeds" solvent and shrinks over time. Lacquer also requires more feeding and care to keep it nice long term. That said, there's no question modern paint finishes are superior today. Paints last longer, shine more and are more durable with less care, etc.

When someone's spending big bucks for body and paint, they want it perfect. They don't want waves, orange peel, ill fitting body panels, etc. Call it "over-restoration" if you want to but that's the way cars are getting done, whether painted in lacquer, urethane, or enamel. To the casual eye, no one knows that the car is over restored, they just think it looks beautiful. The wavy, flat looking lacquer job with the poorly fitted seams and panels gets overlooked next the "over-restored" car with perfect paint.

I haven't made up my mind whether to go with lacquer or not. No matter what I decide to use it will be "over restored". But that's me.

[Patrick H.]

Re: It's a matter of taste

My original 34 year old lacquer paint job on my 72 coupe still looks great today.

[Jim T.]

Re: It's a matter of taste

Patrick your lacquer paint might be 34 years old, but the lacquer paint job is not yet 34 years old on your 72. I agree that your lacquer paint job does look great.

[Patrick H.]

Re: It's a matter of taste

31 years, 8 months. I meant 32 years, not 34. Oops.

Patrick

[Robert W.]

Re: It's a matter of taste and what is practical.

I hate to agree with Jerry but it is a matter of taste. If block sanded body panels with no seams showing and a paint job that shines like a mirror and powder coated frame and chassis components is what you like have at it. But don't bring it to a NCRS meet to have it judged and be shocked or get upset because it missed top flight because it isn't original or considered over restored. Go to local cruise ins or show and shines and let people who value that type car compliment you on it.

[Bill W.]

Re: It's a matter of taste

I agree with Jerry

[Clare Carpenter]

Not to split hairs but it's only original once.

But don't bring it to a NCRS meet to have it judged and be shocked or get upset because it missed top flight because it isn't original or considered over restored.

I've seen plenty of cars Top Flight that could be considered over restored. If the car is complete and just put back together nicer than the factory did it, that won't keep it from Top Flighting. Let's face it, no matter how true to the way it was done at the factory, a restoration is not original. How many people use the asphalt based chassis black out on C1's and C2's? Quite a few but if they do, how many just spray it over bare metal? Whoa!! Hold on there! If you prime it in epoxy, (just for protection only) then top coat it with chassis black out, you've over restored it. Now suppose you've chosen a urethane top coat? What's the difference between that and any other finish that's not original or was not used by the factory.

The lacquer issue will continue to get debated no doubt. I for one, am straddling the fence. Others have no choice but to go with an enamel or urethane. If you live in California, you can't shoot lacquer, period. Hobbyist's excluded, so unless you can do it yourself in your garage or get someone to come over and shoot it there, you'd have to send your car out of state for a lacquer paint job. Repairs might be excluded, I don't know for sure, but you could find yourself up a creek without a paddle.

If an owner wants to spend 10k and have the panel seams show through, more power to them, they just shouldn't get mad when someone remarks "what a *****ty paint job that car has." I can appreciate it, however, I don't care for it on my car. So many of these old bodies have been worked over so many times it would be almost impossible to not block sand them. Some have even been reskinned or gel coated. That is what makes a survivor so unique. A car can only be original once. In my opinion, there is only one way to truly do an "original" as the factory delivered it, restoration. That means NO variation from materials, techniques, and appearances. Anything else is an imitation. I can live with that. The spirit and driving character of my car will be preserved. It'll just be a tad nicer than the factory delivered it.:)

[Pete Ruegg]

Re: reconditioning paints

Thanks Clare...That's right on the dot and an excellant guide line...Pete