plastic and rust
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

plastic and rust



True.. but the finish on metal cars (paint) can be
just as damaged by pollution and such. Even worse in
the case of acid rain.

Personally, I think the ultimate car would be a steel
body coated in plastic. No rust, 'cause the water
won't be able to get near the metal, yet as strong and
supportive as metal. Seems more realistic then
electric rust stoppers and inches of rubber
undercoating.
--- Mark McDonald <tomswift@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In my opinion, there have been vast improvements in
> rustproofing in the last 40
> years.  I believe when the 57's came out they did
> not even "dip" the bodies in
> any kind of rustproofing, which led to a lot of
> problems with the unitized
> bodies.
> 
> Cars do last longer these days.  But the plastic
> parts on them do not, or at
> least that's my impression.  Plastic doesn't rust
> but it is subject to UV damage
> and degradation from air pollution, which will eat
> away at it.  Even in a garage
> you have what is called (I think) "outgassing,"
> which is the release of the
> chemical components of the plastic in the form of
> gases.  Some companys seem to
> use plastics that release more gas than others (if
> you leave the windows all the
> way up on a hot day some of these cars can almost
> overwhelm you, the smell from
> the plastic is so strong).
> 
> I remember a dramatic change in the amount of
> plastics used in cars taking place
> between about 1965 and 1970.  The first time I
> discovered that the chrome
> looking AC vent (on a '67 Pontiac, I believe) was
> actually plastic I was
> shocked.  Looking back, of course, it doesn't appear
> to be that much of a
> change.  My '68 has quite a lot of metal in it,
> especially in the interior.
> (However, I believe it was the first year to use an
> all plastic vacu-formed
> interior door panel.)  But if you look at the
> interior of my '71, it has a LOT
> of plastic.  I remember at the time seeing that and
> thinking "Boy, does this
> look cheap."  To my eyes then, there had been a slip
> in quality b/n 1968 and
> 1971.  Now, however, looking back on it, there is
> still a heck of a lot of solid
> metal in a '71.
> 
> I think the thing that has changed is our
> perception.  In the 50's & 60's,
> "quality" meant something different than it does
> today.  At that time, "heavy,"
> "thick," and "big" meant quality.  Now "light,"
> "thin," and "small" equates to
> quality.  There has been a revolution in our
> thinking, led in part by marketing
> and in part by advances in engineering.
> 
> If you are "old school," which is what I guess I
> tend to be, you look at today's
> cars and think "flimsy" and "cheap" (to some
> extent).  If you are "new school,"
> you look at an old Imperial and think "cool," but
> "low tech," "inefficient," or
> "wasteful."
> 
> Well, I don't know if everyone born after 1980
> thinks that (obviously not the
> ones on this list!) but you get the idea . . .
> 
> Merry Christmas,
> Mark
> 
> Alan Harper wrote:
> 
> > >Plastic may not rust, but how easy is it going to
> be to find replacement
> > >parts for these cars in the next thirty years?
> The difference is, that the
> > >cars produced in the fifties and sixties were
> built to last, or at least
> > >built to be restorable. If my little Nissan makes
> it through another ten
> > >years, it will be very lucky. We have evolved
> into a disposable society, and
> > >it is even built into our cars. The thin sheet
> metal and plastic will not
> > >hold up like our old Imperials.
> >
> > =============
> >
> > I remember, in the 60's and 70's, looking at cars
> which were approaching 10
> > years old, and I remember that almost all of them
> were rust-buckets.  It
> > was almost axiomatic that once a car got to be 10
> years old, it was
> > junk.  I suppose that I was hanging around with a
> crowd, then, which
> > couldn't afford a decent car, so maybe my memory
> is only of junkers.  I
> > sure couldn't afford a nice car then.
> >
> > Anyway, it seems that cars today resist rust more
> than older cars.  That's
> > my impression.
> >
> > Alan Harper
> 
> 
> 


Home Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network


Copyright © The Forward Look Network. All rights reserved.

Opinions expressed in posts reflect the views of their respective authors.
This site contains affiliate links for which we may be compensated.