Vehicle Rustpoofing – No
Despite the fact that cars are termed "durable goods" by the public, they have always been a disposable product. For the most part, the average life of a vehicle is between seven to ten years, although a growing number of owners are opting to drive their's longer. As result there are huge numbers of cars and trucks racking up 2 or 300,000 miles and sixteen or seventeen years before being retired. Vehicles are an expensive commitment and the majority of us can't afford a new ride every two or three years.
Since rust, or the proper term, corrosion, is the main killer of a car or truck, it would seem to make sense to rustproof your investment. After all, we spend money maintaining the mechanicals, shouldn't we spend some money to maintain the body? This depends on how diligent you are on getting it in for follow-ups after the initial job. In most circumstances, we have a tough enough time with getting our necessary priorities taken care of, much less taking a car in for rustproofing. In the rust belt, it can take a longer time to get an appointment for rustproofing than it does the dentist.
Today, though newer cars and trucks still rust, it's because owners refuse to wash, or fix scratches and body damage. The metal has been galvanized to outlast the payment book with good care and as long as scratches get fixed promptly, rust is not going to be much of a problem. Eventually, everything is going to rust and fall apart. Even the most expensive cars are going to end up being scrapped at some point, and though some rust is unsightly, it doesn't discourage the majority of the driving public trying to squeeze every penny from their rides.
Another thought concerning rustproofing is this. My parents bought a new 1989 Chevy Beretta in that same year, had it rustproofed. The company drilled holes in the doors and in the body to apply the mastic or other goop used to seal the metal. It didn't stop the rust, but it did manage to plug all the drain holes in the doors and body. It also managed to rust where they drilled the holes and disturbed the galvanizing. Even though the paint peeled off the entire car, a result of GM's shoddy paintwork at the time, the only places it started to rust was where the rustproofing company applied their stuff.
On the other hand, my wife and bought a brand-new Ford Escort in 1996 and though we knew the car had the potential for some serious rust issues (we has seen recent examples of this model, some less than a few years old, with rust holes) we declined rust protection. Our "gamble" paid off. The only places the car rusted were at the site of a repair on the rear fender and the seam on the rockers. I staved off the rust until we sold the car, when it was nine years old. I'm convinced that if we used the rustproofing, it wouldn't have lasted the payment book. All of my subsequent used car purchases have not had a problem with it either, despite my lack of rustproofing. Paying for this service is just a waste of money.
Related Articles
- When to Change the Oil in your Vehicle
- Is Ethanol Damaging to certain Types of Vehicles
- Bmw Embraces Electric Cars with an i Series of Vehicles Begining with the I3
- How Electric Vehicles are Changing the Standard for 21st Century Automobiles
- Car Clocking and how to Avoid it when Purchasing a Vehicle
