General Motors has launched a comprehensive refinish paint specification and approval process covering the paint systems in use by their dealership body shops throughout North America. The Aftermarket Paint Specification (GM4901M) for basecoat-clearcoat paint systems on rigid panels is unique among OE paint "approvals" in that to become an approved system paint systems had to pass specific performance requirements formulated by GM’s Center for Paint Expertise and GM’s North American Operations Paint Engineering.
According to Brian Dotterer, senior project engineer with GM’s Center for Paint Expertise, "The quality and appearance of a vehicle’s finish is a critical concern for GM vehicle owners. When a vehicle is in need of repairs to its finish we want our customers to have those repairs match the appearance, quality and durability of the OE finish. This is especially important as warranty periods and customer expectations increase. Our ultimate goal with this new program was to ensure quality, customer satisfying repairs."
With all of the refinish paint technology changes occurring over the past few years, in large part driven by environmental concerns and governmental regulation, collision repair facilities have been forced to adapt and change their paint operations like never before. This tremendous amount of change is also a prime motivating factor in GM’s move to performance-based refinish approvals.
Dotterer explains, "Collision repair shops, whether they are GM dealer facilities, independent repairers doing work for a GM dealer or others, have had to modify the materials, systems and equipment they use to meet both environmental regulation and increased OE finish quality. With all this change, repairers are looking for help to determine what products work and will consistently provide the level of quality necessary. We viewed this as an opportunity to provide a quantifiable, performance-based benchmark for refinish products."
The GM4901M specification involved thousands of man-hours and subjected the systems through a battery of tests. Each paint system was subjected to seven areas of testing that included:
According to Dotterer, "We worked with all of the major paint manufacturers, and our own people at GM to determine high level benchmarks for each of tests. The paint manufacturers were then asked to submit testing results for their paint systems. Based upon these results we compiled a listing of approved paint systems by paint supplier that met or exceeded the specification. Each system represents an engineered chemistry that is dependent upon the individual components. and must be used as they are listed."
Dotterer adds, "This is the first phase of our paint specification efforts. Phase two will focus on plastic panels such as TPOs that are one of the largest challenges facing refinishers. Also, we plan to make this spec global in the near future."
(Editor’s Note: See below for a discussion of approved systems.)
So what does GM’s paint spec really mean for the industry? First, it raises the bar a notch by providing GM’s "stamp-of-approval" to high-quality paint systems. This will be a definite marketing benefit for dealers and independents. We’ve all heard the question from customers, "Is this the same type of paint that was used by the factory?" Well, no it isn’t. But, it has been approved by the manufacturer based upon product performance testing that shows it meets OEM quality standards.
Secondly, it reinforces the "systems" approach for refinish. This is not that big of an issue for INSIGHT subscribers. Most of you have in-house mixing systems and are already tuned into the performance advantages of sticking with one supplier’s product line. But, there is still a large segment of the industry that hasn’t seen the light. This should help move them towards this realization. A side benefit could be a better understanding of materials costs and procedures amongst the masses.
Thirdly, other automobile manufacturers are expected to follow GM’s lead and develop a performance based approval process. Ford, as one example, has been working along these lines as long as GM. Common performance standards will thus become an issue. This is a similar argument to the industry’s concerns over differing environmental regulations causing geographic market specific products.
Integral to the General Motor paint spec is the list of approved systems. Along with the publishing of the specification, GM has provided its dealers with a booklet detailing the approved systems from specific manufacturers. Currently, Akzo Nobel, American Standox, DuPont, ICI Autocolor, Martin Senour, PPG, Sherwin Williams, and Spies Hecker each have systems approved under the GM4901M spec. Conspicuous by their absence is BASF, which has created an unfortunate side issue for some repair facilities.
Under GM guidelines, each division of GM, Chevrolet, Pontiac, etc., will require the use of approved systems and methods on warranty work in the U.S. and Canada performed by the dealer or sublet to an independent. Failure to do so could result in a warranty charge back to the dealer.
Knowing the level of competition for the average shop's paint dollar, you can imagine how many paint reps are sitting on the doorstep of the poor GM body shop manager who uses BASF. In a Question and Answer handout accompanying the materials sent to division zone offices, GM addresses the absence of BASF from the approval list thus, "The product submissions for BASF were either incomplete or too late to make the deadline. Based on the incomplete or missing data, BASF products were not included in the booklet."
The Q&A then asks if a shop must change paint suppliers and responds, "If you are using BASF products in your shop, and are the subject of an audit, you may be charged back (debited) for any warranty repairs based on the wording found in the Policy and Procedures Manual. While we may believe that BASF has some quality products, the fact is that they are not in the 'GM Approved Refinish Materials' booklet."
To put it more plainly, i.e. in non-lawyer speak, INSIGHT believes the answer to the question "Do BASF shops need to change paint brands?" is NO. We really don't think it is GM's intent to totally disrupt a body shop's operations. It's not just productivity, but color information computer systems and management system tie-ins that make paint brand changes costly. As the story above relates, GM's prime motivation is to foster quality repairs. But, at the same time, a rule is a rule.
It is important to note that GM only controls the dealers on their warranty dollar volume, not on the customer pay and insurance paid work in dealer collision centers. So, BASF users should probably buy some jobber mix or factory-pack of approved product for use on warranty work until BASF gets their Glasurit and Diamont systems approved. The next round of approvals begins in April, with the next list of approved systems being published by this Fall. It's a safe bet you'll see BASF included.
Reprinted from the February 1997 Issue of Collision Repair Industry INSIGHT.
© 1997 Collision Repair Industry INSIGHT. All Rights Reserved
Return to Archives