Cadillac & LaSalle Club Discussion Forum

Cadillac & LaSalle Club Forums => General Discussion => Topic started by: rag4rdd on October 08, 2011, 12:32:27 PM

Title: Lead vs Bondo for Body Work
Post by: rag4rdd on October 08, 2011, 12:32:27 PM
My 54 cdv is finally going in for its paint and body work.  The place I am using primarily uses lead filler instead of bondo (he was taught by an 'old school' guy).

Are there any drawbacks to going this route?

I'll be posting before during and after pics soon.

Thanks,
RA Greer
Title: Re: Lead vs Bondo for Body Work
Post by: Dave Shepherd on October 08, 2011, 01:48:31 PM
Weight, expense, harder to work with, done right skim coats of modern bondo are pretty standard in the resto industry,.  It also depends where and why it is being used.
Title: Re: Lead vs Bondo for Body Work
Post by: Dan LeBlanc on October 08, 2011, 08:45:28 PM
When my father started doing body work in 1952 there was no such thing as plastic filler. He told me that when it came out in the 70's it was hard to use. I think he told me it was called White Lightning or something. If you added too much hardener it would create too much heat and warp your panel. That said he still never went back to lead. My first 62 Cadillac I came to find out through paperwork was actually owned by the landlord of my father's body shop. My dad painted that car in the late 70's and the plastic filler where he used it still was fine.

Plastic fillers if used properly will stand up for years. Their poor reputation stems from being used improperly for filling holes and such. It is not at all a bad product. Lead fillers on the other hand are heavy and have a greater tendency to crack over time. It's old technology that has been superseded by something newer and better that is still being refined.
Title: Re: Lead vs Bondo for Body Work
Post by: J. Gomez on October 08, 2011, 09:35:35 PM
RA,

I personally used both methods lead for filling large gaps/holes and bondo to father smooth the area with no issues. 

Lead filling has a tendency to crack in areas where the body could flex as Dan pointed, but your ’54 should have the 57 year old lead still intact.

Lead is laborious work in today’s body repair business, if you found one who still uses lead considered yourself lucky.

Good luck..!
Title: Re: Lead vs Bondo for Body Work
Post by: EAM 17806 on October 09, 2011, 08:34:12 PM
Aside from lead filling, what about other metal usage to fill rust spots and holes?  Would they be better quality body repair than plastic bondo? Think about it and give us your thoughts, all you body guys. EAM
Title: Re: Lead vs Bondo for Body Work
Post by: Eldovert on October 10, 2011, 01:09:54 PM
Ev,
When you have rust holes it is always better to cut out the rust and replace the metal. That way the fix is more than just temporary. There seems to be two schools of thought when dealing with lead. Some bodymen prefer to take all the lead out and others prefer to remove just the lead that has failed. When dealing with an area that is rusted under failed lead the area must be blasted clean and then a waterproof filler such as Long and Strong (fiberglass) or "Metal to Metal" should be applied. This is to prevent moisture from coming through the backside of the repair if there are any pinholes. The repair can be then be finished with standard fillers.
Cheers, Pat MacPhail