Tim has a very timely question, at least for me as well. I am thinking about
turning over one of my tigers to someone in the east to restore the body, while
i do the engine and interior seperately. I spoke to Doug Jennings and he
normally leaves the underside the body color, without undercoating. I actually
like the clean look of no undercoating. All three of my tigers (2 mark I's and
a mark Ia) do have undercoating, and from the looks of them, seems original.
That said, I would like to confirm what was original, and that would enter into
my decision of which way to go. Also, can anyone who has not undercoated speak
to their experience, ie, have rock chips started to rust, etc.?
Peter
> GRMTim@aol.com wrote:
>
> >>From what I have learned from looking at my low mileage original car and
> from
> >my studies, it appears that all Tigers had a crude black undercoating job
> >from the factory. Is this in fact true? What is current wisdom in this area?
>
> >While I understand the need for protection underneath the car and for
> originality,
> >I have never been a fan of crude black undercoating jobs. I would rather
> >paint the underside body color (dark blue in my case) or at least spray the
> bottom
> >with rockerpanel protectant and then paint it.
> >
> >Any thoughts?
> >
> >Tim Suddard
> >Classic Motorsports magazine
>
Peter Laurinaitis
peter.laurinaitis.wg02@wharton.upenn.edu
|