Jeez!! The epoxy debate.

I try hard not to judge someone's taste in how they do their car. I mean, some stuff is pretty egregiously bad, but the moment you start being judgmental is the moment you start becoming what you hate. I know what I like, but it's not up to me to force it on people. I've seen some cars that were rat rod-ish but pretty nicely done, not my up of tea, but interesting to look at. Maybe a few parts of the rat rod aesthetic are not bad and are getting incorporated into mainstream hot rodding, like embracing simplicity and that not everything has to be shiny. You guys remember Rick Dobbertin's J-2000? It was over the top, and maybe not in a good way. Since then there's been a trend toward cleaner and simpler designs, and I personally like that because my tastes are more to the understated.
 
I have developed a liking for patina builds which are different from rat rods. Old skin over updated frames, drivetrains interiors etc. I’ve got this 46 Chevy squirreled away waiting for a full patina build with a new frame, LS power, all the goodies. Not a single rust hole or weak spot and I could never bring myself to paint it. Doors open and shut like new.

Don
 

Attachments

  • 436CF8E1-9001-4EC6-994A-A94209E7265E.jpeg
    436CF8E1-9001-4EC6-994A-A94209E7265E.jpeg
    61 KB · Views: 169
  • 7B14D180-D4C0-467D-B023-75D04557CD4B.jpeg
    7B14D180-D4C0-467D-B023-75D04557CD4B.jpeg
    175.3 KB · Views: 179
  • B3D104BC-C539-4A67-BD48-D71A903A4508.jpeg
    B3D104BC-C539-4A67-BD48-D71A903A4508.jpeg
    100.6 KB · Views: 160
Most of the stuff I rebuild for customers is not to my taste, but I NEVER make a suggestion, especially as to color choice. Been down that road once and it bit me big time. The last few I've done wanted all the emblems, mouldings, stripes, etc. I personally like vehicles clean and smooth, but I have nothing against any type of build as long as it is safe. Some of the patina builds are awesome, old looking but completely modern underneath. The problem I have is some of these rat rods with radius rods welded together with a cracker box and frames so old and rusted that they are not structurally sound. Then bolted together with a mishmash of parts and saying that is how they did it in the '50's. Sure, they changed grills, tail lights, and made body modifications, but they didn't take a grill off a tractor, floorboards made out of license plates, and door latches made for cabinets, and call it a hot rod. Some of these I've seen up close are down right scary, and an accident waiting to happen. Doors won't stay shut, no seat belts, completely screwed up front end geometry, questionable braking and fuel systems, absolutely no thought for safety.
 
I got no problem with anyone building whatever they like, that's the spirit of hotrodding, whether it's a ratrod or a Honda Civic with a godawful bodykit on it. To each his own. What I was commenting on was when you get the group think mentality like at TheHamb that only certain cars built a certain way with period specific parts have any worthiness or can be considered "real" hotrods. I read plenty of posts where guys get dumped on because they are using something "the group" doesn't think is authentic or period correct. Or put down because they are not using a original body or even worse a fiberglass body. Then those same folks complain about how the hobby is dying off. Build something really nice with a Mustang II front suspension and they will laugh you off the forum over there. Then you see what some of these purists are building and it is really low quality. That is what I consider the irony.
I love traditional, (Doane Spencer's roadster is in one of my all time favorite cars) but for our love of cars to be passed on to younger generations having such an exclusionary attitude does not help. Belittling someone's high quality build because they use a Brookville body (crazy huh?) and used new reproduction parts then you see what some of the stuff they are doing is what irks me. That and being so focused on "Traditional" but then using body filler and modern paints and saying "that's ok".
Oh and it's not all the guys at The Hamb that are this way, but there is a vocal group who are.
Hope that makes sense.
 
@Chris_Hamilton , I agree with you completely. I guess it just gets in me sometimes to play devil's advocate. We tend to enforce a kind of uniformity of though here, too, though I, like you, tend to believe it's for the good of those who come here so that they don't end up making expensive mistakes. It seems like every forum has their own thing, their "schtick." Some are better than others, but one thing that is clear is that every forum or group seems to defend its prevailing views pretty strongly. There's not a lot of point in fighting it. I guess someone with a lot of patience could slowly try to insert more sensible ideas, but that takes a lot of time, care, and diplomacy, not something most of us want to do. So the H.A.M.B. is gonna have their own weird thing just like that Mopar site that started this thread. In my opinion, they can have it. We'll take the refugees who realize that while we peddle a particular orthodoxy, it's only gonna make things better for them, even if it can mean a lot more work and money.
 
There are a lot of guys on that site who do not agree with the OP on that thread. Just the fact that he calls his car a money pit and has decided to go the cheapest route in getting it painted, pretty much sums up his mindset.

Another thread on there was running along the same lines, a guy crying about those outrageously priced paint jobs. When I pointed out that just the material costs for a quality paint job can run more than $2,000.00 and that the preparation prior to the paint is absolutely critical to produce a decent paint job, he quit posting.

Most of those complaining have no idea the amount of labor it takes to get a 40+ year old car into paintable condition. They also cannot comprehend that the cost differences in primers, paint and clears are to some extent connected to the quality of the ingredients. Or why one color costs so much more than another, or why a cut and buff is worth the money for a show car.

To each his own. I think those of us who love these classic cars and take pride in our work are in the majority as opposed to those who don't.
 
'68 Coronet R/T said:
There are a lot of guys on that site who do not agree with the OP on that thread. Just the fact that he calls his car a money pit and has decided to go the cheapest route in getting it painted, pretty much sums up his mindset.

Another thread on there was running along the same lines, a guy crying about those outrageously priced paint jobs. When I pointed out that just the material costs for a quality paint job can run more than $2,000.00 and that the preparation prior to the paint is absolutely critical to produce a decent paint job, he quit posting.

Most of those complaining have no idea the amount of labor it takes to get a 40+ year old car into paintable condition. They also cannot comprehend that the cost differences in primers, paint and clears are to some extent connected to the quality of the ingredients. Or why one color costs so much more than another, or why a cut and buff is worth the money for a show car.

To each his own. I think those of us who love these classic cars and take pride in our work are in the majority as opposed to those who don't.
Click to expand...
Exactly, well put, if more people understood what you wrote we might have fewer complaints about the money it costs to do this kind of stuff.
 
Had a chance to look at the thread, and first, the poor guy does not know paint, so statements like Maaco, epoxy, good paint, bad paint means nothing to him as car paint is car paint.

The other issue is the word epoxy,
Although an old product and easy to make a basic formula is a very confusing product because even the people that do make some although small sales really know very little about how it works and the difference between epoxy formulas.

To keep this short case in point,
Fiberglass evercoat is a great company, but when it comes to putting fill over epoxy, why would they say call the epoxy company??
Because they are smart enough to know some epoxies cannot handle filler over them.
Just one of the 100 different ways an epoxy can be made.
 
Just had a discussion/dogpile on the Camaro forum regarding SPI versus Summit epoxy. Seems the Summit is half the price per sprayable gallon and guys say it is just as good. It’s hard to argue against that sort of thing without side by side test data. I did my best to point out the differences. I used Summit epoxy many years ago and it was thinned out junk but it seems they have sourced it somewhere else and is now a thick 1:1 mix.

Don
 
dhutton01 said:
Just had a discussion/dogpile on the Camaro forum regarding SPI versus Summit epoxy. Seems the Summit is half the price per sprayable gallon and guys say it is just as good. It’s hard to argue against that sort of thing without side by side test data. I did my best to point out the differences. I used Summit epoxy many years ago, and it was thinned out junk, but it seems they have sourced it somewhere else and is now a thick 1:1 mix.

Don
Click to expand...
Side by side test???
When china sent in the 65 dollars 2.5 gallon kit of clear all I heard was you can't run, it you cant solvent pop it and looks great.
26%solids.
All I said to the jobbers is to see if still in your town in six months.
Nope.

That guy should use that epoxy as he has no way of knowing how to test it.
 
I think the only way you can appreciate how much a GOOD paint job costs is when you begin painting yourself. I always thought they were a ripoff until I did my first job. Then I realized that $5K for paint (no bodywork) was a super bargain.
 
That's funny. I know two people who have worked at the drive thru paint places. One guy worked at three different places. Stories I heard from them were horrific and sad at the same time. As long as it shined for a while all was good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top