News:

Due to a technical issue, some recently uploaded pictures have been lost. We are investigating why this happened but the issue has been resolved so that future uploads should be safe.  You can also Modify your post (MORE...) and re-upload the pictures in your post.

Main Menu

New Car Undercoating in 1950s (1952)

Started by jdemerson, July 15, 2017, 08:16:22 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

jdemerson

The authenticity manual states that Cadillacs were not undercoated at the factory. At least here in the Northeast, they were often (usually?) undercoated when new at the dealership. I understand that Cadillac approved and supported doing this in the 50s, but it was not a "Cadillac option"; am I right that points would be deducted in judging at a Grand National or Fall Festival for a car that had the original dealer-installed undercoating?

Yesterday I removed the fender skirts on my '52. I expected to find some spots at the edge of the skirts, and/or around the edge of the rear fender housing (for skirts) that could stand some touch-up. But I could not find a spec of rust or corrosion anywhere. What I did find was an amazingly uniform application of undercoating -- the bumpy or crinkly kind that was presumably applied in 1952. It is the same material that coats the under side of the hood ('52s had no hood blanket). When I disassembled my trunk and did a complete trunk restoration earlier this spring, I saw the same material coating the inside surfaces of the rear fenders. What surprised me was how uniform the coating looked. It certainly looked old, but there were no cracks or peeling and absolutely no rust. If I didn't know otherwise, I would have assumed that it was applied at the factory.

My 6219X was sold by Cadillac to the New York City distributor in 1952. I believe it went from there directly to a Boston dealership. My records on the car go back to 1977 and I have spoken at length with the owner who acquired the car in 1977. Sadly I have no service records between 1952 and 1977. The mileage on the car in 1977 was around 50,000, and today it is just over 66,000. Given that the car lived its entire life in the northeast, I am quite amazed at the lack of visible rust on the car.

A couple of months ago I decided to repaint the four door sills. I pulled off the aluminum sill plates, and did find a small amount of surface rust around the screw holes. I cleaned those up and repainted the sills before reinstalling the plates. But here again, the surprise was how little corrosion was apparent.

Does anyone have any comments or knowledge about dealer-applied undercoating in the Northeast (or perhaps the Midwest) in the 1950s?  Observations about anything written above would be of interest!

Thanks.
John Emerson
1952 Cadillac 6219X
John Emerson
Middlebury, Vermont
CLC member #26790
1952 Series 6219X
http://bit.ly/21AGnvn

Hilarius

Hi John.
Lucky you having a well preserved and undercoated car. I bought a 1952-6019 a few months back. Undercoated by the factory or by a dealer, I don't know, but definitely ancient undercoating, I can say that.
Here are a few pictures of what can happen to a car in spite of undercoating at the time of delivery.
Pic one shows the panel where the front of the right rear fender bolts to, seen fom the outside, pic two shows the same from the inside both after bead blasting.
Picture three is after the repair in (still wet) primer.
The other side and the rocker panels looked the same as did the fenders and what not.
Hilarius
Hilmar Schneider #26898
1930-162, "353", 4D-SDN-7P
1940-7567, 2D-CCP-2/4P
1948-7519X, 4D-SDN-5P
1952-6019X, 4D-SDN-5P
1973 Mercedes 107R, 2D-CCP-2P
2015 Cadillac SRX, 4D-SDN-5P

Bobby B

I think my '47 was also undercoated from the dealer. It's a tight, bumpy, almost non-rubbery type of coating on the underside of the car. It seemed like it was there from day one. Very unlike any type of stuff that they use today. Any thoughts?  ???
                                                                                                                             Bobby
1947 Cadillac Series 62 Convertible Coupe
1968 Mustang Convertible
1973 Mustang Convertible
1969 Jaguar E-Type Roadster
1971 Datsun 240Z
1979 H-D FLH

Mike Josephic CLC #3877

The rule as far as judging is "how is was when it left the factory".

Therefore, undercoating would be a deduction.  The only protection on the
sheet metal underneath the car was red oxide primer.  Any good restoration
will have any traces of undercoating removed for that reason when the body
is off the frame.

Undercoating was a common dealer "add on" especially here in the rust belt
where I live.

Mike
1955 Cadillac Eldorado
1973 Cadillac Eldorado
1995 Cadillac Seville
2004 Escalade
1997 GMC Suburban 4X4, 454 engine, 3/4 ton
custom built by Santa Fe in Evansville, IN
2011 Buick Lucerne CX
-------------------------------------
CLCMRC Museum Benefactor #38
Past: VP International Affiliates, Museum Board Director, President / Director Pittsburgh Region

Jon S

Can't speak for undercoating, but in 1958 Blue Coral paint protection was not a Dealer Option; but rather, a mandatory requirement imposed to buy a Cadillac. $25.00
Jon

1958 Cadillac Sedan De Ville
1973 Lincoln Continental Coupe
1981 Corvette
2004 Mustang GT

jdemerson

Quote from: Jon S on July 16, 2017, 12:00:58 AM
Can't speak for undercoating, but in 1958 Blue Coral paint protection was not a Dealer Option; but rather, a mandatory requirement imposed to buy a Cadillac. $25.00

Interesting, and I'd not heard this before. So Blue Coral was on the car "as it left the factory"? Or did Cadillac require the dealer to "install" it?  And if something did NOT come on the car from the factory but Cadillac required the dealer to install it, what are the judging rules? What about dealer options that were supplied by Cadillac and were installed by the dealer?  Do they get points deductions in judging because they didn't "come from the factory"? Is the distinction here that Cadillac supplied the Blue Coral but did not supply the material that Cadillac dealers (at least in the Northeast) strongly recommended and applied before the car was sold? 

Isn't the judging rule "as originally delivered by the dealer to the new-car buyer"?

I just looked up the rule in our new judging manual. Here is what it states:
Standard
The standard against which all automobiles
in the Primary Division and
the Specialty and Unique Division will
be judged is that condition, appearance,
and equipment as the car was originally
delivered to the first owner considering
authenticity, condition, operability, and
cleanliness of all components. Any accessory
approved by Cadillac, either installed
at the factory or by a dealer, is acceptable.


I cannot prove it, but I believe that undercoating was an "accessory" that was approved by Cadillac, at least for cars sold in the northeast and upper midwest. Our judging rule seems clear that the item can be "approved by Cadillac" and installed by the dealer. This need not mean that the item (here, undercoating) was manufactured by Cadillac.

John Emerson
John Emerson
Middlebury, Vermont
CLC member #26790
1952 Series 6219X
http://bit.ly/21AGnvn

49 Convertible

This is an issue that I, personally, have been dealing with for a few years now. Having  had 2 48s and one 49 I 2 with undercoating and one without.  Yes it is my understanding that "undercoating" was a dealer installed item.  Nearly all dealers undercoated due to the "additional" sound deadening qualities and , of course, the rust prevention quality. They also were able to get more for the car.

In the newly posted judging manual and after many, many discussions with Bill Anderson it is stated that there is a deduction for undercoating in the forties and not sure which fifties cars.  In viewing many pictures and cars I still believe that a certain amount of undercoating or "sound deadening material" was used. On the firewall (lower half), underside of the hood, at welded body joints of firewall, inside of car again where any  point where there is a welded joint.

Herman Desser
co-author of 48/49 Authenticity Manual

If we adhere to the statement "as delivered from the factory" to the dealer the car being judged should have the "blue white wall tire protection", plastic on the seats, hubcaps in the trunk, all tools in a cardboard box and all of the familiar instruction tags.  I realize that this cannot be considered the standard to judge by but in print is in print.

It is my belief that undercoating should be allowed.  Undercoating, in some cases, has allowed the cars to be still alive and with us today particularly cars from very wet areas.  Obviously the statement added to many cars for sale make the statement "California Car" which says little or no rusted out floor pans.

Herman Desser
clc # 19416

Paul Tesone

 If the above quote is correct , there is a big difference between " as delivered from the factory " and " as the car was originally delivered to the first owner " . It would seem to me that if an approved , dealer installed undercoating had  already been applied to the car when it was delivered to the first owner , the car should not be subject to point deductions - if the above quote is correct . The problem is , without an original invoice showing the charge for the dealer undercoating , how does a judge know that the undercoating is original or something an owner added  after purchase to provide rust protection or to cover up existing rust ( for judging or resale purposes ) ? This a difficult issue for both judges , who are doing their best to apply judging rules equally and fairly , and owners who truly believe they have a vehicle with dealer installed undercoating . I can't say that I have the right answer . My sympathies and appreciation go to those trying to establish fair , reasonable and equitable judging rules . Paul Tesone CLC # 6876

49 Convertible

Paul's response is exactly the point I am trying to make with my posting to this subject.  It is the responsibility of the team captain to report, to the owner of the car being judged to refute, any "originality deductions" by showing proof that the car had such item being questioned.  This in most likely if not all cases  would be impossible to prove  So what do we do....deduct or not?  (possible 15 points, I believe, if all deductions for undercoating are made)

Herman
Herman Desser
clc # 19416

Brad Ipsen CLC #737

I am now working on a 49 CDV.  It has at least some undercoating applied at the factory and most likely some applied by the dealer.  There is undercoating in many places in the interior of the car.  The dealers did not remove the interior to apply undercoating.  On the other hand there was a different type on the back side of the fog lights that I presume was applied by the dealer.  In my case I am not worried about the judging rule because I will be removing all undercoating that shows because I just don't like it.  If the rule is changed I am still not going to apply undercoating but I can verify with pictures if anyone needs proof that undercoating was applied at the factory on a 49 CDV.
Brad Ipsen
1940 Cadillac 60S
1938 Cadillac 9039
1940 Cadillac 6267
1940 LaSalle 5227
1949 Cadillac 6237X
1940 Cadillac 60S Limo

Mike Josephic CLC #3877

From the revised 2017 Judging Manual:

NOTE 3. There will be no deduction for factory-applied rust preventative coating to underside areas, or factory-applied sound- deadening. However, it must be clean.

CH.1 Frame
Undercoating ............................................â€"1
CH.2 Underbody
Undercoating ............................................â€"1
CH.3 Wheel Wells
Undercoating ............................................â€"1

You will note the reference to "FACTORY APPLIED" --- which means NON DEALER
or aftermarket.

This is how we judged when I was actively involved, only without the mandatory
amounts to deduct.  When I judged in Class 15 (54-56) for about 20 years, we always
deducted for an undercoated vehicle.

If some of you still have issues with this, I suggest talking with Bill Anderson who
wrote the manual and as Chief Judge, makes the final decisions.

Mike
1955 Cadillac Eldorado
1973 Cadillac Eldorado
1995 Cadillac Seville
2004 Escalade
1997 GMC Suburban 4X4, 454 engine, 3/4 ton
custom built by Santa Fe in Evansville, IN
2011 Buick Lucerne CX
-------------------------------------
CLCMRC Museum Benefactor #38
Past: VP International Affiliates, Museum Board Director, President / Director Pittsburgh Region

49 Convertible

Now, how does one distinguish between "factory applied from non-dealer or other applied?  It does not appear on any of the  "built sheets" that I have seen but the dealer applied  would, most likely, been on a separate invoice to the customer.

This reply in no way is meant to detract from the excellent job Bill and his committee have done in revising the judging.  It is meant to level the playing field so we are all on the same page when it come to judging our cars.
Herman Desser
clc # 19416

Mike Josephic CLC #3877

In my opinion (and it's just that) -- if you are seeking to build a show quality
restoration do yourself a favor and REMOVE the undercoating.

That way, you do not leave it open to interpretation by the judges as to what
should have / could have / might have / been done.

Again, talk to Bill Anderson and get his take.  Perhaps the upcoming
Grand National could be a place to do that.

Mike
1955 Cadillac Eldorado
1973 Cadillac Eldorado
1995 Cadillac Seville
2004 Escalade
1997 GMC Suburban 4X4, 454 engine, 3/4 ton
custom built by Santa Fe in Evansville, IN
2011 Buick Lucerne CX
-------------------------------------
CLCMRC Museum Benefactor #38
Past: VP International Affiliates, Museum Board Director, President / Director Pittsburgh Region

jdemerson

There are some tricky issues here. As a judge at shows over quite a few years, and at last year's Fall Festival, I strongly believe that we must follow our published rules quite aside from whether or not we agree with them. Even those with oversight of judging cannot change the rules at a particular event being judged. However, where there is ambiguity or a lack of clarity the chief judge at the show does have to issue an interpretation for all to follow in a consistent way.

From the revised 2017 Judging Manual:


STANDARD
The standard against which all automobiles
in the Primary Division and
the Specialty and Unique Division will
be judged is that condition, appearance,
and equipment as the car was originally
delivered to the first owner considering
authenticity, condition, operability, and
cleanliness of all components. Any accessory
approved by Cadillac, either installed
at the factory or by a dealer
, is acceptable.


Here's where it gets interesting:
1. Some sound deadener and undercoating for rust prevention came from the factory; see Brad Ipsen's post above. (I saw some of it when I removed trunk panels to restore my '52 trunk. I also think that the rust proofing on the underside of my hood came from the factory, but I can't prove that.) In these instances, if an owner removed that material that would get a points deduction under our rules (!).
2. In the northeast and upper mid-west, any if not most Cadillacs in the early and mid 50s (doubtless other years too) had dealer-applied undercoating that was installed before the car was purchased. So it was definitely there in the "as delivered" condition. I believe that this was "approved by Cadillac" -- and of course that would be an important question. Somewhere there is sure to be some owner with all records and a bill-of-sale on Cadillac stationary that shows dealer-installed undercoating. If I am on a judging team and the owner raises a question, are we going to tell the owner that he/she loses a point because rustproofing on the frame was not "approved by Cadillac"?
3. For what it's worth, I grew up near Oswego, NY, which is famous as "snow country". The Cadillac dealership was Tucker. I will bet anything that no new Cadillac left that dealership without some dealer-applied rust proofing. And I will also bet that it was done with "approval by Cadillac".  So I think I know what our "STANDARDS" (see above) say about such a car today. But would we judge a car sold in Atlanta or Los Angeles differently?  Surely not!

In general, my vote would be to not take off points if I knew that the undercoating was probably there "as delivered". But above all, I would try to follow our written rules and especially the "Standard" quoted above.

John Emerson
1952 Cadillac 6219X  (sold in Boston, I believe with both factory and dealer-applied undercoating)
John Emerson
Middlebury, Vermont
CLC member #26790
1952 Series 6219X
http://bit.ly/21AGnvn

m-mman

#14
Preface I am not a CLC expert but in other marque judging situations this has also come up.

The other club judging standards have always insisted that undercoating be removed. Nobody was talking about the tar like sound deadening that was applied to the inside of the doors or trunk. They were always talking about the stuff that was sprayed on by the dealer.

Undercoating was always a very high profit item for the dealer. It only cost $2-$10 for supplies and labor but they charged $50 to $100 for it. (I have some non-Cad dealer information that explains this) FYI waxes (Blue Coral) was also a high profit 'accessory'.
They didnt have extended warranties back then so the extra dealer dollars had to come from somewhere.   :D

But today you want a winning car to display the 'work and effort' of the restorer to 'make it new'. Repaint the chassis? (powder coat?) Clean and repaint the floor pans?  Re-cadplate the fuel tank?

If you allow dealer installed undercoat to meet the standards then you also open the door for somebody to forgo the difficult and expensive cleaning and repainting and replating and just spray a bunch of tar on the underside of their car and claim that they put as much work into it as the guy next to them.

Compare it to seat covers.  (which were not discussed)
One guy replaces the upholstery using actual leather. Another guy finds and installs a set of 'factory accessory' seat covers and insists that (under the covers) his upholstery is equal to the guy next to him.
1929 341B Town Sedan
1971 Miller-Meteor Lifeliner ambulance
Other non-Cadillac cars
Near Los Angeles, California

CLC #29634

jdemerson

Quote from: Bobby B on July 15, 2017, 06:44:16 PM
I think my '47 was also undercoated from the dealer. It's a tight, bumpy, almost non-rubbery type of coating on the underside of the car. It seemed like it was there from day one. Very unlike any type of stuff that they use today. Any thoughts?  ???
                                                                                                                             Bobby

Bobby,
    Yes, that is what mine (on a "52) is like. It is on the underside of the hood, underside of car, inside of rear skirts, and so on. It is also "inside" the hood, that is between the outer skin and the underside steel panels near the front of the hood. I used a flashlight and felt around with my fingers to confirm this. As I mentioned above, it appears to be a very uniform application and it is quite thick. I do not see cracks or bubbling in the material.
John Emerson
John Emerson
Middlebury, Vermont
CLC member #26790
1952 Series 6219X
http://bit.ly/21AGnvn

Bobby B

Quote from: jdemerson on July 19, 2017, 12:33:10 PM
Bobby,
    Yes, that is what mine (on a "52) is like. It is on the underside of the hood, underside of car, inside of rear skirts, and so on. It is also "inside" the hood, that is between the outer skin and the underside steel panels near the front of the hood. I used a flashlight and felt around with my fingers to confirm this. As I mentioned above, it appears to be a very uniform application and it is quite thick. I do not see cracks or bubbling in the material.
John Emerson
John,
  Hi. I'm going back with the undercoating for a little extra protection and noise reduction. It's not a show car, it's a really nice driver, so I'm not concerned with any points deductions. There are some great products out there for professional use, that put a real tight and smooth finish if the surface has a properly prepped base. To me, it looks fine if applied with the right gun, under the proper conditions. I'm not talking about the stuff you buy in a can at the auto parts store. I see no harm in a little extra protection. There's nothing to hide under it anyway. I have no intentions of selling it, so no one has to question the new floor pans underneath. It shows every flaw anyway....
1947 Cadillac Series 62 Convertible Coupe
1968 Mustang Convertible
1973 Mustang Convertible
1969 Jaguar E-Type Roadster
1971 Datsun 240Z
1979 H-D FLH

Jeff Maltby 4194

#17
On my proclaimed 10,000 mile oem 49 FB that I purchased in 87, when I removed the heater box to fix the core leak in 2000, I looked up and was stunned to see the underside of the dash undercoated, a first having parted out my share of 49s over the years. I have pictures of it here somewhere.

Here's a picture of my spare fog lamp/headlight having heavy undercoating.
Jeffo 49er chapter

CLC 1985
Honda Gold Wing GL1500

INTMD8

Quote from: 49 Convertible on July 16, 2017, 10:41:20 PM
Now, how does one distinguish between "factory applied from non-dealer or other applied?  It does not appear on any of the  "built sheets" that I have seen but the dealer applied  would, most likely, been on a separate invoice to the customer.

This reply in no way is meant to detract from the excellent job Bill and his committee have done in revising the judging.  It is meant to level the playing field so we are all on the same page when it come to judging our cars.

I think you would need to reference an original untouched car to see what areas were done from the factory.  If the -entire- undercarriage is coated in the stuff, safe to say it was at least the dealer and not the factory.

My 59 -appears- to be original. Some areas are red oxide, some undercoated. Probably more white overspray than it should have since the car was repainted at some point.  I pressure washed it and covered every easily accessible area with satin clear coat and hard to reach areas with fluid film.

Roger Zimmermann

Your car is really in an exceptional condition for his age.
1956 Sedan de Ville (sold)
1956 Eldorado Biarritz
1957 Eldorado Brougham (sold)
1972 Coupe de Ville
2011 DTS
CLCMRC benefactor #101