'86 Buick GN

Aurora40 · 07-03-09, 03:50

I "detailed" this car today as a gift for an in-law. It's an '86 Grand National with about 25,000 miles on it. I think the last time anything was done to it other than a wash was about 6 years ago when I also cleaned it up as a gift.

I washed it with optimum no-rinse. I'm really warming up to that product. The paint was very foggy. It wasn't too gritty, but I did claybar the horizontal surfaces. The paint also has a lot of areas where it is stained or it looks like something spilled on it, but it's in the paint.

I believe the clear is shot. It has checking on the hood, and sort of like speckling on the trunklid. The trunklid almost looks like the paint is a metallic grey/black. But of course it isn't.

I used Meguiar's Medallion Premium Paint Cleaner mainly because I didn't want to use anything particularly abrasive. I applied by PC with a Meg's yellow pad. It worked quite well bringing back deep gloss to the paint. It did not help with the "stain" areas very much, though with more gloss they are less obvious. I did this to everything above the beltline. The paint on the lower part of the car is very orange-peeled from the factory. So I didn't bother trying to polish it. I guess that's just how they did it back then?

I used #21 on the lower part of the car and the bumpers, since it has some cleaning ability. I used Blackfire on the top half.

I also vacuumed out the interior and cleaned up the floormats with Meg's APC+.

All in all I spent about 7 hours total today. I'm sure some of you guys could have done it in half the time.

The paint isn't really as good as it looks in the photos, but the car does look quite nice from a few feet back.

detail1 · 07-03-09, 04:32

These cars were single stage lacquer - No clear coat.

Most 86s had a factory paint defect which caused the paint on the hood, roof and truck areas to check or crack. Some 87s also had this problem.

Good job in not using anything too abrasive.

David Fermani · 07-03-09, 07:28

A W S O M E ! ! ! ! ! !
Plus, they also had tons of primer bleed through spots from improper color coverage at the factory (bottoms of the doors). I love these cars so much and nothing looks tougher that one that's polished nicely. Great job of preserving a real collectable that will some day be worth several $100,000.

Aurora40 · 07-04-09, 06:12

Interesting, I didn't know they were single stage. I didn't know GM did anything in the 80's and up without clearcoat. That makes me feel a bit better about the amount of paint transfer to the pads.

They definitely get rougher as you get to the bottom of the doors and such. My in-law has owned it since new, so it's not had body work or anything. But it definitely gets rough near the bottom.

Much on the car is original. I think it probably needs a bit of a tune-up. To me, it idled and moved at low-throttle a bit roughly, sorta like a carb'd car. I was also surprised by how large it is. It's about as long as the Aurora, I could barely fit it in the garage. And it has the digital dash option, which means it only has a speed and fuel level display.

To me it felt very much like the "old" GM cars I'm used to (mostly 70's Caprices and 80's Celebrities). I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable doing 100+ in something like that. The Corvettes I've had from the same era feel much more like a "modern" car (except for the crappy headlights and windshield wipers).

Still, it's quite a cool car.

detail1 · 07-04-09, 07:50

At low idle, these cars are known to idle rough but it might still need a tune up. Dont know- spark plugs, wires, fuel filter, PCV valve, etc.

THese GNs surely dont handle as well as a a Corvette on turns but look out in a straight away. These GNs are solid cars and the acceleration in its day was awesome!

OCDinPDX · 07-04-09, 07:27

Looks good...but forgive my ignorance what is checking? I've never heard of that defect before.

detail1 · 07-04-09, 08:42

Checking or cracking for a better word. The paint just cracks. From far away the paint looks rally shiny but as u get closer u can see all the cracks in the paint.

I think it was called checking because the craking was in liitle squares all along the hood, roof and trunk.

OCDinPDX · 07-04-09, 09:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by detail1

Checking or cracking for a better word. The paint just cracks. From far away the paint looks rally shiny but as u get closer u can see all the cracks in the paint.

I think it was called checking because the craking was in liitle squares all along the hood, roof and trunk.

I learned something new today.

gtppilot · 07-05-09, 05:31

Great work! Always good to see a GN being preserved. I see too many of them that have been abused to all hell and sitting around in bad shape. Congrats!!

Aurora40 · 07-05-09, 05:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by OCDinPDX

Looks good...but forgive my ignorance what is checking? I've never heard of that defect before.

I guess I should have taken a close-up picture. If you look at the paint up close, there are like very short lines in it. In this case they were mostly like little 3-point stars. Each line was about as long as the width of a penny.

They are, I believe, tiny cracks. It's a sign that the paint has failed. You can't fix it via detailing, as far as I know. Hopefully waxing it up will prevent or slow further damage, I'm pretty sure the owner doesn't want to have to paint the car.

I always assumed it was called checking because it can look like little check marks? But honestly I've no idea the origin of the term.

ronkh57 · 07-05-09, 06:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by detail1

Checking or cracking for a better word. The paint just cracks. From far away the paint looks rally shiny but as u get closer u can see all the cracks in the paint.

I think it was called checking because the craking was in liitle squares all along the hood, roof and trunk.

Ilearned it as "crazing"