All Terrain Painted Bumper Chips

GMC-AT · March 13, 2014

Is there any documentation about this? Or is it just your dealer? I have a feeling if I brought this up to my dealer they would laugh

pm26 · March 13, 2014

After reading this thread, I decided to go look at the front bumper. Just under 1000 miles and it looks like a stary stary night. Is there any place on this truck GM did not cut corners. What a pc. of crap. Maybe I'll take in and have it rhino coated,screw the front sensors

Yes. In sticker prices.

pm26 · March 13, 2014

You do realize for the cost of the clear bra you could have the bumper sprayed....twice?

As I mentioned before, I would have gravel guard coating sprayed on first, then the final coat. This gravel guard would protect against chips far better than some plastic film.

dredd · March 14, 2014

I traded a 2011 Z71 with 60K on odometer (appearance pkg). Totally painted front end, and it had about 2 chips in it. This POS has about 100 in 7K miles, and I am not kidding. Add noise form my rear end, driver seat, moisture in the headlamps, etc. I'll be waiting on the TRD PRO to come out this fall. I've purchased and driven 7 new GM trucks since 1999, and this IS the worst of them all.

Pinnacle · March 15, 2014

New paint standards the last few years. Paint is thinner and better for the environment

No, paint is not thinner, its waterbased paint now and its the clearcoat that would be different if anything. They might be using less coats, its not something that we would ever find out for sure without insider info.

Pinnacle · March 15, 2014

Actually, I stopped by my dealer today and they will paint it under warranty one time! They recommended 3M after its repainted and I agreed.

Great problem resolution by GM!!

NO dont got with 3M protective film. IT develops tiny breaks in it from rocks etc and allows moisture to get through, it just causes more problems then it solves. This is the stuff you want http://www.armorcoatusa.com/

or http://dominionsureseal.com/index.php?option=com_djcatalog2&view=item&id=96:crystal-clear-2k-anti-stone-chip-&cid=8:clears-a-primers I did most of my truck in armour coat. I work in the auto paint industry and can help you out further if needed.

Pinnacle · March 15, 2014

Guys forget the 3M stuff forget the rock guard etc. Please watch this video

look at 20 seconds thats 3m film. Get yourself a kit of the AG and do your bumper. IceCrm if you're in Winnipeg I can help ya out. This stuff looks amazing and makes your paint bulletproof.

Pinnacle · March 15, 2014

Ditto on the water borne paint! All cars have this issue, and it's one reason BMW paints their cars several times in order to have a better paint job and thickness.

Actually, they don't paint their cars more times. BMW, Benz, Audi, Porsche all use a different clear coat then the rest of the industry, well they did when the industry was using solvent based paint, its all water based now.

MikeNH · March 15, 2014

I traded a 2011 Z71 with 60K on odometer (appearance pkg). Totally painted front end, and it had about 2 chips in it. This POS has about 100 in 7K miles, and I am not kidding. Add noise form my rear end, driver seat, moisture in the headlamps, etc. I'll be waiting on the TRD PRO to come out this fall. I've purchased and driven 7 new GM trucks since 1999, and this IS the worst of them all.

Good luck with that. Toyota trucks are rattle traps and my Tacoma would scratch if you breathed the wrong way near it.

brunnesa · March 15, 2014

I have Xpel on my 2014 GMC. I had three big rock chips in the first 1000 miles. I have put 2500 more miles on since getting the Xpel and have gotten 0 more rock chips. It works great and is the solution to the rock chip problem.

bdbake01 · March 16, 2014

Believe what u will folks, it has nothing to do with solvent vs water borne paint. Yes, at one point it did, in the 80's. But water borne paint has now exceeded (in some cases, FAAAAR exceeded) the durability of solvent. It's quite a bit harder to deal with in production compared to solvent. Yet, there are a multitude of reasons why the OEM's prefer water.

I'm not saying that bumper/paint chipping isn't an issue. Evidence certainly seems to support the case. Which is why I have several cans of plasti-dip in the garage. But it could be anything from substrate prep to prime/base/clear adhesion issues. Anyone remember the introduction of medium gray in the mid to late eighties? 0 to hood peel in 3 months. Root cause was the lack of compatibility between the base and primer used. The primer did stick like a SOB, so it wasn't all bad. Ford even decided to get REALLY cheap for a while and forego the primer. THAT worked out well LOL! And there have been several flavors of solvent based clear coat that didn't want to stick to any base.

Point is chemistry is hard, and I don't enjoy it.

DSChamber · March 16, 2014

For the record my AT also has a few rock chips in the bumper and I expected that... I live in Newfoundland Canada and during the winter we put sand and salt on the road so it's like driving through a sandblaster every day ... my '10 Sierra with the chrome bumper suffered rock chips as well but obviously not as many. At least with a painted bumper you can remove them and repaint them...with a chrome bumper, once it's chipped yer screwed... the "chrome" dipping of these bumpers are thin like everything else made these days (not like they did back 30-40 years ago when you couldn't chip a chrome bumper with a hammer!)

Along the same vein, my bumper wasn't aligned right from the factory, it was up on the drivers side and touching the plastic cowling between the bumper and lights. When I brought my truck in last week they realigned my bumper but the technician noticed some slight wearing of the paint (it was unnoticeable to me) on the inside where the bumper was not aligned correctly and the dealership are going to be repainting the entire bumper for me. Since they are going to be doing this I might look into getting a clear coat put over it or something to reduce future chips.... but I know that nothing will reduce it completely, the bumper is at road level and takes serious punishment on the roads I drive!

Still love the look of the body color bumpers and wouldn't trade them for chrome no matter how much chipping, worse case they can be repainted if the chips become too annoying!

Pinnacle · March 17, 2014

Believe what u will folks, it has nothing to do with solvent vs water borne paint. Yes, at one point it did, in the 80's. But water borne paint has now exceeded (in some cases, FAAAAR exceeded) the durability of solvent. It's quite a bit harder to deal with in production compared to solvent. Yet, there are a multitude of reasons why the OEM's prefer water.

I'm not saying that bumper/paint chipping isn't an issue. Evidence certainly seems to support the case. Which is why I have several cans of plasti-dip in the garage. But it could be anything from substrate prep to prime/base/clear adhesion issues. Anyone remember the introduction of medium gray in the mid to late eighties? 0 to hood peel in 3 months. Root cause was the lack of compatibility between the base and primer used. The primer did stick like a SOB, so it wasn't all bad. Ford even decided to get REALLY cheap for a while and forego the primer. THAT worked out well LOL! And there have been several flavors of solvent based clear coat that didn't want to stick to any base.

Point is chemistry is hard, and I don't enjoy it.

Is that right!? Could you provide me with a white paper that has some or any indication of waterbased paint FAAAAR exceeding solvent based paint, using the most current standards for both Waterbased and Solvent based paint(not what was used in the 80s) Waterbased paint is much harder to work with, as well as transportation of it in especially cold weather. One thing it comes down to is the clearcoat, what GM is doing with that is the question? Is it thinner, less coats? subpar manufacturer who knows.

bdbake01 · March 17, 2014

From none other than the EPA themselves (and Larry!)

https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.epa.gov/region1/auto/dfewaterbornetechs.html&sa=U&ei=1XonU9z8HsPlyAHgxYBw&ved=0CCoQFjAC&sig2=eqzI9GPc0JVa0ynSdPBV_A&usg=AFQjCNFpuyi8vDoHZilECCUP9hicaOkNiQ

In all seriousness, I can't find any at the moment and probably the biggest reason is that frankly, waterborne is more demanding to spary correctly and that makes the manufs hesitant to make claims. Allow me to explain. Early on, PPG, Dupont, etc began touting the advantages that their new waterborne mixes had to the major manufacturers. After the manufacturers failed to consistently see the benefits in testing, they called the paint suppliers on it claiming bull. The company I was working for at the time was contracted--multiple times--to put the water based paint through a battery of tests to double check the paint suppliers. We consistently found two things:

#1 - The companies hadn't quite figured out how to apply the water based paint consistently in a production environment, it was just that different than solvent. So one test panel varied greatly from the next early on. Didn't see this with the solvent control panels, but then again we shouldn't have as they had been working on that process for 30+ years. Also, the solvent panels used the full paint process, the water used one off repair lines, portable ovens, old/unused air booths, etc. Basically no investment in moving to the new equipment and processes necessary.

#2 - Properly applied, the water based paints always beat the solvent in terms of luminance, reflectivity, dispersion, clarity, ductility/felxibility, pull/draw, coverage, film build, density, adhesion, just about anything other than texture/smoothness (both measured in RMS). The solvents just tend to have better self leveling properties so they end up smoother with no post process.

--->Side note. If you want a pro show finish, find a painter who KNOWS his stuff and have him lay down a HEAVY, wet water based clear coat on top of the wet base of your choice and get busy with the water sanding and polish. Expect to spend some time, this crap is tough. You can get the same finish w/ urethane, but you can't get the crystal clear clarity.

I should note that I think all of the tests I participated in used solvent based prime and urethane clear, which is still commonly used. I don't know what's on these trucks, but I suspect is it only water basecoat.

Pinnacle · March 18, 2014

I work in the auto paint industry and I wanted to see a white paper on this because from real world experience I just don't see WB being better in any way, except being less toxic for the environment. You didn't have to explain it, but thanks anyway.

I have to agree with the manufacturers on the fact they didn't see the benefits, I have seen WB applied in controlled environments exactly the same way and it always required more "work" to get it to the same level as solvent based. On average WB goes on half a mil in thikness per pass, while Solvent goes on 2 up to 3 mil per pass. Adhesion is also difficult with WB as humidity and air filtration has to be perfect, adhesion is good if the underlying work is perfect otherwise its start over time, solvents are more forgiving. I also don't find clarity or luminance to be any better then solvent,but the last part I do agree with where Solvent have better self levelling properties.

Clear coats are still solvent as they don't have to be phased out as base coat paints do, so they will be used for some time and there is a wide variety of great clear coats.

What id comes down to is, isGM using less clear coat on the new trucks that combined with the fact that WB is "thinner" is that's what causing these bumpers/paint to chip so much easier?