Did GM switch to basecoat clearcoat paint sometime during the 3rd gen run? If so what year, or would it have had to do with the plant the car was made at? I've read that GM mainly used lacquer until sometime time in the 80's, which would have been single stage, but I'm thinking the Van Nuys plant would have switched to waterborn paint sooner than that, due to their strict environmental laws, which might have been base/clear by the time our cars were made.

Basically I'd like to paint my '89 Camaro with whatever type of paint, single stage or base/clear was used on it originally. I've shot a lot of single stage urethane and base/clear, so I'm used to both types of paint. I would never use lacquer, however, if I could even find it nowadays.

 

My 91 TA Vert is base coat/clear coat out of Van Nuys, but I seriously doubt it's water-borne. I don't think water-borne paints became a thing for GM till about 2000.

And BTW....BTf i was doing a restoration on a 60s or 70s Era car, I'd use lacquer in a heartbeat.
Screw California. God Bless Texas!

 

All Van Nuys cars (VIN L) were water-based base/clear, due to CA VOC regulations. My 83 is that kind.

Norwood cars (VIN N) IIRC were oil-based base/clear. They knew that plant's days were numbered and never updated it to apply the modern paint.

You can look at the paint codes on the core support tag; water-based ones have a W, oil-based had something else. L maybe? I'll let someone else fill in that detail.

I see no particular reason to stick with either kind just because that's what it came as.

Modern water-based paints, as used on new cars, are pretty damn good. As above, although lacquer was the gold standard all through the Stone Age and up into the Iron Age, I see no reason that they're "inherently" superior, in 2023. It boils down to personal choice, independent of anything about CA or TX. In my personal experience, proper prep and application matter more than the paint type. The "toughest" type, starting in the 70s and maybe up through today, is 2-part urethane, like they use on aircraft; but it's hard and/or expensive to find anybody that's willing to risk liver damage to do it for you, and harder to repair to a perfect match if it should ever need it.

 

Clear coat was first used on 3rd gens in 1986.

 

I have a 1984 T/A built in Van Nuys but is an export car to British Columbia Canada. I also have "Vehicle Vintage Services" from GM in Oshawa On. I checked the colour code & paint type option code. Paint code is 27 but the type is D03 which means paint water based master . I see no other option for paint to be clear coated.
I owned a 1981 Olds Cutlass built in Quebec & paint was Lacquer.

 

Thanks for your knowledge and clarifications, as always...
I'm very familiar with aircraft paint, having been in the aviation industry for 30 years.......Imron, Alumigrip, and others. Most of it is, in fact, nasty stuff. My good friend, (15 years my junior,) and I met as were were employed by the same Aviation company. He, as an aircraft painter, and I was in aircraft maintenance and modification management. I left the industry in 2005, he about 5 years later, to become the third generation of his family's Custom Paint and Body business started by his grandfather. I had not seen him in over 15 years, but I was led to him by a random FB post. Turned out his shop is just 25 minutes from my house. We've rekindled our friendship, he's painted a replacement front bumper cover for the 91 TA, and he's about to paint the front bumper cover on my 94 TA, because we all know that with age the Urethane discolors differently than plastic and steel.

 

Sorry, I guess I misspelled "Paint". I guess that's what happens when you make posts in the middle of the night.

 

My personal preference is to use base/clear on metallic colored vehicles (so it can be buffed out smooth) and single stage acrylic urethane on solid colored vehicles, unless they were painted with base/clear to begin with. I always think adding a clearcoat to a solid color that can be buffed out smooth without it is a waste of money and time since there is already mixing clear in the paint itself to give it plenty of gloss. The only advantages in adding a clearcoat to a solid color are a little extra UV protection and making the paint job slightly easier to buff out (usually). I think doing spot repairs on single stage paint is actually easier than two stage paint. Plus with two stage paint it's one more step to risk screwing up.

A lot of people apparently think having a clearcoat over paint makes it indestructible, but in reality the clear is just another layer of paint that has to be maintained. I don't know how many cars and trucks I've seen with clearcoats peeling off because owners neglected maintaining the paint. Any paintjob is going to look terrible after a while if it isn't neglected and is exposed to the elements.

 

Very true. I think the factories went to it for mass production type reasons as much as anything, as opposed to any kind of "better"; after all, if there's a flaw or damage in the clear, like a scratch or minor rail dust or something, it's MUCH easier to fix, than in a color coat. Stealership warranty difficulties probably prompted this although I have no proof, only a semi-uneducated guess.

 

Based on my experience with my Van Nuys 83, I would say it was a single stage, based on the way it deteriorated. Lacquer or enamel, I don't know offhand.

 

Van Nuys wouldn't have used lacquer because of the VOC's. My '78 Firebird - that was built at the Van Nuys plant - was originally sprayed with some sort of enamel. When I got that car in 1996 the paint on the good part of the body was in fairly decent condition. What did that paint job in was rust and poor body work.