Primer compatibility trial

Herewith receive a brief feedback on the compatibility trial. Please note that due to the ecoat concerns last week the trail was backtracked and I then had to take over this week. I then had to revise the timing plan so as to keep abreast to it ( 1 unit for each colour and model instead of the 3 units stipulated on the timing plan). Synopsis: 06.10.2011 Two white QW were sprayed and the results were I.O (no pinholes) 18.10.2011 4 models were sprayed with N6 primer and the results we as follows; - U90, QW, B90 results were I.O (no pinholes evident on the units) - X11C exhibited pinholes on the roof we then looked at another X11C unit that was scuffed and it also had pinholes on the roof. Thus the results are are inconclusive at this stage and I'm currently following another X11C unit to confirm the results. 19.10.2011 Two Dark grey (B90 and QW) units and 1 light grey (B90) unit were sprayed on this particular day due to availability of models and colours (a majority of scheduled colours for this week is K32, KY0 and QM1). Fine particulate pinholes which appeared to look like heatrush were evident on some panels on the unit which indicated to me that the defect emanated from PVC overspray that was not properly wiped off (poor overlapping of wiping cloth). The same results was unfortunately observed on the light grey B90 unit that was trialed as well. I repeated the exercise on the light grey unit on the 20.10.2011 and the results were I.O (no pinholes). 20.10.2011 I continued doing a trial on the outstanding QM1 units (U90 and B90) and the results were I.O (no pinholes). 21.10.2011 (today) I intend on doing another trial on dark grey primer units and X11C so as to get clarity on the initial results that i got and draw a conclusion from there. I hope you find all this in place. The trial carried out on this day gave positive results on both the dark grey X11C and light grey B90 NO PINHOLES 26.10.2011

10 additional units were sprayed back-to-back and the following was observed: - Light grey X11C sedan = sealer smudges from wiping (no pinholes) - White U90 = sealer smudges from wiping (no pinholes) - White QW D/C = sealer smudges from wiping (no pinholes) this unit was then sidetracked and audited. SEE ATTACHMENT - White QW S/C = sealer smudges from wiping and SGC overspray on bonnet (no pinholes) - White U90 = sealer smudges from wiping and SGC overspray on roof (pinholes on roof) - White U90 = sealer smudges on unit from wiping (no pinholes) - White QW D/C = sealer smudges on unit from wiping and SGC overspray (pinholes on RFD and LHS) - White X11C sedan - sealer smudges on unit from wiping (no pinholes) - White QW S/C - sealer smudges on unit from wiping (no pinholes) - White QW D/C - sealer smudges on unit from wiping (no pinholes) I've since requested the process department to raise a line trial notification to spray more cars and see the outcome of the day, be it half or full day's production without scuffing the units at the exit of the gel oven. Conclusion: The proposed process of not scuffing the units is feseable judging from the results attained from the trail but can it be sustained on the line? It has been noted from this trial that units that had SGC overspray exhibited pinholes (hence the above suggested trial for more units to be sprayed and monitor process and cleanliness of units) Poor solvent wiping needs to be addressed Prime prep (solvent wiping) also needs to be revisited. Proper wiping of excess sealer smudges and SGC overspray to be executed.

Recommendation: Sealer 2 process needs augmentation: the SGC application has to be followed by solvent wipe and not the other way round.

Regards Thabang