Lead V's Plod

dal2.0litrefrogeye · Post by **dal2.0litrefrogeye** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 1:46 pm

Hi all just thinking out loud , but what is the advantages of Lead loading compared to a good modern day Filler ? Yes I appreciate Lead is the "Corect" way , but ! Is it the better way these days

and sorry I if this has been done before

David Oslo · Post by **David Oslo** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 2:38 pm

Funny you wrote that now, I was just thinking of the same issue as I drove to work today. I have a slight crack in one of the corners that is leaded from the factory, and I was pondering if it was feasible to fix without leading. My experience of trying to apply lead in the past (albeit with most likely insufficient blow torch capacity) was not encouraging.

My thought process this morning was that normal filler (with chalk / powder as filler material plus the binder elements) absorbs water, so that using it say in my corner (with movement of the metal bodywork, hence the crack) is not wise. Most likely to flex and crack the paint at some point the next 5-10 years, absorb water and bulge up the paint. Then I thought, hmm, maybe I could just superficially crack-fill with pure epoxy.

I guess the general advantages of lead is that it fully bonds to the bodywork (which bodyfiller does too...) and flexes with the body movement (which bodyfiller does to a lesser degree) and is impervious to water, be it from a scratch or chip from the paint side, or through ingress from the rear-side.

That's my 5-kroners worth...

KingRichard · Post by **KingRichard** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 6:14 pm

Hi,

I did all the bodywork myself and never questioned myself if I were to be going to use lead. I did a home restoration DIY ( I have a S2 2+2). The hassle with lead and difficulty to work with, makes the decission very easy. Modern 2k fillers are so user firendly. Lead has also health safety issues.

I read once an expert telling that if modern fillers were available in the 60's they would have used it too, definitly not lead!

If I were a professional restoration company restoring the rarest E-types (like CMC) I use lead (and have the skills and craftsmen to do it).

Richard

dal2.0litrefrogeye · Post by **dal2.0litrefrogeye** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 7:31 pm

Some good points there, I'm a little undecided, and also a long way from applying any sort of filler yet, more research on this me thinks ??

288gto · Post by **288gto** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 7:49 pm

Having painted the rear of any repairs with either zinc primer or epoxy, I am reluctant to burn it all off heating the repair to lead load it. What is nice about the lead is that like soldering a pipe union, it is drawn into the seam. Originally this would have been good on the A and B posts where they meet the sill, but I don't see why this can't be overcome by tig or mig welding the seam.
When I asked a very well regarded restorer the same question he said that now with the availability of modern metal loaded 2k fillers, unless a customer specifically requests lead, that is what they do.

Simon

abowie · Post by **abowie** » Wed Jan 21, 2015 12:42 am

Modern fillers are good. Lead is poisonous and dangerous to work with. I have stuck with fillers.

vrracing · Post by **vrracing** » Wed Jan 21, 2015 3:01 am

Peter Kluth of Legendary Motorcars (Dream Car Garage and Legendary Motorcars on TV) made a pretty unequivocal statement on an episode of Legendary Motorcar that they use only modern fillers. If I recall correctly it was during the restoration of the BASF Mercedes 300SL gullwing. For what it's worth, Kluth's restorations have won awards at Pebble Beach, Meadow Brook and Amelia Island. You can see photos of the BASF gullwing "bondo" application here...

http://www.legendarymotorcar.com/site2/ ... -gullwing/

paulsco · Post by **paulsco** » Wed Jan 21, 2015 6:04 pm

I have leaded all the repairs on my body shell so far.

It is not that difficult as long as the metal is very clean and tinned properly and to get the lead to the right buttery consistency (hard work to file off though).

I was in a dilemma too, as all the professional body shops stated they used lead and I wanted my shell to be as good as I could get it.

The thing is though that it is not realistically possible to lead flat areas without distorting them with the heat, so I am skeptical as to whether professionals can complete the job without at least some filler.

I know that some use high build primmer filler to level the panels, but in my view this is probably less durable than plastic filler.

I still have some work to do on my shell before it is ready for respray and I almost certainly will be using some plastic filler.

Paul

ernie · Post by **ernie** » Wed Jan 21, 2015 6:54 pm

Paul[/quote]"I was in a dilemma too, as all the professional body shops stated they used lead and I wanted my shell to be as good as I could get it.

The thing is though that it is not realistically possible to lead flat areas without distorting them with the heat, so I am skeptical as to whether professionals can complete the job without at least some filler.

I know that some use high build primmer filler to level the panels, but in my view this is probably less durable than plastic filler".

Paul[/end quote]

In recent years I have noticed that most body shops (in fact all of the upmarket body shops that I have seen) use the better fillers for all or the bulk of the work. They have commented that modern fillers that contain metal are very good. Two have mentioned that the materials used for tinning have recently seem to be contaminated...

paulsco · Post by **paulsco** » Wed Jan 21, 2015 7:13 pm

Contaminated in what way David?

Plastic fillers are great for leveling, but I wouldn't use them to size a door gap for instance as they are likely to chip off.

Paul

ernie · Post by **ernie** » Wed Jan 21, 2015 7:37 pm

They indicated that they had had a reaction when painted...but I didnt ask any more..however this was a comment made by two different shops...of course it could have been an excuse not to use it.......

mooney1el · Post by **mooney1el** » Wed Jan 21, 2015 7:47 pm

A little story for entertainment and perhaps a tidbit of info. Way back in 1957-8, I ?nosed and decked? my mother?s ?54 Ford using the leading technique my grandfather had taught me. I was 11-12 years old at the time. Forward to ?64, my best friend?s father was preparing my Volkswagen for painting and there were some areas which needed repair and we used lead; he was quite surprised that I knew anything about it much less how to do it. Fast forward to 1977-9, I was working at GM Research Laboratories and we were charged with developing an alternative to lead for our assembly lines. At that time, the industry was still using a great deal of lead although it was now low lead or lead free, but still required the same techniques. The sheet metal was treated with a brushed on ?Ruby Fluid? (if required), then a paste was applied, heated and wiped leaving a clean tinned surface. Lead was introduced from the line side lead pots, buttered on with great skill and left for the finishers. The finishing required very little lead to be removed, but was mostly done with rotary grinders using 50 or 80 grit and then 120 grit discs. I had to get fairly good at this to prepare test panels to be used in my development of the alternative. Of course, we had to also test the various candidates from several suppliers.

After testing hundreds of commercial and proposed commercial products, alongside the leaded test panels, it was obvious that the ?synthetic? materials available at the time were not suitable for production applications and they had very poor performance in the long term durability testing. When we tested the room temperature cured materials, after environmental exposures common to the industry, none remained ?invisible? and thus not suitable for under paint, class A surfaces. Anything over 1/16-3/16? material thickness was rejected due to cracks, swelling and all the other horror stories we all have heard. Even the thinner applications sometimes swelled or shrank, over the long term.

We did finally develop and patent (after 320 variations), a heat curable epoxy based material which would pass all of the rigorous testing. The industry revised their construction technique and panel breaks so that there was no longer any need for either lead or an alternative.

I do not know the formulations for the newest body fillers, except for the ubiquitous ?Bondo?, polyester based products. If I had a need, I would use the latest technology products in thin sections, but for thicker sections and seams, I will continue to use the ?old school? leading. I do still have all my paddles, bee?s wax, and the proper torch for it 

paulsco · Post by **paulsco** » Thu Jan 22, 2015 9:57 am

If I had a need, I would use the latest technology products in thin sections, but for thicker sections and seams, I will continue to use the ?old school? leading. I do still have all my paddles, bee?s wax, and the proper torch for it [quote]

I agree with you there Richard

Dinitrol do a good aluminum filler
http://www.frost.co.uk/dinitrol-6030-me ... iller.html

Frost also do a leading kit.

David, the reason for the paint problem is not cleaning the lubricating tallow or possibly the flux off sufficiently.

By the way a simple butane/propane torch is plenty powerful enough for leading.

http://www.mad4tools.com/auto-power-gas ... 6949-p.asp

Paul

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
	Hide post links

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
	Hide post links

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
	Hide post links

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
	Hide post links

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
	Hide post links

The 'E' Type Forum

Lead V's Plod

#1 Lead V's Plod

#2

#3 Re: Lead V's Plod

#4 Re: Lead V's Plod

#5

#6

#7

#8

#9

#10

#11

#12

#13