[FWDLK] The Silence of the Trunks....

[Rich Barber <c300@xxxxxxx>]

Good observations and questions.  How, and why?  

The sound deadener in the trunk lid of my '55 Chrysler 300 was painted (very
poorly) by the restorer for the former owner.  And it looks bad.  I'm told,
and have color pictures of this, that the proper color of the sound deadener
is tan.  To return it to its strange original configuration, I'd have to
remove the visible parts and cut in new pieces.  Or find an original
configuration "Platinum" (Chrysler's greenish tint white) trunk lid without
rust and with nice sound deadener.  Both are low priority for me at this
time.  

But, just in case, does anyone have a source for that tan sound deadener
material.  I did try a little paint stripper on the liner and that didn't
work as the gel just saturated the sound deadener and everything sort of
mushed together.

Rich Barber
Brentwood, CA
1955 C-300

-----Original Message-----
From: Forward Look Mopar Discussion List
[mailto:L-FORWARDLOOK@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of eastern sierra Adj
Services
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 11:30 PM
To: L-FORWARDLOOK@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [FWDLK] The Silence of the Trunks....

Here's a question, that I've never been able to figure out:

Forwardlook cars have differing amounts of asphaltic-sound-deadener
having been sandwiched between the trunk 'skin', and the inner trunk
stiffener-supports.

PLY's sometimes only have thin strips inserted in alignment with the
stiffeners. Other models have only partial-deadener-coverage,  on the
"exposed" under-side of the trunk skin.  Other models (like my 57 Dodge)
have full deadener-coverage of the underside of the trunk skin.

The previous is not my question, only an observation.

My question involves this : the asphaltic sound deadener is installed
when the trunk skin is "mechanically" attached to the inner stiffener.

Then, the  outer trunk skin, and the underside (which, in L.A.-built
cars  was painted,  not in body-color, but,  in that  mish-mash
varying-gray shades of residual-paint)  were painted.  On EVERY car I've
seen, where the sound deadener has been (partially) separated  from the
trunk skin, the 'exposed' skin shows no sign of receiving any paint,
other than primer, which confirms that the deadener material WAS
present,  when the underside was painted.

FINALLY, my question:  how, and why, did all the assembly plants manage
to paint the underside of the trunks, without getting ANY (significant)
amount of over-spray ONTO the deadener material????

Why would 'they' bother to mask-off the deadener, when spraying the
underside of the trunk??

I've never found an "original" (but PLENTY of 
"restored" ) cars, which show  evidence of having the deadener be
painted (either body-color, OR  that 'universal-gray' color) 

Which brings "us" to exhibit  'A', below, which is a 1956 DeSoto, which
DOES show evidence of sloppy OEM paint over-spray/dribbles on the trunk
deadener.

Some trunk deadeners I've seen do have a minor amount of paint-slop on
them, but this car seems to have as bad a case of Modern Art on it, as
any underside I've ever seen (scroll down to the trunk detail-pic).

I just can't figure out why (apparently) the deadener was masked-off,
when the trunk underside was painted!
  
--back on SUN.

Neil Vedder


*************************************************************

To unsubscribe or set your subscription options, please go to
http://lists.psu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=l-forwardlook&A=1

*************************************************************

To unsubscribe or set your subscription options, please go to
http://lists.psu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=l-forwardlook&A=1