Hello to all on the forum, this is the second time I'm posting this due an error....
My original question was what your thoughts were about putting undercoating on a frame-off rotisserie restored car. I am restoring my 54 Series 62 convertible and replacing all floor metal and trunk. The car has been taken down to bare metal. I am familiar with POR-15 and other rust inhibitors, but wanted your opinions on using spray bedliner like Line-X or something similar. It will offer great protection, and some sound deadening as well as weight. I'd like to know if this would detract from the look, appeal, and value of the the car. Again, this is going to be a show quality full frame off restoration. Would you turn away if you saw this on the underside and do you have any other recommendations on how to tastefully protect the metal?
Thanks!
I personally would not, unless from factory in certain areas. I would not do entire undercarriage myself. Maybe someone who has an authenticity manual can confirm for your year (or get one). On all my '66s I see some undercoating in the rear wheel well only, and a little of overspray by the side of gas tank. I was debating to even do there on my '66 frame up resto, as you can eat off the bottom of my car, but I am going to add to that area only. With the skirt on you can hardly see anyway, but want to keep mine original and will reduce noise in that area. There was a minor amount in the front wheel wells, but I don't think I will spray any there...I can always add later :) I'll also be using Dynamat under carpet.
As a side note, I regret spraying on my '67 Nova rotisserie resto (gas tank and surrounding area), but my grandfather bought new, and I knew it was on there. Some people think you are hiding something when you use, so I try not to use anymore. Chuck
Chuck, I totally agree about people thinking that undercoating means "there's something to hide," but if i have pictures of the restoration, would that validate using it? It's my one change to never have to worry about it again. Do you think POR 15 or other chassis rust protectants will suffice? Granted, the car won't see rain, so there shouldn't be a problem, but there is ton's of humidity in Texas....
Lots of guys go to great lengths to clean undercoat off their cars. I don't see how you will need to consider this in your location , and the use you propose with your car. - Carl
Carl, I agree about wanting to remove it. The reason is usually because it is unattractive and obscures potential flaws in the metal. The newest coatings are much thinner, resilient, and are color matched. I'm just thinking of this is the one chance to protect brand new metal, why not?
In a word: value
Also you say you are going to have a class A restoration done on the car. I can only assume you will drive it very sparingly and mostly will show it. I can't see the wisdom in doing undercoating. I know it will probably give you peace of mind, but in reality, there is no advantage and the application will hurt the value of the car in that most buyers, IMO, would be greatly "turned off" by it.
As a professional shop owner, I can tell you that with the correct prep and primer, you will have many, many years of protection without it.
I would strongly recommend NOT undercoating. My '55 6237 DX was completely stripped and repainted starting with DP 90 epoxy primer. It is FAR better than POR 15 or similar coatings. Also commonly available and made to work with car paint. See photo, this is how my car looks underneath. It was undercoated when I started the project, it looks way better now!
John Adams
Agree with many above, would not undercoat it.
Mark,
NO. >:( :(
Have fun,
Steve B.
I wouldn't do the underside at all and this is the reason why.
(https://forums.cadillaclasalle.club/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi64.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fh200%2Ffigjam007%2FCars%2FCADDY%2FPiston%2520Broke%2FGEDC0070_zpsvssjtqfu.jpg&hash=23ddaffc3207284b1c41fcfae8c97c2ff813ac42) (http://s64.photobucket.com/user/figjam007/media/Cars/CADDY/Piston%20Broke/GEDC0070_zpsvssjtqfu.jpg.html)
The last thing I would want is something like this coated over.
I did however, use Por-15 on the internal floors of a HQ Holden here in Oz. If you are intending to use dynamat on the floors, Por-15 will give a very nice finish to use as a base for the mat to stick to.
That's my 2 cents worth, I'll go back to my corner now. ;)
Here's my 2 cents worth on this subject...I've restored many 55 and 56 Cadillacs. From the factory they had red oxide primer on the underside of the body (not the frame). That red oxide should just barely be seen as you look under hood and down the firewall and body color should Overspray a bit on the rocker areas as well. On some of my restorations I've just had a paint jobber mix up some single stage paint that matches the color of the red oxide primer, but I've used the primer as well. Many, probably most new cars were undercoated at the dealerships. That stuff was thick and heavy, but after 40-50 years it tends to begin to flake, curl, and chip off and can hide some rusted areas on the floor pan so,on a frame off resto I always remove it. Once the body is lowered onto the frame you can still apply the red oxide paint or primer, but it's more difficult and you'll really want the exhaust and gas tank out of the way and the fuel and brake lines can be a pain to work around as well. It usually takes a full day for me to do it that way as you have to come back and reverse mask for touch ups. Early and mid 50's cars are easier to do "after the fact" than the later 50's cars due to the differences in the area behind the differential.
Ken Karrer
CenTex CLC Reg. Dir.
DO NOT UNDERCOAT A FRAME OFF RESTORED CAR
Thank you to everyone for the recommendations. I understand loud and clear that it is not advisable to coat it. I won't. Is there any specific recommendations from anyone of the forum of a proper primer/coating to use before paint? I do want something durable and strong. As you can see, I just want the best for this car. And I DO plan on driving it. Lastly, was the underside red oxide from the factory? I did purchase the authenticity manual, but I have not confirmed this yet.
I used a quality epoxy primer under the car.
Chuck
Quote from: mark22 on June 15, 2017, 03:18:10 PM
Thank you to everyone for the recommendations. I understand loud and clear that it is not advisable to coat it. I won't. Is there any specific recommendations from anyone of the forum of a proper primer/coating to use before paint? I do want something durable and strong. As you can see, I just want the best for this car. And I DO plan on driving it. Lastly, was the underside red oxide from the factory? I did purchase the authenticity manual, but I have not confirmed this yet.
As mentioned, red oxide is going to be the correct color (with body colored overspray).
Even though not correct however, I really like the look of the floors being painted in the same manner/color as the rest of the body.
So, just regular primer/paint and clear if using it.
Not really much to worry about here in terms of longevity in my opinion. The floors will be less likely chipped than the outside of the car and a few coats of primer or primer and paint will have more material on the metal than the factory did.
HELL no!.....walt...tulsa,ok
Even the example of '64 above with the stenciling on the frame is still showing undercoating on the floorpan which had probably been on since the car was new.
An awful lot of cars of this era were undercoated. It's my opinion that the majority were, and for what it's worth, of the 10 Cadillacs I've owned from 1959 - 1964 only one had not been undercoated - a triple black 1960 S 62 Convertible sold new in CA.
I'm not certain how undercoating is treated for purposes of judging. For restoration purposes, I would undercoat the floor only and paint the frame black. If cost was no object, I would probably have the floors done in red oxide primer.
Personally, I'd rather see undercoating than the floorpans being finished in body color. Undercoating had also been promoted for sound deadening as well as rust prevention. It does make a difference.
Wouldn't you expect to see more undercoating on the car from the east coast, or in the northern states - what with salting and snow and ice - and not so much on the west coast or southern state.
Was undercoating put on as an option to be ordered and applied at the factory or was it dealer applied - I DON'T KNOW.
A frame off - or full restoration deserves to hold true to how the car was born - naked on the bottom.
IMHO
Have fun,
Steve B.
Undercoating was definitely a dealer applied accessory. Under the new judging rules, it is now a deduction
At least in 49 that was not true. It was applied at the factory at least on some parts. I just removed the data plate with original rivets from a 49 CDV and there is undercoating under it. The car had been soda blasted to remove undercoating but the data plate had not been removed. Picture attached. These are the kind of details that no one can make a judging manual that is 100% accurate. It is not possible. The factory was not that consistent in everything they did.
I purchased a 1950 last year and have been struggling to get the undercoating off ever since. IMO undercoating is not necessary unless you are driving it in winter with salted roads. I have said many times since I bought this car that if I see undercoating on anything but a parts car, I will walk away from the deal. IMO it is dishonest, unnecessary, and a reason to fear buying a certain car due to the mess of removing it and what you might find underneath.
I agree with others that I would not undercoat a car that is a frame-off restoration. That question seems settled.
In my part of the world (New England and Mid-Atlantic states), nearly all Cadillac were undercoated at the dealership before delivery. It was not a factory option, was not generally "recommended" by Cadillac, but it was certainly "sanctioned" by Cadillac for the dealerships to do it -- at least in these climates. I would NOT remove original undercoating unless doing a major restoration. By the way, there is a major difference between having a new car undercoated, and having aftermarket undercoating applied where some rusting has begin (and it used to begin quickly...). I know this from experience going back to the 60s and early 70s.
It would be major news to me if Cadillacs were ever undercoated at the factory. Can anyone document that -- perhaps via a Data Book for a particular year?
John Emerson
1952 Cadillac 6219X (with original undercoating in nice shape)
I think it might be worth trying to define the term "undercoating" as well.
For instance, my 59 has this in some but not most areas which appears to be factory applied. Seems like a rubber type black coating that is very hard and textured. It is in the rear wheel housings, above the transmission and a few other small spots. The majority of the floor is primer with overspray at the edges.
I've owned other cars with dealer applied undercoating that was more of a tar like substance that would rub off on you of you touched it and was somewhat firm but more on the gooey side. Could scrape it with your fingernail or a screwdriver and clean it off completely with kerosene.
Quote from: INTMD8 on June 19, 2017, 11:01:27 AM
I think it might be worth trying to define the term "undercoating" as well.
For instance, my 59 has this in some but not most areas which appears to be factory applied. Seems like a rubber type black coating that is very hard and textured. It is in the rear wheel housings, above the transmission and a few other small spots. The majority of the floor is primer with overspray at the edges.
I've owned other cars with dealer applied undercoating that was more of a tar like substance that would rub off on you of you touched it and was somewhat firm but more on the gooey side. Could scrape it with your fingernail or a screwdriver and clean it off completely with kerosene.
Exactly described what I've seen in the vast majority of Cadillacs in this era.