% of Gloss in Engine Bay and Ceramic Chassis Paints?

[buick man]

I have a couple of questions regarding 1957 Buicks:

1) Has anyone used the Eastman product called: "Ceramic Black". This is a catalyzed 2K product?

It is suppose to have a pound of ceramic embedded into the admixture of the paint in each can. I am wondering what kind of a sheen would result from it after it cures and if the result would look correct OEM stock?

2) What percentage of gloss is considered right on for the following:

- 1957 Buick Inside Engine bay sides over wheels?

- 1957 Buick Front Radiator cross member and front apron area supports. The pieces just in front of the radiator and which hold the hood latch mechanism and horns?

I know these sections had different gloss as the engine bay sides appear somewhat of satin but what % as opposed to the more gloss front support structures.

3) Perhaps our members could post what paint manufacturer they used what % of gloss and if it was a catalyzed paint or not?

Edited February 16, 2011 by buick man (see edit history)

[Cubelodyte]

I have always read that Buick consistently used a satin finish for everything under the hood. For some reason I want to say it's a 15% gloss but don't take that as gospel. No idea about the catalyzation, though.

[NTX5467]

Not knowing about the Eastman product specifically, I'd suspect that anything catalyzed is going to have a harder and slicker shine than anything OEM might have had at any time. With "ceramic" also in the mix, that further makes me suspect it's going to be too shiney for OEM stock. It might "show better" for some of the car show crowds, but too shiney is not correct.

An observed evolving problem is that many of the restoration paint suppliers, even the licensed ones, tend to have "chassis blacks" and such which are significantly too shiney for stock OEM production vehicles, even later model ones. I've had good results on black engine accessories (as air cleaners) with GM Goodwrench "Gloss Black" Engine Enamel #12345322. It's not as glossy as the name might imply, but NOT nearly as glossy as exterior black paint is. It does match the air cleaner and engine brackets perfectly, but it's a little too glossy for the body sheetmetal.

A customer once had me get some GM Reconditioning Paint, which is supposed to be the same as what the sheet metal comes in primered from the factory. He didn't get the results he wanted and later told me that he found some charcoal grille paint that was pretty much the same non-gloss level, but with better durability and less "finger print retention" than the somewhat porus GM paint was.

As for the "gloss rating", I'd suspect that something like 60%, but not as high as 80% might give the satin finish that is desired . . . in a paint that will have decent durability.

Perhaps the OEM paints might be similar or the same as the '55-'56 Buicks? That would be the cue for 5563 and possibly Old-Tank to respond . . .

Just some thoughts,

NTX5467

[msmazcol]

We recently applied Eastwood's 2K chassis paint to the frame of my 36 Divco project. I cannot tell you anything about how well it will hold up etc. but I can say we are very happy with the amount of sheen. We used the satin finish and are very pleased with the final product. There were many options for chassis paint and this is now my first choice.

You can refer to the restoration forum for some photos.

[Mudbone]

I used Eastwoods Ceramic black on the diff and torque tube of my 55. It looks the same as the semi gloss PPG paint I used on the frame. Mud

[1957buickjim]

David,

I have had good results with Eastwood Underhood Black, both rattle can and gun sprayable version. The satin finish is about a 40 - 50% gloss level. It is not a catalyzed version of paint, but very easy to use, and has a very nice finish.

I think you told me that the radiator cross bar and the forward part of the hood latch / front apron were a semi-gloss finish rather than an satin finish. For semi-gloss, I have used 2 different types of paint - 1- Ditzler OEM Black -Lacquer (don't know if you can get it in SSU,) but it is easy to use again - spray version; 2 - Dupli-Color Semi-Gloss Black - rattle can. This is a quick drying enamel and has about a 70 - 80% gloss to it. Looks really nice, especially on small parts - very factory type finish.

I did buy the Eastwood 2K Ceramic Black Satin Finish to use on my frame when I re-do the chassis on my vehicle this spring. Also bought some Gloss as well for those parts that need it.

So, in answer to your questions - I will be painting the inner fender wells with the Eastwood underhood black, which is the satin finish. That will be used for all underhood sheet metal, with the exception of the Radiator Cross and the Hood Latch Apron, which will be semi-gloss, most likely the Dupli-Color variety.

I figure for the frame and chassis components, the 2K Ceramic Black Satin Finish will be just fine, and provide a very durable finish for those components close to the road surface.

Just my take on it, from reading many posts and some basic research. Let me know what you think.

[1957buickjim]

Mud..mighty fine looking parts you got there! How hard was it to use the 2K paint?

[Guest martylum]

David-This gloss level on black parts is always a thorny issue. I remember judging a 56 Buick at a Grand National event which had full gloss black on everything in the engine bay. Looked great but probably not correct. Fortunately, I was not judging the engine or chassis.

I'm refinishing all these items on a 53 Buick Roadmaster 76X which was never restored and feel they were a semi -gloss sheen or gloss level. I used semi-gloss black acrylic enamel over epoxy primer to respray. I realize this is over restoration but paint vendors do not recommend spraying acrylic enamel over bare unprimed metal as Buick did in the 50s and later.

Does the Buick club have any concours rules in this era for black glass level? I've owner a 56 Buick for many years but have never shown it so I'm not familiar with Buick club rules.

Martin Lum

[Mudbone]

Jim, the 2k ceramic paint went on like any 2k paint does except all the ceramic settles to the bottom of the can. I spend a good ½ hour stirring the stuff. This also was the first time I used an HVLP gun and that was more of an issue than the paint itself. Mud

[buick man]

Well I posted this because the other day I was cleaning my work shelves and now have a sizable collection of paint cans that just for one reason or another did not work work out and mostly from years ago when I did not know any better. Therefore I am trying not to expand on my dust collection of paint cans if at all possible.

Can't tell from the photos, but please tell me, from you guys that have used the ceramic paint, does the paint when viewed from various angles have that certain particular surface twinkle that only ceramics tend to omitt when light hits it just a certain way? If so, I would not use it on my restoration for parts that would be visible like under the hood. For the frame It sounds like a great idea.

With that said, I could continue at this rate to compare one current paint with another current paint but then I would only be comparing them against each other but in the end do they actually match the original to a T or not and there in lies my quest for the perfect match.

Therefore, I am sending out feelers as to what people have used and how well the results were to matching the original paint rather than if the sheen looks nice or not. According to what I have read on the topic, this then comes down to a few factors. The density of pigment in the paint and the amount of resulting correct retained gloss as a percentage. According to House of Color Paints Tech Talk, you can have two paint products of the same stated color, but the one with more pigment will result in a deeper saturation and supposedly superior depth of finish. All of which effects the color match to the OEM.

Oh . . . and my thoughts on rattle cans and non catalyzed paint: Will not use them anymore. For a multitude of reasons mostly because of that very last second of painting drip factor occurring (cans) ruining your really surgical three hour prep job; to the drying time required (non catalyzed) while exposing your parts to any micro spec in the immediate area; to the not so specific spray control (spray nozzles) and finally to the decreasing amount of compressed air in the can as you use it resulting in changing spray patterns and loss of spray control and amount of paint applied.

When you know what to look for with experience you can always point to a spray can job project. After all, if you have a good spray gun with various size cups small to large for the job at hand why would you ever use a spray can again unless it is in an area that only your cat can find! :confused:

Keep the photos and paint stories coming. This is great.

Edited February 17, 2011 by buick man (see edit history)

[buick5563]

Does the Buick club have any concours rules in this era for black glass level? I've owner a 56 Buick for many years but have never shown it so I'm not familiar with Buick club rules.

Martin Lum

No.

My engine compartment was painted semigloss where originally it was satin for cleaning sake, and I received a Senior award. I drive my car and didn't want to have to clean water spots off of flattened paint. I will be using satin on my convertible, since I want it to be as close to correct as possible, and it won't be driven all over (most likely).

I have no idea what percentage my prior statement means. My frame was powdercoated at 80% and it looks good to me, but could be too glossy for the inner fenders.

Edited February 17, 2011 by buick5563
Percentage addition (see edit history)

[1957buickjim]

Mud, was the HLVP pretty difficult to master compared to conventional spray guns? I jsut picked one up and am interested in feedback, good and bad. You can PM me and we can talk about it off line as to not tie up this thread. Thanks.

[Bhigdog]

I shot my 56 Chrysler with a good HVLP gun. I HATED it. Glad I still have my 3 old Binks #7's because that all I'll ever shoot with again............Bob

[buick man]

I use my regular old guns still but have found in the last 6 or 7 years that the HVLP is pretty user friendly. I restored a car once using satin black with a clear coat matte finish once and it turned out great. Dialed in the gloss content before spraying onto car and did not have to worry about the water spotting issues later that a straight satin finish would have.

[buick man]

Ok. I decided to forego the ceramic paint idea. Cause not only the mixing issues I have heard about but the touch up issues as well. Come back later to touch up and the blend in is obvious.

I went to a local powder coating shop known for it's work with cars and they have samples of the % of gloss that you can take and use to compare as to what you want to use. I selected a 20% , 60% and a 80%. Of course this is their take on things but I found that the 20% is too flat for the inside wheel wells. I had taken off some components on the passenger's side that had not see the light of day since my car was built no doubt and use that as a calibrator. It appears that a 50% gloss will match as the 60% is just a tad too reflective.

The section of the bottom cross member that cradles in front of the engine and is exposed to some extent will get 70% as will the rest of the frame.

The front hood surround and the radiator cross frame and inside fender perches where the horns are mounted will get 80 %.

[60FlatTop]

Here is my '64 Riviera frame, sandblasted, epoxy primed, and finish coated with ValSpar satin black. The picture is from the early 1990's and it still looks good today, Being 20 years older I don't look at it real often, but it's nice.

[buick man]

Yes Flattop I think you have yours dialed in very nicely. Do you remember the % of gloss used with the Val-Spar?

I can buy Nasson gloss urethane locally and apply a flattener to it which is what I think I will do. This will require creating a batch mix formula as I mix. But this way I can make samples at various % of gloss until they match my OEM spots. The front cross frame, apron and horn area will have to be dialed in as I have no original reference for that. Unless proven otherwise, I intend on using a gloss just a little shy of that on my OEM air cleaner which is glossy but to what % I do not know yet.

I will keep everyone apprised as I progress.

[60FlatTop]

Buick Man,

I still have a couple of quarts of the Valspar paint I bought back in the 1990's. It was their industrial enamel and has no % of gloss figures. Here is a recent listing. I bet it is very close. The paint is fairly inexpensive, about $28 per gallon. Seems to have a good shelf life, I am still using some with a good stirring.

http://www.lspproducts.com/downloads/pricing_guides/Valspar%20Paints.pdf

Bernie

[60FlatTop]

I should add that the paint still looks great today. Here are a couple more pics:

[buick man]

Thanks for the lead Bernie. It looks like they have a good setup with industrial strength paints. It would be nice if they offered a flattener agent. That way you could tweek-in the % of gloss wanted for your particular need at hand. I will give them a call. I wonder who their competitor product was in the test sample tests?