Since the ’80s, the primer coat of most new cars and trucks has been applied using a process called electrocoating. “E-coating” was first developed by Ford Motor Company in the early 1960s, but this revolutionary process took a very long time to catch on with U.S. automakers (including Ford!). Here’s how electrocoating came about, why it took so long to become universal, and why it DIDN’T fix the auto industry’s terrible rust problems of the ’60s and ’70s.
What Electrocoating Is
Electrocoating uses a process called “electrophoretic deposition” to apply electrically charged paint to a conductive surface.
Basically, electrocoating involves dipping a work piece in a bath of emulsified paint and water. An electric current gives the paint and the work piece opposite electric charges, which causes the paint to be drawn to the work piece and deposit on its surface. This also separates the water from the emulsion, leaving a film of mostly dry paint. Unlike conventional dip painting, almost no paint is wasted in this process, and the thickness of the film is very uniform, with no sags or runs. (The film thickness can be adjusted by changing the bath concentration and voltage.)
It’s possible to use electrocoating to add top coat and primer in one dip — appliance manufacturers often do that — but the complicated chemistry of the electrocoat bath is only compatible with certain kinds of pigments, and each color needs its own tank. For auto bodies, electrocoating is used only for primer. However, the process has many advantages over spraying or dipping: Electrocoating is much less wasteful, the water-borne pigment is not flammable, it creates fewer smog-producing emissions, and it can give very even primer coverage even in hard-to-reach or hard-to-paint places (like door edges).
Electrocoating and Rust Prevention
Electrocoated primer also has some big advantages when it comes to rust prevention. Like other rust preventative coatings, the primer film keeps electrolytes (like water and road salt) away from the metal, but it does a better job than other coatings of filling in gaps and crevices, like the ones left by spot welding or soldering.
Unlike galvanized steel or zinc-rich rust preventative primer, which use a coating of “sacrificial” metal that’s gradually consumed as it comes into contact with electrolytes, electrocoated primer forms a more or less permanent barrier. The primer film is relatively thin, so it can still be scraped off or damaged. However, its protection is not used up over time the way sacrificial metal coatings are.
Another advantage is that electrocoated film contains very little solvent, which makes it mostly immune to a problem called “solvent reflux,” where the heat of baking drives solvent out of the primer as it cures. With conventional primer, “refluxed” solvent tends to condense on cooler areas of the work piece during baking, which damages the primed surface and creates areas more susceptible to rust. If the reflux is vented to the atmosphere, it also becomes a source of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions, which are a big contributor to photochemical smog. Electrocoated primer doesn’t suffer those problems, and its VOC emissions are low, which became very important just a few years after the process was developed.
How Ford Developed Electrocoating
Ford Motor Company consultant George E.F. Brewer first conceived the idea of electrocoating in 1958. Electrophoretic deposition wasn’t a new idea (electroplating had been used for well over 100 years, and Harold Ransburg had invented an electrostatic paint process before WW2), but no one had really tried electrodeposition of water-borne paint or primer.
The first Ford E-coat production line, established in 1961, was actually for wheels, not auto bodies. Between 1961 and 1965, this line coated around 3.5 million wheels.
In May 1963, Ford completed its first production auto body electrocoating system, which was developed with PPG and installed at the Wixom assembly plant that produced the Lincoln Continental and Ford Thunderbird.
Starting in June 1963, the Thunderbird and Continental became the first production cars to use electrocoated primer.
Late in 1963, Ford of England established an electrocoating line at its Halewood assembly plant, which built the English Ford Anglia and Cortina. In 1965, Ford of England also introduced electrocoating for the new Ford Transit van, using equipment supplied by the UK subsidiary of the German paint company Otto Dürr & Co. of Stuttgart, another important early player in electrocoating. By early 1966, Ford of Germany had also set up electrocoating lines at its plants in Cologne and Genk, Belgium. The Genk factory was the first auto assembly plant designed from the start to use E-coating.
Although Ford had been first out of the gate with electrocoating, other companies weren’t far behind. In the UK, Pressed Steel and Imperial Chemical Industries Paints Division developed their own E-coat process, which was installed at the Pressed Steel Cowley assembly plant in Oxford.
In his 1986 book The Reckoning, author David Halberstam claimed that “From the first the process was a stunning success,” which was a great exaggeration. Electrocoating was enormously promising, but it was new technology, and the learning curve was steep. Ford admitted in 1965 that they still didn’t fully understand the electrochemical processes involved! This was new territory for paint suppliers too, and there were many technical challenges to resolve.
Ford chose Wixom for their first U.S. production auto body E-coat line because it was a low-volume plant by American standards, and because it was already set up for for dipping primer, which many U.S. Ford plants weren’t. (The 90,000-gallon electrocoating tank was much bigger than the 8,000-gallon prime dip tank, but it was easier to incorporate it into the existing line.)
Unfortunately, unit-body Ford cars of the time hadn’t been designed with this process in mind. Until the late ’60s, Ford found that getting good primer coverage in enclosed areas required manually wiring each body with multiple auxiliary electrodes. This was complicated and time-consuming, which made electrocoating very labor-intensive.
Salt spray testing showed that the rust resistance of the early electrocoated bodies was better than sprayed or dipped bodies, but the initial results weren’t spectacular. New pigments with greater “throwing power” (ability to reach areas farther from the electrodes) provided better rust resistance — and eventually allowed Ford to eliminate the auxiliary electrodes — but it was a process of gradual improvement that took over five years.
All this was very expensive. In the long term, electrocoating can actually save money (the trade journal Steel reported in 1967 that Ford of Germany was saving about $2.40 per car with electrocoating), but the upfront costs are high. Ford spent about $3 million establishing the Wixom E-coating line in 1963, the equivalent of around $80 million in 2026. Large-volume plants need multiple electrocoating lines, since a single dipping tank can’t coat more than about 30 to 35 cars per hour. Electrocoating had lots of benefits, but it was a big-ticket investment.
Adoption of Electrocoating
When Ford unveiled its Wixom E-coating line, there was a lot of excitement in Detroit — everyone could see the potential of the technology. GM and Chrysler soon started work on their own E-coat programs. However, enthusiasm cooled as other domestic automakers ran into the same learning curve Ford was encountering in Wixom. Chrysler, which had been planning to add electrocoating at its Marysville plant, eventually gave up. In 1967, they told Steel, “We can make bigger savings elsewhere than by converting paint lines.” GM kept working on its own “ELPO” (“ELectrodeposition of POlymers”) process, which was supposed to be more compatible with acrylic lacquer, but for several years, it was strictly experimental, and the production divisions were skeptical of it.
European automakers took a stronger interest in E-coating. Ford and BMC were soon followed by Rootes Group, BMW, Citroën, and SAAB, among others. By 1969, there would be about three dozen automotive E-coating lines in Europe and the UK, with a few more in Japan. Electrocoating was also adopted for smaller parts like wheels or fuel tanks.
Ford, meanwhile, established its second North American electrocoating operation at the new St. Thomas Assembly plant in Ontario. Like the German Ford plant in Genk, this was a brand-new plant, and Ford was able to plan from the start to incorporate E-coating.
In 1967, GM Assembly Division (GMAD) finally decided to set up its first production ELPO line at their plant in South Gate, California. The big driving factor wasn’t rust prevention, but air pollution: South Gate Assembly was located in Los Angeles County, so it was subject to Rule 66, L.A. County’s strict new VOC emissions limits.
Chrysler and AMC remained disinterested. Chrysler’s Airtemp air conditioning division adopted electrocoating for smaller parts, but neither Chrysler nor American Motors wanted to make big investments in new paint technology.
However, over the next decade or so, other Ford and GM plants in North America adopted electrocoating, at a roughly similar pace. By 1978, about half of both companies’ U.S. and Canadian production was electrocoated. Neither Ford nor GM was in any great rush to convert existing assembly plants, which was much more expensive than setting up E-coating at a new plant. The GM divisional structure created its own complications: GMAD, Fisher Body, and the various car divisions each had their own ways of doing things.
Plant conversion was also complicated by evolving E-coating technology. Most early electrocoating operations were “anodic,” meaning that the work piece had a positive charge and the paint a negative charge. In the ’70s, it became clear that the primer’s “throwing power” was much better if the primer bath was positively charged and the work piece had a negative charge. While the new “cathodic” process was clearly superior, it required completely new primers and a revamp of existing E-coat facilities. Starting around 1977, GM and Ford began converting their existing electrocoating operations to cathodic dipping, even though some of their plants were still using spray-on primer.
Eventually, the EPA forced the issue with new Clean Air Act regulations, announced in late 1979, that required automakers to make dramatic reductions in VOC emissions from the paint operations of their U.S. assembly plants. The regulations didn’t specifically require electrocoating, but it was a straightforward way to meet the new requirements, and so most domestic auto plants switched to E-coating by the mid-’80s.
By that time, the remaining U.S. assembly plants that hadn’t yet switched to electrocoating were global outliers. In 1982, about 90 of all cars and trucks built worldwide were electrocoated, most using the newer cathodic process. The technology was now well-developed, and big improvements in chip resistance were making E-coat primers a lot more durable.
Was a Lack of Electrocoating Responsible for Ford’s Rust Problems in the ’60s and ’70s?
The Reckoning paints a damning picture of Ford’s attitude towards electrocoating, a process that Ford had pioneered, but took forever to adopt domestically — Ford didn’t convert the last of its U.S. assembly plants to E-coating until 1985. Paul has previously speculated that this was the cause of Ford’s terrible rust problems in the ’60s and ’70s.
Halberstam’s take on the E-coat situation seems to have been based largely on the account of former Ford manufacturing executive Marvin Runyon, who jumped ship in 1980 to head Nissan’s new U.S. assembly operation in Smyrna, Tennessee. Runyon had been the first manager of Ford’s St. Thomas plant, which had E-coating lines from the beginning, and he was frustrated with the reluctance of the company’s powerful finance staff to add the process to all Ford plants, which he saw as a sign of “Ford’s indifference to quality.”
It’s true that until the late ’70s, relatively few U.S. Ford cars and trucks were electrocoated, and the company seemed to take its own sweet time in adopting the process at other North American plants. However, GM was also dragging its feet, and AMC and Chrysler were still unwilling to take the plunge at all, at least in the U.S. (Chrysler did have some European electrocoating operations.) In 1972, only about 20 percent of all U.S. passenger cars used electrocoated primer; by 1979, that was still only up to about 55 percent.
Ford’s reluctant approach to electrocoating DID end up making them look pretty foolish. In the ’60s, when the technology was still far from mature, Dearborn’s hesitation was probably reasonable, but by the ’80s, it had become absurd. (Even the accommodating Reagan-era EPA balked at Ford’s attempt to drag out the conversion of the Norfolk assembly plant, one of the last two U.S. Ford plants to convert to E-coating.) However, Ford was hardly alone in that among Detroit automakers, and their slow adoption of electrocoating was a symptom rather than a cause.
Why E-Coating DIDN’T Stop ’60s and ’70s Rust Problems
Even if electrocoating had been more widely adopted sooner, it might not have done much to fix Detroit’s corrosion problems.
Many early E-coated cars were still enthusiastic rusters. BMC sports cars like the MGB and “Spridget” (MG Midget and Sprite) were electrocoated, as was the English Ford Cortina, but as fans of those cars are painfully aware, rust remained a big headache. A Swedish study in the ’70s concluded that the electrocoated 1969 Ford Cortina was actually Europe’s worst ruster! Japanese cars of the ’70s didn’t fare any better, even though about 90 percent of them used electrocoated primer by 1972.
One of the worst domestic examples was the Chevrolet Vega. The Chevrolet-Fisher Body Lordstown plant that made the Vega was one of the earliest Fisher Body plants to adopt GM’s ELPO E-coating process for complete auto bodies. Each Vega body was electrocoated after a six-stage zinc-phosphate rustproofing process, and yet the early Vega was one of the worst rusters in the U.S. industry. The early Ford Pinto, which was also electrocoated, wasn’t much better.
Why? Electrocoating is beneficial, but it’s not miraculous, and the process has many potential pitfalls. Some common problems can include contaminants in the bath or incompatible chemicals on the body (like solder, sealant, or adhesive); not enough coating time; and some parts of the body not getting hot enough during baking to cure adequately. Some European and Japanese manufacturers of the ’70s tried to skip baking entirely to reduce their energy costs, which had poor results.
Another problem, which didn’t become clear until the ’80s, was that the zinc in galvanized or coated steel, and many rust preventative pre-treatments, can actually cause problems with electrocoating due to a process called “dielectric breakdown.” As shown in the above diagrams, the zinc can cause electrical arcing during E-coating that result in permanent “cratering” of the primer film. This sometimes shows through the top coat, which is unsightly, and it obviously doesn’t help corrosion protection.
Also, while E-coat primer is generally good at reaching small nooks and crannies, it can’t coat what the bath can’t reach. Boxed or folded-over sections can create inaccessible pockets of uncoated metal, which later become rust traps. For good primer coverage, the body stampings need to be designed with access holes to ensure that the electrocoat bath can get inside enclosed spaces.
Even when properly applied, electrocoated primer is not armor plate. If body panels are thin and vulnerable, like the unlined fenders of the early Vega, the primer isn’t likely to protect them from rust for long, electrocoated or not.
For cars and trucks, corrosion resistance depends on a bunch of different factors: body design, body engineering, materials, manufacturing processes, and quality control. A model that falls down in even one of those areas can have big problems; models that fall down in several areas may become notorious disasters.
Technologies like electrocoating and galvanized steel can help, but there are no magic bullets. Ultimately, the big question is not whether an automaker uses a particular rust prevention technique, but how committed they are to actually protecting their products from corrosion, even if it costs money. In a 1975 Popular Mechanics feature, writer-editor Michael Lamm lamented:
Talking to corrosion engineers at the Big Four auto companies, I got the impression they were mostly frustrated. They were trying to do a good job, but the cost controllers kept slapping them down. … That’s not to say they’re not doing anything. It’s just that they’re not doing enough.
The corrosion engineer’s arsenal of antirust weapons sounds impressive … Yet no carmaker is overly generous with any of these. In fact, they’re about as stingy as they can be. So in a way, they’re paying lip service when they tell you about their anti-corrosion systems. They use them, but only where there’s no choice. …
Detroit has the technology … But Detroit feels it doesn’t have the responsibility to prevent rusting: it says, “Well, a lot of cars live in areas where rust isn’t a problem.” They figure, too, and rightly so, that the public accepts cars that rust, so why bother?
Marvin Runyon wasn’t wrong when he told David Halberstam that Ford’s attitude towards E-coating was “a sign of a monopoly mentality within the industry.” Unfortunately, there are still no technological cures for that, or for short-sighted, arrogant, penny-pinching corporate management.
Related Reading
Rust Never Slept: Why Fords Were the Worst Rusters in the Mid-Late ’60s and the ’70s (by Paul N)
Well, that’s a few myths cleared up – thanks!
That Vega reminds me of early FIAT Strade; pushing on the door/side weatherstrip clips at the factory would strip the paint and corrosion would travel down the door, under the paint. By the time it was noticed, it was impossible to remove said weatherstrip and refinish the door, so the car remained looking junk until it was. The irony was, they’d got the tinworm reasonably well-sorted on the rest of it. They redesigned the doors on the Regata version and that seemed to fix it.
I think the next big change was to do with two-pack paint – my gold X1/9 was a typical ruster, whereas the mica blue one had a much harder finish and no sign of tinworm while I had it. Italian metallics always seemed to react with the metal worse than solid colours. Never buy silver!
My Prelude and Legend were both made at Saitama; the Leg End is developing a small rust pickle at the same spot on the RH rear wheelarch flare as did the Prelude. Both were/are otherwise fine. The Japanese are certainly consistent.
Hondas were famous for decades for first rusting where the rear wheelarches meet the back bumper. I give that area of my Fit special attention at the DIY car wash.
My aunt’s light metallic green early Accord had rust perforations on top of the front fenders and on the A-pillar area within four years parked outside in coastal Southern California.
Wasn’t there a push by the Canadian government in the late 70’s or early 80’s for some type of rust proofing on cars sold in the country. IIRC, Detroit initially resisted, but eventually all North American cars had rust warranties on exterior panels.
Yes, effective with the 1978 model year, Canada required automakers to offer a one-year/24,000-mile surface rust warranty and a three-year/74,000-mile warranty against rust perforation (extended from 1981 to 18 months/37,000 miles for surface rust and five years/124,000 miles for perforation), plus six years/148,000 miles against “structural damage” from corrosion. In the U.S., Ford and possibly others had offered “secret warranties” in the ’70s for customers with corrosion problems (meaning that certain problems would be covered if the customer complained, but the company didn’t publicize the coverage, so only squeaky wheels would get the fix). By the mid-1980s, most automakers selling cars in the States had rust-through warranties, although the length of coverage and terms varied quite a bit.
That Canadian requirement pushed the automakers into adopting better rust proofing systems. Due to the cross border traffic some US market cars got the same upgrades, even if they didn’t get the same warranty.
I want to say the corrosion issue which led to automakers being required to offer better protection was the “Dura-Guard” coating that was applied on lower body panels.
I remember my 79 Mustang had this coating along the lower side of the fenders, doors and quarter panels. Subsequent Mustangs and a Fairmont I bought used also had the coatings and so I never had rust issues on those body panels. Being in a dry, western climate the care I gave those cars was probably a big help too.
Back in the 1980’s I had the cars I purchased professionally rust-proofed. I was rather expensive, but it worked well. None of the cars developed rust spots.
Great article! I have learned much of what was going on behind closed doors. Selling trucks, my only concern was for the light-duty line for which in those days we encouraged the buyer to opt for “Z-Bart” or other successful rust preventive coatings that I must say did work.
Perhaps I’m oversimplifying it, but electrocoating sounds to me like a liquefied version of powdercoating.
Thanks for the detailed look at this subject. It’s clearly more complex than one might suspect or from reading that chapter in Halberstam’s book. It’s a huge challenge, and one that apparently still hasn’t been totally licked yet.
Thank you for this detailed and fascinating article .
No kidding those British cars rusted almost as fast as the Chevy Vega .
-Nate
Chrysler began dipping their Unibody models in 1960, minus electrocoating.
They were dipped 7 times in rust inhibiting primer.
Which we all know in hindsight given their propensity to rust, did nothing.
AMC also used dipping primer, starting in 1957.
My first car was a 1975 Ford Torino bought used in 1978. My Dad bought a 1975 Ford Custom 500 new in 1975. By 1979, both cars had quite a bit of lower body and rocker panel rust and had to be repainted. Very disappointing rust resistance. I think by 1977 or 1978, Ford brought out their Duragard body rust prevention program, I am sure was because of how the bodies of their vehicles looked so poor so quickly.
Detroit did eventually get serious about rust in the late 70s and early 80s. Chrysler used galvanized steel in lower bodies in those years – Omnis, K Cars and early minivans were extremely resistant to rust. But by the early 2000s, cost cutting was the rule again. The 01-07 Chrysler minivans were far worse rusters than earlier models.
This was a very interesting read. The problem with rust prevention is that it doesn’t really affect most cars until they get over 5 years old. Whether the rust protection is any good doesn’t become apparent until the new car becomes an older used car. Most manufacturers are unwilling to incur costs for hidden benefits.
AMC went a step further in 1981 and partnered with Ziebart to rustproof all their cars on the assembly line. This was on top of being “the only American (car maker) to use 100% galvanized steel for exterior panels.” This was backed up by a 5 year no perforation warranty.
Many cars of the late ’60s and ’70s used lots of galvanized steel—including the Pinto—with, shall we say, very mixed results.
Galvanized steel is a sacrificial metal coating: The zinc coating initially keeps electrolytes from coming into contact with the ferrous metal, but the zinc itself corrodes, so it serves to DELAY corrosion of the steel rather than really prevent it. Five years was a pretty customary lifespan for the coating, although it could of course be a lot less than that. Galvanized steel is also difficult to paint, extremely difficult to weld, and does not lend itself to complex shapes because the stress of a drawing press can cause it to powder. (There are different types of galvanized steel, some better in certain of these respects than others.)
I feel like there’s this misconception that galvanized steel is some kind of gold standard for corrosion protection, but it has MANY drawbacks, and its protection is really on a clock.
Some friends bought A new Mercury Cougar in 1969 (remember, the Cougar was then built on a Mustang frame). The opposite occurred: on the exterior cowl: paint wouldn’t stick. It would peel, exposing A bright metallic surface below. They were told that Mercury “galvanized the cowling so it wouldn’t rust, but couldn’t find paint that would adhere.”
They never did find a solution, at least for that car.
Whoever told them that was off-base — it’s true that it’s hard to get paint to stick to galvanized steel, but because of that, automakers of that time did not use it for exposed exterior surfaces.
Around 1970 Bethlehem Steel pioneered a product called Galvalume which was in many ways superior but more expensive than Zinc-galvanized steel, Aluminum and Silicon being added to the coatings. My Dad was manager at the time of the Bethlehem Sheet Products Division that sold that product when it came on the market. I still have a picture of him with his “sales team” from an “Iron Age” (steel industry trade magazine) ad for the product.
They had some initial success in sales to roofing and metal building manufacturers, but only limited success at first in getting it accepted by the Big 3 + 1 due to cost considerations. I recall him telling me that the first adoption was for exhaust components and certain significant structural under-floor components, some rocker panels. Don’t know for what companies that was, and sadly he’s not here to ask, as I have many questions. When he retired in the mid-80s after 33 years with Bethlehem by then Detroit was starting to use more Galvalume because the Japanese companies were also, trying to address their reputation for highly rust-prone bodies. Not sure how it’s used nowadays, but presumably more so. Primer and paint systems have also evolved for much better effectiveness as well.
Great article which explains why the two cars my parents owned in the mid-1970s were among the very worst rusters on the market: a 1974 Chevrolet Vega and a 1976 Ford Torino wagon. The Vega had holes in the front rocker panels within 18 months of being bought new and prolific body cancer everywhere but the roof by the end of four years. The Torino, also bought new, saw its drivers’ side rear view mirror fall off within two years, leaving a 2” x 5” hole (my father’s fix was to duct-tape it back on and amazingly, it passed the annual state safety inspection).
While it certainly took a while for electrocoating to become truly effective, I can’t help but wonder whether the situation was made worse by the record cold and snowfall we experienced in the Chicago area during the mid- to late-70s. Tons of salt was poured on the roads from late November through late March in those years, giving rust plenty of opportunities to take hold and spread throughout every vulnerable surface.
Better rustproofing techniques and climate change have made a world of difference to the lifespan of modern vehicles.
Salt usage increased overall from the mid-’50s through the ’70s, compounded by sulfur dioxide emissions. It definitely had a lot to do with increasing problems of automotive rust.
Interesting history.
In the early ’70s Bethlehem steel pioneered a new coating that added Aluminium and Silicon to the traditional Zinc, called Galvalume. At the time my Dad was Bethlehem’s Manager of Sheet Steel Products, and his team was responsible for sales as well as production. I still have an ad from “Iron Age” (the steel industry trade journal) showing him and their sales people circa late ’70s.
At first they made inroads in the metal building (Morton Buildings etc) and metal roofing industry, but limited success in Detroit due to higher material cost. The first use was in exhaust systems and important underbody structural parts. When he retired after 33 yrs in the mid-80s they were increasing usage because the Japanese were benning to employ it to fight their reputation for rust. Not sure about the extent of use now, that was a long time ago. It was more expensive to use than evolved primer/paint systems but a very good product for that purpose.
I think Galvalume ended up being used in catalytic converter housings in the ’70s.
Those early primers held moisture like a sponge. Those Fords rusted as fast as other cars of the time. If I recall AMC was dipping cars then too, with no better results. Only after the epoxy primers electro coated in the 80’s started did rust get slowed down.
But even that isn’t enough. Living in the worst salt belt in the country, I’m one of the first to see what rusts and where.
That’s not how it works.
AMC started its Deep-Dip prime coat process in 1957. Dipping primer is not the same as electrocoating.
My point was that just because those early primers were electro coated into normally inaccessible areas didn’t mean the corrosion protection was any better. It wasn’t.
The later epoxy primers were the game changer.
Electrocoated primer was BETTER than dipped or sprayed primer, even fairly early on, and it certainly does not “soak up moisture.” The problem is that there are many potential pitfalls in using the process, and it can’t make up for other issues that contribute to poor corrosion resistance.
IF your theory is true, then why were the the epoxy primers of the mid 80’s and beyond the game changer in the salt belt? Dipped, sprayed, or electro coated made no difference in the way cars rusted in the salt belt in the 50’s, 60’s, 70’s, or early 80’s in the salt belt. Care to explain?
I always thought that my 1960s to 1980s VWs and Audis held the record for quickly developing rust holes! Anyway, colleagues’ FIATS, Fords and Benzes were eaten up almost as fast, too: I was an underground miner in salt mining, after a night shift you would find the cars in the parking lot covered with a film of salty moisture! A BMW 3.3L of a co-worker was done after four years, a strut had gone through it’s Dome.
When Porsche & Audi started zinc coating in 1983 that made a very big difference!
Another terrific article, Aaron.
I’m interested in the comment that some Euro and Japanese makers abandoned baking in the ’70’s. There seemed to be a terrible period of Euro cars rusting weirdly and badly here in the late ’70’s/early ’80’s, in a climate where that just doesn’t usually happen. I think of things like Peugeot 604’s, BMW’s of any type, Citroens. You’d look at, say, rust in the middle of a panel (on a not-old car) and think “How does a car rust THERE?”
We all know it’s not the Russian steel myth, so the period of experimenting mentioned is an intriguing potential culprit.
As a kid, I remember Ford TV ads in the 1960’s, touting their new electrofusion primer process in the fight against rust. The commercial showed a bare body going into a tank of primer, followed by a shot of an ammeter needle swinging to show the electrical charge being applied to the body. As this article makes clear, the dirty little secret was that Ford only gave a tiny percentage of its cars this treatment, typically the most expensive, lowest volume cars, like the Lincoln Continental and T-Bird.
If anyone can find a copy of the ad I remember, I’d love to see it again!
As soon as I read the headline, David Halberstam’s book “The Reckoning” popped into my head. I read it probably 16 years ago +/-.
A Must read for any car enthusiast. Even though it’s from 1986, or maybe ‘ESPECIALLY’ because it’s from 1986, we now have a better view of what happened, having predictions of what could happen. (and still happening, too little too late).