GM bulletin on Perceived Paint Mismatch on Door and Quarter Panel Paint Appearance
 

As reported on homepage.

In the months since the 2010 Camaro has gone on sale, there have been some photos posted which have led members to point out what appeared to be paint mismatches between certain body panels on the car. GM has always maintained that there is indeed no paint mismatch and what was being observed was simply a "perceived" mismatch in color/shade due to the viewing angle and the Camaro's panel geometry. To better assuage Camaro owners (and potential owners) and to formally address the issue, GM has now issued the following bulletin:


GM Service Information
Document ID: 2346049

#09-08-51-004: Information on Door and Quarter Panel Paint Appearance - (Sep 10, 2009)

Subject: Information on Door and Quarter Panel Paint Appearance
Models: 2010 Chevrolet Camaro



On the 2010 Camaro, the shade of paint on the doors may appear to be different than the shade of paint on the quarter panels. This appearance varies in severity based on different viewing angles and light conditions. This perception is more apparent with certain colors. Use this bulletin to help the customer understand the design of their vehicle.

Paint Process

At the time of vehicle manufacture, the complete sheet metal body of the car is painted at the same time (the body, hood, decklid and doors). The panels (doors, hood and decklid) are attached to the vehicle and in the proper position when it goes through the plant paint process. All of the panels receive the undercoat layers and top coat finishes using the same material, application process and final bake process. This continuity of process ensures a uniform paint application to the entire vehicle. The result of this extensive process is a seamless paint match over the entire vehicle. The only major exterior panels that do not get painted during this process are the bumper fascias. The bumper fascias receive a flexible paint application using a unique process. All of the paint used in the paint process is matched to a paint color standard, ensuring that the colors are consistent from batch to batch. This color standard also ensures consistency from vehicle to vehicle.

Vehicle Design

On the Camaro, the door to quarter panel angle match is the design intent. The geometry of the quarter panel provides a sporty definition and highlights the depth of the design. It is intended to show the color variation created by angling the body panels a few degrees.

Addressing Customer Concerns

Use the following photographs and descriptions to demonstrate to the vehicle owner that what they are seeing on their vehicle is not a color mis-match, but a intended design feature.


Attachment 55555


This first photograph shows a paint test panel finished in "Wildfire" metallic. The white arrow points to the paint "standard". This is the paint sample used to ensure color consistency.


Attachment 55556


This photograph shows the same paint test panel with a slight crease in the center, creating an angle in the panel similar to the Camaro door to quarter panel relationship. The finish on the right side of the panel has "shifted", creating a different hue of the same color. Note the arrow shows the paint standard on the left side of the paint test panel in the same position as the first photograph.


Attachment 55557


This final photograph shows the same paint test panel described in the second photograph. In this photograph, the arrow points to the same paint "standard" used in the first two photographs but it has been repositioned to the right side of the paint test panel. Note the paint "standard" has shifted along with the finish on the paint test panel.

** Official Bulletin Document attached **

It's all in your head people...move along now.....:bellyroll:

Actually, it's all in your perception as shown. I figured we would see something like this once I saw that dealers were repainting cars and blending the paint...which is actually "fading" the paint...remember those wonderful fade paint jobs of a few years ago? That's what blending is...only with the "same" two colors. This leaves an area in your paint that is "thicker" overall, but has a thinner finish coat due to the need to overlap the paint and not end up with a perceptible stopping point. I never been a fan to this on a car that will see alot of detailing...on a cobalt that is a point a to point b car...its fine, but start buffing out a blended car and you may have issues if the painter didn't do a very good job.

The new metallics react quite a bit differently than their older non-waterbased brethren. The other issue you bring into the mix is a tint-coat versus a colored paint. I'm not sure what the base color on the RJT is, but I am betting it is white. Velocity yellow on Corvettes is this way and you do see what appears to be a "mismatch" at times just depending on what angle you are standing at.

We already know this, but there were a few die-hard self proclaimed body shop paint guys whom said no this isn't the case. Basically just people trying to bash the car in anyway that they could. Those topics died once people just ignored them.

I had mentioned this perceived mismatch twice on Camaro5 but no one seemed to care. It is the angle of the 1/4 panel "bulge"at the rear of the door that causes this perceived paint problem. If there was an inch or two of 1/4 panel after the door ends, before the bulge, this would not be a problem.
I doubt G.M. will ever correct this as it would be a very costly redesign.

theres no need to correct it. They intended it to be that way. They only put this bullentin out for all the dummies who couldn't understand that different angles will make the car look different and hollered from the rooftops that its bad painting. Thats what they wanted to do, otherwise they wouldn't be using metallics.

:word:

http://www.creepygif.com/images/full/343.gif
Well, that puts an end to quite a few threads full of complaining.

Not really, perception is actuality. Buyers are going to be pissed that their brand new car looks mismatched intended from the factory or not. This topic will never end.

I agree. There are a lot of dummies out there that don't understand that angles and light variances change a colors brightness or contrast.

Personally, I like to see the different shades of color when I look at my car from many angles and lighting conditions. Some have paid $1400 per quart for special paint that does this to a much higher degree.

cool, thanks Tran :thumbsup:

I assume some metalllic colors are worse than others to exhibit this effect. I've not seen all the colors yet in person, any idea which colors are the worst offenders?

I have an IOM and can see slight difference between car and front facia. Most noticable is the difference between car and mirrors. Only in the bright sunlight when car appears to be on fire with pearl and gold metal flake.

Just like stupid people still making babies. The cycle will never end. If it weren't for these people, who would the world laugh at? If the thread dies, so will my laughter.:(

Well I agree with the bulletin however it's no secret that the early cars had color issues with the parts painted by the suppliers (front and rear fascias, gas filler door, RS roof strips). The key is to look at the gas filler door - if it is off color, the complaint is probably valid.

Nice catch.

Thanks for the info

:word:

OR...the gas door is slightly out of adjustment and the angle is different.

Statements like these will send the conspiracy theorists running to their dealer to get their filler door repainted because they are SURE it is wrong. We saw this with some of the Grand Prix and Firebird crowd at the dealership I was at...a TSB would come out and they would come in SURE they had the problem...even though upon reading the TSB was for one engine and they had another.

Were there paint problems? Maybe. What constitutes early? Is it just being an R6P car? What if the R6P has just been built? If it isn't a secret that some cars had problems, where does the VIN break occur so that those affected can know to check?

If we continue to post generalized statements about occurrences, this board will become as bad about misinformation as some of the others I frequent.

My comments come from discussing this issue with people who work at the plant. The supplier was asked to change the color to match the plant paint. If you do not believe me, I suggest you take a look at a recently built car painted in RJT and park it next to one painted in the first month of production and look for your self.

Btw - do you even own a 2010 Camaro? Didn't think so.....enjoy your 350Z!

..and there we have it. Thanks GM for the definitive explanation and photos.

Hylton...I guess I should know not to "argue" with you...:facepalm: I was trying to point out an issue...that's all.

Do I own a Camaro...think that's been answered before.

Didn't know that is a requirement...if so, better get quite a few people off this board!!! I'll leave if the Mods ask me to. I will order a Camaro when the timing is right. I've owned numerous F-bodies over the years, so I've earned my stripes with GM F-bodies. Before you ask, no I don't have a first gen, never have, but its on the list too. I love the Camaro and always will.

Do I enjoy the 350z...yes. Do I enjoy the '09 Vette parked right next to it? Yes. Do I enjoy the 50 chevy pickup, 67 chevy pickup, and 82 Firebird MSE at the house too? Yes. Does that answer all your questions?

I was just pointing out that statements like you made about "early" cars are a sure way to make a technician's life hell. If someone has a different idea of "early" than you do...you're potentially creating unneccessary work at a dealership level.Technicians have to work one customer concern as much as any other. Do they get paid a penny for messing with someone's car that doesn't have a problem? Not unless they've got a generous service manager.

Most technicians at the dealerships are good honest people trying to make a living (I know, I've been there). Its hard work and the pay sure isn't what it used to be. In days past, a technician made 50% of what the shop's hourly rate was. These days, they are lucky to get 20%...plus there is more training to do than in years past, more technical data to keep track of...you name it.

My intent was not to slam you, but to get people to think before they reacted to a statement that the early cars had a problem. Its like getting sick, if you wake up and say I'm not feeling good...your body may just help you out. If you walk out to your car expecting to see a paint problem...you probably will.

No ill will intended.

Gary - I apologize about my 350Z comment - you are always welcome here no matter what you drive. I just get very angry whenever people quickly conclude that the customer is wrong or that they are "conspiracy theorists" for disagreeing with whatever GM tells them. In the TSB, there is no mention about the early cars and that's unfortunate.

As proof that there are cars whos paint is off, I will be snapping a few pictures in a few weeks to prove it.

I caution anyone who wants to prove me wrong before I post.

All I know is that if I stand next to my door on my IOM Camaro and I look down the left side the car is one color, I look to the right the car is a different color.....I love it!!

Hylton,
Not trying to prove you wrong. I have no doubt that there were paint issues-its a GM paint job...every one of them has a quirk about them. Is that saying they are bad? No...just a realization we have to have. Every manufacturer has their quirks-it seems as if GM's is paint (probably one of the largest complaints I've seen across the board-usually it is orange peel though-thanks EPA for the water-based paints--I want lead-based back!)

I can show you two spots on our '09 vette that weren't quite painted-thank goodness they are at the body line over the tag indent, so they don't show. If they had been anywhere else, I don't know what I would do. I've chosen not to repaint the rear bumper on that car as ANY paint work, even documented warranty work, might raise eyebrows on this car. I'm allowing the dealer to replace a couple of the stripes that have bubbles in them, but I just can't let them paint it. There are days I wish we owned a "normal" Corvette rather than a 1-of-10 car.

I honestly am interested in seeing what you are talking about-especially after seeing this bulletin. My guess is the cars with real issues will have no trouble getting them fixed...Let's hope GM is easy on this one! We've come a long way from those slab sided cars of days gone by...its interesting how it changes things concerning paint.

I'm a paint critic-I admit it-if there is an issue that can be fixed, then it should be fixed and fixed right. It is a little of my OCD showing I guess. The wife gets close to killing me at times...but my OCD usually pays off for her when we sell our cars!

Hylton-sorry to have started the day off like this. Hope we can move forward from here. It sounds like two people that are passionate about cars discussing from two different viewpoints...we both seem to fit that description. I'm sure we may but heads once in awhiled, but I do respect you and your opinion.

BTW...Hylton, the conspiracy theorist comment wasn't meant towards you...I've just seen one too many. As a tech I never assumed the customer was wrong or to be honest, just a plain idiot...I took each customer concern as legitimate until proven otherwise. I can't tell you how many rattles (not all, many were GM problems too) were related to a bottle of nailpolish in a glove box or someone's gun clip in the glove box...those were always the worst ones to explain!

The bumper facias ARE what doesn't match. And they ARE different. The flake is closer to the surface. This can be caused by many things: air pressure, fluid tip, direction, static charge and the list goes on and on.

now people are going to be complaining that GM didnt adjust the paint so the eye would percieve it all the same.

out of the metallic cars i have seen, i have noticed on a few, but its not bad at all. the cars look great regardless

GM: I can't believe we're actually addressing this, seriously. Maybe next time we should use two slightly mismatched colors on the same car, just to trip the customer, and make this product that we've worked so hard to make quality into a silly, cheap mess of a car! I don't think anyone has done that before, might be cool! We're amateurs! :facepalm:

All I can think of here is:

"Night of the Living Dead!"

:facepalm:

Mine will be in that picture. It is not door to panel, it IS panel/hood to facia.

I had a guy come up to me at a car show that stated he worked in the paint department for GM for 25 years. He went on to say how my paint did not match up.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE my car! Just wish that was fixed :iono:

The color shifts on my Inferno Orange, not just from the door panel to the quarter panel, but anywhere there is an angle. It looks cool, can't understand why some felt it was a mismatch.

Your right- People can't read. It's not a paint problem on the door at the 1/4 panel , It's the shape of the two panels.

That's not the issue and just because your car has no paint issues does not mean that another customer does not have a paint issue.

:word:

I agree with you. I still think there were cars that were mismatched.

I've seen them in person and have pictures. However, people still won't believe it even after pictures. They'll point you to the bulletin and say GM's word is gold. People need to learn to think for themselves. Do you believe everything politicians tell the public?

What gets me is most of the paint problems I've read about were not door and quarters matching it was the bumber covers to the rest of the car. I don't see this saying anything about that. What magical theroy do they have about why paint is coming off thease cars or like my wifes ,areas that where never painted at all.

GM shouldn't even have put this out because no matter what they say people are going to believe what they want and still tell others to ignore the fact most cars are pretty perfect. The whole point I'm making is people seem to act as if this is a HUGE problem when in fact it isn't. Yes some cars may have a little mis-match(nothing is ever 100% perfect) but quit trying to blow it up as the majority of cars just because you may have a small problem with yours.

Prove this statement. You will not find one person who has this problem and will not reccommend the car to others. You are just stiring the pot.


Who is acting as if this is a HUGE problem? Who is blowing it up as something which is occuring to the majority of cars? Quit stiring the pot.

Why are there two of thease threads?

WOW who is blowing it up. Let's go back a couple months when at least one thread a day was popping up saying bad paint job, mismatched paint. Hell I remember one person being so dumb as to start one and show he had a mismatched painted IOM and took pictures and pointed out how the front was a different color then the side on the car and hood. Then made the mistake of taking the picture from a different angle and proving it was just the angle of the first pic but went on to defend it by saying no its mismatched.

Don't act like this board didn't have a problem with people trying to claim all IOM were all mismatched because it happened.