2nd Gen Non-Engine/Transmission Fading Paint

[Traveler1]

The only problem is that it's a failure with the primer, at least in my situation. I have three much older Toyota's, except for regular chips, the paint looks brand new, and one was built here in the US. I'm not asking for a freebee, but I want them to fix what they knew was a problem and "chose" not to fix. It's been documented in court cases over and over, and Ford actually recalled some of their mistakes. Now, I wouldn't buy a Powerstroke, but Chrysler seems have problems with quality all around. But I'll buy a Cummins.

 

[krs]

"Federal Government had much more to do with this paint problem than Dodge did. The EPA mandated water based paint and the paint manufacturers are doing the best they can"



daveshoe,

As I understand this: http://www.theinfomaniac.net/infomaniac/content/cars/2311chryslerCauseDelamination.htm

exactly the opposite is true. Water based paints are not mandated, per se, but they do offer solution which will reduce air emmisions during painting to compliance with EPA standards. The Japanese cars are using them with success. But they cost, and the U. S. automakers have been slow if not reluctant to make the change.

The problem with Dodge paint peeling is a result of their change to a more cost effective primer system "In the early 1980s Chrysler began to change to a two-coat process. It substituted Uniprimeô ("Uniprime," "HBEC," or "Ecoat"), a "high build electrocoat" manufactured by PPG Industries and other paint manufacturers, for the bottom coat and spray primer that had been used before. By eliminating the intermediate layer of paint, Chrysler partly offset the cost increase of using Uniprime, reducing the time and expense required for its painting processes, and reducing chemical emissions. One of its competitors, Ford Motor Company ("Ford"), which had also begun to use Uniprime made by PPG at about the same time, estimated a savings of $6. 00 to $16. 00 per vehicle by eliminating the middle layer of paint. Chrysler made that change without thoroughly testing the process or the integrity of the vehicle finishes it produced" (from the same document linked above).

 

[NevadaBackroader]

I was aware that my truck had very thin robot applied paint when I bought it. A couple months after I bought it, I drove through the Truckee river canyon during a windstorm. I hit a cloud of sand that was blowing across the road from a gravel pit. They had this huge pile of sand that was right next to the road and was just blowing away. I claimed the damage on my full coverage insurance and got the entire front end and cab repainted and let the insurance company go after the gravel yard. I'm kinda glad it happened, because I was noticing more and more chips in the original paint. Point is, if you know the paint is thin, get it repainted before it gets so bad the truck has to be stripped to the metal.

 

[thejeepdude]

Originally posted by NevadaBackroader

Point is, if you know the paint is thin, get it repainted before it gets so bad the truck has to be stripped to the metal.

Point is, since the problem lies in the bottom layer of paint, you can repaint without stripping to metal all you want, but the new paint will be sitting on a very poor subsurface and will eventually have adhesion problems like the last coat of paint. Sure, it may take longer if the top coat is thicker, but it still won't last as long as if the truck was stripped completely, primed, and painted the way it should have been in the first place. I'm about to buy a new truck, and if 5-7 years from now I can prove they used this same substandard base coat process on my new truck, and if it's showing signs of it, I'll see DC in court. If they can prove they're not using a process that causes my paint to not last as long, then they're off the hook, no harm done. I don't see why letting a $50 small claims court judge decide this is a bad idea. For once the law is on OUR side.

 

[y-knot]

I know this is a very complicated issue. You have many variables that each bring a level of responsibility to bear. I feel as if Dodge, and many other manufacturers were forced to use paint and painting materials that they other wise would not have chosen to use. The new products and their particular application process definitely had a large percentage to do with the problem many are having with there paint. For me, I have no problem excepting and paying for my share of the cost. I feel Dodge made a valid attempt to help with my paint problem (my paint still looked good, there were some issues on the hood and roof with fade and odd under tones, but it was only a matter of time till the color had faded out or the paint pealed off) and feel comfortable with there offer of help. This is my feelings, yours and many others might not be the same, that is called individuality. My experience is one of many and I feel Dodge did their part to help, also my Dodge dealer worked with me and made me feel very comfortable with their efforts.