Q & A Time

shine

shine

Member
what do you consider a better resin mix , single stage or base coat ? i have always preferred single stage for my color. even in the days of lacquer i used a ton of centari .
 
Better is subject to a lot of interpretation, isn't it? Urethane SS is great as a color coat imo, especially against shrinkage and chipping, but if the film build of the color coat is too high, it will chip just like a basecoat job will. I guess I prefer SS for solids and basecoat for metallics, but that may be because I am a bit scared of the metallic screwing up on me, just not enough of a finesse painter to make it happen 100% of the time.

Can't say I know much about Centari, except that I had a job that was cleared with 780S peel like a snake starting at 3 years old. So that soured me on it, but SS Centari was probably pretty good. I started using Delstar or Deltron SS with DAU82 on top after the peeler incident, but haven't used either for over 15 years.
 
Shine, if you're talking durability I would put my money on SS. Do some testing. The chip tests with Concept I did were way better than BC/CC, way better. I wish I could still get DAU in this area-talk about easy to work with and easy to spray-jobs I did with that in the late 80's still look good.
 
To me, a color sanded and buffed DAU job looked better than what I can produce today. Almost like lacquer. I've been toying with the idea of over-reducing some modern single stage like Concept and applying it with a four coat + process like it was DAU and see what happens. Amount of reduction and proper film build would take some experimenting.
 
Three coats of DAU and alow it to cure for a month, wetsand with 600, spray two flow coats, colorsand and buff. Sometimes the paint went on so nice the colorsanding was done with only 2000 grit followed by buffing with finesse-it II-no heavy compounds. And talk about hold it's gloss!
 
I have seen a few 2000 pack Centari jobs hold up when they were well taken care of and good quality undercoats were used. I think the biggest cause of failure with the catalyzed enamels years ago was they were applied over crappy undercoats like lacquer primer and velva-seal, the paint itself wasn't all that bad.
 
That 2000 pack was sweet, about 93% vs the normal 30-75% ISO in the pint can and it did make any enamel top notch, it was especially great if it was back when the enamel had lead in it, just two great combinations.
 
i wore out the 2000 pak . mixed with centari it was the best thing going. i used it for black cars. one i did in 95 still looks good . i've done a ton of ss cars over the years. some cleared , some not . i just prefer the way it builds and starts the finish. when i look through the clear i see a smooth texture . with base you can always see the leather . besides that i think the adhesion is a little bit better. barry will be the one to know that.

now this is just my opinion based on what i've done . was just curious how you guys see it.
 
Adhesion is better because of the iso's in the SS.

Problem comes in now, is the enamel is useless because of lack of lead.

Urethanes are totally different story, never had lead and don't need lead, different type ISO used and ,ore of it, if its a good grade.
 
dp wasn't bad until it went lead free . same with the lacquers. i like the stack i'm working with. epoxy , urethane ss color , urethane clear . sure seemed to work well on the vette.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top