When I had my blue 87 repainted last year I took the painter the actual color chip from the 1987 Pontiac Dealer Product book. The book calls the color "Bright Blue Metallic".
The car came back a perfect match to the chip. But it is a bit darker than it was and than any factory-blue Fiero I've seen. Additionally, I don't recall the factory color, which I'd call gumball blue, having much, if any, metal flake at all.
So...is the chip I have defective, were the cars never painted to match the chip, or was the factory paint highly susceptible to fading?
I seem to remember seeing an original blue that had metallic visible in it, but as you said, much less. Color chips are printed and are susceptible to press variations. It was difficult in those days to duplicate a spray painted metallic color.
You are correct....there was no metallic (or much less than your picture) in '87 Fiero blue
quote
Originally posted by Chief:
The original blue color was indeed metallic.
Appreciate the input- it bugs me a bit that the car sort of came out not stock, even though it matches the 'official' Pontiac dealer book and paint chip.
Appreciate the input- it bugs me a bit that the car sort of came out not stock, even though it matches the 'official' Pontiac dealer book and paint chip.
Chief is right. The name of the color was Bright Blue Metallic...so yea..... This would not be the first time a car company messed up a chip book.
Chief is right. The name of the color was Bright Blue Metallic...so yea..... This would not be the first time a car company messed up a chip book.
The paint chips were a sales tool and approximate the color, they are not and have NEVER been the exact color of the vehicle as the paint batches for the chips varied. Color matching in those days was mostly done by eye under vastly different lighting conditions which yields varying results. Not to mention what time, temperature, lighting and climatic changes do to paint. The software and devices that are used for color matching these days is not 100% accurate, nor are our monitors, or screens as tones and hues vary with each device.
You have a beautiful car with a great paint job why sour it for yourself; Just enjoy !!!!
[This message has been edited by Chief (edited 07-11-2016).]
You are correct....there was no metallic (or much less than your picture) in '87 Fiero blue, so my bet is that Pontiac messed up that book.
I wondered if the factory blue cars varied from batch to batch. My initial impression of the factory blue is that its quite noticeably metallic. But maybe some cars are less so.
I just want to chime in- The "Ford" Blue they painted the Fieros just didn't look that good to me....And I am originally a Ford guy......The darker metallic blue you have looks fantastic- like the red metallic they painted the 87-88s, it makes the car look ten times more expensive- Not like a plastic toy.
(This is my opinion and any resemblance to anything anyone should take too seriously is purely a coincidence)
I just want to chime in- The "Ford" Blue they painted the Fieros just didn't look that good to me....And I am originally a Ford guy......The darker metallic blue you have looks fantastic- like the red metallic they painted the 87-88s, it makes the car look ten times more expensive- Not like a plastic toy.
(This is my opinion and any resemblance to anything anyone should take too seriously is purely a coincidence)
The bright red on 88s was not a metallic, and was not the same as used on the 87s. 84-87 used the same bright red and was unique to the Fiero. The bright red on the 88 was the same bright red used on the Corvette that year. Now the burgundy red, that's another story (and it is a metallic finish).
[This message has been edited by lateFormula (edited 07-12-2016).]
Now the burgundy red, that's another story (and it is a metallic finish).
The burgundy red you mention was called "Medium Red Metallic" by Pontiac, and is what the previous poster it talking about, I think.
I do like the way my car turned out. It's just that we've gone to some pains to keep it 'stock', or at least stock-looking (it has a 3.4), and this throws a bit of a wrench in the works.
I do like the way my car turned out. It's just that we've gone to some pains to keep it 'stock', or at least stock-looking (it has a 3.4), and this throws a bit of a wrench in the works.
I never was a fan of the 87 blue - but yours looks fantastic! MUCH better than the blue that came from the factory.
As far as "stock" goes, this is the way it SHOULD have looked, (but MUCH better) Like the 3.4, a big improvement, and what SHOULD have been installed at the factory....the way I see it, you just corrected a few mistakes the factory made. Slightly different, but a VAST improvement (both engine and paint)
When I had my blue 87 repainted last year I took the painter the actual color chip from the 1987 Pontiac Dealer Product book. The book calls the color "Bright Blue Metallic".
The car came back a perfect match to the chip. But it is a bit darker than it was and than any factory-blue Fiero I've seen. Additionally, I don't recall the factory color, which I'd call gumball blue, having much, if any, metal flake at all.
It was an 87 Pontiac paint color book, probably meaning all 87 Pontiacs not just Fieros.
The original blue had a good bit of metallic in it. One of our club members has an original blue SE that has spend most of its life inside under a cover. It is very close to the color of the OPs car, darker than cars that were not stored inside.
The original blue had a good bit of metallic in it. One of our club members has an original blue SE that has spend most of its life inside under a cover. It is very close to the color of the OPs car, darker than cars that were not stored inside.
What other years was blue available? Maybe they switched blues halfway thru the year?
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 07-13-2016).]
The original blue had a good bit of metallic in it. One of our club members has an original blue SE that has spend most of its life inside under a cover. It is very close to the color of the OPs car, darker than cars that were not stored inside.
That has been my working theory: That my car ended up with more metallic than OEM, but the hue was very close, and that there was something about the OEM paint that caused it to fade more than is typical.
As far as fading, '80s paint wasn't the best. Some colors oxidize worse than other colors.
It's always possible that things happened with paint at the factory. I had a '77 Dodge van that came from the factory--with paperwork--that Dodge claims they never built. Engine, body, and paint. Years later, I found the same body on another van. The paint color eventually showed up in some books as original. Fieros exist that were ”destroyed”.
I do like the way my car turned out. It's just that we've gone to some pains to keep it 'stock', or at least stock-looking (it has a 3.4), and this throws a bit of a wrench in the works.
About ten years ago I went to look at a blue Fiero GT. The price was really good... but I didn't buy it. I couldn't stand the factory blue.
Your car on the other hand looks great. That's a very nice blue.
And only available for part of the year: I ordered an '87 GT in Bright Blue Metallic and received one in Medium Red Metallic.....color changed by the dealer without my knowledge....he offered to undo the deal since he wanted more of them in Medium Red Metallic (this was down in Lancaster, PA) on his lot and explained that Bright Blue Metallic was only offered for a few months.
Originally posted by imacflier: Bright Blue Metallic was only offered for a few months.
Ha! Probably just long enough for GM Designers to find out the factory messed up and the cars did not match the chip book! (making lorennerol's car the only, or one of the few correct cars!.... )
[This message has been edited by Gall757 (edited 07-14-2016).]
Over the years I've tried to get good photos showing the metallic content in the blue, in different lighting the color always looks different. The video shows it the best.
This is original paint, has about two weeks out in the sun since leaving the factory.
[This message has been edited by CoolBlue87GT (edited 10-17-2016).]
Looks like he has a perfect example of the old saying, "If ain't broke, don't fix it!"
Yes, indeed it looks great.
I just brought a gallon of blue metallic pearl base coat that was marked down from $280 to $80 because it was a miss-match. Miss match or not, it looks awesome on the can lid and even richer in it. I can't wait to see it on the car. It looks like we're going to have some great painting temperatures weather-wise the next three days!
quote
Originally posted by trivet:
I never was a fan of the 87 blue - but yours looks fantastic! MUCH better than the blue that came from the factory.
As far as "stock" goes, this is the way it SHOULD have looked, (but MUCH better) Like the 3.4, a big improvement, and what SHOULD have been installed at the factory....the way I see it, you just corrected a few mistakes the factory made. Slightly different, but a VAST improvement (both engine and paint)
The formula and color are most likely correct.. Difference being the original was painted with pre 2k paint and the new paint is k2 paint, and they tend to be more transparent so the metallic shows through more than the original did. Also, metallic paint "look" depends on the painter and the temp. and reducer used.. if the metallic flakes lay down they look different from the same color from the same can that the flakes stand up. This is why metallic colors are easy to tiger stripe , and harder to match to the rest of a vehicle , even when the painter "blends" the paint into panels..
Slightly different, but a VAST improvement (both engine and paint)
