plastic and rust

[Mark McDonald <tomswift@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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