I know Ford did this to save money and emissions, but isn't this going to result in shoddier paint jobs?

[zipnzap]

http://truckyeah.jalopnik.com/watch-how-fast-fords-new-robot-octopus-can-paint-the-20-1581998212/all

 

I see a Transit recall in Ford's future.

[bzcat]

I don't see anything in the article or the video that will support your theory. Are you an expert industrial designer or paint quality control specialist?

[fordmantpw]

It even saves 4 lbs in weight!

[akirby]

http://truckyeah.jalopnik.com/watch-how-fast-fords-new-robot-octopus-can-paint-the-20-1581998212/all

 

I see a Transit recall in Ford's future.

 

I see a troll.

[jpvbs]

Does Ford do an E-coat bath on other products?

[RichardJensen]

Yep. Pretty sure that's a standard step in vehicle body prep throughout the industry.

[grbeck]

I guess car manufacturers should never do anything new, or never institute new production processes?

[zipnzap]

 

I see a troll.

 

 

I guess car manufacturers should never do anything new, or never institute new production processes?

 

Seriously, I'm just saying automakers scrimping on certain production methods to save money, especially things like the paint process, has caused problems in the past.

[jpd80]

I see a system that guarantees better coverage in shorter time, Kudos to Ford.

[akirby]

 

 

 

Seriously, I'm just saying automakers scrimping on certain production methods to save money, especially things like the paint process, has caused problems in the past.

 

Seriously - there is no indication they're "scrimping" on paint. It's a new formula that combines base and clearcoat into a single coat that works better and weighs less.

[zipnzap]

 

Seriously - there is no indication they're "scrimping" on paint. It's a new formula that combines base and clearcoat into a single coat that works better and weighs less.

 

It's still pretty weird that they've decided to test this process out on production commercial work vehicles.

 

How will this process help with road gravel? Debris? Chipping? In what ways is the corrosion protection more durable than that of the corrosion protection process Ford currently uses on their trucks and commercial vehicles?

[fordmantpw]

 

It's still pretty weird that they've decided to test this process out on production commercial work vehicles.

 

How will this process help with road gravel? Debris? Chipping? In what ways is the corrosion protection more durable than that of the corrosion protection process Ford currently uses on their trucks and commercial vehicles?

 

Wait, you think Ford hasn't tested this? you think they've just developed something and doesn't know how it will work or hold up? So, the first vehicle they've used this on is the first production Transit produced at KC? Dude, really?

[BlackHorse]

zipnzap I'd be the first to agree that automakers will cut corners to cut costs during production and that sometimes comes back to haunt them. The current massive recalls over at GM are proof enough of that. All car companies do this. However, I didn't see anything in this video to indicate a potential future problem with the paint on the Transit.

[twmalonehunter]

Not the first time this guy has trolled.

[twmalonehunter]

Not the first time this guy has trolled.

[akirby]

 

It's still pretty weird that they've decided to test this process out on production commercial work vehicles.

 

How will this process help with road gravel? Debris? Chipping? In what ways is the corrosion protection more durable than that of the corrosion protection process Ford currently uses on their trucks and commercial vehicles?

 

They wouldn't do something like this without EXTENSIVE testing first.

 

Corrosion protection is exactly the same. Touchups are a lot easier.

 

Nobody knows commercial vehicles like Ford.

[Hydro]

They're probably testing commercial vehicles because those are the most neglected when it comes to paint. Most will never see wax and barely get a washing. I see no better way to test, than on vehicles that will see rough service. Then when the general public gets those it will last even longer with regular washings and waxing. Our work trucks may get washed once a year and never had wax. They are all white so it's the most durable color, but boy is the paint "dry" and dingy on them.

[zipnzap]

zipnzap I'd be the first to agree that automakers will cut corners to cut costs during production and that sometimes comes back to haunt them. The current massive recalls over at GM are proof enough of that. All car companies do this. However, I didn't see anything in this video to indicate a potential future problem with the paint on the Transit.

 

The GM thing is exactly one of the examples that came to mind.

Ford really doesn't need the sort fiasco that GM is experiencing. There have been numerous instances where process enacted to save costs or even for environmental purposes have ended up with negative consequences. Unlike the GM issue, at least something like paint doesn't result in an occupant hazard.

Not the first time this guy has trolled.

 

Err... what??

 

 

Wait, you think Ford hasn't tested this? you think they've just developed something and doesn't know how it will work or hold up? So, the first vehicle they've used this on is the first production Transit produced at KC? Dude, really?

 

 

 

They wouldn't do something like this without EXTENSIVE testing first.

 

Corrosion protection is exactly the same. Touchups are a lot easier.

 

Nobody knows commercial vehicles like Ford.

 

The problem is this is the first time there's ever been coverage of this process. Ford usually releases info of the planning of new processes and product tests prior to implementation.

[RichardJensen]

 

 

 

Seriously, I'm just saying automakers scrimping on certain production methods to save money, especially things like the paint process, has caused problems in the past.

 

Are cars more reliable and more durable now than they were fifty years ago?

 

So, in aggregate, how have manufacturer efforts to standardize, simplify, and automate the assembly process resulted in an inferior product?

 

Objecting to a combined base and clear coat process is like objecting to single side stamping----'there are less steps, therefore it won't work as well!'

[matthewq4b]

Wow some fan boys comments here with out really thinking it through.

 

Launch on commercial vehicles is easily to figure out and has nothing to do with rough service.

 

Most commercial vehicles do not stay with the first buyer till end of service life but are generally disposed of with in 5 years so long term paint issues are not going to be much of problem.

Most commercial buyers are far far less concerned with minor paint issues than say the private person that just dropped 50K+ on a new SD or Lincoln.

Most commercial vehicles get regular washings in most cases at least weekly, does not do your business image any good to have vehicles that are filthy, Then there is the opposite end of the spectrum like the oil patch where no one really cares what your vehicles look like and they never get washed so no one is gonna care about a few paint blemishes.

This is the safest segment to re-launch single stage paint (remember prior to the 80's it was all single stage lacquers or enamels) with the smallest chance of a bunch of PO'd customers in the event of teething issues.

 

 

It does have some advantages right off the hop power polishing will allow you to cut much deeper to remove scratches that do not penetrate to the primer. Unlike with clear coats once you cut through it your boned.

 

I Imagine it is a water based polyurethane paint from the vidieo, water clean up and open air cure. Polyurethanes have come a long way in the last few years in terms of UV stability, gloss, and finish. But prep is everything with Poly's so I imagine it will take Ford a couple years to get it perfected there will be hiccups and likely some adhesion issues. Every manufacture I have seen switch to poly's had adhesions issues with out exception in the first couple years, from heavy equipment manufactures to aircraft (civil and military), to marine, to military equipment (armour and thin skinned), to rail, all initially experienced some adhesion issues in one form or another. Hopefully Ford wont repeat their errors and learned from every one else's curve when switching to poly paint.

 

We all quickly seem to have forgot the horrific low VOC's and water based top coats of the late 80's and early nineties that peeled off in sheets after a few years that Ford and everyone claimed where better than the out going top coat. Chyco had issues so bad they were repainting cars up to 8 years after purchase. This is still an unknown in long term durability. Poly's in general have better long term durability but again prep is everything it does not take much to create adhesion issues that crop up down the road.

 

Overall this a step in the right direction (never did like clear coat paints anyway) once all the kinks are worked out it should prove to be more durable, longer lasting, better able to polish back to new car gloss, more flexible (less chance of cracking especially in locales with temp extremes) faster production times equalling lower production costs (only primer and top coat needed, not, primer, colour , clear coat) and it lays the ground work, experience and infrastructure for the potential use of the durable self healing poly paints when they are more widely available.

 

Going to single step painting is a smart move, and an even smarter move launching it on commercial vehicles first.

 

 

Matthew

Edited May 28, 2014 by matthewq4b

[twintornados]

 

 

 

Seriously, I'm just saying automakers scrimping on certain production methods to save money, especially things like the paint process, has caused problems in the past.

The new paint process has less to do about cost savings for Ford than it does to meet EPA emissions standards for paint fumes....but, since Ford has met the EPA standards AND saves money in the process....kudos to Ford!