Another budget paint job technique

http://lifehacker.com/5865824/how-to-paint-your-car-for-less-than-100

I still think I'm going to just spring for an inexpensive pro job when I do my Golf.

http://honda-tech.com/showthread.php?t=1555133

Covers every thing

That's the roller method. The method I posted was the brush method- which supposedly involves less sanding.

I have no idea, since I've never tried either method.

Huh. I know that Baretta. I thought he did a roller, but guess not. I can tell you it does look pretty nice, or at least it did a few years ago when I saw it.

The only difference is he used foam brushes instead of foam rollers, and still had sanding to do at the end, I see this as a much slower method with less gurantee on the paint leveling correctly since the coverage will be less even with a brush than with the roller method, which I have personally used. It is different, but for the effort, I'm a fan of the roller, especially when you realize how thin you have to cut the paint and how many times you'll have to go over an area to ensure you remove bubbles as the paint sets up...

This is an instance where I don't think the process or result are "GRM" so much as a misuse of tools.

One could surface a cylinder head with a file, too. It just results in a really bad job.

If you want to paint cars, get a cheap HVLP gun, borrow a compressor, and get some acrylic automotive enamel. It's not that much money, and you car will end up looking like a car.

(Hey! you kids! Get off my lawn!)

Errr, disagree with the above.

I've painted both ways. Rolling is truly GRM. It avoids several pitfalls of spraying: equipment, overspray, materials cost, toxic fumes. Rolling is kind of fun, in a "I can't believe I'm doing this!" sort of way. If I'm trying to do a really nice job, I spray. If I'm just trying to be a step above Maaco, rolling is fine.

motomoron wrote: This is an instance where I don't think the process or result are "GRM" so much as a misuse of tools. One could surface a cylinder head with a file, too. It just results in a really bad job. If you want to paint cars, get a cheap HVLP gun, borrow a compressor, and get some acrylic automotive enamel. It's not that much money, and you car will end up looking like a car. (Hey! you kids! Get off my lawn!)

So, you're basically going for the "instant gratification" over going for the methods used by the older generations. Automotive paint used to be applied by brush and it was considered the way to turn out beautiful vehicles with love and care applied to their build.

Sounds like you've mixed your stances there ;)

Raze wrote: I see this as a much slower method with less gurantee on the paint leveling correctly since the coverage will be less even with a brush than with the roller method, which I have personally used.

nice job!

I thought about rolling the e21 when the time comes but I allready have the spray equipment and I hate sanding so I'll spray it.

when I paint the datsun I will spray it with rustoleum

I think rollers are awesome - for painting interior walls. And I skim coated every square inch of our house, laid on a coat of hi-build primer, and followed w/ 2 coats of Ben Moore Regal.

And I cut every inch w/ a sash brush - not tape.

Yes - Automotive lacquer was once brushed. Before spray equipment was widely available. Machine shops used to have bed planers and shapers and horizontal mills before vertical knee mills replaced all of those.

Now parts that can't be die cast are CNC machined, so most of the millions of nice American made vertical knee mills have been sold as scrap to China where their iron is now coming back in the form of Harbor Freight tools.

I guess my issue is one of perfectionism. I can do a better-than-Maaco paint job in a weekend that looks like an automotive paint job. I'd rather invest in tools and learn a new skill and be able to have that in my quiver going forward. Assuming that preparation is most of the work associated with a paint job - an air DA sander and a box of 400 grit discs, a few burgundy and grey Scotchbrite pads and maybe 3-4 hours and an average car is scuffed. 2 hours for a crappy tape job, shoot the whole car with sealer, nib it and tack it, and shoot 2 wet coats of acrylic enamel. You're done in a day.

I don't know - roller painting a car seems disrespectful to the car.

I shot this one in about 2 hours. The prep took 100s of hours but the actual shooting of paint was about 10-noon one day..

What kind of tape would one use to mask a sharp line? Thinking about painting the top of the 944 in white. The (currently red) paint sucks on the hood/roof and using white would help keep it cooler during track days.

In reply to Teggsan:

Paint is passable on the sides.

motomoron wrote: I shot this one in about 2 hours. The prep took 100s of hours but the actual shooting of paint was about 10-noon one day..

It's all in the prep, regardless of method. I know a lot of the roller jobs don't look very good because people rush them, but it can look every bit as nice as a sprayed job if you take your time. My first and only roller job: And I'll admit, it's better than my first spray job by a wide margin.

In reply to JoeyM:

Thanks, and 2 years later it's holding up well, though we finally beat some paint off of it around the front wheel arches when we rolled the fenders and reattached the cladding:

As for the merrits of rolling vs spraying, I personally feel if it's not a track/auto-x/grm/car worth less than the paint, then you should spray, with proper paint. If it's any of the above and you're tired of looking at primer/rust/clear-peel, etc, rolling is the way to go.

About rolling- has anyone done it with something other thatn rustoleum? As in even the cheap duplicolor that's available at most auto stores?

Seems like the biggest complaint is more about the paint than the technique- will it chalk or not? If you did it with paint that is designed for sun (not arguing about the merits of Rustolum, btw- just asking about cheap auto paint)- is there a good thinner that you could do the same thing with?

While duplicolor type paints are more expensive, it's not as if they are going to be a major hole in your pocket. Heck I can get a 32oz can of the finish system for about $25.

Anybody know a way to thin auto paint so that it can be rolled?

I have the same questions as alfadriver.

I want to roll on some paint, but I'd miss the flake in the original paint.

And why doesn't anyone roll on clear at the end?

In reply to alfadriver:

Yes, I used WestMarine SeaGlossPro Topside Boat Paint... 1-part poly... has UV inhibitors... made for boats in a marine environment... shiny/glossy no chalking... toxic fumes, even rolled on, required ventilation... mineral spirits used to thin it... 1 qt for $35 covered the entire car thinned 3:1... tough paint, very smooth, self leveling... as I said in my other thread, I would love to see this paint thinned and sprayed... I didn't clear mine because it's on a track car and it's high gloss paint designed for no-clear on a boat...

In reply to Raze:

I must try this on my AutoX buggies . . .

How are these methods cheaper then spraying?

93EXCivic wrote: How are these methods cheaper then spraying?

If you have no compressor and paint gun then $20 worth of rollers wins every time, by a very large margin.

ditchdigger wrote:

93EXCivic wrote: How are these methods cheaper then spraying?

If you have no compressor and paint gun then $20 worth of rollers wins every time, by a very large margin.

But in terms of raw materials, it isn't?

I'd imagine you'd lose more paint into the air with a sprayer

93EXCivic wrote:

ditchdigger wrote:

93EXCivic wrote: How are these methods cheaper then spraying?

If you have no compressor and paint gun then $20 worth of rollers wins every time, by a very large margin.

But in terms of raw materials, it isn't?

Not really cheaper than spraying Rustoleum, but WAY cheaper than spraying actual automotive paint. I guess it is a little cheaper because some paint gets lost in the air when you spray, but it's pretty marginal.