Martin Senour Paint Question

Thanks

As for a host of green colors, you mentioned one that you used -- is M5-0020 equivelant to JD Classic Green, or some other kind of JD Green?

I use reducer from napa. It is the most economical stuff around and I can't think of how it could be better. I think the no is 6040 but it has been months, if you want i will look up the can and post the no.

You need to know (beforehand) what it is you want. For the tractor you are painting, seek "John Deere Classic (Ag) Green" -- and I say "No" to the notion that there are 4 or 5 colors that will fill the bill. Paint may look the same early on, but as these different paints fade, they seems to go in different directions -- I like to dub it "the shade of the fade."

So far as clear coat is concerned -- do you know anyone with a dark colored Ford car or truck of the 90's vintage? Check what has happened to their clear coat. And don't think you will be able to apply it better -- 'tain't so!

Why don't you keep life simple -- buy your paint & reducer (thinner) from John Deere, and your hardener (catalyst) from NAPA? The catalyst from NAPA is Martin Senour 8010 (Synthol) at about $35 a pop! Then experiment a little with your ratios until you are happy; then go forth! I have settled on the ratio of 8:2:1 for paint:reducer:hardener.You will save a pile of money too because automotive finishes are pricey, though not any better in my travels.

But again, if want a paint engineer's advice, write to the folks at Customer Service for any paint you choose to use, and you will have it my friend.

I'm a believer in if you can spend the same or even less money and apply a good quality acrylic enamel product, you will have a more durable finish that will resist fading like no synthetic enamel ever has. I priced acrylic enamels for my VAC Case project, and there are many (example is LIMCO and low-line PPG) that can be had for less money than the equivalent JD synthol product. As far as the hardener being $35 a pop, I paid $20 for a 16 oz can of each of the "Wet-Look" brands product for synthetic and acrylic, so no difference in cost, and since you only add one ounce to each 8 ounces of paint, the cost to add the appropriate hardener is more than balanced by the increased durability, fade resistance, and shine that you will achieve. You also tend to have much more choices in reducer temperatures with a AE than you will with synthetic. "Synthol" paint is so outdated that no auto builder has used it for over 35 years and as such, it is not well supported with additional reducer grades.

As far as Ford having problems with early '90's clear coats, GM had problems of their own keeping sliver or light blue on their cars even in the synthetic days, and in the 80's and 90's it peeled off whether it was synthetic, acrylic lacquer, acrylic enamel, or even base/clear. There has been a lot of improvment made in the urethane clearcoat of 2005 versus 1995. Now, I understand that not everyone wants to apply that level of finish, but I saw the thread a while back saying that people should take greater pride in performing work that they were going to eventually call "restorations". A quality paint applied to quality preparation is a big step in making that a reality.

I understand that acrylic enamel might be considered a bit tougher to deal with given the safety precautions that must be observed with it's use with cyanoacrylate hardeners, but the same goes for a synthetic enamel that is applied with a catalyst. Any spray application has a list of do's and don't's and the majority revolve around buying and using a proper fresh air breathing system.

I just think that the same money can buy a better paint system. Sorry for being long-winded, but I think acrylic enamel gets pushed to the side too quickly in favor of synthol, which is really no safer to apply, no cheaper to apply, and does not last as long in the same environment.

Seems as though his painter already appreciates the difference and that is why he was asking for MS codes.

Frank

This fellow is painting a farm tractor and seemed like he wanted to end up with a decent paint job -- one that would stand up to use. I think his basic question was about clearcoats. Paints are a lot like anything else out there -- one man's choice is another man's rejection! Thus -- the reason so many choices exist! Is this a great country or what?

And so far as clear coat problems by GM, I wrote only about that of which I have knowledge. Given the really short span of time between what one auto maker uses versus another, I reckon it is no surprise that what grief one has, the others are prone to have it too if they manage to "share" technologies. Now that I think some on it, I reckon I did see some lousy GM cars so far as peeling clear coat is concerned.

Have a Super day!

On this particular tractor, he did say "This is not an Expo tractor and I still use it on the farm but want it to look nice." He is using a "paint guy" to shoot the sheet metal, so it seems to me that he'll want it look nice and be durable for the price. I just think there is a general assumption that acrylic enamels with or without clearcoat on top is cost prohibitive, and that has not been my experience.

Now on the clearcoat, what I have done since I still have some issues with my painting and not having a paint booth, often get dust nibs, is to let my color cure, then I water sand it until it is very, very smooth, then apply a clear to get the shine back. THat way I have the best of both worlds: good color retention and the durability of a urethane clear. It's an option that can take a while, but it holds up well in this Florida sun that I battle.

Frank