Ah ha, it just dawned on me. Some years ago I was trying to weld in a patch on a fender of a friends Toyota to repair some rust. Even with the wire welder, I’d barely touch it and would burn through. Now I understand why.
@db4690
I think merchandizing has a lot to do with it. If you plop the excellent 1.8L motor in and impove the chassis slightly, you now compete directly with the Corolla and Scion Xd in your own stable. I really think it’s primarily a world car that sells well in Europe against the tiny compacts where it must seem like a limo. The 1.5L is barely acceptable with little usable power when you load it down. Both the Yaris and the Corolla had a four speed. Now that they have made some improvements to the Corolla transmission, one can only hope they make some to the drive train of the Tercel descendent, the Yaris. But, IMHO, it was and is all about avoiding internal competition.
As far as rusty frames on trucks is concerned. They generally start to appear in distinct areas you can see when new. The next time you change your oil, crawl underneath with a tub of wheel bearing grease and a foam brush and paint suspect areas and connections. Best done in the fall to prepare for the salt onslaught. Box frames are stronger but more prone to rust because they don’t drain as well. C frames tend to shed water but are not immune. It does make it easier to get at the rust areas to coat with grease. It’s a game car makers " play" …
In my youth four speed was a lotta gears. Eventually everything went to 4-speed and higher end cars went to 5-speed. That trickled down to lower versions in the '70s and now the upper-end cars are up to 8-speeds. I think that’ll be about “it”. From here it’ll be changes to the power source(s) rather than continuously adding gears. There’s only so much you can do to keep an engine in its “sweet spot”. CVTs will, I think, disappear from the market. As they get old and wear out, and as people begin to realize their lack of cost effective reparability, I predict that the market will reject them. I think people will eventually reject vehicles in which the tranny defines the life of the vehicle. These are only predictions, mind you, nobody actually knows what the future holds. As hybrids and EVs become commonplace, drivetrains may completely change in ways even the professional futurists can’t envision.
Yeah, they claimed the problem with the closed-box frames was that they weren’t properly drained and ventilated. What puzzles me, having had one with the problem and then one totally without, is that Toyota actually had the problem solved and then it crept its way back into their frames on later versions. My '79 rotted totally though on both sides in 11 years. My '89 had no frame rot problem at all even after 17 years. Same model truck, same driver, same commutes, same climate, same maintenance, same everything. Yet the first rotted out and the second didn’t. And then the problem returned on later versions. Go figure. My gut suggests that there may be a materials and/or vendor selection component to the problem, but only Toyota insiders will ever really know.
As they get old and wear out, and as people begin to realize their lack of cost effective reparability, I predict that the market will reject them. I think people will eventually reject vehicles in which the tranny defines the life of the vehicle.
I was reading in Popular Mechanics a few years ago…a new transmission being developed (I forge what manufacturer). But it was similar to the CVT…but much easier to service. In fact they were predicting to completely rebuild the new tranny would be half the price of a conventional transmission. Haven’t heard anything about it since. We’ll see.
I knew someone with an older Tercel at one point. It was probably an early '80’s model and it was good and beat up and ugly. People would laugh but it was paid for and got good gas mileage. He also commented that you didn’t have to worry about parking in any special place to avoid getting door dings. His daughter left it out of gear one day and it rolled down a big hill into some trees. They towed it out and it actually looked like it could have been repaired but with such a cheap, old, and beat up car, it was totaled.
My Geo Metro is basically the same idea. They use very thin and light metal which is one of the reasons rust is such a problem. There just isn’t a lot of metal to start with so any rust is bad.
Years ago nearly all small cars were “junk” by today’s standards. The VW Beetle had a siginificant edge in body quality as well as upholstery.
The main difference here is that Japanese makes went on a very steep quality improvement curve while British, French, and Italian cars did nothing.
Early small cars designed by Detroit were flimsy as well; the Vega was a class act in compromises and short cuts. A guy I worked with bought a 1975 Corolla; it was less than sterling quality, but much better than other small cars on the market. He ended up with a cracked head and the body rusted quicker than today’s cars. He would not have done anybetter wiht a Ford Pinto or a Chevy Chevettte.
Early Honda Civics were almost bio-degradable, but mechanically not so bad. Nissans were rust buckets for quite a few years as well.
my first car was an old civic. when I took it to be inspected, the guy went and got a can of orange spray paint, slid under the front and started spraying. I asked him what he was doing and he said he was condemning the car because the sub frame , or something was rusted out. I was crushed. my uncle felt so bad for me he gave me his old '79 mustang 5.0 ! wooo hooo!!!
The newest Chrysler/Fiat products have a nine-speed. Reviewers have found it pointless for US conditions. It might make sense elsewhere. What’s remarkable is that they’ll be using this complicated transmission even in their modest vehicles from here on. Used to be (yesterday, say) that anything over a six-speed was only found in a luxury car. I don’t think CVTs are going anywhere. There use increases every year. What will happen is they will either be made to last as long as the car or they will be made to be repaired. I don’t know why they aren’t now. They aren’t that complicated.
As far as frame rusting on older trucks with the same steel, it’s pretty easy to figure out. When there is a design change and drain holes are improperly placed or in the case of some Toyota trucks, not at all, rust will occurr easily. Generally, trucks aren’t specifically engineered for the rust belt. A neighbor has a 12 year old Ford diesel on his second set of doors and cab metal brazed in. . Neither It nor the previous had any drain holes in the bottom. Unbelievable ! Gee, and it was about that time Ford might have advertised they had turned the corner on rust prevention on their trucks.
Generally, trucks aren't specifically engineered for the rust belt.
I don’t think there’s a vehicle in the world designed FOR the rust belt.
However there are design measures a company can take to help prolong a vehicle from rusting out. About 30 years ago GM/Fisher Body commissioned a study about rust and rust prevention from Syracuse University. It was a 3-5 year study on what causes some vehicles to rust out and others not. And what measures (if any) could manufacturers do about it. Syracuse University was chosen because it’s right in middle of one of the snowiest areas in the country.
I read the article when it was published. One of the BIGGEST improvements companies could do is not create resting spots for water and dirt to collect. These shelves would collect dirt and water and salt and would accelerate rusting in that area.
Rustproofing was the second best thing they could do. Rustproofing when done correctly does actually work. Problem is that many of the Rustproofing companies didn’t apply it correctly.
Seen some SAE,design diagrams once upon a time(pretty neat some of them,but I seriously doubt if much of its adhered to,styling and cost trumps other considerations besides safety.
Have seen many good ideas that were shelved for whatever reason,remember this no manu is going to make a product so good it will be trouble free and last forever.A Maytag dealer friend of mine said He walked out of a training service seminar on a major brand of appliances,when they got to the part about the componets that were designed to fail(for what its worth) so,Caveat Emptor! and maybe go Carpe deim!(not carpal tunnel),whatever{my coffees turning bad}-Kevin
…"Companies could do is not create resting spots for water and dirt"
Designing box frames frames with all sorts of bends in them to take the stress of loads does creat low spots. A little hole placed in appropriate areas does wonders. The back of a front fender and the seams of doors and rocker panel welds are all obvious low spots for water to collect that often lack proper drainage. There is really no such thing as “rust proofing” IMHO, given the types of sprays that Ziebart and others used inthe past and some still use today. It is still a hoax ! It was and is a hardening coating and even if applied correctly was too thick not to clog drain holes in older cars they were desisgned to help. Both the wrong material and poor application enhanced rust in many areas and still do today as after market gimmicks sold by dealers and others.
When cars are made with materials "designed " to rust, covering up the bottom with a spray of this type is an illusion that held in moisture. Without the sufficient amount of chromium (and other elements) added to steel, (which by the way is relatively cheap to do when done in small quantities) cars need a free flowing thin liquid that follows the path of the water, and doesn’t harden and clog drains but shuts off the oxygen to the moisture that will collect in the these low areas. Because it is free flowing, it needs to be reapplied on a regular ( ususally every two years) basis. Old cars sometimes made tepid attempts to provide protection and newer ones do more but just to meet minimum rust perforation requirements. Often they just hide the rusting areas with cladding. But if you live in the rust belt and really want your car to last, know the game they play (and it is as rust is their friend, not yours) and take on that responsibility yourself.
By the way, lasting to some of us is different to others . Many of my friends " want " their cars to rust as an excuse to buy a new one. That is the car makers long term plan. Old cars and newer ones but only to a slighty lesser extent often provided that replacement security. Lasting to a few of us is actually twenty to thirty years of continual use where even if you trade it in, the body is solid and will bring the trade in or private sale value promised by KBB and others. That is often hundreds to thousands more then if the old car were neglected. Rust is the first sign of neglect regardless of the number of times a proud owner changed his motor oil.
There is really no such thing as "rust proofing" IMHO, given the types of sprays that Ziebart and others used inthe past and some still use today. It is still a hoax ! It was and is a hardening coating and even if applied correctly was too thick not to clog drain holes in older cars they were desisgned to help.
Completely disagree with that. The sprays that Ziebart uses DOES prevent rust (IF APPLIED CORRECTLY). Yes they will clog drain holes. That’s why after applying the coating you MUST clean any material from the drain holes. All techs are even taught this.
We get a little snow here in NH and ME…but NOTHING compared to upstate NY. Back in the 70’s and early 80’s it was common to see cars in that area of the country rust out in 4-5 years. I’ve seen cars that have been properly rust proofed in this area of the country…and weren’t showing any signs of rust even after 10+ years - yet the same car in that area without proper rust proofing…were still rusting out in 4-5 years.
Most (if not all) of the bad reputation of Rust proofing was how it was applied. There were many fly-by-night rust proofing operations that did a real crappy job. My wife bought a 1980 Datsun 510 that rust proofed by one of those companies. The hood rusted out in 2 years. And when you removed the sound proofing material…you could see they did a real poor job of applying the rust proofing. I bought her a new hood…and before I took it to a body shop to get it painted I bought 2 cans of rubberized rust proofing and thoroughly sprayed the inside of the hood. We gave that car to her dad after 4 years…and he kept the car for another 5…the rest of the car was rusting out badly…but that hood was just like new.
Mike, a hood seldom rust from the inside even with no applications. There is no material made the isn’t free flowing that won’t clog drain holes. It is impossible to clear drain holes from the outside. As yet, no rust proofer will completely disassemble inside trim, inner fender liners and all outside cLadding to insure t is done correctly. The stuff they apply, is what it is. A decent sound deadening and chip paint protection. It does an excellent job of hiding rust that does form under it because it does not displace all moisture while applied that is already in the car. That is why factory installed sprays, before assembly can be effective; after markets, unless disassembly is done, are by In large hoaxes.
Again, according to “Bill, it’s our different definitions of what ‘is’, is”. Proofing means stopped completely from occurring. Rust proofing does not exists in one application for the reasons I have stated. It’s rust mitigating through long term committed good maintenance practices that I support. There is no one time fix and for you 10 years of not seeing rust on the iutside is enough, but not for me. It’s obvious that what I say is true…because if spraying is such a simple process, cars would be lasting 30 years in the rust belt, and they don’t, even done by the factory. With continual maintenance using free flowing fluids, they are functional and last lifetimes and longer. IMHO, we differ in our expectations of what to expect from rust preventative measures. I expect a car to last a lifetime, as long as I am festidiously maintaining it. Others. Two to ten to fifteen years is fine. They call it rust proofed. I don’t pretend to call my method “rust proofing” and never have because even under a microscope, you can find corrosion on the most fextidiously maintained car. It just works a hellava lot better. Body shop techs agree with me too. They do it too. A car that finally reveals holes and does not pass inspection, IMO has been unsafe to drive for years prior and that. Again, body shop people I talk too, all agree.
Mike, a hood seldom rust from the inside even with no applications.
Live in the real rust belt…and you’ll find MANY hoods that rust out(FROM THE INSIDE OUT). With all the snow/slush and salt they use…the salt is like a mist when you’re driving down the road following other vehicles. That salt gets EVERYWHERE. We even get it some of that here in NH. Open your hood and you’ll see the salt all over the engine compartment. You haven’t seen hoods rust out because you haven’t lived in the rust belt. Yes Maine does get some snow…but NOTHING compared to the Great Lakes region…NOT EVEN CLOSE.
There is no material made the isn't free flowing that won't clog drain holes. It is impossible to clear drain holes from the outside.
As for drain holes…Well your argument is moot - according to Ziebart.
Again, according to "Bill, it's our different definitions of what 'is', is". Proofing means stopped completely from occurring.
You want to turn this into a semantic argument…Come on!!!..Lets keep it on track. I’m NOT the one who came up with the word Proofing…that is what is used in the industry. You want them to change their wording so it meets your approval…go ahead…but keep it out of here.
Yes there is NO rust proofing system that will prevent vehicles from rusting out. Eventually all vehicles will rust out no matter what you do.
But growing up and living in the rust-belt…I’ve seen what good rust proofing application can do to help prevent rust from destroying a car for years and years after other cars of the same make/mode/year have rusted away.
@MikeInNH
It’s a sealant according to them and if it is, it isn’t free flowing; it hardens when it dries . It’s really that simple. It also holds moisture in and that too is really that simple. If it does, it potentially clogs drains like they all do unless reworked from the inside. Now, I believe Ziebart about their rust proofing like I believe Motor Tend about car ratings. If one wants to recomend them, I would use an independent source like CR who has never to my recolllection, recomended after market rust proofing. Otherwise, It’s capitalism and you and I differ only by what we say rust proofing does to a car. Body shop employees ( ask them) who deal with rust and rust proofing all the time say the best way to deal with rust is as I have said (continual maintenance) because that’s what many in the rust belt do to their own cars.
According to CR, the AVERAGE age of cars on the road is 11 years. That means that many are much older and unsafe If one lives in the rust belt we are at a distinct financial disadvantage unless we treat rust like a regular maintenance item and not a one time fix.
My 89 Riviera had been rust proofed by I believe it was Rusty Jones or something like that. When it was retired after 20 years in Minnesota, the rust was minimal. I had replaced the gas filler cover due to rust and there was some rust developing around the filler cover. The only other rust was underneath by the pinch welds and of course the motor cradle body mounts. I never had any door rust or quarter panel rust. Of course some of this was due to the galvanizing but I have to believe the rust treatment was a lot of it. I believe the coating was more of a parafin base and never really hardened. Of course I’ve never had any of my cars rust proofed and have not had a rust problem on doors or quarter panels since my early 80’s Olds. I really suspect it is no longer necessary but don’t see any disadvantage in doing it.