Response to berkshire bill
No I am not hard to please - all I want is a car that is free from
problems.
Response to Dave Gower:
The rust around the wing mirror was seperate issue with the car. All
the problems arose from the repair to the damage to the rear wing of my old
car - and NO I do not exaggeratre - what is the point in doing that!
I fight for what I thiink is right until otherwise proven differently
with facts.
Regards
Nick
> > Hi all
> >
[quoted text clipped - 55 lines]
>
> Bill
Dave Gower - 17 Aug 2004 16:13 GMT
>NO I do not exaggeratre
Nor do you use a spell checker. But like I said, if the paint has literally
fallen off 15 times you have the makings of a TV documentary, plus a
scientific investigation. I'm not an expert on paint, but even once would be
exceptional from a paint shop that was at all competent. Twice would be
almost inexplicable. Any more and I'd be consulting an exorcist.
EOS - 18 Aug 2004 18:41 GMT
> >NO I do not exaggeratre
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> exceptional from a paint shop that was at all competent. Twice would be
> almost inexplicable. Any more and I'd be consulting an exorcist.
Just had to say that I had a friend once who's car suffered the same
problem.
It turned out that the car had an electrical fault and caused the
'corosion'.
That was an old Morris Minor though. The paint crumbeld and crackled as it
almost 'jumped' off the bodywork.
Eos.
EOS - 18 Aug 2004 18:44 GMT
Yes, I knwo....the spellchecker!
;O)
'Never use 'em.
Dave Gower - 19 Aug 2004 00:39 GMT
> It turned out that the car had an electrical fault and caused the
> 'corosion'.
> That was an old Morris Minor though. The paint crumbeld and crackled as it
> almost 'jumped' off the bodywork.
Hmmm... just a hunch - didn't these cars have positive ground? If I recall,
it was just these types of problems that made the industry standardize on
negative ground, I believe around 1950.
Cheers
EOS - 19 Aug 2004 00:50 GMT
> > It turned out that the car had an electrical fault and caused the
> > 'corosion'.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Cheers
Spot on! I couldn't remember, but after you mentioned it, it came back to
me!
That was indeed the problem....'positive ground.
Could it be the same problem (on the Focus) then?!
Hmm.
Eos.
Dave Gower - 19 Aug 2004 03:31 GMT
>That was indeed the problem....'positive ground.
> Could it be the same problem (on the Focus) then?!
Nope. The Focus is negative ground, like every other car in the world for
decades now.
There's only two things that I know of that can make paint refuse to stick.
One is failure to clean the surface before painting, and the second is using
incompatible paints on different coats. It takes a real idiot to do a job
that doesn't stick.
Like I said, I've done some auto painting. It didn't look professional, but
it stayed on for at least the couple of years I wanted to keep the car. And
I'm certainly no pro.
Apparently some early European Focuses had poor paint, but my 2000 Canadian
model has spectacular paint. It still looks new, and that's after four
Ontario winters.
Cheers.
> Have you in the past used wax that contains silicone ? That's tough stuff
> to get rid of and causes all sorts of wacky problems with finishes. Are you
> usually this hard to please ??
I doubt the silicone would penetrate through the finish, and if it did,
then why didn't the original factory paint not flake off on the first
car BEFORE the accident?
I don't know about you, but if I had been handed back a car with a
rusting, paint flaking repair job, and then had it "exchanged" for a
newer leaking, paint-flaking car, I wouldn't be a happy camper either.
The OP doesn't say it outright, but the fact he says he "can't afford to
trade again" means that rather than working with him to either fix the
car right or give him a replacement outright, the dealer did a trade-in.
That means they probably rolled his old loan contract into his new
one, which may have been upside-down at the time (negative equity
because the car depreciated faster than the loan balance went down).
And instead of doing him a "favor," they ended up getting a fat
commission, putting the OP further into debt with a new loan that
carried the balance of the old agreement PLUS the debt on the new car,
AND killed two birds with one stone by disposing of the old car they
weren't competent enough to fix AND selling him a replacement car they
may have known was shoddy and couldn't otherwise get off their lot.
Frankly, I'd be hopping mad.
Not too much can be done once the contracts are signed about the loan.
But, I'd invoke the lemon law if I were in his shoes . Give them the
opportunity to fix the paint problem on the new car... if they can't in
a reasonable number of tries, it's time for another replacement, and
this time WITHOUT redoing the loan.
berkshire bill - 19 Aug 2004 02:17 GMT
> > Have you in the past used wax that contains silicone ? That's tough stuff
> > to get rid of and causes all sorts of wacky problems with finishes. Are you
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> then why didn't the original factory paint not flake off on the first
> car BEFORE the accident?
The silicone usually won't penetrate the paint, but it does complicate any
refinishing. The best of cleaners and prep chemicals leave traces of
silicone behind which can be trapped between your old finish, primer,
binder and new top coat. If you are lucky enough to see fisheye in the
finish before it go's back to the customer you can save face, but other
times you never know what will happen to the finish. I worked for a dealer
that sold "Silicone Protectant" as an add on, problem was we lost a fortune
in labor and materials every time a car came in for body work!
Bill