500 Two-Stroke Tech

Is it a good idea to powder paint the engine, or should it be wet painted?

Jesper,

JKO wrote:Is it a good idea to powder paint the engine, or should it be wet painted?

In my opinion powder coating is always the last choice. Can't think of any advantages other than price.

Another thing: Since we are roughly in the same pastorate we should meet someday. Interrested?

/Steen

Sorry, couldn’t disagree more.
Power coating, if done properly (with a phosphate primer) is super durable, chip resistant, thick film thickness, temperature resistant (not exhaust temps) and is affordable. Being ‘baked on’ achieves this. Granted, poor powder coating is crap and a PITA. You need to find a good vendor who understands motorcycle parts (not just industrial) and masks properly.

Picking up some satin black parts for my resto RD500 tomorrow......
I have engine casings powder coated on air cooled RD’s and the finish is superb. Don’t quite get the bad vibes?

One issue that has been raised with powder coating engine parts is heat retention. The primary concern is that powder coated cylinders to not dissipate heat as well as painted cylinders. Something to consider when making your decision, particularly with respect to the rear cylinders, which are plenty hot to start with.

Good point Silverstrom. Never considered that.
Whilst I agree with the concept, I can only really see it applying mainly to air-cooled engines. Water-cooled RD/RZ’500 only would have the powder coat on the external surfaces, with the more effective cooling still active where the factory designed it. But, as the cooling on the rear cylinders is marginal, ‘every little helps’.

Hi again,

steveho wrote:Sorry, couldn’t disagree more.
Power coating, if done properly (with a phosphate primer) is super durable, chip resistant, thick film thickness, temperature resistant (not exhaust temps) and is affordable. Being ‘baked on’ achieves this. Granted, poor powder coating is crap and a PITA. You need to find a good vendor who understands motorcycle parts (not just industrial) and masks properly.

You are of course correct - strictly speaking. The issue is that many vendors make crappy work and that it's very problematic to remove the powdercoating once things go wrong. Not many of us put many miles on these bikes, so is the (maybe) added durability worth the risk of having powder coating made? It will last a long time before you know if the quality of the coating is good or not - and if it's bad, you will have a hell of a job removing the powder coating.

I know that powder coating is popular, but unfortunately I see a lot of bad work too. These bikes are going up in price and originality is sought after. Why just not stay with the "original" type of paint when restoring?

Maybe I'm just fuzzy? I have a collection of elderly bikes and when restoring I am always using the type of paint that was used in that period. It ensures an original look and different types of paint flows differently along edges etc.

/Steen

I painted with POR 15 product. paint still great after, let us say a lot of track time. It is all about the prep. Not done right forget what ever paint you use.