|
B---, I hope you didn't feel that I was dumping on premium products or contadicting your post or the products you use in any way. That certainly wasn't my intention. I agree fully with your position here and if I were you, doing similar things, I'd take the exact same position as you. Before I repainted the bumper on my wife's car a couple of years ago, I did comparison sprayouts using PPG's Deltron DBU basecoat and their OMNI MBC basecoat. Those products had a similar cost difference of between two and three times, even after considering that three coats might have to used with the MBC and only two with the DBU. I decided to go with the DBU, not because I had already purchased it but because it was a better color match with the rest of the car. The MBC was noticeably different when you compared the sprayout up close to an existing fender. The extra cost for the DBU was worth it for the better attention paid ($$$) by PPG to color matching. However, the MBC was close enough such that for an overall paint job, one would not notice any difference at all unless two cars of the same were parked right next to each other. Those in the business of collision repair will rightfully say that there are other reasons to use the premium products also, such as time (and money) saved by using one less coat, manufacturer's warranty if a "system" is used throughout and, as you indicate, stock on hand. Since I am an individual, not a PPG trained, "authorized" shop, and do painting only for myself, such aspects have little value to me. Plus I cannot pass any costs along to anyone else - it all comes out of my own pocket. For that reason, I gave up on DP (now DPLF) several years ago because of what I think is an excellent alternative at a far lower cost in OMNI MP170. That's not to say that I dislike DPLF epoxy in any way. It's great stuff, although I don't know if it's as good now as it was (as DP) before they took the lead out. I just believe I am getting a bigger bang for my buck with the MP170. I could be wrong in all this of course since painting is not my profession and never was. I am a DIY at best. Not even a "hobbyist". But I simply fail to see that DPLF has twice the performance of MP170 or that DCC has twice the performance of MTK. There may well be some long term performance benefits (other than OEM color matching) for paying a lot more for the premium lines but it is not apparent to me at this time. Maybe the DCC has better chip resistance. I don't know. It would have to have some demonstrated actual performance improvement over MTK for me to spring for that much higher cost for the work I do. In other words, if a product is going to cost me twice as much, I'd like to see twice the performance or at least something to justify the extra cost besides a loose reference to "premium is better". I'm a believer in "you get what you pay for" but there is a point where the incremental gain(s) are not worth the additional expense. The concept of diminishing returns is a real one. It's a personal evaluation that everyone has to make for himself given his unique situation. Anyway, we all tend to recommend the products we use ourselves and have had good luck with. That's understandable, from the cheapest alkyd to the most expensive polyurethane. There's nothing wrong with that. Nobody can be experienced with all the many different paint products available. The reader will just have to sort through all the opinions and judgments and come to their own conclusion, based on their own goals and budget. There is no single answer for any particular situation. I suspect that the majority of the readers here are not shooting for "show quality" in their projects and that cost is usually a factor. One thing about this board that is nice is that it covers the whole range of possibilities just because of the varied interests of the participants. All the way from minimal painting of a plow that is going to see a lot of dirty work to show tractors that never see anything but a parade once a year and for which cost is no object. If you go to any of the automotive painting forums, the background is generally all automotive and the regular posters who provide answers are usually either very advanced hobbyists or professional automotive painters that do it for a living. That's good as far as it goes but I think it provides a somewhat limited perspective on things, especially regarding cost and practicality for non-automotive work. I take the position there is a very significant difference between painting tractors and painting cars. There are commonalities, to be sure, but what is common for a car does not necessarily mean it's the best choice for a tractor. You don't find the significant dissassembly with cars that you need for tractors. I like having the backsides of things painted. That usually means complete dissasembly of parts and doing things piecemeal over long periods. As CNKS indicates below, that can result in a lot of wasted paint - much more so than with cars that are typically done all at once. There is very little information on dealing with cast iron in the auto world. The whole concept of surfacers or filler-primers, while second nature to the auto painter, is quite out of place and unnecessary on the significant cast portions of tractors. The whole idea of color sanding and compounding, common in the auto world, and feasible for some tractor components like hoods and fenders, is not practical on many parts simply because of their irregular configuration. And it wouldn't be appropriate on castings. Newbies to tractor painting might not know such things. I'm sure there are many readers that think my use of automotive paint, even from the cheaper "value" line is excessive and costs too much. Depending on their goals for their particular project, they could be right. No one size fits all. BTW, posting pictures, links and other embellishments in a post is quite easy once you know how. If you or anyone else would like an explanation of the how, just ask. Maybe I could help take any mystery out of it. You don't have to be a computer geek to do it. There is no secret about it. The "post preview" feature of this site is great because you can actually see if your picture or other alteration is going to show up as you want it to before actual posting. So you should be encouraged to try it. If it doesn't turn out in preview the way you want, just back up, make a correction and try again. It won't show up in the forum until you hit the final "post" button. If you can follow simple instructions, you'll have it down pat in no time. I am glad Kim permits us to use html coding in posts. As long as it is not abused (like with fancy colors and animations), it can add something of value to posts. Pictures, as long as they are not excessively large can add a lot. A single picture can be added without any coding at all as long as it's on the net somewhere - or in the photo galleries on this site. A single link can be added also without coding but it will be located at the bottom of the post and not integrated into the text. Multiple pictures in the same post, links embedded in the text, multiple links or other refinements like bold or italic text require some simple coding by the poster in his post box. The reader sees only the result of the coding. Rod
|
