Rant: Why is everyone switching to waterborne when solvent still lays down better?

I was at a shop in Phoenix last week helping a buddy paint a '72 Charger. He spent $400 on a full waterborne system and I told him to save his money. We did a fender with his waterborne and another with my solvent base. The solvent laid out flat with no tiger stripes on the first coat. His waterborne needed three coats and still looked splotchy. I get that waterborne is better for the environment and the health stuff matters, but for a classic car restoration it just doesn't beat solvent. Is everyone else seeing the same thing, or am I missing a trick with the waterborne?

3 comments

3 Comments

corap211mo ago

Tbh you hit the nail on the head with "old tricks still have a place." It's the same thing I see everywhere lately. Like how people are going back to vinyl records or film cameras because the older stuff just feels better even if the new tech is technically better. Waterborne is great for production shops that need to meet EPA rules but for a guy building a Charger in his garage? Solvent is just easier to work with. I think we're all realizing that "new and improved" doesn't always mean better for the actual job.

ross.lily1mo ago

Admit I used to hype up waterborne pretty hard - thought it was the future and all that. Then I actually sprayed both side by side on an old Chevelle and yeah, solvent just behaves better. Youre not missing anything, at least for the classic stuff.

samk771mo ago

Oh man, I read somewhere that a lot of the big shops actually had to slow down their switch to waterborne because of issues like that. It just proves some of the old tricks still have a place in the real world.