PPG DDC/MTK

1qt DCC60080 Color (persian orange) = $64.05
1qt DT870 Reducer = $15.25
1/2pt DCX61 Hardener = $27.95

The mix is 4:2:1 color:reducer:hardener

The ready-to-spray (RTS) cost works out to be about $57/qt using all the materials. There is 1/2pt of DT reducer left over from the cost calculation but credit was taken for it, assuming it's not a waste. That's a lot more expensive than the OMNI MTK. I don't have current prices for the MTK60080 but when I bought a qt of color four years ago the price was $14.09. My guess is that the DCC is between 2 and 3 times the cost of the MTK on an RTS basis for the same color. The DCC is much thicker in the can than the MTK. But it is reduced more, since the MTK mix ratio is 4:1:1. So it goes farther on an RTS basis. For example; with 1 qt color, you get 1-3/4 qts sprayable with DCC and 1-1/2 qts sprayable with MTK.

Here's a visual comparison between the DCC and the MTK. The picture was taken in direct natural light - weak sun through thin clouds. The MTK is a little browner in shade and I personally think it is closer to the original Allis Chalmers early persian orange color than the DCC -surprisingly. If you look at the samples under indirect lighting and at an angle, the DCC takes on a more reddish appearance while the MTK stays much the same. Under those conditions, the difference is more noticeable than indicated by the photo.

For anyone interested, the actual PPG formulas for the 60080 are here for DCC and here for MTK. Your jobber will not have the DCC formula since PPG does not currently have that one in their computer system. If you want it, you'll have to convince the salesperson to call PPG and have the formula faxed - or use the one at the link. MTK60080 mix is on the computer, the one for DCC60080 is not. You'll notice on the DCC formula sheet there is a reference to "prophet formula". I think "prophet" is PPG's name for their computer matching system so I suspect the DCC formula was developed from a computer scan of something. I think I'll stick with the OMNI MTK. It's less expensive, plus I think it's a more accurate representation of the original color.

Another surprise for me: Neither of the samples had the appropriate hardener added. After a few hours, the DCC was quite dry to the touch, whereas even 24 hours later the MTK was still tacky. I expected that for the MTK but not the DCC. Hmmm? I doubt that adding the hardener and reducer would have the effect of changing the shade but I don't know. Anyone know or want to speculate?

Rod

You'll never know for sure if a DCC mix is closer to your expectation on that IH color than the MTK until you actually sample it for your own eyes to see. I think you can get it mixed in pints so I'd try some. You don't have to purchase the hardener (expensive by itself) if you are just checking the shade. That is unless I'm wrong about checking shades w/o adding hardener. I suspect that brush-spotting w/o hardener is a crude way to do it - but I think if it doesn't pass that test, then it's unlikely to pass a true sprayout. I could be wrong and I was searching for the thoughts of others about it. Who knows, that orange tint that concerns you with MTK may not exist in a DCC mix. You can't tell anything at all just by knowing and comparing the mixing tints in two different lines for the same code number. You have to actually see the two actual mixed products side-to-side to evaluate differences.