Name a car manufacturer that recommends applying a "coating"

rustytruck

rustytruck

New member
Joined
Feb 20, 2012
Messages
954
Reaction score
0
I ask this question because I know of none. If you look at the owners manuals of some of the most popular cars on the road(ex. F150 BMW 3 Accord) they all say to protect with a carnauba wax or a synthetic wax(sealant) I know a lot of guys talk about coatings but I wonder why the manufactures are not suggesting that people protect their cars this way?

I'm not real comfortable applying something to any of my customers cars against the advice of the company that built the car. Any feedback?
 
Owner's manuals are written for the lowest common denominator. That's why they tell you such useful information like "don't drive on a flat tire and don't put gasoline in your diesel". Additionally, super duper desert protection sealant is a nice little revenue generator for the dealers.

I just spent 11 hours prepping and applying Opti-coat to my son's new Accord. That kind of work is beyond the average car owner and most would not spend the money to have somebody else do it. I'm wiped out from it but I just know he's not going to let me sit in my own filth when I can't take care of myself anymore. That's the theory anyway...

I could be wrong.
 
Rayaz said:
Owner's manuals are written for the lowest common denominator. That's why they tell you such useful information like "don't drive on a flat tire and don't put gasoline in your diesel". Additionally, super duper desert protection sealant is a nice little revenue generator for the dealers.

I just spent 11 hours prepping and applying Opti-coat to my son's new Accord. That kind of work is beyond the average car owner and most would not spend the money to have somebody else do it. I'm wiped out from it but I just know he's not going to let me sit in my own filth when I can't take care of myself anymore. That's the theory anyway...

I could be wrong.
Click to expand...

I'll agree with you there. They usually often tell you to use "their" brand of products to clean, in my case GM tells you to go to the dealer and buy GM labeled products to clean. Manuals are a guide. The stuff we use from AG and apply to our cars are well above and beyond anything the manual would recommend because most people "care" for their cars finish by driving it through the car wash once every couple months. If a car gets a coat of OTC wax they're lucky most times. It always amazes me how people can pay so much money for a car and just let it go to hell. Granted, everyone on the forum, I'm sure, takes it to another level lol but it's our hobby or job or whatever, and we do care because we're autogeeks.
 
Ryry11 said:
I'll agree with you there. They usually often tell you to use "their" brand of products to clean, in my case GM tells you to go to the dealer and buy GM labeled products to clean. Manuals are a guide. The stuff we use from AG and apply to our cars are well above and beyond anything the manual would recommend because most people "care" for their cars finish by driving it through the car wash once every couple months. If a car gets a coat of OTC wax they're lucky most times. It always amazes me how people can pay so much money for a car and just let it go to hell. Granted, everyone on the forum, I'm sure, takes it to another level lol but it's our hobby or job or whatever, and we do care because we're autogeeks.
Click to expand...

+1
 
The main reason car makers don't specifically recommend high end car care is because they would prefer you buy a new vehicle every 3-5 years rather than maintain your current vehicle. For example, synthetic oils were known to improve fuel economy, engine life, and with less environmental impact for at least 20 years before they were factory filled and recommended on anything other than sports cars.

Also, while at SEMA at least two buyers approached us asking us to submit a bid to fill their factory labeled car care line...so you never really know what you're getting in the bottle from the parts counter. All you know is that it meets their requirements for the price they wanted to pay. Same goes for their oil, filters, and other maintenance items. I'm not saying its a bad thing, but dealer and manual suggestions are usually not cutting edge and are geared much more toward profitability that what's best for you/your car.

One last point, we should be careful not to infer that manufacturers recommend against coatings just because they omit them from the manual. Our coatings will not void or limit the manufacturers paint warranty in any way...but, polishing away more than a few microns will with some manufacturers. So, another question may be whether or not we have already accepted a detailing practice that should be performed much less often and with less aggression.
 
Last edited:
Do keep in mind, 99.9% of car owners are not auto geeks like us. So a manual saying "apply a permanent lacquer sealant to the paint" would probably confuse a lot of people (considering you could charge the average car owner $100+ to fix their hemiquads :P ) and would cause more damage then good.
Overall a clear coat is a clear coat, yes they range in different chemistries and what not, but I do not see how applying a permanent sealant to the clear would damage it.
A company like Optimum, Carpro, or Gtechniq all invest lots of $$$$ into R&D, so that the products are universal.
I would not worry about it.
 
Sometimes the dealer will upcharge for a coating applied by them, the salesperson will say 'it'll protect your investment form the nasty enviroment'.
As Chris@Optimum stated, there is already something with a private label behind the parts counter ready for the vehicles when the owner comes in to but 'dealer only' items, nice incentive for the parts guy to sell and increase profits.
 
Chris@Optimum said:
The main reason car makers don't specifically recommend high end car care is because they would prefer you buy a new vehicle every 3-5 years rather than maintain your current vehicle. For example, synthetic oils were known to improve fuel economy, engine life, and with less environmental impact for at least 20 years before they were factory filled and recommended on anything other than sports cars.

Also, while at SEMA at least two buyers approached us asking us to submit a bid to fill their factory labeled car care line...so you never really know what you're getting in the bottle from the parts counter. All you know is that it meets their requirements for the price they wanted to pay. Same goes for their oil, filters, and other maintenance items. I'm not saying its a bad thing, but dealer and manual suggestions are usually not cutting edge and are geared much more toward profitability that what's best for you/your car.

One last point, we should be careful not to infer that manufacturers recommend against coatings just because they omit them from the manual. Our coatings will not void or limit the manufacturers paint warranty in any way...but, polishing away more than a few microns will with some manufacturers. So, another question may be whether or not we have already accepted a detailing practice that should be performed much less often and with less aggression.
Click to expand...
Exactly! Breaks, so you buy a new one, so our technicians can have a job...they don't benefit if it doesn't break...They they might sell you a "super sealant", something like Megs #21, and charge $500 for an application of it...For that price they better opti-coat all exterior...but then it doesn't break...
 
cartman57 said:
As Chris@Optimum stated, there is already something with a private label
Click to expand...

This is something that is everywhere in the industry. It is very common on cleaning chemicals (I do it) and extremely common on automotive protection products - whilst some undoubtedly make their own, do you honestly believe that the detailers who decide to try selling actually have anything like the knowledge required to make their own?

With regards to the topic, I have to admit I am a bit surprised that this is an issue with newer vehicles. I know a lot of the technologies which are out there and the clearcoats themselves can be light years ahead of the coatings market which is extremely small in comparison. If we used the best clearcoat technologies out there, the use of coatings would a bit of a waste of time. I presume that the fact that new cars are still benefitting from the use of coatings indicates that the manufacturers are generally more focused on the cheap old clearcoat tech instead of using the best available.
 
Its funny as every dealer sells an aftermarket paint package and describes it as a coating and long term protection. Up until now it was simply a wax or sealant with the new paint warranty backing, it would be nice to see them actually offer a true coating which for many could really help keep their finishes in better condition long term.
 
killrwheels@autogeek said:
Its funny as every dealer sells an aftermarket paint package and describes it as a coating and long term protection. Up until now it was simply a wax or sealant with the new paint warranty backing, it would be nice to see them actually offer a true coating which for many could really help keep their finishes in better condition long term.
Click to expand...

I guess the trouble is that they would have to thoroughly test the coating to ensure that it does not actually compromise the paint in any way.

It is a very interesting question though - if some of the coatings are as good as they claim then it would be a no-brainer to have them applied by the manufacturer. With volume etc. then costs would be minimal. So why is it not done?

FYI I am aware as fact that at least one large German manufacturer has done large scale testing of an aftermarket nano coating. Now the outcome of this I do not know but either they now use the coating (in which case it is difficult to justify having additional coatings after market) or they don't use it (in which case you have to ask why not).
 
It is a very interesting question though - if some of the coatings are as good as they claim then it would be a no-brainer to have them applied by the manufacturer. With volume etc. then costs would be minimal. So why is it not done?

This is a good question. A question someone is going to ask as I try to sell them a $500+ coating on their car. So how do I answer it?
 
rustytruck said:
It is a very interesting question though - if some of the coatings are as good as they claim then it would be a no-brainer to have them applied by the manufacturer. With volume etc. then costs would be minimal. So why is it not done?

This is a good question. A question someone is going to ask as I try to sell them a $500+ coating on their car. So how do I answer it?
Click to expand...

That same question could be applied to the coatings offered to the consumer at the dealer. The manufacturer offers only the bare bones for a base price. Everything else is a upsell option. Alloy wheels, A/C, leather seats etc. The factory would offer a coating if the demand was there. IMO. As for the coatings being as good as their claims, I think OC/OG exceed those claims.
 
2old2change said:
As for the coatings being as good as their claims, I think OC/OG exceed those claims.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant of what else you said, if this is the case, why is Optimum not selling to vehicle manufacturers? The cost per vehicle is small even for a small time user. At approx 1 million light vehicles per month that would be 50k litres of OC which would take the cost through the floor, I doubt it would cost in excess of $10 a vehicle at this point. For that you have a product which supposedly does not break down under UV, something which is much better in abrasion resistance, stays clean better, is easier to clean should it get dirty... for potentially the lifetime of the vehicle. So which idiot in the automotive industry is missing out on this?!

It really does not compare to options like leather seats etc - this would be such a low cost add on and would give tangible benefits to every single owner...
 
Mr Megane said:
Irrelevant of what else you said, if this is the case, why is Optimum not selling to vehicle manufacturers? The cost per vehicle is small even for a small time user. At approx 1 million light vehicles per month that would be 50k litres of OC which would take the cost through the floor, I doubt it would cost in excess of $10 a vehicle at this point. For that you have a product which supposedly does not break down under UV, something which is much better in abrasion resistance, stays clean better, is easier to clean should it get dirty... for potentially the lifetime of the vehicle. So which idiot in the automotive industry is missing out on this?!

It really does not compare to options like leather seats etc - this would be such a low cost add on and would give tangible benefits to every single owner...
Click to expand...

1. It is an extra cost, its not just the product, you need someone to apply it too, and its not a quick jobs either.

2. Planned obsolescence, it makes more financial sense to let something wear out and break, then charge the customer a huge amount of money to fix/replace it or even better, buy a new car. Having something last forever is shooting yourself in the foot.

3. It gives the dealerships (which are independent to the manufacturer) a stepping stone to make extra profit and sell on extras.

4. The average person does not care enough. Ask the average Joe how many times they wax or polish their car, and they will say 0-1 in its life time and frankly lack the knowledge and desire to learn. Cars to people are just a, means of transportation from point A-B.

5. Clear coat chemistry is always changing to best accommodate needs and what not. Sometimes an OEM clear coat chemistry can be changed or modified 3-4 times per model year.
 
1. If you were applying 50k litres per month, you would be spraying it on after the clearcoat, not having someone apply by hand.

2. 5 years is the lifetime of OC, if I am not mistaken so no problem there.

3. Can't argue this

4. Why bother advancing paint technology at all then?

5. OC is apparently not picky on the cleacoat.

Basically the whole argument I am hearing is that manufacturers are intentionally making their paint systems of a much lower standard than they can actually achieve. Now, I have enough contacts in the industry to know that there are massive amounts of money spent looking at ways of improving the performance or clearcoats and paint systems... this just doesn't sit right with the arguments for not applying a coating with galactic performance claims (and also, as I mentioned, I know for fact that a german manufacturer DID look into a nano coating...).

There is something missing from this whole discussion and I think it is something that some of you guys might like to take up with the manufacturers in a more official form.
 
Answer why power windows and locks are still not a standard feature and you'll have your answer as it pertains to coatings.
 
The claim of a few bucks additional cost doesn't make much difference in the grand scheme is not recognized by the auto industry.They think in pennies when it comes to production cost. GM will tell engineers if a part is designed that last longer the X then it is over designed and can be made cheaper.
I have no idea where the 5 yr life of OC/OG is stated. Opt is now offering a lifetime coating guarantee.Manufacturers are putting thinner and thinner paints on as time passes. They could care less if there is enough clear coat to make any major corrections. After the warranty is over they could care less. Mike Phillips has mentioned many times that the powers to be aren't listening to him or other detailers about the lack of paint being applied to cars anymore.
 
I appreciate there may be bias as users and suppliers of the products but I do feel you are missing important points. I just cannot help but interpret many of the comments as saying that you do not believe the application of a coating to new paint will notably decrease the chance of a warranty claim on the paint. This is the flip side of cost - there is a large cost associated with warranty claims. If a product made a notable improvement on warranty costs then the manufacturers would be looking at it.

Beyond this there is the high end sector of automotive. At a certain point, the cost really does go out the window. Certain manufacturers go to extreme ends to get the ultimate performance so all the arguments provided fail here. Why does Ferarri not coat every vehicle?

Protective coatings are everywhere in the world. Look at marine or metal coatings - these are far far larger sectors than automotive coatings. Protective coatings CAN move into the world beyond the fanatic but this has not happened for automotive. Ultimately, until that happens, you cannot avoid the conclusion that the larger industry simply does not rate their worth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top