Small chips in the paint

[recontango]

Check this thread out...

http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=75685

I did get mine repainted by the dealer. Was just the front fascia though, i haven't had problems with the gills, splash guards really help with that.

[lynnsblack2ss]

we had that issue too and it doesnt match!!!

[htp autoworks]

Its not GM guys. I am not a GM fan... especially now that its Government Motors but I am a clear bra installer and I hear the same complaing in EVERY forum I go to. It doesnt matter wether its the Mustang, BMW, Corvette, Viper, Ferrari, or 6Speedonline.... everytone is complaining about the same issues. It is the EPA standards that have been implemented over the last few years. Even the Harley Davidson guys are bitching. GM is not going to repaint cars because their hands are tied. This will be something that we will all have to deal with from now on... and it will only get worse. I think the worst part of all of this is its OUR TAX DOLLARS that are paying for these morons at the EPA to regualte OUR LIVES. In the end it all only costs us more money... and if they push Cap And Trade through... we will all be hurting. Not to promote the product but getting a clear bra is really your only solution... or a bra period. Unless you want to repaint your car often... and replace headlights.

[SmokinBills 2SS]

If your in Auburn Ca.I'm just a short drive down 80 in to Roseville if you want to stop the chips. i have my complete Camaro covered in clear bra. no rock chips,no scratches, no vandals able to key it,check out my garage pictures.and the work pics

[ibbilly]

I was worried about my babies paint. So I added Quarter flares before she got any chips. Cheap insurance I say! Got them from the link below. They have the best prices I have found anywhere.





No scratches yet

http://www.gmpartsdirect.com/results...ber=2010Camaro

[MuttGrunt]

^ no scratches AND doesn't look bad either!

The EPA has nothing to do with this. Anyone that has some background in paint work knows this to be true. Maybe the EPA has something to due with the less than stellar amount of orange peel on the factory spec jobs, but it has nothing to do with chipping. Rock chips have plagued cars forever, and it will continue to do so. There are steps to fighting them - paint protection film AKA clear-bras, fender covers like the post above, and using harder clear-coats from the factory (exactly what Ferrari and Lamborghini now do: PPG's Cerami-Clear).

The design of the car with the rear fenders sticking out is the culprit. Much like a beautiful woman: so sexy...so annoying.

[OSearcy4]

Originally Posted by SmokinBills 2SS

If your in Auburn Ca.I'm just a short drive down 80 in to Roseville if you want to stop the chips. i have my complete Camaro covered in clear bra. no rock chips,no scratches, no vandals able to key it,check out my garage pictures.and the work pics

I'm actually in Auburn AL. How much do those clear bras cost? It sucks paying 35,000 for a car then another 1000 on a bra...

[OSearcy4]

Originally Posted by MuttGrunt

^ no scratches AND doesn't look bad either!

The EPA has nothing to do with this. Anyone that has some background in paint work knows this to be true. Maybe the EPA has something to due with the less than stellar amount of orange peel on the factory spec jobs, but it has nothing to do with chipping. Rock chips have plagued cars forever, and it will continue to do so. There are steps to fighting them - paint protection film AKA clear-bras, fender covers like the post above, and using harder clear-coats from the factory (exactly what Ferrari and Lamborghini now do: PPG's Cerami-Clear).

The design of the car with the rear fenders sticking out is the culprit. Much like a beautiful woman: so sexy...so annoying.

I definately have to agree. I think they didn't clear coat the cars or if they did it was a very very thin clear coat. I know the EPA probably limits the kind of paint they can use, probably water based, however you put a 1/8 inch clear coat over any paint, problem solved... If I can get them to repaint mine i'm going straight to a paint shop to get a better clear coat, shouldn't be that much being they clear coat every car they paint.

[MuttGrunt]

^ not quite OS

here's a better explanation I gave: http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showpo...7&postcount=48

[OSearcy4]

Originally Posted by MuttGrunt

^ not quite OS

here's a better explanation I gave: http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showpo...7&postcount=48

I understand your reasoning, however the rock thing is a little off. If a car in front of you runs over a rock, it doesn't sling the rock back it only picks the rock up into the air. The rock would be traveling with the motion of the car, say the car passes at 70 mph and runs over the rock throwing it into the air. The rock is going to travel in the direction of the car at a much slower rate possibly 15 mph, it doesn't sling the rock backwards that's not possible the cars tires would have to be spinning faster than the rate the car was traveling forward, ie spinning tires. So traveling behind this car at the same speed would mean the rock hits your car at the speed you are traveling 70 mph minus the speed the rock is also traveling in the same direction 15 mph = 65 mph, now given that's still enough to do damage, here's the big question:

Why is this happening to new cars especially camaros and not to older cars? I have a 97 Camaro with 130,000 miles on it and not one chip in the paint on the front end. And the front end is made of the same plastic but its black and my car is white so if it did chip they would be very noticeable.

What are they doing different now that they weren't doing then. In a years time my 97 camaro's paint job is gonna look better than my 2010.

[htp autoworks]

Like I stated above, it is what can be used in paints and clear coats these days... which is governed by the EPA. Do some research on the net. There is a ton of information out there... and it is across the board. Dont beleive me... go into any other car forum and do a search for rock chips. I go through about 12 different ones a day and its a hot topic in every single one.

[MuttGrunt]

Originally Posted by OSearcy4

I understand your reasoning, however the rock thing is a little off. If a car in front of you runs over a rock, it doesn't sling the rock back it only picks the rock up into the air. The rock would be traveling with the motion of the car, say the car passes at 70 mph and runs over the rock throwing it into the air. The rock is going to travel in the direction of the car at a much slower rate possibly 15 mph, it doesn't sling the rock backwards that's not possible the cars tires would have to be spinning faster than the rate the car was traveling forward, ie spinning tires. So traveling behind this car at the same speed would mean the rock hits your car at the speed you are traveling 70 mph minus the speed the rock is also traveling in the same direction 15 mph = 65 mph, now given that's still enough to do damage, here's the big question:

Why is this happening to new cars especially camaros and not to older cars? I have a 97 Camaro with 130,000 miles on it and not one chip in the paint on the front end. And the front end is made of the same plastic but its black and my car is white so if it did chip they would be very noticeable.

What are they doing different now that they weren't doing then. In a years time my 97 camaro's paint job is gonna look better than my 2010.

Potentially - maybe.
This would be to say that a rock isn't ever sticking to the rear tires of the car in front of you for ANY amount of time, but if so - the rotational inertia of the tire would/could in fact sling the rock at some speed.
If I was a betting man, I'd bet a kicked up rock is moving at a velocity greater than 0 m/s. Surely I don't think this is ALWAYS the case, but I'd find it hard to believe it's not the norm. Sure, maybe not 10-40 mph, but will a 5mph difference change things? possibly. It'd be interesting to find out some real information
Someone send this question into MythBusters

Why it's not happening on your older Camaro? Great question. I'd be interested to find out as well. How has paint technology, rules/regulations, standards, and application methods changed over time? There are so many factors that I believe it is simply unfair to cry foul at one specific area and believe that is the culprit.

Originally Posted by htp autoworks

Like I stated above, it is what can be used in paints and clear coats these days... which is governed by the EPA. Do some research on the net. There is a ton of information out there... and it is across the board. Dont beleive me... go into any other car forum and do a search for rock chips. I go through about 12 different ones a day and its a hot topic in every single one.

Well there. I see you're not a fan of the EPA. I hope you and other's realized one of the biggest things the EPA has done over the years is change the law and regulations on VOC's. Lowering the amount of VOC's that a place is allowed to use is, IMHO, the reason so many modern cars have such UGLY paint jobs (anyone else notice the amount of orange peel on most new cars?), but it surely isn't the most likely reason for rock chips.
VOC's (Volatile Organic Compounds) are the portions of the paint that DO NOT stay behind when the paint in a 2k (Two Komponent / Two Component) paint job is done AKA it's the stuff that floats away into the atmosphere. Forcing shops to use less VOC's results in a thicker paint which doesn't atomize as well, which leads to more orange peel in anything being sprayed - especially nasty thick clear-coat. What it doesn't do is make paint "softer" somehow. That's just not how things work. I don't care what GM's reps or anyone else says that has no experience working with paint. I actually encourage people here to go and speak to the best paint shop in your area - ask people about VOC laws and how it affects things, etc. Don't just trust me b/c I'm some guy on the internet - go talk to real people and get real answers (which is how I've learned my information btw).


I challenge you guys this: the age old question I still can't find an answer to no matter who I talk with:

Why do some manufactures use softer clear coats than others?
I'm not talking about Super hard clear's like Lambo and Mercedes Benz are using - I'm talking normal everyday clears.
Your Camaros have what would be considered medium hardness clear-coat on them. If you think it's soft - go get a Porsche, Bentley, or Honda and you'll see what REAL soft paint is really like.
I don't know the answer to that question. I wonder if it has to do with the flexibility of the clear-coat. Maybe the durability over time? Maybe it's just plain 'ol price: maybe it's cheaper stuff. Maybe it has to do with UV ray blocking agents, or how the clear affects the gloss-look of the finish. I don't know.

Lastly...
Speaking of chips: they'll always be an issue. They've always been an issue. Guy's with F430's look at it as an issue and they have the hardest clear-coats available. Just because people talk more and more about it now doesn't mean it doesn't affect older cars. When it comes down to it: we're car enthusiasts. We take more pride of our rides than the general population. We pay more attention to our rides than the general population. Hence why you won't find a huge forum on Toyota Camry's in which people are spending big money to protect their car from rock chips, nor do they pay attention to them.

[MuttGrunt]

Oh and I almost forgot: because you're Camaro is made in Canada - it isn't governed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Addtionally, I believe Canada has standards that are more strict on VOC laws and wouldn't be surprised if they forced all factory paint base-coat jobs to be water based. Regardless, clear-coat is still solvent borne/ solvent based

[tangorover]

Almost all new cars are like this. Ironically the only way to get a car that wont chip easily is to get a car made in Korea :-) My friend's New BMW 3 series also has a ton of chips and says the reason is the same as us. Its the new environmental regulations taht keep making the paint layers thinner.