http://vocuspr.vocus.com/VocusPR30/N...se&Cache=False

Here in California we are required to go to a new water based Auto Painting System. While Not Required to Date we have Already Switched over to this Process. It is working well for us! All things being equal Cost, Quality of Paint Job etc. my Question is if you had the Choice or Option to go GREEN or use the Old Style Painting Process which would you choose with all other factors being equal???

PLEASE TAKE POLL AT TOP OF FORUM!

THANK YOU!

KC

 

Sure, green. Why, if all else being equal, would I want to stink up the earth any more than need be unless out of some misdirected petty spite or something.

 

As a home auto hobbyist, the new water-based paints have definitely caught my attention, as I have two project cars in my garage I would like to paint myself. About 20 years ago I did home paint jobs using acrylic lacquer which dried fast and allowed me to sand and buff out any runs or crap in the paint. It wasn't the most durable paint, but with a non-metallic I could touch it up easily and it was not too dangerous to use, at least with good ventilation. I could spray lacquer in my parent's driveway if it wasn't windy and I just wet sanded out any dust or bugs...

Then catalyzed paints became the rage and while they are much more durable than acrylic lacquer, the isocyanate could kill you in a few minutes without the proper protection, basically a space suit and an enclosed paint booth. Not the kind of thing you'd want to spray in your attached garage.

Now that these water-borne paints have come out due to environmental concerns, it sounds like they could be much safer for the home painter than catalyzed paints. But I remember reading about some of the systems being a water-based color coat that needed to be clear coated with a standard catlyzed urethane clear anyway.

 

Green, not that I'm a hippie or anything but my work and home has started the change already with little notice to quality.

 

yup if all is equal..looks ..durability and colors..then who cares..may as well just go green instead.

 

green ofcourse. gotta have something to offset the pollution from my v8 soon to be supercharged engine hahhaha. So i need to do alot more than just th epaint to offset that and the constant electricity surge coming from my bedromm with everything running

 

i honestly dont care either way... but if its the same quality and price... then wouldnt we be stupid to continue to do it the old way?

 

As long as I get a quality paint job (which simply DOESN'T HAPPEN ANYWAY), I don't care.

 

Yeah, if I had a choice, I'd pick green. Again, not that I'm joining the crusade (this isn't a hydrogen car after all...), but all things being equal absolutely.

 

If a process that offered similar results and durability for the same price I see no reason not too. But if the process is not as long lived or has alot of additional costs associated with it either in the process itself or tools needed or even additional time (labor-wise) required then no. I am less worried about this "global warming" diatribe than I am an asteroid flatening my house.

 

I would definitely want this process if I had to paint a BULLITT.

Mean and Green! Highland that is!

KC

 

Am I the lone realist. We build houses, over 25 a year and the water based enamels no matter how great they say they are can't match the oil base. So all things equal "green" but I voted for the old way because we know it will never be equal.

 

IIRC the auto industry has been down the water based paint system road before, the results were less than spectacular.

Hopefully the technology has matured.