Need a little advice!!

[gordonr]

I'm painting an 82 Dodge full size van. It's two tone, the top and bottom and dark blue mettalic and the middle is a medium blue. I'm using a base coat, clear coat. The base is not catalized the clear is. Whars the best way to do the two tone without getting into trouble with paint wrinkling? All the chrome is off. Where the colors change it will be covered by the chrome when it is put back on.

Thanks, Bob

[Len]

I'm painting an 82 Dodge full size van. It's two tone, the top and bottom and dark blue mettalic and the middle is a medium blue. I'm using a base coat, clear coat. The base is not catalized the clear is. Whars the best way to do the two tone without getting into trouble with paint wrinkling? All the chrome is off. Where the colors change it will be covered by the chrome when it is put back on.

Thanks, Bob

When I do a two tone job I prep the entire car then mask the entire car then mask off and paint the smallest area first because it's usually easier to mask the smaller area when it's time to paint the larger area. In your case I would color and clear the first paint application, allow it to harden then mask and apply your base and clear for your second color.

[Dennis N. Schmidt]

Why NOT catalyze the base? It's cheap and easy to do and can save you agony if you need to go back and rework it. Adding 3-5% hardener to the base is cheap insurance.

[nine driver]

sorry to hijack, but what are the advantages to catylize the base? I know both DuPont's Chromabase and Nason consider it optional and my local supplier/jobber says don't bother? I've read some other threads that say it's easier to fix/rework when catylized and I was just wondering how. Pro's and con's. Thanks.

[Len]

sorry to hijack, but what are the advantages to catylize the base? I know both DuPont's Chromabase and Nason consider it optional and my local supplier/jobber says don't bother? I've read some other threads that say it's easier to fix/rework when catylized and I was just wondering how. Pro's and con's. Thanks.

With the products that I use you could paint the car with non-catalyzed base but if you need to correct any problems you'll need to seal them with primer or clear or whatever before you can apply more base. The reason for this is that the original base can absorb solvent that will get under the surrounding clear and make it wrinkle but catalyzed base doesn't present this problem. With my products the catalyst is different in the base than it is in the clear so I never use it in my base, I just prime over any problems after I correct them then reapply my base color and clear.

[Steve g]

sorry to hijack, but what are the advantages to catylize the base? I know both DuPont's Chromabase and Nason consider it optional and my local supplier/jobber says don't bother? I've read some other threads that say it's easier to fix/rework when catylized and I was just wondering how. Pro's and con's. Thanks.
For sure the Chromabase states that it's optional, but are you sure with the Nason Ful-base? I thought I recalled that it said it must be catalyzed.

Having used chromabase uncatalyzed as a newbie when you do lots of repairs I can tell you that it's absolutely worthwhile. It also makes the base easier to work with should you have a flaw to correct before you shoot your clear. I still us the catalyst now because it's such cheap insurance.

Steve g

[nine driver]

For sure the Chromabase states that it's optional, but are you sure with the Nason Ful-base? I thought I recalled that it said it must be catalyzed.

Actually, I'm confussed about that.. The online nason tech sheet says the ful-base should be activated with 1/2 part 483-30. However, my local jobber says it's optional and they had some sort of a tech sheet on their wall that did in fact say 'optional'. So...what's the deal, yo? Obviously, you'd have added expense and a pot life, but how about the pro's? Anyone use nason ful-base shed some light?

[Steve g]

Actually, I'm confussed about that.. The online nason tech sheet says the ful-base should be activated with 1/2 part 483-30. However, my local jobber says it's optional and they had some sort of a tech sheet on their wall that did in fact say 'optional'. So...what's the deal, yo? Obviously, you'd have added expense and a pot life, but how about the pro's? Anyone use nason ful-base shed some light?

The tech sheet has a special note that could be interpretted as making it optional. The mixing instructions are quite clear about the catalyst, but in the special instructions where it says it must be clear coated it goes on to say that the hardener "should" be used for optimal performance. I wouldn't use it without it.

The optimal performance Dupont refers to suggests some additional longevity (can't imagine what else "performance" could refer to), but the big benefit is in ease of repair. If you have to correct a flaw in the base before you shoot your clear you'll find the hardened base much easier to sand and repair than the non hardened. More importantly, if you have to do a repair after you've cleared you won't run the risk of the base and/or clear lifting when the new base hits it. That alone is worth the cost of the hardener. Pot life isn't really an issue. You only mix what you're going to use and most of us already have little bits of every color we've ever used sitting in cans in the cupboard. A .5 part is so small an amount the additional cost is near insignificant.
On another note, I quit using using the Nason base because I found that there really is no cost saving over the Chromabase. The Nason base covers very poorly and in fact the mix instructions tell you to cut the reducer in half on poor hiding colors. The additional amount used for the same coverage took away any savings and when you consider that the color match is never as good as the Chromabase , it just wasn't worthwhile. I still like their clear though. Now I mostly use Chromabase and Nason Select clear.

Steve g

[Dennis N. Schmidt]

Short answer: It's crazy not to. Here's why. With Chromabase the amount of activator, and it can be any clearcoat activator not just 12305S, is 5%. That's damn near nothing. In return for this tiny amount of work and cost you're getting insurance that if you cut through the clear during color sanding that you'll only have to dust on base and reclear without experiencing any lifting. On the other hand you can take your chances cut through the clear wrinkle (actually lift) the base when you shoot new base and then strip the panel. For what could have been prevented by using $0.50 worth of iso you've got a major mess on your hands. The choice is yours but to me this is a no-brainer.