I am conflicted as to what I want to use on the 62 Jetfire. I prefer to be as close to original as possible but at the same time I can't stand maintaining, cleaning and polishing cars. I just want to build them and not ever have to do anything to it again including cleaning, lol. Now for reality.... I think base clear is going to require less maintenance and for sure like the thought of that. I used base clear on the W-30 and liked it but it was obviously not single stage when done. I am leaning towards base clear again but I feel the early 60's cars just don't look right when they are that shiny. Any thoughts or opinions on this?

 

If you saw my 66,then you will know what I'm talking about. It was painted with single stage but had 3-4 coats of clear on top. You would think it would look like a base clear job but it gave the illusion of a factory lacquer job. I had several guys/painters ask me about the look. If your car is a metallic color,hard to wet sand single stage. I think the bright shiny base clear jobs just don't look right on the older cars. If you like plastic fake looking paint,base clear.

 

Consider putting a bit of flattening agent in the clear. That will replicate the factory-paint sheen and you will still have the lower maintenance you are asking for.

I'm not sure about the mix ratios. Ask around and do some research to get the formulas that people have used for this. I've seen this successfully done on Corvettes--and you know how crazy some Vette owners can be about originality.

 

The 62 came with lacquer paint. Unless you plan to use lacquer again (which can be difficult to get in some areas), it won't be close to original anyway. Single stage enamel doesn't look like lacquer and you can't color sand it, so orange peel can be a problem. Either get lacquer or go with BC/CC.

 

There is........ Different clears. People talk about these plastic looking paint jobs. you have different clears for different jobs. High solids will be thick and look deep . ..... Now when i sprayed my 72 cutlass we sprayed it in PPG omni base which sucks but I had no choice. Then we cleared it with a "economy clear " from axalta . nason 496 we buffed it then once all the solvents truly evaporated out the clear shrunk down and appeared much thinner. Part of that was because it took 12 YES 12 coats of the copper poly to get coverage so we did trap some solvents even after extended flash times. What this does over time it makes the paint look thin and almost like a slightly aged lacquer paint job . i buffed the car again and It looks glossy but not 5 miles deep. It takes some time for the finish to truly dry even when baked in a booth. Most guys dont want to hear this but cheaper clears tend to "shrink" and the paint job will appear thinner over time. My advice. Make some test panels and see how the clear looks after its been given a quick buff. Most production clears tend to have the charecteristics I mentioned. I might add the only reason I can confirm this is because there has been 3 cars that i have seen painted with omni base coat that did the same exact thing. My boss's 69 impala 427 as which was done 12 years ago but they used a ppg clear and my sister's car which i did. It might not be a means to an end but that's my unique experince with bottom of the barrel materials they are thin but the downside is if you are paying for body work your shop wont want to use those materials and the logic for most is buy the best. Just fwiw.

 

FYI : Single stage paint is good only for solid colors. I painted mine with Delfleet essential white. The disadvantage of single stage is if it ever needs a repair you have to repaint the whole panel. Can’t be blended like base coat/ clear coat can. Other than that it’s a good durable paint that is better than most of the crappy paint they sell now.
water based.... really just expensive house paint...lol

 

There are a whole lot of metallic cars painted with single stage paint.

 

Probably is Joe , I’m just repeating what my painter said. Where I live paint choices aren’t what they used to be. Some guys drive a long way to get the good stuff. Maybe around here the metallic single stage isn’t available?

 

Metallic paint existed for decades before BC/CC came out. I've painted metallic lacquer and urethane enamel.

 

Yeah Acrylic lacquer I’ve used and acrylic enamel. The lacquer is more forgiving . Single stage sprays about pretty much the same as acrylic enamel. I like it because it’s less work than bc/cc and better durability. Jmo

 

I wouldn't listen to your painter ,obviously he is not a professional ,single stage paint can and does get blended without painting the whole panel . with single stage metallics ,as Joe said you can't sand and buff as it moves and exposes underlying metal flakes and it will look like hell ,but you can carefully polish the surface [ without sanding ] .base clear is a whole different ball game and is more time consuming, whatever you go with ,buy the best quality paint you can afford, there is a reason the cheap paint is cheap. the better quality paints are less work and more user friendly as well as better quality \durability. if you want paint to stick your undercoats have to be well sanded and clean ,prepping is 95% of the paint job.

 

I talked to 2 shops both long term professionals , both told me the same thing about trying to blend single stage paint.
can you do it yes, but in a year or 2 you’ll see it according to them. Maybe it’s just the paint we get in California I don’t know.
For my own car, I just wanted to put it back to the original color which happens to be white. Originally I was going to go
bc/cc but the painter suggested I go with single stage since it’s a solid color. Also this is a fleet paint so it’s very durable.
i did all the body work and sanding, primering, and brought them a car ready to mask and paint. The paint was about $250
and the shop charged me $750 to spray it. Brought it home and sanded, buffed everything, put it all back together.
im very happy with how it all came out.