underhood finishes C3

[Stephen W.]

Getting ready to refinish the core support & metal shroud on the 68. I've worked with semi gloss finishes and know what I can do with them. I was thinking of having them powder coated and would like some opinions on this. Will powder coating be a closer match to the factory finish in looks and durability? Were the original pieces e-coated ( electrically charged).
Any ideas?

[Jack H.]

Re: underhood finishes C3

Problems you can run into by powder coating the rad core support are basically three fold:

(1) Powder coating is generally detectable by judges as it's thicker than original paint and leaves gently curved vs. sharp edges that could result in an originality deduction based on deviation from factory original FINISH.

(2) If existing drilled/tapped holes in the item to be powder coated aren't properly masked, the build-up of powercoat can result in mating bolts not installing properly.

(3) Since some items bolted on are electrical and the rad core support serves as a ground path to the chassis, you might wind up with erratic grounding faults from the THICK power coat finish.

[John H.]

Re: underhood finishes C3

The rad support was originally dip-primed ("flow-coated"), just like all the other loose sheet metal parts, engine brackets, etc.; e-coating was a primer technology that never made it to St. Louis.

[Stephen W.]

Re: underhood finishes C3

Thanks Jack ... thats the info I needed to make the right choice for the right finish. John, I have a question about the dip process. Because they were dipped I assume I could expect to see some runs? Taking this a bit further how would the core support be hung? I would prefer to hang the support in the same general direction so the paint film build would be similar around any holes , curves ect... in an effort to "match" the factory look on these parts.

[Chuck S.]

Re: underhood finishes C3

Steve, if you have the old support, examine it closely for "runs" or collection of paint along the edges of the part. The black primer paint that was used in the dip process was thin, and ran off quickly yielding a finish that almost appeared "sprayed" with few runs.

Occasionally, you will see runs in the middle of a part. This generally happens because the run-off flow has been slowed by some irregularity in the stamping; i.e. punched openings, stiffening ribs, etc. Usually, however, you will find "runs" at the very bottom of the part where the paint has collected just before dripping off the part. As these runs dry, they will sometimes have "bubbles" that pop after the run has dried leaving tiny voids. When you bead-blast parts, it's easy to find the runs...it takes quite a bit more time and effort to remove the runs.

[Harmon C.]

Re: underhood finishes C3

Chuck

Quote-When you bead-blast parts, it's easy to find the runs...it takes quite a bit more time and effort to remove the runs. I just leave the runs and paint over them for the original look how could you go wrong. Lyle

[Chuck S.]

Re: underhood finishes C3

Lyle, that idea was running through my head as I finished my post, and I think that is probably a good idea. Early in my restoration days, I wasn't sure the runs wouldn't look "painted over" when finsihed, so I took them off. Even if you don't take them off, the heavy accumulation of paint on the bottom of the part is usually the giveaway to the "hanging point(s)" location.

I remember that the "runs" in the bottom back side of my rally wheels were more like puddles than runs...I stood there quite a while beating on them with bead blast. To reduce the wear and tear on your bead blast machine, you should probably revert to stripper if very large runs are going to be removed completely.