Hi folks,

Quick question. Many cars from the 1980s used to rust badly. Sometime in the 1990s, this changed - and quite suddenly. Does anyone know what specific changes were made to the paint composition and surface treatment? I can only find vague allusions in most articles.

Thanks,

Chris

On 2017-02-12, Christopher Tidy wrote:
Hi folks,

Quick question. Many cars from the 1980s used to rust
badly. Sometime in the 1990s, this changed - and quite
suddenly. Does anyone know what specific changes were made to the
paint composition and surface treatment? I can only find vague
allusions in most articles.

I thought that at some point, they started requiring galvanized body
panels.

i

Am Sonntag, 12. Februar 2017 20:02:27 UTC+1 schrieb Ignoramus20243:

I thought that at some point, they started requiring galvanized body
panels.

This is also true, I think. But I don't see the modern paint cracking and falling off, so I'm wondering what's better about the paint.

On 02/12/2017 1:16 PM, Christopher Tidy wrote:
Am Sonntag, 12. Februar 2017 20:02:27 UTC+1 schrieb Ignoramus20243:

I thought that at some point, they started requiring galvanized body
panels.

This is also true, I think. But I don't see the modern paint cracking
and falling off, so I'm wondering what's better about the paint.


Don't think there's any "requirement" other than what the manufacturer
thinks suits their purpose best as far as whether panels are/aren't
galvanized (or otherwise treated). I don't know what actually is most
common other than there's a tremendous fraction not that isn't even
metal; just pretty sure there's no mandate same. The mandates are
those for the fuel mileage averages so that means "lighter is better" in
ounces quantities.

As for paint, what has improved is they've finally figured out formulas
that have at least some longevity after the EPA restrictions on VOC's
killed all the traditional finishes as not being within those limits.

--

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 10:43:40 -0800 (PST), Christopher Tidy
wrote:

Hi folks,

Quick question. Many cars from the 1980s used to rust badly. Sometime in the 1990s, this changed - and quite suddenly. Does anyone know what specific changes were made to the paint composition and surface treatment? I can only find vague allusions in most articles.

Thanks,

Chris
Big thing was change to the surface preparation of the steel to
either electrostatic wet application or full body dip of a high
quality etching primer which I believe contains Zinc.
This was combined with the use of high strength steels and
"galvanized" steel in rust prone areas.

On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 3:01:15 PM UTC-5, Clare wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 10:43:40 -0800 (PST), Christopher Tidy
wrote:

Hi folks,

Quick question. Many cars from the 1980s used to rust badly. Sometime in the 1990s, this changed - and quite suddenly. Does anyone know what specific changes were made to the paint composition and surface treatment? I can only find vague allusions in most articles.

Thanks,

Chris
Big thing was change to the surface preparation of the steel to
either electrostatic wet application or full body dip of a high
quality etching primer which I believe contains Zinc.
This was combined with the use of high strength steels and
"galvanized" steel in rust prone areas.

Right. It's better coatings, better primers and protection, and better application. Read, water-based coatings that often are based on urethanes; phosphate and weldable, etching primers; galvanizing in rust-prone areas; and electrophoresis and electrostatic application. The first water-based coatings -- used into the '80s by some manufacturers -- had poor adhesion and didn't weather well. They're MUCH better now.

All of this became more necessary as body panels got thinner, with the use of AHSS (advanced high-strength steels; a continuing evolution of the HSLA [high-strength, low-alloy] steels that were first used in the '70s). Rust is potentially a bigger problem than ever because the steel is thinner.

--
Ed Huntress

Am Sonntag, 12. Februar 2017 23:03:10 UTC+1 schrieb :

Right. It's better coatings, better primers and protection, and better application. Read, water-based coatings that often are based on urethanes; phosphate and weldable, etching primers; galvanizing in rust-prone areas; and electrophoresis and electrostatic application. The first water-based coatings -- used into the '80s by some manufacturers -- had poor adhesion and didn't weather well. They're MUCH better now.

All of this became more necessary as body panels got thinner, with the use of AHSS (advanced high-strength steels; a continuing evolution of the HSLA [high-strength, low-alloy] steels that were first used in the '70s). Rust is potentially a bigger problem than ever because the steel is thinner.

Are these modern coatings two-pack paints? Or some kind of stove enamel which is baked on? I also remember hearing something about paints which contained cyanide at some point.

I'd be interested to know the composition, because they seem way better than anything I can buy.

Thanks for the replies!

Chris

On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 7:54:33 PM UTC-5, Christopher Tidy wrote:
Am Sonntag, 12. Februar 2017 23:03:10 UTC+1 schrieb :

Right. It's better coatings, better primers and protection, and better application. Read, water-based coatings that often are based on urethanes; phosphate and weldable, etching primers; galvanizing in rust-prone areas; and electrophoresis and electrostatic application. The first water-based coatings -- used into the '80s by some manufacturers -- had poor adhesion and didn't weather well. They're MUCH better now.

All of this became more necessary as body panels got thinner, with the use of AHSS (advanced high-strength steels; a continuing evolution of the HSLA [high-strength, low-alloy] steels that were first used in the '70s). Rust is potentially a bigger problem than ever because the steel is thinner.

Are these modern coatings two-pack paints? Or some kind of stove enamel which is baked on? I also remember hearing something about paints which contained cyanide at some point.

I'd be interested to know the composition, because they seem way better than anything I can buy.

Thanks for the replies!

Chris

I wish I could give you a simple answer, but the chemistry of automobile paints has exploded in many directions over the past ten years or so, and the chemistry is mostly over my head.

Around the world, each manufacturer seems to use something different. There are water-born systems and solvent-born systems; two-wet and three-wet systems; integrated primers and self-sealing clear coats (Nissan). It's wild out there.

Some of the primers and clear coats are catalyzed before application. I *think* the base coats are not. Some are described as melamine-based; others are described as acrylic, urethane, or polyester. Water-based systems seem to make up the majority. Again, the chemistry is beyond me.

Before I retired I was working on an in-depth study of Ford's production, but I didn't get very far. They have a new two-wet system with no clear coat ("monocoat") and it may be the leading edge. I suspect it's from Axalta.

If you want to talk to someone who specializes in this stuff, I may be able to get you some names.

--
Ed Huntress

Am Dienstag, 14. Februar 2017 03:43:47 UTC+1 schrieb :

If you want to talk to someone who specializes in this stuff, I may be able to get you some names.

Thanks, Ed. That's a kind offer. Here's the question in a different form. I'm working on a book and I want to know how to get a coating with a similar performance (modern car paint is, as far as I can see, way better than anything I can get in the shop). It doesn't have be a unique or comprehensive answer, but it needs to be a practical and understandable method. Any idea of someone who could help?

Best wishes,

Chris

On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:54:28 -0800 (PST), Christopher Tidy
wrote:

Am Sonntag, 12. Februar 2017 23:03:10 UTC+1 schrieb :

Right. It's better coatings, better primers and protection, and better application. Read, water-based coatings that often are based on urethanes; phosphate and weldable, etching primers; galvanizing in rust-prone areas; and electrophoresis and electrostatic application. The first water-based coatings -- used into the '80s by some manufacturers -- had poor adhesion and didn't weather well. They're MUCH better now.

All of this became more necessary as body panels got thinner, with the use of AHSS (advanced high-strength steels; a continuing evolution of the HSLA [high-strength, low-alloy] steels that were first used in the '70s). Rust is potentially a bigger problem than ever because the steel is thinner.

Are these modern coatings two-pack paints? Or some kind of stove enamel which is baked on? I also remember hearing something about paints which contained cyanide at some point.

I'd be interested to know the composition, because they seem way better than anything I can buy.

Thanks for the replies!

At some point in the last 2-3 decades, I recall seeing a commercial on
TV where the US mfgr touted that both vehicle frames and body panels
being dipped in a rust-proofing hot bath of some sort. I quit TV 13
years ago, so it was well before that.

The painter at work sprayed my old '72 Int'l Scout with Imron, a
2-part aviation paint. It was over $100/gal way back then ('82,
$3-500 now), but a friend had given it to me, the spare from painting
his '48 Willys wagon. Tony was the kind of painter who was somehow
connected with the paint and he could colormatch and stand up the
metalflake replacement paint like the original, so you couldn't tell
the difference. A true _artist_.

Have you talked with painters or automotive paint supply shops there
across the pond, Chris? They're fonts of knowledge, if you can get
them to spare you a few minutes.

--
Give me the luxuries of life.
I can live without the necessities.
--anon

Am Dienstag, 14. Februar 2017 14:52:42 UTC+1 schrieb Larry Jaques:

Have you talked with painters or automotive paint supply shops there
across the pond, Chris? They're fonts of knowledge, if you can get
them to spare you a few minutes.

Good idea. I don't know of a specialist shop in the area, but I can look for one.

On 2/12/2017 4:03 PM, wrote:
On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 3:01:15 PM UTC-5, Clare wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 10:43:40 -0800 (PST), Christopher Tidy
wrote:

Hi folks,

Quick question. Many cars from the 1980s used to rust badly. Sometime in the 1990s, this changed - and quite suddenly. Does anyone know what specific changes were made to the paint composition and surface treatment? I can only find vague allusions in most articles.

Thanks,

Chris
Big thing was change to the surface preparation of the steel to
either electrostatic wet application or full body dip of a high
quality etching primer which I believe contains Zinc.
This was combined with the use of high strength steels and
"galvanized" steel in rust prone areas.

Right. It's better coatings, better primers and protection, and better application. Read, water-based coatings that often are based on urethanes; phosphate and weldable, etching primers; galvanizing in rust-prone areas; and electrophoresis and electrostatic application. The first water-based coatings -- used into the '80s by some manufacturers -- had poor adhesion and didn't weather well. They're MUCH better now.

All of this became more necessary as body panels got thinner, with the use of AHSS (advanced high-strength steels; a continuing evolution of the HSLA [high-strength, low-alloy] steels that were first used in the '70s). Rust is potentially a bigger problem than ever because the steel is thinner.


Why the change to base plus clear coat?
I took an auto body class in high school, we had lacquer and enamel,
44 years ago.
The hood on my sons Toyota had faded and was blotchy. So I went to
the paint store to buy paint. I thought I wanted lacquer, I was quickly
educated that I wanted a base and a clear coat. It turned out good
especially for an outdoor job. We did end up with a small hazy area,
when we started the motor to move it in the garage, before the dew came.
Just one area on the right side near the windshield. I suspect
it would buff out, but he took the car back to college, so haven't
tried. Mikek

On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 5:19:11 PM UTC-5, amdx wrote:
On 2/12/2017 4:03 PM, wrote:
On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 3:01:15 PM UTC-5, Clare wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 10:43:40 -0800 (PST), Christopher Tidy
wrote:

Hi folks,

Quick question. Many cars from the 1980s used to rust badly. Sometime in the 1990s, this changed - and quite suddenly. Does anyone know what specific changes were made to the paint composition and surface treatment? I can only find vague allusions in most articles.

Thanks,

Chris
Big thing was change to the surface preparation of the steel to
either electrostatic wet application or full body dip of a high
quality etching primer which I believe contains Zinc.
This was combined with the use of high strength steels and
"galvanized" steel in rust prone areas.

Right. It's better coatings, better primers and protection, and better application. Read, water-based coatings that often are based on urethanes; phosphate and weldable, etching primers; galvanizing in rust-prone areas; and electrophoresis and electrostatic application. The first water-based coatings -- used into the '80s by some manufacturers -- had poor adhesion and didn't weather well. They're MUCH better now.

All of this became more necessary as body panels got thinner, with the use of AHSS (advanced high-strength steels; a continuing evolution of the HSLA [high-strength, low-alloy] steels that were first used in the '70s). Rust is potentially a bigger problem than ever because the steel is thinner.


Why the change to base plus clear coat?
I took an auto body class in high school, we had lacquer and enamel,
44 years ago.
The hood on my sons Toyota had faded and was blotchy. So I went to
the paint store to buy paint. I thought I wanted lacquer, I was quickly
educated that I wanted a base and a clear coat. It turned out good
especially for an outdoor job. We did end up with a small hazy area,
when we started the motor to move it in the garage, before the dew came.
Just one area on the right side near the windshield. I suspect
it would buff out, but he took the car back to college, so haven't
tried. Mikek

Clear coats retain their gloss much longer than standard base coats -- up to eight years for some current ones -- and they contain IR blockers that extend the color life of base coats. They've been standard for years.

That is, for the common "three-wet" (primer, base, clear coat) systems used by most OEMs. As I mentioned earlier, Ford, among others, has gone to a "two-wet" system for commercial vehicles and probably will go that way for cars. The current two-wet system used by Ford supposedly maintains gloss for eight years without a clear coat, but it only works in light colors for now..

These are chemically so far removed from our experience with lacquers and enamels that it takes an expert to explain them accurately.

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 15:21:34 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 5:19:11 PM UTC-5, amdx wrote:
On 2/12/2017 4:03 PM, wrote:
On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 3:01:15 PM UTC-5, Clare wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 10:43:40 -0800 (PST), Christopher Tidy
wrote:

Hi folks,

Quick question. Many cars from the 1980s used to rust badly. Sometime in the 1990s, this changed - and quite suddenly. Does anyone know what specific changes were made to the paint composition and surface treatment? I can only find vague allusions in most articles.

Thanks,

Chris
Big thing was change to the surface preparation of the steel to
either electrostatic wet application or full body dip of a high
quality etching primer which I believe contains Zinc.
This was combined with the use of high strength steels and
"galvanized" steel in rust prone areas.

Right. It's better coatings, better primers and protection, and better application. Read, water-based coatings that often are based on urethanes; phosphate and weldable, etching primers; galvanizing in rust-prone areas; and electrophoresis and electrostatic application. The first water-based coatings -- used into the '80s by some manufacturers -- had poor adhesion and didn't weather well. They're MUCH better now.

All of this became more necessary as body panels got thinner, with the use of AHSS (advanced high-strength steels; a continuing evolution of the HSLA [high-strength, low-alloy] steels that were first used in the '70s). Rust is potentially a bigger problem than ever because the steel is thinner.


Why the change to base plus clear coat?
I took an auto body class in high school, we had lacquer and enamel,
44 years ago.
The hood on my sons Toyota had faded and was blotchy. So I went to
the paint store to buy paint. I thought I wanted lacquer, I was quickly
educated that I wanted a base and a clear coat. It turned out good
especially for an outdoor job. We did end up with a small hazy area,
when we started the motor to move it in the garage, before the dew came.
Just one area on the right side near the windshield. I suspect
it would buff out, but he took the car back to college, so haven't
tried. Mikek

Clear coats retain their gloss much longer than standard base coats -- up to eight years for some current ones -- and they contain IR blockers that extend the color life of base coats. They've been standard for years.

That is, for the common "three-wet" (primer, base, clear coat) systems used by most OEMs. As I mentioned earlier, Ford, among others, has gone to a "two-wet" system for commercial vehicles and probably will go that way for cars. The current two-wet system used by Ford supposedly maintains gloss for eight years without a clear coat, but it only works in light colors for now.

These are chemically so far removed from our experience with lacquers and enamels that it takes an expert to explain them accurately.
A number of years back, I had my '90 lumina van in to the dealers for
some type of service and the service advisor recomended that I visit
thier body shop about the clear coat failure on the (black) area above
the front seating section. They gave me a "quote" of $750.00 reduced
by 50% to $350.00 to return it to "as new". A few months latter, he
practicaly begged me toget it fixed for free. I presume thet it didn't
look good for GM's reputation.

On 2017-02-12, wrote:

Right. It's better coatings, better primers and protection, and
better application. Read, water-based coatings that often are based
on urethanes; phosphate and weldable, etching primers; galvanizing
in rust-prone areas; and electrophoresis and electrostatic
application. The first water-based coatings -- used into the '80s by
some manufacturers -- had poor adhesion and didn't weather
well. They're MUCH better now.

All of this became more necessary as body panels got thinner, with
the use of AHSS (advanced high-strength steels; a continuing
evolution of the HSLA [high-strength, low-alloy] steels that were
first used in the '70s). Rust is potentially a bigger problem than
ever because the steel is thinner.


Ed, if I buy a modern car like a Honda, how long can I realistically
expect them to last?

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 07:42:21 -0600
Ignoramus20725 wrote:

Ed, if I buy a modern car like a Honda, how long can I realistically
expect them to last?

You got any repo lots around where they sell stuff? I've got a big one
not too far away and it's very educational to look through. All sorts
of models, years and condition with no cleanup, prepping done for
resale.

I spend most of my time looking underneath the vehicles. The
front wheel well on the Honda CRV is quite interesting. Doesn't look
like a very long lived design for this area and road salt.

Another one that caught my eye was a Buick Rendezvous. The gas filler
is located above the rear wheel well. The filler pipe is in the well
with a thin protective material over some of it.

The Chevy Colorado that has all the emergency brake cable connections
inline with where the left front tire will throw all the road spray on
them.

The 2007 Chevy Silverado that had rear frame rails with major crusty
rust trouble.

Most people look at the body color/paint, interior... I get down and
look all around underneath. The exhaust, drive shaft, suspension,
wheel wells, emergency brake cables, frame rails

--
Leon Fisk
Grand Rapids MI/Zone 5b
Remove no.spam for email

On 02/16/2017 8:06 AM, Leon Fisk wrote:
....

Most people look at the body color/paint, interior... I get down and
look all around underneath. The exhaust, drive shaft, suspension,
wheel wells, emergency brake cables, frame rails

Years and years ago (before 1978 as hadn't made the TN from VA move yet)
used to travel to Cleveland and Wickliffe, OH, regularly for employer as
had a major subsidiary/vendor there. Once coming back to catch the
corporate flight back to Lynchburg that evening, an old rust-bucket
pickup literally did hit a serious pothole in the pavement and the frame
buckled behind the cab to the pavement. Created quite a backup pretty
quickly; fortunately I was able to get past and on to make the flight
but was educational!

I remember also that all the freeways were just littered with mufflers
and other body parts that had rusted to the point of falling off...not
what we were used to in Lynchburg, VA, or even in KS where, while it's
cold, it's so much drier don't have the rust issues.

--

On 2017-02-16, Leon Fisk wrote:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 07:42:21 -0600
Ignoramus20725 wrote:

Ed, if I buy a modern car like a Honda, how long can I realistically
expect them to last?

You got any repo lots around where they sell stuff? I've got a big one
not too far away and it's very educational to look through. All sorts
of models, years and condition with no cleanup, prepping done for
resale.

I spend most of my time looking underneath the vehicles. The
front wheel well on the Honda CRV is quite interesting. Doesn't look
like a very long lived design for this area and road salt.

Another one that caught my eye was a Buick Rendezvous. The gas filler
is located above the rear wheel well. The filler pipe is in the well
with a thin protective material over some of it.

The Chevy Colorado that has all the emergency brake cable connections
inline with where the left front tire will throw all the road spray on
them.

The 2007 Chevy Silverado that had rear frame rails with major crusty
rust trouble.

Most people look at the body color/paint, interior... I get down and
look all around underneath. The exhaust, drive shaft, suspension,
wheel wells, emergency brake cables, frame rails


Very interesting. My wife had a CR/V for 10 years and it looked almost
new despite being parked outside. She is a gentle car user, for sure,
but still for Illinois it was impressive. Now she has a Honda Pilot,
the same story, great quality vehicle.

i

On 2/16/2017 7:42 AM, Ignoramus20725 wrote:
On 2017-02-12, wrote:

Right. It's better coatings, better primers and protection, and
better application. Read, water-based coatings that often are based
on urethanes; phosphate and weldable, etching primers; galvanizing
in rust-prone areas; and electrophoresis and electrostatic
application. The first water-based coatings -- used into the '80s by
some manufacturers -- had poor adhesion and didn't weather
well. They're MUCH better now.

All of this became more necessary as body panels got thinner, with
the use of AHSS (advanced high-strength steels; a continuing
evolution of the HSLA [high-strength, low-alloy] steels that were
first used in the '70s). Rust is potentially a bigger problem than
ever because the steel is thinner.


Ed, if I buy a modern car like a Honda, how long can I realistically
expect them to last?


A bit of an open ended question.
I have a 97 Toyota T-100 that still looks beautiful and runs great.
Will admit we had the sides of the bed repainted, not because of any
problem but because we used as a work truck and the idiots that loaded
it rubbed their belt buckles on the bed as they loaded it. They put a
bunch of scratches in the paint. I'm in the Florida sun and after 20
years the roof and hood still look good, we do garage it though.
Mikek

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:13:56 -0600
amdx wrote:

snip
I have a 97 Toyota T-100 that still looks beautiful and runs great.
Will admit we had the sides of the bed repainted, not because of any
problem but because we used as a work truck and the idiots that loaded
it rubbed their belt buckles on the bed as they loaded it. They put a
bunch of scratches in the paint. I'm in the Florida sun and after 20
years the roof and hood still look good, we do garage it though.

They have a reputation in the rustbelt

https://duckduckgo.com/html/?q=toyot...t+recall&kd=-1

--
Leon Fisk
Grand Rapids MI/Zone 5b
Remove no.spam for email

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 07:42:21 -0600, Ignoramus20725
wrote:

On 2017-02-12, wrote:

Right. It's better coatings, better primers and protection, and
better application. Read, water-based coatings that often are based
on urethanes; phosphate and weldable, etching primers; galvanizing
in rust-prone areas; and electrophoresis and electrostatic
application. The first water-based coatings -- used into the '80s by
some manufacturers -- had poor adhesion and didn't weather
well. They're MUCH better now.

All of this became more necessary as body panels got thinner, with
the use of AHSS (advanced high-strength steels; a continuing
evolution of the HSLA [high-strength, low-alloy] steels that were
first used in the '70s). Rust is potentially a bigger problem than
ever because the steel is thinner.


Ed, if I buy a modern car like a Honda, how long can I realistically
expect them to last?

Yes.


--
In order to become the master, the politician poses as the servant.
--Charles de Gaulle

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 07:42:21 -0600, Ignoramus20725
wrote:

On 2017-02-12, wrote:

Right. It's better coatings, better primers and protection, and
better application. Read, water-based coatings that often are based
on urethanes; phosphate and weldable, etching primers; galvanizing
in rust-prone areas; and electrophoresis and electrostatic
application. The first water-based coatings -- used into the '80s by
some manufacturers -- had poor adhesion and didn't weather
well. They're MUCH better now.

All of this became more necessary as body panels got thinner, with
the use of AHSS (advanced high-strength steels; a continuing
evolution of the HSLA [high-strength, low-alloy] steels that were
first used in the '70s). Rust is potentially a bigger problem than
ever because the steel is thinner.


Ed, if I buy a modern car like a Honda, how long can I realistically
expect them to last?
25 years if you take care of them. 5 to 7 if you don't. My daughter's
Honda is10? years old and the body is still spotless - and she has had
virtually no repairs. It is serviced regularly - the first years by
the dealer now by her Fiance who is a HD Truck mechanic.

"Ignoramus20725" wrote in
message ...
On 2017-02-12, wrote:

Right. It's better coatings, better primers and protection, and
better application. Read, water-based coatings that often are based
on urethanes; phosphate and weldable, etching primers; galvanizing
in rust-prone areas; and electrophoresis and electrostatic
application. The first water-based coatings -- used into the '80s
by
some manufacturers -- had poor adhesion and didn't weather
well. They're MUCH better now.

All of this became more necessary as body panels got thinner, with
the use of AHSS (advanced high-strength steels; a continuing
evolution of the HSLA [high-strength, low-alloy] steels that were
first used in the '70s). Rust is potentially a bigger problem than
ever because the steel is thinner.


Ed, if I buy a modern car like a Honda, how long can I
realistically
expect them to last?

My 2000 CRV still looks nearly new, because I welded up a few small
rust holes and wax it yearly.
-jsw

On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 8:42:27 AM UTC-5, Ignoramus20725 wrote:
On 2017-02-12, wrote:

Right. It's better coatings, better primers and protection, and
better application. Read, water-based coatings that often are based
on urethanes; phosphate and weldable, etching primers; galvanizing
in rust-prone areas; and electrophoresis and electrostatic
application. The first water-based coatings -- used into the '80s by
some manufacturers -- had poor adhesion and didn't weather
well. They're MUCH better now.

All of this became more necessary as body panels got thinner, with
the use of AHSS (advanced high-strength steels; a continuing
evolution of the HSLA [high-strength, low-alloy] steels that were
first used in the '70s). Rust is potentially a bigger problem than
ever because the steel is thinner.


Ed, if I buy a modern car like a Honda, how long can I realistically
expect them to last?

Jeez, that's above my pay grade, Ig. There are just too many variables. I can tell you, though, that eight years is more or less the industry benchmark these days, and when you dig into their technical literature, you'll find that ten years is a frequent target for the latest treatments.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 21 Feb 2017 12:03:45 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 8:42:27 AM UTC-5, Ignoramus20725 wrote:
On 2017-02-12, wrote:

Right. It's better coatings, better primers and protection, and
better application. Read, water-based coatings that often are based
on urethanes; phosphate and weldable, etching primers; galvanizing
in rust-prone areas; and electrophoresis and electrostatic
application. The first water-based coatings -- used into the '80s by
some manufacturers -- had poor adhesion and didn't weather
well. They're MUCH better now.

All of this became more necessary as body panels got thinner, with
the use of AHSS (advanced high-strength steels; a continuing
evolution of the HSLA [high-strength, low-alloy] steels that were
first used in the '70s). Rust is potentially a bigger problem than
ever because the steel is thinner.


Ed, if I buy a modern car like a Honda, how long can I realistically
expect them to last?

Jeez, that's above my pay grade, Ig. There are just too many variables. I can tell you, though, that eight years is more or less the industry benchmark these days, and when you dig into their technical literature, you'll find that ten years is a frequent target for the latest treatments.
A lot of today's vehicles have a 10 year rust "perforation" warranty.
If you get a bubble in the paint you KNOW there is perforation
allowing moisture in from the back.

On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 1:43:44 PM UTC-5, Christopher Tidy wrote:
Hi folks,

Quick question. Many cars from the 1980s used to rust badly. Sometime in the 1990s, this changed - and quite suddenly. Does anyone know what specific changes were made to the paint composition and surface treatment? I can only find vague allusions in most articles.

Thanks,

Chris

Here's how cheap Ford is. About 15 yrs. ago I was reading the latest Popular Mechanics auto advice column. A guy wrote in with a concern about his oil pressure reading in his new Ford F-150. He said he had noticed when it was started cold, the oil pressure always came up to the exact same level and never decreased once the engine got warm, as his previous pickup had done. The pressure always remained at the exact same place no matter engine temperature or RPM. The auto advice guy at PM said on his year/model of pickup, Ford had replaced the pressure transmitter with a pressure switch with a fixed resistance. When the switch closed, it would always deflect the oil pressure needle to the same location. In other words, an idiot light. As far as I've seen, no other auto manufacturer ever pulled one like that. Saved them what? $1.50 a truck? So, here you are doing 70 on the interstate all day and one or more cam bearings are starting to go. From personal experience, that's always a gradual decrease of oil pressure. By the time the oil pressure gauge on your P.O.S. Ford pickup drops to zero and the backup idiot light comes on, the engine has been operating way too long on insufficient oil pressure and is likely already trashed. A guy I worked with had a new Ford pickup. I read him the column and he said,"That's just the way my truck acts!". Now I don't know if they still practice this world class chicken^&*(, but I've had my last Ford.

On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 08:29:44 -0800 (PST), Garrett Fulton
wrote:

On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 1:43:44 PM UTC-5, Christopher Tidy wrote:
Hi folks,

Quick question. Many cars from the 1980s used to rust badly. Sometime in the 1990s, this changed - and quite suddenly. Does anyone know what specific changes were made to the paint composition and surface treatment? I can only find vague allusions in most articles.

Thanks,

Chris

Here's how cheap Ford is. About 15 yrs. ago I was reading the latest Popular Mechanics auto advice column. A guy wrote in with a concern about his oil pressure reading in his new Ford F-150. He said he had noticed when it was started cold, the oil pressure always came up to the exact same level and never decreased once the engine got warm, as his previous pickup had done. The pressure always remained at the exact same place no matter engine temperature or RPM. The auto advice guy at PM said on his year/model of pickup, Ford had replaced the pressure transmitter with a pressure switch with a fixed resistance. When the switch closed, it would always deflect the oil pressure needle to the same location. In other words, an idiot light. As far as I've seen, no other auto manufacturer ever pulled one like that. Saved them what? $1.50 a truck? So, here you are doing 70 on the interstate all day and one or more cam bearings are starting to go. From personal experience, that's always a
gradual decrease of oil pressure. By the time the oil pressure gauge on your P.O.S. Ford pickup drops to zero and the backup idiot light comes on, the engine has been operating way too long on insufficient oil pressure and is likely already trashed. A guy I worked with had a new Ford pickup. I read him the column and he said,"That's just the way my truck acts!". Now I don't know if they still practice this world class chicken^&*(, but I've had my last Ford.
They have virtually ALL done it on at least one model, and it was not
a cost saving measure, in the main. It was because they had customers
complaininh about high cold oil pressure, or low hot idle oil
pressure, and they were all wasting WAY too much time and effort
trying to explain why it was "normal". To avoid class action lawsuits
for faulty oil pressure they simply made a n "idiot guage". Looks like
"higher content" than an idiot light.

On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 15:45:18 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 08:29:44 -0800 (PST), Garrett Fulton
wrote:

On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 1:43:44 PM UTC-5, Christopher Tidy wrote:
Hi folks,

Quick question. Many cars from the 1980s used to rust badly. Sometime in the 1990s, this changed - and quite suddenly. Does anyone know what specific changes were made to the paint composition and surface treatment? I can only find vague allusions in most articles.

Thanks,

Chris

Here's how cheap Ford is. About 15 yrs. ago I was reading the latest Popular Mechanics auto advice column. A guy wrote in with a concern about his oil pressure reading in his new Ford F-150. He said he had noticed when it was started cold, the oil pressure always came up to the exact same level and never decreased once the engine got warm, as his previous pickup had done. The pressure always remained at the exact same place no matter engine temperature or RPM. The auto advice guy at PM said on his year/model of pickup, Ford had replaced the pressure transmitter with a pressure switch with a fixed resistance. When the switch closed, it would always deflect the oil pressure needle to the same location. In other words, an idiot light. As far as I've seen, no other auto manufacturer ever pulled one like that. Saved them what? $1.50 a truck? So, here you are doing 70 on the interstate all day and one or more cam bearings are starting to go. From personal experience, that's always a
gradual decrease of oil pressure. By the time the oil pressure gauge on your P.O.S. Ford pickup drops to zero and the backup idiot light comes on, the engine has been operating way too long on insufficient oil pressure and is likely already trashed. A guy I worked with had a new Ford pickup. I read him the column and he said,"That's just the way my truck acts!". Now I don't know if they still practice this world class chicken^&*(, but I've had my last Ford.
They have virtually ALL done it on at least one model, and it was not
a cost saving measure, in the main. It was because they had customers
complaininh about high cold oil pressure, or low hot idle oil
pressure, and they were all wasting WAY too much time and effort
trying to explain why it was "normal". To avoid class action lawsuits
for faulty oil pressure they simply made a n "idiot guage". Looks like
"higher content" than an idiot light.
I was looking at the oil gauge in my Toyota truck and was a little
concerned that it would show right at the lowest mark when idling. I
wondered if maybe I should start to worry about the truck because it
is a '95. Then upon reading the manual I find that proper oil pressure
when idling is 3 lbs. Now I don't worry.
Eric

On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 16:19:58 -0800, wrote:

On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 15:45:18 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 08:29:44 -0800 (PST), Garrett Fulton
wrote:

On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 1:43:44 PM UTC-5, Christopher Tidy wrote:
Hi folks,

Quick question. Many cars from the 1980s used to rust badly. Sometime in the 1990s, this changed - and quite suddenly. Does anyone know what specific changes were made to the paint composition and surface treatment? I can only find vague allusions in most articles.

Thanks,

Chris

Here's how cheap Ford is. About 15 yrs. ago I was reading the latest Popular Mechanics auto advice column. A guy wrote in with a concern about his oil pressure reading in his new Ford F-150. He said he had noticed when it was started cold, the oil pressure always came up to the exact same level and never decreased once the engine got warm, as his previous pickup had done. The pressure always remained at the exact same place no matter engine temperature or RPM. The auto advice guy at PM said on his year/model of pickup, Ford had replaced the pressure transmitter with a pressure switch with a fixed resistance. When the switch closed, it would always deflect the oil pressure needle to the same location. In other words, an idiot light. As far as I've seen, no other auto manufacturer ever pulled one like that. Saved them what? $1.50 a truck? So, here you are doing 70 on the interstate all day and one or more cam bearings are starting to go. From personal experience, that's always a
gradual decrease of oil pressure. By the time the oil pressure gauge on your P.O.S. Ford pickup drops to zero and the backup idiot light comes on, the engine has been operating way too long on insufficient oil pressure and is likely already trashed. A guy I worked with had a new Ford pickup. I read him the column and he said,"That's just the way my truck acts!". Now I don't know if they still practice this world class chicken^&*(, but I've had my last Ford.
They have virtually ALL done it on at least one model, and it was not
a cost saving measure, in the main. It was because they had customers
complaininh about high cold oil pressure, or low hot idle oil
pressure, and they were all wasting WAY too much time and effort
trying to explain why it was "normal". To avoid class action lawsuits
for faulty oil pressure they simply made a n "idiot guage". Looks like
"higher content" than an idiot light.
I was looking at the oil gauge in my Toyota truck and was a little
concerned that it would show right at the lowest mark when idling. I
wondered if maybe I should start to worry about the truck because it
is a '95. Then upon reading the manual I find that proper oil pressure
when idling is 3 lbs. Now I don't worry.
Eric
Can you immagine being the service manager having to explain that to
half of the paranoid customers at a dealership? They'd be "calling you
anything but a white man", convinced you were lying to them, just
trying to put off repairs untill THEY had to pay because it was off
warranty? THAT is why they invented the "idiot guage"

I went through that as a Toyota service manager many times. On a hot
day the customer would come in complaining the OP guage was reading
half a needle width lower - or after changing the oil - Or they'd come
in complaing the oil pressure was too high and they were told by some
backyard mechanic friend that it would cause the oil to get too hot,
and waste gas - - -

On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 3:45:19 PM UTC-5, Clare wrote:
On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 08:29:44 -0800 (PST), Garrett Fulton
wrote:

On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 1:43:44 PM UTC-5, Christopher Tidy wrote:
Hi folks,

Quick question. Many cars from the 1980s used to rust badly. Sometime in the 1990s, this changed - and quite suddenly. Does anyone know what specific changes were made to the paint composition and surface treatment? I can only find vague allusions in most articles.

Thanks,

Chris

Here's how cheap Ford is. About 15 yrs. ago I was reading the latest Popular Mechanics auto advice column. A guy wrote in with a concern about his oil pressure reading in his new Ford F-150. He said he had noticed when it was started cold, the oil pressure always came up to the exact same level and never decreased once the engine got warm, as his previous pickup had done. The pressure always remained at the exact same place no matter engine temperature or RPM. The auto advice guy at PM said on his year/model of pickup, Ford had replaced the pressure transmitter with a pressure switch with a fixed resistance. When the switch closed, it would always deflect the oil pressure needle to the same location. In other words, an idiot light. As far as I've seen, no other auto manufacturer ever pulled one like that. Saved them what? $1.50 a truck? So, here you are doing 70 on the interstate all day and one or more cam bearings are starting to go. From personal experience, that's always a
gradual decrease of oil pressure. By the time the oil pressure gauge on your P.O.S. Ford pickup drops to zero and the backup idiot light comes on, the engine has been operating way too long on insufficient oil pressure and is likely already trashed. A guy I worked with had a new Ford pickup. I read him the column and he said,"That's just the way my truck acts!". Now I don't know if they still practice this world class chicken^&*(, but I've had my last Ford.
They have virtually ALL done it on at least one model, and it was not
a cost saving measure, in the main. It was because they had customers
complaininh about high cold oil pressure, or low hot idle oil
pressure, and they were all wasting WAY too much time and effort
trying to explain why it was "normal". To avoid class action lawsuits
for faulty oil pressure they simply made a n "idiot guage". Looks like
"higher content" than an idiot light.

So, you're saying GM, Chrysler and the rest are doing this? Do you remember where you read this information?

On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 17:56:25 -0800 (PST), Garrett Fulton
wrote:

v
Don't have to read it. I was a mechanic for many years. They've been
doing it for years. I've worked on a lot of vehicles with the "idiot
guage" including my last Chryslers and my 1885 Pontiac Trans Sport
3.8. Most of them can't even be converted to a full guage by
replacing the sensor because they do NOT have a resistor in the
circuit. The meter is designed to go half scale when the sensor is
grounded.

On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 11:22:10 PM UTC-5, Clare wrote:
On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 17:56:25 -0800 (PST), Garrett Fulton
wrote:

v
Don't have to read it. I was a mechanic for many years. They've been
doing it for years. I've worked on a lot of vehicles with the "idiot
guage" including my last Chryslers and my 1885 Pontiac Trans Sport
3.8. Most of them can't even be converted to a full guage by
replacing the sensor because they do NOT have a resistor in the
circuit. The meter is designed to go half scale when the sensor is
grounded.

I'll accept it if you saw it that much. Ford was the only one I'd known about. I was an airline mechanic. We sure had nothing like that. Just my .02, but it seems like deceiving a buyer to sell him a car with an oil pressure gauge that is nothing but an idiot light.

On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 23:22:09 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 17:56:25 -0800 (PST), Garrett Fulton
wrote:

v
Don't have to read it. I was a mechanic for many years. They've been
doing it for years. I've worked on a lot of vehicles with the "idiot
guage" including my last Chryslers and my 1885 Pontiac Trans Sport
3.8. Most of them can't even be converted to a full guage by
replacing the sensor because they do NOT have a resistor in the
circuit. The meter is designed to go half scale when the sensor is
grounded.

Dis FREAKING gusting. That's what it is.

--
In order to become the master, the politician poses as the servant.
--Charles de Gaulle

On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 11:22:10 PM UTC-5, Clare wrote:
...
I was a mechanic for many years. They've been doing it for years.
I've worked on a lot of vehicles with the "idiot guage" including
my last Chryslers and my 1885 Pontiac Trans Sport 3.8.

Yeah, those 1880's were some years, weren't they. Haha, just kidding. But anyway, could you imagine the looks on a bunch of cowboys and indians faces if they saw a 1967 Pontiac revving up?

Garrett Fulton wrote:
On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 1:43:44 PM UTC-5, Christopher Tidy wrote:
Hi folks,

Quick question. Many cars from the 1980s used to rust badly. Sometime in the 1990s, this changed - and quite suddenly. Does anyone know what specific changes were made to the paint composition and surface treatment? I can only find vague allusions in most articles.

Thanks,

Chris

Here's how cheap Ford is.

I was looking at something about the new 2018 Mustang and they were saying it was the largest V8 ever installed. I don't remember if it was for just among Mustangs or Fords in general or in anything else though.

On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 13:43:15 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

Garrett Fulton wrote:
On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 1:43:44 PM UTC-5, Christopher Tidy wrote:
Hi folks,

Quick question. Many cars from the 1980s used to rust badly. Sometime in the 1990s, this changed - and quite suddenly. Does anyone know what specific changes were made to the paint composition and surface treatment? I can only find vague allusions in most articles.

Thanks,

Chris

Here's how cheap Ford is.

I was looking at something about the new 2018 Mustang and they were saying it was the largest V8 ever installed. I don't remember if it was for just among Mustangs or Fords in general or in anything else though.
Definitely not the BIGGEST, but very likely the most powerful. I very
much doubt it is larger than 429 cu inches (just over 7 liters) which
is the largest Mustang V8 of the past - and definitely not over 460 cu
inches (7.5 liters) which was I believe the largest stock ford
passenger car engine. or the 534 cu inch (8.75 liter) truck V8

"Garrett Fulton" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 1:43:44 PM UTC-5, Christopher Tidy
wrote:
Hi folks,

Quick question. Many cars from the 1980s used to rust badly.
Sometime in the 1990s, this changed - and quite suddenly. Does
anyone know what specific changes were made to the paint composition
and surface treatment? I can only find vague allusions in most
articles.

Thanks,

Chris

Here's how cheap Ford is. About 15 yrs. ago I was reading the latest
Popular Mechanics auto advice column. A guy wrote in with a concern
about his oil pressure reading in his new Ford F-150. He said he had
noticed when it was started cold, the oil pressure always came up to
the exact same level and never decreased once the engine got warm, as
his previous pickup had done. The pressure always remained at the
exact same place no matter engine temperature or RPM. The auto advice
guy at PM said on his year/model of pickup, Ford had replaced the
pressure transmitter with a pressure switch with a fixed resistance.
When the switch closed, it would always deflect the oil pressure
needle to the same location. In other words, an idiot light. As far as
I've seen, no other auto manufacturer ever pulled one like that. Saved
them what? $1.50 a truck? So, here you are doing 70 on the interstate
all day and one or more cam bearings are starting to go. From personal
experience, that's always a gradual decrease of oil pressure. By the
time the oil pressure gauge on your P.O.S. Ford pickup drops to zero
and the backup idiot light comes on, the engine has been operating way
too long on insufficient oil pressure and is likely already trashed. A
guy I worked with had a new Ford pickup. I read him the column and he
said,"That's just the way my truck acts!". Now I don't know if they
still practice this world class chicken^&*(, but I've had my last
Ford.

=================

My 1991 Ford Ranger has the gauge package instead of lights and all
but Oil are functional. The Oil gauge uses a pressure switch and a
resistor that you can bypass if you install a variable-resistance
sender.
http://forums.tccoa.com/37-work-prog...auge-pics.html

I bought the $20 sensor and may install it if I have to remove the
dash for another reason. However the gauge as-is instantly shows
whether the engine has adequate pressure or not, and the dial face
isn't graduated in pressure units.

Is there a reason other than cost for not using stainless hardware
under the hood? I've been using it to replace broken plastic clips,
though not graded steel bolts.
-jsw

On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 18:27:35 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

My 1991 Ford Ranger has the gauge package instead of lights and all
but Oil are functional. The Oil gauge uses a pressure switch and a
resistor that you can bypass if you install a variable-resistance
sender.
http://forums.tccoa.com/37-work-prog...auge-pics.html

I bought the $20 sensor and may install it if I have to remove the
dash for another reason. However the gauge as-is instantly shows
whether the engine has adequate pressure or not, and the dial face
isn't graduated in pressure units.

So install a temporary dial gauge and mark the dash gauge with a
diamond scribe and felt-tip?


Is there a reason other than cost for not using stainless hardware
under the hood? I've been using it to replace broken plastic clips,
though not graded steel bolts.

SS loves to gall and seize, and it can be worse with same grade nut
and bolt, so use a good anti-seize. A $7 bottle of Permatex
al/cu/graphite from Amazon (8oz) will last you for decades. I like
putting a dollop of it on an old wool sock (laundered, of course) and
fold/squeeze it to distribute. Then take your bolt, fold the sock
over the threaded portion and rotate 270 degrees, coating every thread
to the root very quickly. Coats dozens before regooping. Store the
sock in a ziplock bag for later use, keeping it with the A/S.

At 5 minutes per entire project, it's a lot less time consuming than
drilling out and tapping one single broken bolt. DAMHIKT.

--
In order to become the master, the politician poses as the servant.
--Charles de Gaulle

On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 18:32:05 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 18:27:35 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

My 1991 Ford Ranger has the gauge package instead of lights and all
but Oil are functional. The Oil gauge uses a pressure switch and a
resistor that you can bypass if you install a variable-resistance
sender.
http://forums.tccoa.com/37-work-prog...auge-pics.html

I bought the $20 sensor and may install it if I have to remove the
dash for another reason. However the gauge as-is instantly shows
whether the engine has adequate pressure or not, and the dial face
isn't graduated in pressure units.

So install a temporary dial gauge and mark the dash gauge with a
diamond scribe and felt-tip?


Is there a reason other than cost for not using stainless hardware
under the hood? I've been using it to replace broken plastic clips,
though not graded steel bolts.

SS loves to gall and seize, and it can be worse with same grade nut
and bolt, so use a good anti-seize. A $7 bottle of Permatex
al/cu/graphite from Amazon (8oz) will last you for decades. I like
putting a dollop of it on an old wool sock (laundered, of course) and
fold/squeeze it to distribute. Then take your bolt, fold the sock
over the threaded portion and rotate 270 degrees, coating every thread
to the root very quickly. Coats dozens before regooping. Store the
sock in a ziplock bag for later use, keeping it with the A/S.

At 5 minutes per entire project, it's a lot less time consuming than
drilling out and tapping one single broken bolt. DAMHIKT.
Good trick.

On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 23:25:01 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 18:32:05 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 18:27:35 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

My 1991 Ford Ranger has the gauge package instead of lights and all
but Oil are functional. The Oil gauge uses a pressure switch and a
resistor that you can bypass if you install a variable-resistance
sender.
http://forums.tccoa.com/37-work-prog...auge-pics.html

I bought the $20 sensor and may install it if I have to remove the
dash for another reason. However the gauge as-is instantly shows
whether the engine has adequate pressure or not, and the dial face
isn't graduated in pressure units.

So install a temporary dial gauge and mark the dash gauge with a
diamond scribe and felt-tip?


Is there a reason other than cost for not using stainless hardware
under the hood? I've been using it to replace broken plastic clips,
though not graded steel bolts.

SS loves to gall and seize, and it can be worse with same grade nut
and bolt, so use a good anti-seize. A $7 bottle of Permatex
al/cu/graphite from Amazon (8oz) will last you for decades. I like
putting a dollop of it on an old wool sock (laundered, of course) and
fold/squeeze it to distribute. Then take your bolt, fold the sock
over the threaded portion and rotate 270 degrees, coating every thread
to the root very quickly. Coats dozens before regooping. Store the
sock in a ziplock bag for later use, keeping it with the A/S.

At 5 minutes per entire project, it's a lot less time consuming than
drilling out and tapping one single broken bolt. DAMHIKT.
Good trick.

Thanks. I hate waste and frozen bolts.

--
In order to become the master, the politician poses as the servant.
--Charles de Gaulle