Paint Suspect Paint Report

[Topcat]

I wish I had a scanner and then I could show the report.

This is what the box on the side says;

Basic Paint Layer Specs
E- Coat = 20
Primer = 30 - 40
(Target only - Areas may be low due to sanding preparation process)

Basecoat = 12 - 16
Clearcoat = 30 - 45

HUM working standard = 70 - 120

So at the lowest standard the paint should be 92 but Honda think they have been clever by stating that the Areas may be lower due to preparation.

The average for my car is 88.8, I do not see how you can take an average reading on something like this, as I said before surely the clearcoat must reach the minimum of 30? I have 23 areas between 20 - 29 !! This has to make a difference to the finish of the paintwork.

My Basecoat has 25 areas of 12 and below.

Honda have drawn the lines like this to show an optical illusion of there being a wider gap

Softest - 6B,5B,4B,3B,2B,B,HB |F, H,| 2H,3H,4H,5H,6H,7H,8H,9H Hardest

Honda Standard F, Customer Standard H I cant draw these lines but you get the drift!!

The lines should have been straight down the middle, they do not state where they did this softness test or in how many areas. Part of the report has been blanked out, Anyone could have typed this report and said whatever they wanted to - its a joke.

[The Phantom]

Sorry. My missunderstanding there. I though you said earlier that these were Honda's Guidlines.

If they have used the term Spec then this implies specification and as the base and clear coats fails to meet this spec then you have a case. The sum of the parts has little to do with it as each layer is specified and each layer should be within the tolerances of it's specification. The only variable layer is that of the primer which has the additional of the 'sanding' clause.

But then you probably have realised all this. I'll shut up now.

[Topcat]

Originally Posted by The Phantom

But then you probably have realised all this. I'll shut up now.

No, thank you I am so grateful for any help.

Do you think I am right in saying that they can not use an average measurement for the entire car?

I get quite nervous at the thought of pursuing this but I am so sure the paint isn't right, the car looks great at the moment but it cost me £1000 to make it like that, even the dealership I use now are commenting on how fragile it is and dont like working on it.

I have two scratches at the back of the car that a bush did to it, they look so fine and superficial but the bodyshop couldnt buff them off!!

[pjelsworth]

Originally Posted by Topcat

For the paint softness they carried out what I believe to be a very old, out dated and unreliable pencil test, Honda's standard is an F and their graph is shown as follows;

Softest - 6B,5B,4B,3B,2B,B,HB,F H,2H,3H,4H,5H,6H,7H,8H,9H Hardest

The red H was the result of my car - if you ask me a little too close to their threshold of an F reading.

I can't work all this out I had my bonnet resprayed about 7 months ago. They made a hash of it (no pearl effect) and so sprayed it again. This means in theory I have plenty thickness of paint, but it still chips just as easily and my bonnet is again covered in them.
My dealer told me that it is because the paint is probably too HARD that it chips so easily, supported by the fact that the bumper has no chips at all.
Any way, they have agreed to give it another go, so hopefully 3rd time lucky.

[Topcat]

Originally Posted by pjelsworth

I can't work all this out I had my bonnet resprayed about 7 months ago. They made a hash of it (no pearl effect) and so sprayed it again. This means in theory I have plenty thickness of paint, but it still chips just as easily and my bonnet is again covered in them.
My dealer told me that it is because the paint is probably too HARD that it chips so easily, supported by the fact that the bumper has no chips at all.
Any way, they have agreed to give it another go, so hopefully 3rd time lucky.

It is confusing I know - the softness/hardness has nothing to do with the paint depth.

If the car easily scratches it is because the paint is too soft.

[Kremmen]

Of course looking at this from the other perspective, why do they insist on resurfacing a road and then leaving loads of 'loose chippings' around?

If they did the job properly and cleaned up after there would be fewer stones to cause problems. They don't seem to clear up at all these days.

I hate newly surfaced roads because no matter how slow you drive it is the cars going in the other direction that stray towards the centre that throw up the missiles.

[emmaloula]

My car is currently at the bodyshop having paint redone under warranty were it had fallen clean off into it's first 6 months of life.

Dealerships explanation of this: "probably down to speed bumps".

Not good enough but at least I'm getting it repaired and only had to wait 10 months to get it approved.

Topcat, sorry about all your problems, I don't know how you manage to keep up with it all but I think you should fight it if you disagree, regardless of the fact that HUK have wiped their hands with it. Do you have the energy though?

[Topcat]

Originally Posted by emmaloula

Topcat, sorry about all your problems, I don't know how you manage to keep up with it all but I think you should fight it if you disagree, regardless of the fact that HUK have wiped their hands with it. Do you have the energy though?

Not really but as my Solicitor says, HUK can not wipe their hands of it and neither can the selling dealership.