Brownfield vs greenfield: How OEMs are navigating paintshop investment under pressure

Frédéric Bron, World Account Manager at Sames, describes today’s paintshop decisions as the product of three linked pressures: OEM product strategy shifts, constrained capital and validation timelines, and the practical realities of ageing factory envelopes. “Paintshop needs a lot of flexibility,” he says, and that observation runs through every project choice – from process selection and robot reuse to decisions about retrofit versus new build.

Changing materials choices

Changing OEM product line-ups and powertrain choices are changing the rules of the game. Bron points out that the shift to electric and hybrid models brings with it different material mixes and thermal tolerances. “These cars don’t always use a uniform type of material… aluminium structures can be paired with metal sheets, and this variation can present challenges in using high temperature drying because it could potentially affect the geometry of the car’s structure.” These material differences force changes to bake cycles and application techniques, and they increase the value of paintshop designs that can handle multiple substrates and processes.

At the same time, environmental regulation is tightening: “We need to reduce our VOCs, CO2s,” which pushes manufacturers toward lower‑energy drying processes and different coating strategies. Bron notes that sometimes these forces align – for example, low‑bake or multi‑wet processes can reduce energy use while delivering the flexibility OEMs need – but OEMs’ wider strategic moves, platform consolidations and partnerships also create uncertainty in production planning and investment horizons.

The need for flexibility in paintshops

That uncertainty shapes how Sames approaches projects. Bron contrasts two major Stellantis paintshop programmes to show the difference between constrained retrofits and fully new installations. The project at the OEM’s Sochaux plant involved converting an existing, historically significant envelope into a modern paintshop. “It used to be one of the old buildings… they removed all the machines, clearing the space for the new paintshop to be installed inside the shell of the old building,” Bron explains. The shell offered an existing footprint designed for a different use, within this the team had to fit new conveyors, lines and controls into that envelope. To control CapEx, Sames reused much of the available equipment, including robots from a factory closure. “The idea was to reduce the cost, and to reuse existing redundant equipment from other locations,” Bron says, but he cautions that reuse carries its own risks: “The robot looks good, but you start to dismantle it and discover worn or faulty parts.” As such, the Sochaux project demanded meticulous inspection, refurbishment and adaptation to the constraints of structure, new safety regulations and airflow.

By contrast, the programme at the Toluca plant in Mexico benefitted from largely new automation and the freedoms of a fresh internal fit‑out. New robots and systems allow optimisation of throughput and process windows, but new equipment brings its own problems: lead times and supply‑chain uncertainty loom large. “Brand new robots… are not always ready on the shelf waiting for you… they are manufactured to order,” Bron points out, and long delivery schedules can clash with launch dates. For that reason, even when greenfield‑style choices exist, timing pressures or delayed OEM decisions can force a mix of new purchases and asset carryover.

Find out more about Sames' paintshop technologies for automotive applications here

Brownfield versus greenfield: managing constraints

Brownfield versus greenfield therefore becomes a trade‑off between ideal engineering and pragmatic constraints. Bron characterises greenfield as the “top goals” where you can “optimise all your process and use all the latest technologies,” but he also stresses that for many established OEMs greenfield is not realistic: “For the existing brands in Europe there is limited capability to go for a greenfield option.” Brownfield retrofits can save immediate capital outlay and can accelerate readiness, yet they also introduce complexity: older structures may not bear new dynamic loads, safety standards may require extensive rebuilds, hazardous materials such as asbestos can force long shutdowns, and airflow and footprint limits can block otherwise attractive technologies. “As you progress the programme your two-week project can easily become a three-month project,” Bron warns. In short, brownfield projects can hide costs and delays that offset some of their apparent savings.

Sames’ approach to technology selection reflects those realities. The company assesses whether carryover assets are serviceable and whether their refurbishment can meet launch windows and technical requirements. Reuse can be attractive when lead times for new equipment are long: “sometimes you have no other choice because new robots will come after the expected launch time.” But reuse raises integration challenges that require extra scheduling and technical controls – dismantling, transport, rewiring, replacement of worn subcomponents and thorough testing. Bron stresses that carryover often requires more careful validation than a new build because unknowns accumulate during the move. When space allows, Sames will also choose high transfer‑efficiency application hardware that reduces the need to alter line footprints. In one brownfield interior example, the AccuBell Evo allowed faster application and better transfer efficiency so the company could “reduce the size of the booth and to fit into the existing interior cell,” avoiding a structural extension that would have been costly.

Sustainability and efficiency choices are therefore pragmatic and ROI driven. Bron recalls a market presentation in which three airflow technologies were compared and the OEM selected not the most efficient option but the one with the fastest return. That commercial reality often determines what technologies are accepted on retrofit projects; the most energy‑efficient or novel option may require additional robots or space that simply do not fit an existing envelope. Sames therefore develops solutions that improve transfer efficiency while keeping the same footprint or require minimal structural change.

Applying a pragmatic, modular approach

Standardisation and localisation must be balanced. Bron notes that large OEMs can act almost as separate regional organisations: “one is in North America, one is in Europe… two almost independent organisations” – so a global standard cannot be blindly imposed. Sames aims to create modular, configurable solutions that can be standardised at the platform level but adapted to local facility layouts, regulations and labour conditions. That pragmatic modularity allows a supplier to present repeatable, benchmarked processes while meeting plant‑specific constraints such as pillars, rails, airflow and union sensitivities.

Compressed launch and validation timelines intensify all these pressures. OEMs may delay investment decisions, yet launch dates remain fixed, shrinking the supplier’s margin for planning and validation. “OEMs are taking a very long period of time to take that decision and to release a PO,” Bron says, and sudden strategic decisions can upend projects overnight. When validation of paints, bumpers and multi‑material assemblies must be sequenced tightly with design freezes, supply of new coatings and OEM approvals all need parallel coordination that historically ran in sequence. The result is that suppliers and integrators must be prepared to shorten commissioning cycles, perform fast but thorough asset checks, and accept that some retrofit tasks will require more on‑site ingenuity than a planned new build.

Looking ahead, Bron sees continued automation, advances in application technology and greater digitalisation as the most actionable opportunities. Transfer‑efficiency improvements, flexible low‑bake processes and data collection are immediately applicable to brownfield upgrades because they can often be introduced with limited footprint change; more radical concepts – higher robot density, redesigned oven flows or “dark factory” automation – are more feasible in new builds where the envelope and supply of capital align, although Bron notes that dark factories are, at present, more of a long-term ambition. Digital tools and big‑data collection are also critical to managing validation and integration complexity.

 For Sames, the imperative is not simply to chase the newest technology but to deliver solutions that fit regulatory demands, plant realities and OEM timelines. In Bron’s view, the winning paintshop strategy is the one that combines flexible, modular technologies with rigorous on‑site engineering, careful asset assessment and choices that balance technical performance with demonstrable, near‑term returns. Bron notes a key strength Sames offers is: “our engineering ability to combine standard solutions with tailor-made engineering aims to optimise performance, integration and overall footprint according to each plant’s constraints.”