Clear coat gas tank?

Ok, I may just have to go back to Imron for the next paint job. Polyurethane/enamel.

It's a bitch cause it doesn't hide anything and it's as nasty as it comes to breath. [breathing air supply is necessary] If you need to sand it, it's like sanding a piece of glass. But boy is it scratch and pit resistant. It is now available in a basecoat clearcoat in the 6000 series which I have never tried.

But if it is as good as the 2000 series single coat system it should be great.

o0norton0o said:

Gortnipper, it sounds like the finisher did use a hardener to me. Catalyzed finishes usually cure fast. The Por15 Glisten, according to the por website is not a catalyzed finish, so that may have been the problem right there. It


The Por-15 2K is a catalyzed finish. In fact on the information page for the 2k, it says, "Replaces Glisten-PC, Hardnose" It's pot life is 2 hours, and it's dry time is 12 hours. I've never experimented with it, so I can't say how good it is.

As far as what Jim is talking about finishes drying for weeks, all finishes have something called "solvent trap", where the exposed surface drys first and it traps solvent in the finish which takes a while to evaporate out. The surface still dries relatively quickly so it should be usable within a few days, but not fully hardened. Then, in the coming weeks the rest of the solvents gas off to full cure and you get full hardness.



I used spraymax 2k. I believe eastwood company repackages spraymax as their own product, if it's available down under, I wouldn't know, but it's good shit... It's made in germany... This is what I would use...

https://www.spraymax.com/en-us/products/product/clear-coats-and-spot-blender/2k-clear-glamour/

Click to expand...

So that might be it, as I did wait the "few days".

But there is also a problem with how the tank is built.

If you look at the top pic I posted, you can see the filler sits in a recess on the tank, but the flange of the filler is pretty close down on the body of the tank. So much so that any finish spray likely does not get fully into that "trough".

On a standard.tank the next is much more proud.of the tank body.

So if fuel collected in that trough and creeped under the edge of the Por15 and got under the solvent trap, that would explain the bubbling of the other pic.

Would.it explain the yellowing of the finish running down the sides?

FWIW
I replaced my old fuel cap with a brand new AN one I had ordered for a project. I thought I was having a problem with the old cap venting properly. Within 24 hours the rubber seal turned to mush. I installed the old seal on the new cap and it has been on for almost 3 years ( and I believe that is the original seal) and no problem. Kinda leads me to believe there was an issue with material at some point in time.
Pete

I agree with you gortnipper. The design of your filler neck makes it nearly impossible to get any finish in the valley of the neck and up the outside of that neck. That's the only way gas laying in there would evaporate rather than creep under the finish.

I think the "Glisten" is the wrong finish there since it's not catalyzed.

gortnipper said:

So that might be it, as I did wait the "few days".

But there is also a problem with how the tank is built.

If you look at the top pic I posted, you can see the filler sits in a recess on the tank, but the flange of the filler is pretty close down on the body of the tank. So much so that any finish spray likely does not get fully into that "trough".

On a standard.tank the next is much more proud.of the tank body.

So if fuel collected in that trough and creeped under the edge of the Por15 and got under the solvent trap, that would explain the bubbling of the other pic.

Would.it explain the yellowing of the finish running down the sides?

Click to expand...

You are correct, that area is problematic, but not impossible to paint. On the two tanks I have painted with poly, I used scuff pads (after stripper) to get the recess and neck clean and ready for paint, then I masked the entire cap flange so there'd be no place for "creep". Poly flows well enough to cover the recess and any excess fuel would drip into the recess below where the paint ends. Shoot a coat of clear with the tank suspended bottom-up and the flow covers the outside of the neck up into the inside of the flange. A good fuel cap seal gasket and careful fueling are the best protection, but proper painting technique is essential.

Sadly, you have some real modifications to make... Here's what I would do. Yes, I'm crazy... so take my advise with a grain of salt. My best friend always warns me that I'm pretty fearless in my modification attempts so I will fuck some stuff up occasionally because of my risk tollerance.

First, I would get an 8" x 11" polyethelene plastic sheet and cut out the filler neck outside shape as tight as I could. I'd stretch the sheet of plastic over the filler neck and tape it's outside borders down. Then I would take a few hack saw blades and saw into the flange of the filler neck by laying the hacksaw blade flat on the plastic and relieving the flange. Basically, you are cutting down the flange to create space between the bottom of the flange and the body of the tank, so you can get access to the filler neck recess to clean it, scuff it, and apply finish to it.

When I was done cutting and sanding the flange edge smooth, I would prep the entire tank for finishing, then mask off the tank leaving a 1/2" border around the filler neck. I'd pop the can of spraymax 2K and apply finish to the exposed filler neck area in any way necessary to get the whole valley of the recess and up the filler neck too. I wouldn't worry about perfection as much as complete coverage. I'd spray a second coat, then wait overnight.

The next day, I would pull the masking and scuff the edge of yesterday's finish work, then spray the whole tank. I'd come back a few hours later, inspect my coverage, and spray another coat. A few hours after that, I'd go inspect the finish again. If it had no "hungry" spots where I didn't lay down enough material to have the coat flow out well, I would leave it alone as "good enough". If I thought I could eliminate some orange peel by laying a heavier last coat, I might do that, but of course be risking getting a run in my top coat... by trying to load up a heavy coat of material.

I did that last year and caused a small run above the norton logo on my interstate tank. I lived with it for a year because I didn't know how good the spraymax 2K material was at resisting fuel spillage, and didn't want to go to extra lengths to have a perfect finish when I didn't even know if the finish would be fuel resistant. This year, I sprayed new side covers for my commando and wet sanded out the run and any orange peel on the tank then reapplied the spraymax 2K again. It really came out great due to the wet sanding...

Anyway, That's my crazy idea...

comnoz said:

Ok, I may just have to go back to Imron for the next paint job. Polyurethane/enamel.

It's a bitch cause it doesn't hide anything and it's as nasty as it comes to breath. [breathing air supply is necessary] If you need to sand it, it's like sanding a piece of glass. But boy is it scratch and pit resistant. It is now available in a basecoat clearcoat in the 6000 series which I have never tried.

But if it is as good as the 2000 series single coat system it should be great.

PCI Magazine | Solutions for coatings formulators and manufacturers

PCI is the global voice that offers technical solutions for the coatings, inks and adhesives industries, targeting formulators and manufacturers.

www.pcimag.com

Click to expand...

I think you will find that "straight" urethanes like Imron and Delthane (now replaced by Delfleet) have changed a lot since that article was published 14 years ago. Clearcoats for basecoat/clearcoat systems have gotten much better and are much safer to apply than the isocyanate catalyzed urethanes.

Any catalyzed system will surface cure much faster than non-catalyzed (single pack), but will require a couple weeks to achieve full through cure. I never put a newly painted (basecoat/clearcoat) tank into service until at least two weeks. I have never had an issue with fuel blistering the clearcoat.

I'm certainly not a professional painter, but I did spend 39 years in polymer and paint development.

Ron L said:

I think you will find that "straight" urethanes like Imron and Delthane (now replaced by Delfleet) have changed a lot since that article was published 14 years ago. Clearcoats for basecoat/clearcoat systems have gotten much better and are much safer to apply than the isocyanate catalyzed urethanes.

Any catalyzed system will surface cure much faster than non-catalyzed (single pack), but will require a couple weeks to achieve full through cure. I never put a newly painted (basecoat/clearcoat) tank into service until at least two weeks. I have never had an issue with fuel blistering the clearcoat.

I'm certainly not a professional painter, but I did spend 39 years in polymer and paint development.

Click to expand...

I am sure your correct.

And I haven't done an Imron paint job for well over 14 years so I am more behind than that article....

But I have not done a basecoat clearcoat yet on a dark colored car that has stood up to the Pueblo sunshine for more than ~5 years.

But I have old Imron that sill looks wet after 30 years. Just slightly faded.

comnoz said:

I am sure your correct.

And I haven't done an Imron paint job for well over 14 years so I am more behind than that article....

But I have not done a basecoat clearcoat yet on a dark colored car that has stood up to the Pueblo sunshine for more than ~5 years.

But I have old Imron that sill looks wet after 30 years. Just slightly faded.

Click to expand...

Imron was great IMHO!

I had a frame painted with Imron years ago. Good luck ever removing it. Damn near as tough as powder coat.

Can you still buy Imron?

jaydee75 said:

Can you still buy Imron?

Click to expand...

Yes, but it is not the same as it was years ago. It is now more environmentally and user friendly. I don't know how that affects it durability but I would suspect it is now similar to most 2 pack urethane paints.

The original Imron was much harder and more scratch and pit resistant than powder coat. But it was less malleable and if you hit a edge or corner it could shatter like glass where powder coat would just dent.

I used two-part POR-15 on a cockpit table that has stood up well to the test of abuse. The bad news is that it is a bitch to get it to self-level and the cure time is long. I've had extremely good luck with Interthane's two-part paints. They self-level easily and provide a hard and durable finish, even in very thin coats. The bad news is that Interthane keeps changing the names of their products and its hard to know whether they are actually changing the formulation or just updating the branding.

comnoz said:

Yes, but it is not the same as it was years ago. It is now more environmentally and user friendly. I don't know how that affects it durability but I would suspect it is now similar to most 2 pack urethane paints.

The original Imron was much harder and more scratch and pit resistant than powder coat. But it was less malleable and if you hit a edge or corner it could shatter like glass where powder coat would just dent.

Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct, Jim. You might not be as happy with the modern polyurethane as many of the changes is to make it safer to spray. The original stuff definitely required supplied breathing air. Chemical filter respirators will not protect your lungs. Also some of those spraying this stuff used less than clean supplied air. I know of at least one instance where a US military installation sprayed airplanes with polyurethane and the supplied air masks were not being used because the oil vapor from the compressor would cloud the mask!

Our litigious society makes the liability of misused products very high for manufacturers. As a result, product safety will take precedence over performance.

Lot of old time painters around the area met their end not wearing proper PPE when using urethanes & epoxys. That mist can destroy lungs quickly & then if you make it past that the liver is always waiting for something.
If I were to use either they would have to be brush friendly. I don't mind rubbing out brush marks in the least. I've had overspray from both on my trucks even having them parked several hundred feet from the spraying with the crew utilizing targets to prevent incidents. Let someone do it if you must, but away from your property and your neighbors....My rant is off. Great paints though.

It's a shame when people can not read the instructions and use common sense when using a product. So that product has to be done away with to protect us -from our own stupidity.

I wonder how much longer it will be before motorcycles are done away with, for our own good....
There is my rant for the day.

It surprising we can buy buckets without holes in the bottom.

When my Dad first started working in the finishing industry he was spraying pianos on a moving assembly line. There were no respirators or fresh air supply required back then . There was a mexican guy who sprayed on his crew who didn't like the effect of breathing in all the solvents so he would wear a bandana over his nose and mouth (which actually doesn't stop airborn solvents) Since the guy was mexican, the other sprayers thought it was funny and they called him "el bandito" but the mexican guy was right. He knew what he was spraying was toxic. The typical scenario was that the neurological effect of inhaling solvents all day was like taking speed, so most finishers were drinkers too because the booze kind of evened out the effects of breathing in solvents all day long... horrible

So, there are some good things that came out of the litigousness too. The industry had to address the deadly chemical exposure problem. My dad lived to be 78 and died of pnemonia after having a cancerous lung removed. It's pretty easy to make the connection between lung cancer and lifetime of spraying chemicals beginning in an era without any real respiratory protection. These days, I am not involved in commercial spraying of finishes, but I think the industry has gone to outside fresh air supply rather than breathing the air in the booth with a charcoal filter mask. My era was spraying with a charcoal filter mask on. I'm not convinced it was all that good of a protection system. I'm glad I don't do a lot of spraying anymore.

As far as the Imron goes, the hardest possible molecule of the finish doesn't determin the finish hardness, the softest one does. If you lay down 5 coats of primer/sealer, or some layers of bondo, a rock will chip the paint because the soft layer will crumble or fail from the hit if not the material itself if it's not metal. The lightest possible primer coat followed by the harder material will be the strongest finish. Of course that material being hard means that rubbing it out to remove the orange peel will be a lot more work... but worth the effort to some people.

Maybe I didn't get into paint early enough to see paint without warnings.

But I still have my pump and mask that I purchased in the 70's. There was never a thought of painting Imron without it. The warnings were very clear.