Comments on: Why are cars shiny?

By: hoppytoad

hoppytoad — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:49:46 +0000

My brother used to paint cars and when he was learning the trade, he painted my old clunker with a metallic lacquer paint. The spray gun did a pretty good job of applying paint evenly, but a close look showed some rumply spots (like an orange peel), so in between coats he would wet sand and buff the car to smooth out application flaws. The wet sand and buff phase really shined up the finish well beyond any gloss contained in the paint.

He applied maybe 3-4 coats of color plus 3-4 coats of clear which seemed like overkill even though he told me it wasn’t enough for a durable finish. I figured I wouldn’t have the car for much longer so we scrimped on the number of coats to save money and time. But I kept the car longer than I expected and after a couple years of wear and tear the gloss started to fade, especially on the top surfaces. Once the protective clear coat wore thin, the color started to fade.

So now when I see a matte finish on cars, I figure they’re sporting either a really old or cheap paint job. I figure there’s less protection from the environment, and if I’m considering buying the car then I would factor in the cost of a new paint job.

By: never used baby shoes

never used baby shoes — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:12:53 +0000

I think we are over-thinking this.

Cars are shiny, because we like shiny things. We’re like crows that way.

My point is that our basic psychological makeup (and there is probably a whole learned behaviour versus genetic predisposition argument to have here) is inclined towards….oooh, look! Shiny! Be right back!

By: Josh Millard

Josh Millard — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 15:33:38 +0000

On the aerodynamics front (smooth = shiny), here’s what I’m wondering: is there a significantly less expensive way to put a nice smooth durable surface on a car without going for the glossy shiny happy fun time effect?

I associate car-paint-job with “expensive to do, expensive to repair”, but that’s all secondhand impressions. I suppose I’m wondering in part if there’s a practical market argument for selling cheaper-to-touch-up paint jobs, at the cost of shininess. If not, moot point. If so — there’s a question of economic vs. aesthetic incentive that I’m pretty curious about.

On the flip side: smooth = shiny, but what’s the practical differential in drag between a smooth, shiny car and a less-smooth, less shiny car (say, a DIY matte paint job)? Are we talking 1%? 0.1%?

By: Eideteker

Eideteker — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 15:26:50 +0000

Shiny things have a smooth surface. Smooth surfaces (devoid of pitting, etc) are more aerodynamic and therefore reduce drag. But yes, shinier cars look newer and therefore “better”. They’ve got “luster”.

By: mullacc

mullacc — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 15:25:53 +0000

Bondo.

By: drezdn

drezdn — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:50:40 +0000

If model building has taught me anything, it’s that non-shiny cars look like they’re either military vehicles or junkers. People are probably unlikely to consider a car with flat paint because it just won’t look like other cars (and will probably look a bit like cars that just have primer on).

It’s probably also a bit like keeping your lawn cut, a shiny car is a sign of a clean car, so people do everything they can to get and keep the shiny.