twaldron

My 90 YJ paint was MUCH worse than my 99TJ was or my 03TJ is. I think
the 99 was the best of the three as far as paint goes. Those carwash
brushes are notorious for scratching paint.

Eugene D'Jeep wrote:

> Is it me, or is the factory paint job on my Jeep shoddy? I've got
> scratches on the hood from when I washed it a few months ago at a car
> wash. The scratches came from the foaming brush. This morning I noticed
> a scratch under the windshield. It came from my clearing snow from the
> hood.
> The reason I ask is that my '91 YJ has hardly any scratches on it,
> and while I didn't run it through any carwashes for at least the first
> six years, I did use a foaming brush. NO SCRATCHES. Twelve winters
> later, after using anything from ice scrapers to push brooms, still NO
> SCRATCHES.
> Has anyone here noticed the same thing?
>

--
__________________________________________________ _________
tw
03 TJ Rubicon
01 XJ Sport

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting
to me, because as we know, there are known knowns, there are things
we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to
say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also
unknown unknowns — the ones we don't know we don't know."
-- Donald Rumsfeld (2003)

"I think that gay marriage is something that should be between a man and
a woman."
-- Arnold Schwarzenegger (2003)

__________________________________________________ _________

twaldron

My 90 YJ paint was MUCH worse than my 99TJ was or my 03TJ is. I think
the 99 was the best of the three as far as paint goes. Those carwash
brushes are notorious for scratching paint.

Eugene D'Jeep wrote:

> Is it me, or is the factory paint job on my Jeep shoddy? I've got
> scratches on the hood from when I washed it a few months ago at a car
> wash. The scratches came from the foaming brush. This morning I noticed
> a scratch under the windshield. It came from my clearing snow from the
> hood.
> The reason I ask is that my '91 YJ has hardly any scratches on it,
> and while I didn't run it through any carwashes for at least the first
> six years, I did use a foaming brush. NO SCRATCHES. Twelve winters
> later, after using anything from ice scrapers to push brooms, still NO
> SCRATCHES.
> Has anyone here noticed the same thing?
>

--
__________________________________________________ _________
tw
03 TJ Rubicon
01 XJ Sport

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting
to me, because as we know, there are known knowns, there are things
we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to
say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also
unknown unknowns — the ones we don't know we don't know."
-- Donald Rumsfeld (2003)

"I think that gay marriage is something that should be between a man and
a woman."
-- Arnold Schwarzenegger (2003)

__________________________________________________ _________

Lon Stowell

Roughly 12/12/03 19:31, DougW's monkeys randomly typed:

> Lon Stowell did pass the time by typing:
>> Roughly 12/12/03 17:35, DougW's monkeys randomly typed:
>>
>>> Eugene D'Jeep did pass the time by typing:
>>>> Yea, I remember when Nathan brought up the issue of the bad paint job
>>>> on his Rubicon. I didn't see the photos, but after seeing the way that
>>>> the paint can easily scratch, I can imagine.
>>>
>>> They stopped making good paint when they took the lead out.
>>> I miss good old GM code 12 white. Couldn't hurt that paint.
>>
>> When did they go from the old dino solvent based to water based?
>
> Sometime in the late 80's I think. It was the year that Ford and some
> other makers had problems with paint pealing off their cars due
> to incompatibility with the basecoat.

Blew that theory then. I can remember when Chrysler amongst
a few others had trouble with paint voids due to underarm
deodorant flakes from workers getting on the vehicle, but
was just wondering if it was the move to the low-vapor
paints that started it.

The missus '95 ZJ has paint in excellent condition, but I've
seen scary stuff on some of the SWB's on the local dealer lot
in the new models.

Wonder what the heck else they did recently to make the paint
so unbelievably fragile? Cut down on the amount to save
weight? Different formula? Anyone know?

--
Fan of the dumbest team in America.

Lon Stowell

Roughly 12/12/03 19:31, DougW's monkeys randomly typed:

> Lon Stowell did pass the time by typing:
>> Roughly 12/12/03 17:35, DougW's monkeys randomly typed:
>>
>>> Eugene D'Jeep did pass the time by typing:
>>>> Yea, I remember when Nathan brought up the issue of the bad paint job
>>>> on his Rubicon. I didn't see the photos, but after seeing the way that
>>>> the paint can easily scratch, I can imagine.
>>>
>>> They stopped making good paint when they took the lead out.
>>> I miss good old GM code 12 white. Couldn't hurt that paint.
>>
>> When did they go from the old dino solvent based to water based?
>
> Sometime in the late 80's I think. It was the year that Ford and some
> other makers had problems with paint pealing off their cars due
> to incompatibility with the basecoat.

Blew that theory then. I can remember when Chrysler amongst
a few others had trouble with paint voids due to underarm
deodorant flakes from workers getting on the vehicle, but
was just wondering if it was the move to the low-vapor
paints that started it.

The missus '95 ZJ has paint in excellent condition, but I've
seen scary stuff on some of the SWB's on the local dealer lot
in the new models.

Wonder what the heck else they did recently to make the paint
so unbelievably fragile? Cut down on the amount to save
weight? Different formula? Anyone know?

--
Fan of the dumbest team in America.

Lon Stowell

Roughly 12/12/03 19:31, DougW's monkeys randomly typed:

> Lon Stowell did pass the time by typing:
>> Roughly 12/12/03 17:35, DougW's monkeys randomly typed:
>>
>>> Eugene D'Jeep did pass the time by typing:
>>>> Yea, I remember when Nathan brought up the issue of the bad paint job
>>>> on his Rubicon. I didn't see the photos, but after seeing the way that
>>>> the paint can easily scratch, I can imagine.
>>>
>>> They stopped making good paint when they took the lead out.
>>> I miss good old GM code 12 white. Couldn't hurt that paint.
>>
>> When did they go from the old dino solvent based to water based?
>
> Sometime in the late 80's I think. It was the year that Ford and some
> other makers had problems with paint pealing off their cars due
> to incompatibility with the basecoat.

Blew that theory then. I can remember when Chrysler amongst
a few others had trouble with paint voids due to underarm
deodorant flakes from workers getting on the vehicle, but
was just wondering if it was the move to the low-vapor
paints that started it.

The missus '95 ZJ has paint in excellent condition, but I've
seen scary stuff on some of the SWB's on the local dealer lot
in the new models.

Wonder what the heck else they did recently to make the paint
so unbelievably fragile? Cut down on the amount to save
weight? Different formula? Anyone know?

--
Fan of the dumbest team in America.

DougW

Lon Stowell did pass the time by typing:

>
> Wonder what the heck else they did recently to make the paint
> so unbelievably fragile? Cut down on the amount to save
> weight? Different formula? Anyone know?

If you believe the folks at the local repair shop here it's because
they are spraying it on thinner to save production cost. You just
can't buff off the oxidation anymore without worrying about burning
through. :/ I've got some "Texas pinstripes" on one side that went
right through to the undercoat. mumble.. dang bodark bushes.

--
DougW

DougW

Lon Stowell did pass the time by typing:

>
> Wonder what the heck else they did recently to make the paint
> so unbelievably fragile? Cut down on the amount to save
> weight? Different formula? Anyone know?

If you believe the folks at the local repair shop here it's because
they are spraying it on thinner to save production cost. You just
can't buff off the oxidation anymore without worrying about burning
through. :/ I've got some "Texas pinstripes" on one side that went
right through to the undercoat. mumble.. dang bodark bushes.

--
DougW

DougW

Lon Stowell did pass the time by typing:

>
> Wonder what the heck else they did recently to make the paint
> so unbelievably fragile? Cut down on the amount to save
> weight? Different formula? Anyone know?

If you believe the folks at the local repair shop here it's because
they are spraying it on thinner to save production cost. You just
can't buff off the oxidation anymore without worrying about burning
through. :/ I've got some "Texas pinstripes" on one side that went
right through to the undercoat. mumble.. dang bodark bushes.

--
DougW