Hi,
My feeling is that Ford Transits in general show a LOT more rust than a Ford car of the same age.
If you think I'm wrong about this, great, because I cannot really see a reason for it overall.
I've never owned a Ford pick-up truck, but I do know rust is an issue with them in Canda/USA (I'm Canadian born).
There are significant differnces between a Ford car and a var/pickup:
- Monocoque vs chassis
- Car engine tends to have a bottom cover: stops water/salt/gunk splashing up.
Vans are exposed to the road
After the huge issues in USA/Canada back in the 1960's-70's and early 80's with VERY rusty Fords (law suits etc), Ford FINALLY started doing electrolytic anti-corrosion in all their plants. But only in 1984. And the crazy thing was that Ford was the one who INVENTED the best process at the time for it, called "E-Coat".
But due to financial restrictions, Ford Management didn't actually USE it very much until they were forced to it by all the bad publicity/warranty issues from serious rust.
OK, so that's where the whole "Rusty Ford" stigma came from: it was a very real issue.
And sure, Ford DOES do a variety of metal coating plus paint etc on its vehicles.
EVERY vehicle maker does.
But it seems to me, that what Ford does on Transit vans must be sub-standard.
And yet on Ford cars, maybe it's better?
Assuming Ford cars don't rust out as badly as Ford vans do.
Maybe VW, Mercedes, Renault/Vauxhall vans are just as bad?
But my gut feel is that Transits are the worst.
Agree?
Anyone got any explnation if correct?


