I had my car media blasted, and another owner in the area has his
dipped. Same body man on both cars.
There are plus and minus to both, but the most important thing is the
person doing it as usual.
So if low rust, I would go with media blasting, and blowing out the
media, multiple time, as it will come up when you paint.
If heavy rust, then dipping by someone who knows what they are doing is
a good process.
Most owner who do either process, are so surprised at all the Swiss
Cheese holes in the usual places. This is good, as it shows where to
replace metal, and not use bondo.
I have a personal opinion on under coating, as I believe it is a good
way to hide rust and damage, it the owner selling it wants to make it
look good. The other item is if rust or structural damage occurs later,
i.e. the front portion of the rear spring mounts, painting, without
under coating lets you see what's happening.
A good urethane primer on bare metal and good paint will protect the
underside for a long time, and I personally like the looks of the same
color on the bottom.
Larry
Curt wrote:
> I would have to take a contrary view. I have sand blasted two rusty
> Tigers and no matter how much sand , beads, walnuts, magic dust, or
> whatever, you cannot get all the places you would like to clean up.
> Plus, once you sand blast you will be cleaning out sand from various
> and sundry places forever. Every time I drove my cars I thought I was
> at the beach.
>
> I have dipped many parts and love it. I have seen the cars that Doug
> Jennings has dipped and would go that route if I was to do it again. I
> think the concerns for post dipping are a bit over rated and good
> attention to washing and priming take care of it, certainly as well
> as the problems you get from sand blasting.
>
> Curt Hoffman
|