Rust Check VS Dealer offered applications

Where do you live? In most areas, neither is necessary and the dealer stuff can actually plug drain holes and damage the car.

"NBnet" wrote in news:jFF1e.5781$ snipped-for-privacy@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca:

A loaded question! The answer? BOTH. But not if the dealer is selling the white gummy stuff as opposed to the solid black stuff.

I live in Southern Ontario. Rust is something I have had to battle for every one of the 24 years I have owned my own vehicles.

The very best rust treatment--bar none--that I have EVER come across is the "drippy stuff", Krown or Rust Check. However...

Either is basically the same stuff, and either MUST be reapplied at least once per year, at a cost of about $110Cdn per year.

Personally, I use Krown. I used to use Rust Check but was not happy with the guys that run the franchise near me. The Krown guys seem better.

Several caveats:

1) It's drippy and messy. Get it done before Nov 1, or whenever your municipality bans overnight street parking for the winter. Leave it on the street for at least two days. 2) It will swell your door seals and any other rubber weatherstripping on the vehicle. This will take several years to show up, but it will swell them. Swelled seals are OK for a while, but eventually they will start to fall off the car. The only cure is replacement, at between $30 and $100 per seal. 3) It cannot protect where it cannot be applied. Don't count on it to save you from those zillions of stone chips you will get every winter if you drive any significant amount. Don't count on it to protect you from rust around the windshield frame, door tops, undercarriage, or any other place it cannot be applied or gets washed away. Don't count on it to save you from rust in those areas where sand and grit blast away paint: that's where the black stuff is needed. 4) To help combat #3, go to Canadian Tire. For $8 you get a can of aerosol Rust Check. Do your own touch up in those areas that the franchise cannot do.

It's the best. The very best there is. Because it stops rust from occurring in the worst places it can happen, the places nobody ever sees, the places that kill your car.

If you want more detail, post back here and I'll oblige.

Isn't 'rust protection' something that has become known as something useless that the dealer makes bucks on?

I mean, what do they do? I remember years ago, 2 decades, it was a 'wax' sprayed into the hollows of the doors and frames. Is that necessary today with fewer metal parts, and better paint/paint techniques?

later,

tom @

It never worked.

Richard.

Ok.

thx

I have a '91 Celica with 191,000 miles on it. I never show it any respect, and it has no rust on it (nor any add-on anti-rust treatments). I live in central Ohio where road salt is applied almost daily for months.

What a hassle. Maybe you should consider getting a modern car that uses galvanized steel. Seems most cars are going over 10 years before rusting, and yes, they salt the roads here.

P.S. What's with the follow-up-to "alt.auto"?

dizzy wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

10 years up here, too. But by that point the rust is terminal.

You see, it starts from the *inside*, where you can't see it. By the time you *do* see it, your pinchwelds and crimp seams are full of rust and it's impossible to get rid of. That's the rust the waxy and tarry substances can't prevent.

Everybody says "My car's ten years old, I don't have rust and I've never used the drippy stuff". Oh yes you do. Pull the door panels off and look inside.

The OP crossposted to so many groups. The first one on the list was alt.autos and I figured what the hell, if he's gonna crosspost to that many groups, he can find his own way back to these replies.

The more groups you crosspost to, the more likely somebody will remove the crossposts, no matter how relevant, so you've got to manually check each group anyway.

Galvanized steel has a flaky appearance and is not smooth enough to apply paint so it is not usually used in automotive applications. Think galvanized garbage cans, buckets, etc.

Other coatings are applied to the steel used in cars and trucks. Toyota uses material called galvanealed steel which uses the same principle, applying a zinc coating but leaves a smooth surface suitable for painting.

The catch is "done every year". The window is typically very small, and eventually you'll miss a touch up, voiding the warranty. Or you'll get in an accident, voiding it. Or too many scratches. Or you'll sell the car.

Read the fine print before you buy.

I agree with TeGGeR - the drippy stuff is much more effective than the waxy stuff and the tarry stuff should not be used because it actually traps moisture.

I had to do some research prior to the Tercel lower control arm recall to determine what actually was being spread on the roads in New England in winter, and I was astonished at how much stuff gets laid on the highways -

21 TONS of a 50-50 salt/sand mixture per lane per mile per year. On a road with 2 lanes in each direction, that's 84 tons per mile! The highway department gave me samples, the salt was just plain sodium chloride but the sand looked more like gravel to me, with some "grains" being bigger than shooter marbles.

IMO, most of the dealer-applied rustproofing sold in the U.S. is not worth paying for. Toyota used to offer port-installed undercoating, which they discontinued because it wasn't doing anything to reduce rust-related warranty claims.

The Kronos and Rust Check stuff that TeGGeR is describing sounds effective - I'll have to get some the next time I'm north of the border.

That's good to know...

Still, IMO not worth the effort you described, unless you plan on keeping the car forever.

dizzy wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

"...unless you plan on keeping the car forever."

Well, of course.

If you plan on selling it after ten years, who cares how much rust there is? That's the *new* owner's problem.

Rust Check/Krown costs $110 per application, once per year. I do regular touch-ups with an $8 spray can. Over the course of one year, I probably spend about $230. And every five years or so, I've got to replace several weather seals.

All told over 14 years, I've probably spent about $3,000 on rust- prevention.

I'm nuts, right? Likely. But guess what? The car is 14 years old, has almost 250K miles on it, has been savaged by the worst the Canadian winter and salt has to offer, and all the steel is original, and all the lower- body paint is, too (except for touch-ups).

The car happens to be a 1991 Integra. I'll post pics of the lower areas of the car over the next few days.

It's an obsession. It has to be.

"Ray O" wrote in news:6ee0a$4249844b$44a4a10d$ snipped-for-privacy@msgid.meganewsservers.com:

Ray, galvanizing is a "sacrificial anode". Eventually it gets worn away. Once it's gone, rust starts.

Zinc will not get fully into the pinchwelds and crimp seams. It's not

*that* mobile.

And if the zinc coating is applied before the stamping process, the raw edge of the pressed steel may still be left unprotected. Dip-priming is not perfect.

Even that gets used up.

There is only one way to prevent corrosion: keep those oxygen atoms away from your steel.

True, I have no ideal what the life of the galvanealed steel is, however, Toyotas have become much less rust-prone since the late 80's.

Yup, although factory processes for all makes have gotten much better over the years, and most vehicles will at least last through the factory rust warranty without any additional rust protection. The problem is that long-term rust prevention requires diligent attention to periodic touch-ups and re-applications, something that most consumers don't do.