The Dodge Challenger Message Board

I just painted my engine but the color seems off. The paint said it is Hemi Orange but it seems too brownish. Am I nuts or do you guys see it too? The question is if its worth repainting to get the correct brighter orange color/ Any opinions are appreciated.

If you used the Mopar paint (and most others) it will be that horrible brown/red colour.

This is the ONLY paint I will use. http://www.hirschauto.com/

You will find it is the correct shade for the block.

Lousy brownish color when sprayed, it will turn to orange after heating.

I have seen engines done with it and the colour never looks right even after heating.

Here are some opinions from Tony Miller (owner4):

http://challenger.mpoli.fi/forum/viewto ... 0935#10935

I like the engine paint from Por-15. It's 66% solids and the colour is 'right' not too orange and not that baby shit brown that MoPar sells! I stripped mine back down to metal and went at it.

I bought a quart of Hemi Orange from Hirsch. It looks like the right color. I will repaint the engine tomorrow and let you all know how it goes. I sure hope it is the right color, I hate doing things over and over. I need all my free time getting the car back together. [/quote]

Take a day and do a little test patch.

It is the right colour.

Hemi Orange is not quite the same shade as the Hemi Orange the body (or six pack air filter lid) might be painted. But the paint you have bought is correct for the block.

Repainted the engine with Hirsch paint. It is definitely not as orange as I thought. It seems a little different than what I usually see in photos. It seems a little like a faded orange. Anyway, this is the way it is going to stay. Since Dave says it is correct it's good with me

Yep. The engines were not as rich a colour (or quite as red) as the body paint. You can see why it was called "Hemi Orange" and not "Hemi Red".

Here is the engine repainted with Hirsch paint. BTW, what do the big X on the side of the heads mean?

Don't know if it is your camera but that still doesn't look the right colour.

I used the same paint and it looks like this.

Note how the bodywork is slightly more red as I understand it should be.

However this is the same engine and paint with an image taken under different lighting conditions (no flash and wrong colour balance for the lighting).

It looks a different colour in this photo.

The second picture looks very similar. The picture I posted is pretty much what it looks like in reality.It will have to do, I cant stand to paint it again.
BTW-you engine looks fantastic!

I do not want to thread jump, but Dave's transmission has an unnatural growth on the output shaft.

jh27n0b wrote:I do not want to thread jump, but Dave's transmission has an unnatural growth on the output shaft.

GV overdrive.

ya know these digital cameras have different light setting that can change color,hue,and brightness as well as alot of other jargon that i dont understand, my point is that depending on how pickey you are (im not that pickey,my anal brother would have painted it again),but me once it is in the car and all the assesories are on you probably wont notice the shade difference especially with the hood closed ,but thats just my opinion,and i painted ground the outside of my block smooth and painted it black

Drew, do you know any color other then black.

Wow, the block ground smooth. That is quite the detailing feature.

X cast into those heads means 2 things. 1).They are worth a lot of money! 2).They outflow any OEM smallblock head out there cast form 68-71 I believe. (2.02 insucks 1.65 exhaust) Those heads are highly prized by both collectors and SuperStock racers who have to use a factory iron casting.

Mine are original as far as I know, (since 76) and they have the X also. 2.02/1.60 I believe. Eddie, do you know which years and applications they came on? Thanks.

Drew, do you know any color other then black,black is an attitude not a color

I don't think you can rely on the head having an X on it. This is a foundry mark and can be found on many heads. What you need to look at is the head casting number.

Here are some posts about X and J heads which might be of help.

http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.org/ ... ticle.html

http://challenger.mpoli.fi/forum/viewto ... 5269#15269

http://challenger.mpoli.fi/forum/viewto ... 8685#38685

Dave's right but if they have the FACTORY 2.02 Intake valves and that particular 'X' cast into the exhaust side of the chamber, you can rest assured you have the most desirable small block head made. From 1968-1970 I believe is the years they made em. The correct casting numbers are--2531894 this is straight from Goviers little white books! They are also OPEN chamber design. Many publications list them as closed chambered and I think this is untrue. The only closed chamber OEM heads were the 273's BTW, the 915's as made for the T/A had very large pushrod reliefs made for the Teams. But they were basically the same head. The 'X' cast into the head by the foundry has the 'rep' for the collectors, which is why I brought this up.

Great read Dave very enlightening, thanks. I did smooth out and match the intake runner last build. Took a little bit off the pushrod buldges also. Can't say it did anything as the motor was being refitted with a new cam also.

Eddie I think you are right about open chambers in this particular X head. It's been 20 years but I'm pretty sure they have a full circle inset in the head. (If I'm reading that right). What are the advantages or each?

Hey Drew, what attitude are you speaking of?

Hey Drew, what attitude are you speaking of? Twisted Evil ,sinister,corruption,intimidation,ya know that sort of attitude

I spoke to the guy that rebuilt my engine and he told me that I do have the hipo heads with 2.02 intake valves, so I guess they are the X heads which appears to be a good thing. I have also added new pics just to confirm what you guys said about lighting.

some one has some really nice looking manifold paint that looks like cast iron but keeps its color i think its eastwood

Wow, Dave's right about that lighting making a huge difference! It almost looks like 2 different engines! Yeah, the 2.02 Intake 'X' Head which both of you have is the same head configuration wise as all 2.02 valved 'U', '915' heads of that era with the sole exception of the T/A pushrod relief and the fact that the intake port pushrod pinch is able to be taken out and offset intake rockers used to allow more airflow and a larger intake port on the modified 305 Cube Keith Black Trans Am racing engines Ma MoPar used in 1970. The advantages of the closed combustion chamber are many. One important feature is the fact that it reduces the burn time across the piston because the piston head is usually flat or dished. This helps to reduce the burn time which is measured in milliseconds. This then produces a more efficient burn and produces more power with less timing lead. The older open chambers used a pop-up or dome to reduce the combustion space. This reduces the efficiency by making the flame travel erratic and requires more timing lead to complete the burn or power stroke. This can cause detonation or pre-ignition. It's also easier to build compression with smaller closed chambers than it is with open chambers and domed pistons.(The factory 340 had a positive deck height of .040 I think, which is why Edelbrock makes two different heads for the 340's, one is open and the other closed, the factory piston 'stuck up' into the head .040) You can still make big power with open chambers Jon, and there's really nothing wrong with the design. it's the fact that over time the design has evolved to where the most power can be made with the low grade fuel we have anymore. Fast burn, high velocity&swirl, good balance between both ports flow, small chambers are the current designs. This has primarily benefited both power and emissions. The only advantage of open chambered heads was the fact that they helped low speed intake flow"through" the valve seat area at low lifts better with an open chamber, BUT this advantage is negated as soon as the valve reaches a height of over .100 or so. Of course this was back in the 60's so...Views expressed are my opinion only. The FACT remains that you two have some VERY nice 340's and with tube headers Jon's screams pretty good I bet!!!!! (I ran a 340 for a few years in the mid 70's,,it never let me down,,, Winter/Summer it didnt matter,, I miss it too)

The 2nd pic look dead nuts accurate! (Of course I know absolutely nothing about 'correctness' Dave/Jon/Drew/Pat/Bob ect would know) Nice work Charliek!!