My daughter is learning to drive,her test is soon.So we have been looking at some cars,we saw a mazda 2 yesterday,I was amazed how much rust there was underneath.compared to a four year old fiesta or corsa which have none.Mazda must be the only modern car that rusts!
Mazdas rusting was something of a revelation to me - and only after joining the OC to be honest.
My wife had had three brand-new Mazdas, two 6s and an MX-5, as company cars, and we found them terrific - good build quality and totally reliable. But of course, only keeping them for three or four years, we were never going to discover what they were like in later life.
After changing company cars again in 2015 (for a VW Scirocco), we both missed the ability to go topless, so we bought another MX-5 as a ‘second car’ last October. This one is fab, and absolutely spotless, but reading various posts on this forum has opened our eyes to what might be in store for us in a few years time, as we fully intend this 2008 Sport to be a ‘keeper’.
Mazda’s rust prevention, especially underneath, is abysmal, if all the posts on this forum are to be believed, and we have it in the back of our minds to maybe upgrade to a newer model 5 in a few years time, to hopefully stave off any problems with the dreaded ‘tin worm’.
I find it interesting, and rather ironic, that some members compare Mazda’s rust prevention with that of Ford’s - because I seem to recall reading somewhere that Ford actually own the Mazda brand !
Ford were the minor shareholders in a partnership that ended in 2015. that’s all I believe.
Ford have had varying, minority shareholdings in Mazda for 40 or 50 years. This came to a head in the mid-1990’s when they had
a 33% shareholding, and a Ford ‘bean-counter’ executive was basically running Mazda. In conversation with a chap at MX5parts, a few
months ago, whilst paying for some work done, he mentioned a specific part for the Mk1 MX5 compared to the MK2. Metal pipery, as I recall.
The Mk2 part performed the same function, but the quality was far lower.
As said above, Ford sold their last few shares in Mazda in 20015.
I just think that you pays your money and takes your choice. Broadly speaking, mechanically I’d have few worries about
buying a Japanese car with, say, 150,000 on the clock. Whereas, I wouldn’t go near a Ford with that kind of mileage.
Rust ? Time was, I used to see loads of Datsun 100A Cherries on the road. Check out eBay, you’ll find literally usually 1 or 2.
All rusted away. And same with the vast majority of old Japanese cars. It’s a feature, sir, they all do that !
Thank you to Countryboy for clearing up my misunderstanding of the ‘Ford owning Mazda’ situation.
My question now concerns what Trufflehunt (I love that name !) has written about Japanese cars in general rusting out.
Of course all cars will rust, this is because of the nature of the basic material (mild steel), that most cars are made from. However, we all know that some manufacturers protect their cars better than others. So, what is it about the way the Japanese manufacture their cars that seem to make them so vulnerable in this respect.
Now you will all have to bear with me for a while here please - I know very little about Japan and its climate etc. But I do know that it is an island nation, much like the UK, so presumably they have the same problems with salt-laden air and water that we do, hastening the onset of rust in steel products. So why do they not protect their cars better ? Am I wrong here ? Is there something about the Japanese climate that means that cars do not rust over there ? Is this why they do not bother with rust prevention in their cars ? Or is it that they simply want their cars to rust out quickly, so that customers will have to buy another one ? If this is so, then why do they appear to make their cars seem mechanically ‘bombproof’, and last almost forever ?
OK, let’s assume for one moment that cars in Japan do not rust ! But they export thousands every day, and they know where these cars are going, so why do they not protect cars that are bound for countries where they do rust, at the factory while they are being built ? Do they not care ?
Perhaps if the World stopped buying Japanese cars, because of their poor rust-prevention record, they would change their attitude and protect their products better - some hope of that happening !
I suppose, in the end, we all have to just put up with the situation, and enjoy our little Japanese roadsters while we can.
Cynical from Frome.
I believe that, in Japan, they don’t use rock salt to de-ice their roads or to prevent them freezing. I know that some countries use other chemicals e.g. volcanic ash, which unlike the rock salt used over here don’t cause corrosion. Additionally I recall that Japan had (& probably still has?) a very strict “MOT” type test - the “Shaken” where it’s compulsory that many parts are replaced regardless of condition - a ploy to drive even 4 year old cars off the road & encourage owners to buy another new one, to assist their economy. So as far as I’m aware, for the home market, rust isn’t an issue for Jap manufacturers.
Japanese cars certainly did have a terrible reputation for rusting when I grew up in the 1970s. My first car was a 1977 Datsun 100A F11, only 41K on the clock & undersealed from new. I bought that in 1984, it was 7 years old & already on its second pair of front wings (both of which were starting to go again), the top of the scuttle panel at the base of the windscreen had been filled some time before I bought it & found it to be peppered with holes. Then the front subframe went through after I’d had the car for 8 months. British vehicles rusted too (I’d also looked at Escorts & Chevettes as potential purchases which, at the same age, were just as bad) - it was more or less accepted. I also recall that a friend of mine had a four year old 1982 Cortina which had a rotted out door bottom.
The design life of a car is, I believe, 13 years & it isn’t really in the manufacturers’ interests to extend that - as long as old cars go off the road there will be demand for new ones. Additionally the folk who suffer from the rust issues with their cars these days tend to be the 2nd, 3rd or 4th owners i.e. people who are less likely to buy new, so new sales of cars which are unusually rust-prone don’t suffer.
Having said all of this, I fully agree that Mazda’s factory “protection” is particularly poor in comparison with other, especially European, manufacturers. In no small part this is due to Mazda bodyshells not being galvanised in addition to the lack of underseal & the haphazard application of same. The majority of the rot on Mazdas seems to be confined to the underbody, therefore the cars still look to be in good condition cosmetically after a number of years & very few owners will bother to look underneath. Not sure of how other Jap cars e.g. Toyotas compare but notably there seems to be no mention of galvanised bodyshells in Toyota’s brochure for the GT86.
As MX-5s aren’t a “mainstream” car, many owners keep them running beyond the ages at which other run of the mill vehicles will have been scrapped. Obviously this means that, as there’s probably a higher proportion of old MX-5s around (as a percentage of those sold) than say Fiestas, Corsas, Mondeos etc the MX-5 rust issue seems to be particularly bad. I see very few cars around today with pre-2001 plates (i.e. with a letter to identify the year) - & many of those which I do see seem to be MX-5s. Additionally run of the mill cars even with later identifiers “51” to “04” (2001 to 2004) seem to be disappearing fast.
MX-5s are great cars but they do need to be looked after; in my opinion undersealing is a “must” - unless you’re the first owner & don’t plan to keep the car for more than 5 or 6 years in which case, for you, it’s a waste of money because subsequent owners will get the benefit. There are a lot of well maintained, solid MX-5s of all ages out there - it all depends on the care taken by the owners, plus whether garaged, whether used daily all year etc etc.
Japan uses a de-icing gel, similar to some parts of the US, in some parts. This is a very corrosive mix. In Japan, its clear that they are also suffering rusting problems, but itself a different pattern from here. Undersides and wheel arch lips rarely uffer damage; hence importers point to relatively rust-free undersides. The sills go, fairly catastrophically, as there is no warning of the general aging of a car (bubbling wheel arches). For most cars sold in Japan, a “winter protection package” is an optional extra. The exceptions are low volume cars (MX5s) that are also exported (not worth setting up 2 lines).
Virtually all of the structural rusting on a MX5 is from the inside out; undersealing makes no difference. Even cavity wax merely delays things. The MX5 suffers because it is a convertible. Being a convertible means both having to find a way for rain water to drain through a car structure, but also requires much more complex sill reinforcement (condensation trap). NAs and NBs have a section of the sill that cannot drain, and it virtually impossible to effectively introduce a treatment material into it (efforts to introduce materials can create sink spots, hastening rusting).
My Eunos is fairly rust free not bad for a car that is 26 years old.
Hello Mal,
Yes, there are indeed quite a lot of older MX-5s around, and as Andy1964 pointed out in an earlier post, they tend to be kept going by their owners a lot longer than they would with a run-of-the-mill car.
Another thing is, that being a member of this club and forum, perhaps we tend to see reports of all these older cars that have shown up problem areas rust-wise, that maybe a non-member would hear of, so we’re more aware of the issues.
I dare say any car that is older than (say) 15 years is going to show signs of rot - that’s life really isn’t it ?
You’ve obviously got a good one in your Eunos - let’s hope it stays that way.
On the subject of galvanising body panels, I E-mailed Fiat UK last week to ask whether or not the bodywork fitted to the 124 is galvanised.
Still waiting for the answer, but I’ll let you know - I’ll be surprised if it is, but we’ll see.
Mazda could probably do more to protect them, but then they would cost more money. You rarely see rusty Boxsters for example, although they have many other much more expensive potential problems.
Well yes, granted the finished car would cost more, but when one is paying over £20,000 for a motor, surely another two or three hundred quid is neither here nor there !
In the end of course, people who regularly upgrade with new cars every three or four years, aren’t going to give a stuff about undersealing, or building the car out of better materials, because they are never going to keep them long enough for it to bother them - they’re the lucky ones. It’s only people who perhaps can’t afford new cars, or maybe prefer the shape and style of the older ones, who would benefit from this protection, and I suppose you could say that these people don’t really matter - or is that being cynical again ? Probably ! I don’t actually think that manufacturers do give a stuff for used-car buyers, as along as other people keep buying the new ones.
Given it is built on the same line as the MX-5, you can guess the answer
They probably passed your enquiry on to Mazda and are waiting a reply from them!
Well I have been underneath a Fiat and have rustproofed two Mk4’s and the Fiat looked to be protected to the same standard as the Mk4. No better or worse.
Surely making a car out of galvanised steel would cost a hell of a lot more than undersealing !
Thanks for your replies re. 124 galvanising (or not). I confess that I’m ignorant about what galvanising really involves (or costs) in the context of car production, but I was thinking that maybe, (having been lovingly sculpted by master craftsmen in Torino ), the panels might be galvanised before being shipped to Mazda for the assembly process . Probably pie in the sky I know, but thought I’d ask.
Metal quality has improved markedly since the dreaded rust bucket cars of the 70s and 80s. Design incorporating plastic wheel arch liners, etc has also helped a lot. Back in my youth when I frequented scrap yards on a regular basis, cars were scrapped early because of engine failure and crash damage, as well as rust. Many simply did not last long enough to terminally rust. Cars that had covered more than 100k were an exception particularly fords and Vauxhalls that could easily be thrashed to death by unsympathetic drivers. They are much more reliable, robust and self governing nowadays, so rust potentially is more of a factor in longevity
The road gel used in Japan must be in selected areas because it is still possible to import a 25+ year old Eunos with no corrosion underneath, shiny suspension bolts, etc.
I am old school, if old school still exists - keep everything going until it cannot possibly be kept going any longer, don’t waste money or resources, look after things and they will look after you. I made a 100 mile return trip from South Devon to Glastonbury, Somerset on 31st May and more or less proved that in respect of cars I am on my own now. My mission whilst sailing up the motorway in my 1996 1.9D Golf(63 bhp) was to find an older standard car travelling along the same road(both directions where possible), so something on an ‘N’ registration(1995/6). Standard car means not classic or 4 wheel drive - just the usual family car of 20+ years ago. Quite busy M5 up and back from Exeter to Glastonbury and then Glastonbury all the way back to South Devon not a single standard car older than my Golf! Several cars on a ‘P’ plate but most older cars 2001 on. I knew my values were well past their sell by date in modern society but this has really shocked me. The Golf spent it’s first 2.5 years, 70k miles up and down farm tracks as used for artificial insemination work by a cattle breeding company. First job when my girlfriend bought it 18+ years ago was to hose off about 20 pounds of cow muck, mud and stones from underneath the vehicle. Given this baptism, it was always going to be hard to stop from rusting and I have paid the price with welding, rust treatment, etc ever since.
Sorry I digress, the point of this is that most cars are off the road before terminal rust even today. I suppose some owners who were forced to scrap their 9 or 10 year old MK2.5 cars because of rusted front chassis rails would disagree with me but generally cars are scrapped because people cannot be bothered with them any more - very sad!
Simple answer - A car is a consumer item. The word means “To consume” (usually to eat) - but in this case it’s rust that eats it.
There are basically two forms of industry in this world - food (which we eat) and consumer goods - (anything produced by man)
Millions of people round the world are involved on one or the other form of industry, all relying on a steady job and an income derived from that occupation. The production of food needs no explanation, without it we will die. On the other hand consumerism is a different kettle of fish, it relies on continuous production of items which will wear out, one way of another. If they don’t wear out, then constant redesign means older items become redundant - no need to explain the electronics industry in that respect!
So, to get down to the point, cars are no exception, millions of people world wide rely on a continuous market for new cars, and the industry designs accordingly, with two approaches, 1) make sure the item wears out - and 2) If it doesn’t - don’t produce it again. They also ensure back up to the latter by not providing any!
Rust is a natural example, it ensures a buyer will need a new replacement at some point - the sooner the better from both manufacturer and assembly line workers point of view. Without that built in obsolescence, they cannot produce more cars - if they could, then we would still have British manufacturers in business if they had ensured rust was kept to an absolute minimum, but then they would have shot themselves in the foot by so doing.(Catch 22) Anyone over 40 knows why the British car industry failed - rust was an issue, but not the major one.
If a car doesn’t rust (most unlikely) then manufacturers all;ow for this by not producing spares for older models, hence the need for cannibalization and the existence of car breakers. (Hats off for Autolink) or some of use would be gasping for spares. On the other hand, if you want a car that doesn’t rust - how deep is your wallet? (Allow for very expensive parts for the future, some of which may be one-offs?)
Like it - or lump it, it’s the nature of the world today. - 'Nuff said.