Author Topic: Undercoating on New Restoration....Would you?  (Read 804 times)

Offline arton4wheels

  • Posts: 66
    • CLC Member
      CLC Member #30780
  • Name: Ken
Re: Undercoating on New Restoration....Would you?
« Reply #20 on: June 18, 2017, 05:15:41 PM »
  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.
Ken Etch
LaPorte, IN

1950 Series 6169

I prefer email over PM  arton4wheels@yahoo.com

Offline jdemerson

  • 1952 Cadillac 6219X Vermont -- Emerson
  • Posts: 349
  • Very large collection of Cadillac sales brochures
    • CLC Member
      CLC Member #26790
  • Name: John D Emerson
Re: Undercoating on New Restoration....Would you?
« Reply #21 on: June 19, 2017, 06:42:48 AM »
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)
John Emerson
Middlebury, Vermont
CLC member #26790
1952 Series 6219X
http://bit.ly/21AGnvn

Offline INTMD8

  • Posts: 740
Re: Undercoating on New Restoration....Would you?
« Reply #22 on: June 19, 2017, 10:01:27 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.
Jim Moran.   1959 Series 62 Convertible

Online Eric DeVirgilis CLC# 8621

  • Posts: 3937
    • CLC Member
      CLC Member #8621
  • Name: Eric DeVirgilis
Re: Undercoating on New Restoration....Would you?
« Reply #23 on: June 19, 2017, 11:34:16 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.
A Cadillac Motorcar is a Possession for Which There is no Acceptable Substitute