not the best picture, but the best that Google could find
It’s always very satisfying to get a proper explanation to phenomena that has been described repeatedly. The endless stream of comments here over the years here about Fords being the worst rusters (relative to the competition) in the mid-late ’60s through the ’70s has always made me wonder why. Now I know, thanks to reading David Halberstam’s “The Reckoning”.
Rust was always a huge problem in the industry, and it got significantly worse as the use of road salt increased. In 1957, Dr. George E.F. Brewer and his team of development engineers at Ford created E-Coat, an electrophoretic coating method for automobiles. Electrophoretic deposition (EPD), is a term for a broad range of processes which includes electrocoating, cathodic electrodeposition, anodic electrodeposition, and electrophoretic coating, or electrophoretic painting. A characteristic feature of this process is that paint or primer particles suspended in a liquid medium migrate under the influence of an electric charge and are deposited onto an electrode (the car body receiving an opposite charge).
The first commercial anodic automotive system (“E-Coat”) began operations in 1963, at Ford’s Wixom plant, which built Lincoln Continentals and Thunderbirds.
As seen in this contemporary video, the E-Coat process is typically used in automotive applications to ensure that the special primer coat covers every tiny nook and cranny of the bare steel body. These are the places where rust typically develops first, where moisture is easily trapped.
Contrary to what one might logically expect, Ford did not move to install E-Coat in its other plants and become the leader in rust prevention. Quite the opposite, actually. Why? Ford during this era was dominated by finance types, specifically Ed Lundy, who was one of the original “Whiz Kids” hired by Henry Ford II right after the war to bring modern management techniques to Ford, whose financial management operations (such as they even existed) were utterly obsolete. The Whiz Kids had been instrumental in creating quantitative analysis and other techniques to manage the overwhelming logistical challenges of the Defense Department during the war. They “sold” themselves as a group to Ford.
Ed Lundy, one of the brightest of the bunch, quickly rose through the ranks in the finance department, and was responsible for making the finance division at Ford all-powerful, controlling every aspect and function of the company. And he had HFII’s full support, as Ford trusted him to safeguard his company, and to make sure that the profits, dividends and stock price stayed high. Lundy, who was CFO from 1967 until his retirement in 1979, was in many ways the most powerful person at Ford for a long period of time, despite not being the CEO or President. As HFII became increasingly disengaged in the ’70s, Lundy’s power grew even more. Henry Ford became extremely conservative in this decade, only liked big cars, and wouldn’t invest in downsizing or small car programs until it was almost too late. This directly led to Ford’s near brush with bankruptcy in 1980.
One of the resultant dynamics during this era was that Ford constantly starved its plants of new equipment. Manufacturing and plant managers, who once ran the show at Ford, were mow low men on the totem pole, just below the product development guys. Lundy would incessantly veto or drastically reduce requests of all sorts from both of these groups, warning HFII that the stock market might react negatively or the dividends, from which the Ford clan lived, might have to be reduced.
So what did Ford do with E-Coat? They sold the rights to the competition, but didn’t invest (some $4 million per plant) to install it in their own faculties. GM paid big license fees to Ford for E-Coat, and the Japanese started using it too. Actually, Ford of Europe, which was always run more progressively, did install E-Coat fairly early on. But the domestic Ford plants were laggards.
Needless to say, this really rubbed Ford’s manufacturing staff, headed by Marvin Runyon, the wrong way. More than ever, it confirmed the arrogance of the executives toward the customers. But Lundy’s (and in effect HFII’s) response to their pleadings was always the same: that the manufacturing guys couldn’t actually prove that improved quality would improve sales in the short term. Seriously.
One day in 1973 Iacocca got furious at a meeting with Runyon, exploding into a rage about the poor quality of their cars, especially in terms of rusting, which was now affecting warranty costs alarmingly. Runyon pointed out that he’d been begging for E-Coat in his plants for almost a decade! Finally Iacocca got the message and started advocating for its wider adoption at Ford.
But even then, it was dragged out over a decade. By 1975, it was in half the plants. And it wasn’t until 1984, almost 30 years after inventing the process and 25 years after first utilizing it at Wixom that E-Coat was finally installed in all of Ford’s plants.
This is just one of so many examples of how the product and manufacturing branches were perpetually starved, including much lower compensation for the execs and managers in those areas. Ambitious young hires knew that it was a dead end to be involved with manufacturing, and stayed away. And the ones that were already there struggled, including physically and mentally. Or finally left, as Runyon did in 1981, to join Nissan as CEO of North America and to oversee the construction of its pioneering assembly and engine plants in Smyrna, TN.
Note: a rerun of an older post.
Seems to me to be a typical case of “greed blinds brains”.
Now I know why my beautiful 1972 Torino was rusting from the inside out before it was 3 years old. I have avoided Ford showrooms ever since. They may not know it , but they are paying the price
My ‘73 Mustang convertible was rusting through within 3 years, too.
Probably not as worrying as the Fiats of the 80s and 90s.
FIATs were largely OK by then, Fords still oddly dubious on some models like the Mk4 Escoert.
It was the lightweight 1960s FIATs like the 124 that were terrible. Mind you Fords weren’t much better.
Penny wise, pound foolish to be sure.
Ford’s lack of E-Coat explains why my 66 Mustang convertible was rebuilt with a lot of NOS sheet metal parts – 1980, well before my father bought it. Only discovered that recently when doing some work on the car. Crazy that someone cared that much about a 13 year old car to replace so much sheet metal – I am glad they did but back then Mustangs were a dime a dozen (a rusty dozen at that).
What’s always struck me as odd is the Japanese automakers struggled with rust up through the 1990’s. I understand they don’t have the salt problem in their own domestic market, but brands like Mazda and even Toyota got a terrible reputation for rusting in the US.
The Japanese usually have a philosophy of investing whatever it takes for quality, weird they had a blind spot to rust.
It also seems like such a relatively easy problem to solve relative to all the engineering that goes into a vehicle.
Yes as much as they were superior reliability wise the japanese cars rusted out way faster than the american or german cars.
Typical Ford at the time, I bet there was at least one exec who thought if the car rusts out in 4 years, owner is going to come running back for another one!
Guaranteed. As much as folks admire cars from the 50s and 60s, this was an era when cars were mostly “used up” by 60-100k miles, and your 5 year old trade in would get you $500. Manufacturers just saw it as a business opportunity. By the 1970s, imported cars were displaying better longevity (and won converts because of it) but it took the American manufacturers a while to catch on to the idea.
When I was a kid in Quebec in the early 70s, Fords were always the worst rusters and now I know why. Even as a kid, it seemed that the car companies were deliberately making their cars poorly so they can sell more cars and parts.
I had a friend named Eddie, whose dad owned a 1970 Torino. By 1973, it was full holes. Eddie’s dad had all the bodywork done and by 1975, it was just as badly rusted as it was before.
I wasn’t aware of the details of this one. I have to say, even as a longtime Ford man, it’s not that much of a surprise. There are plenty more examples of Ford innovating, then shooting themselves in the foot with cost saving or poor product management. Also, as mentioned, you need good people at all levels. If you keep smacking them down, you’ll just be left with the ones only competent enough to not get fired; the best will get hired away from you.
Growing up in Montana, rust wasn’t nearly as much of an issue because of the dry climate and no road salt until more recently. Road salt is one of those things I really question the economics of, by the way: proper winter tires largely negate the need, and the cost is lower considering your car isn’t turned to scrap every 10 years or so. But that’s a more difficult sell than ever where most people treat even an oil change as a huge imposition.
No amount of e-coat and galvanizing will stand up indefinitely, but it probably doubles the life of a car in the rust belt. So I’m not surprised many loyalists would walk away from Ford: I can’t imagine anything more disgusting than seeing rust bubbles on a car only a couple years old – especially if your neighbor’s car looks pristine. It’s also a big headache because Ford still built some pretty cool cars in that era; restoring one means rust repair unless it’s a desert car. Too bad it wasn’t confined to, say, ’75-85.
Finally, “It won’t improve sales in the short run” is like saying “eating healthy won’t get my weight under control tomorrow.” And yet you saw that kind of decision-making from all the big three – they’d march themselves to the brink of failure before they’d fix their problems. Chrysler paid the price (even if they technically didn’t go under), but it’s a wonder Ford and GM managed to survive their blundering.
My worst experience with Ford was when our brand new 1986 black Mustang paint faded to the primer in the first 8 months of ownership.
Now that should have technically been a warranty issue, so said the dealers service manager. But Ford took a “We don’t care attitude ” even after the field rep saw the car.
He was inspecting the car for proper upkeep and found it was garage kept.
So after his report went in, I called the Ford leasing office to ask them if they knew about the issues. She assured me that they even had the report and pictures. My next logical question was what was going to happen when this car was turned in at the end of the lease. I was told I’d then be charged for the damage.
Being as though I was now over the politics, i paid Maaco to repaint the worst areas and turned the car into a different dealer!
Never heard from Ford again- the jerks.
Not sure but iirc AMC was a pioneer in this type of full-dip electrophoretic rust prevention in the early ’60s, maybe it was with the newly re-introduced ’63 Rambler Classic?
American Motors was dipping the entire body in a vat of rust-proofing material by 1958 (based on AMC sales literature). It did not, however, use the e-coat process at that time.
Phosphate dip coating (which is what Chrysler did) or dipping in epoxy primer (which is what AMC did with their Deep-Dip process) is not the same as electrophoretic coating.
I just recall the pics of bodies arcing down the line to be dipped, not what in… AMC made a big deal out of it at the time, was just a kid then but it stuck in my mind.
Our ’63 Ford wagon didn’t ‘t get that treatment and was rusting badly when I got it as my first car when it was 5 yrs old, and had to learn how to do bondo pronto.
I remember seeing those ford ads on TV and in print when they were new.
I don’t totally agree with Ford being the worst.
One could stand on a new car lot near Chrysler family of cars and almost hear the rust eating away at the sitting car. ALL-most.
Take a look at the mid-size GM line up, especially the mid-60’s on. Rust was abhorrent; first appearing around the rear window then flowing downhill from there.
My last observation concerns the universal rusting of pick up truck wheel arches (?). At least the steel body models. In so many cases a nice truck except for the cancerous rust starting over the wheels.
Yep, rust never sleeps.
FORD. Ferric Oxide Research & Development.
Brilliant! 😆
Interesting tale. Any guesses on where the right hand drive Continental (picture 3) was destined?
I would assume 60s/70s Lincolns and Thunderbirds made at Wixom were less prone to rust. What cars did they make at Wixom in the 70s??
You would think warranty costs on rust issues would have been bad enough for Ford to invest the $$$$ in e coating or at least better primers(or better applied primers)
I had a 68 Bird and don’t recall any rust issues with it.
Roger, I believe the image is inverted. The sign hanging above reads backwards as well.
I thought the picture had been reversed but the STOP sign above the RH drive car is properly formatted for cars following
The image was inverted, as Patrick said. I flipped it back to its correct orientation.
From my experience and collected factory literature, GM led the way for rustproofing. Maybe stung by the early Vega debacle, they started using zincro and better inner panel paints primers. I have brochures on the extensive anti rust of the H bodies 75-80, they went all out. In fact, a 1976 Cadillac wasn’t rust proofed at all compared to a 1977 Vega or Monza. One of the worst ideas were the glue in front and back glass with butyl rubber, that lasted maybe 5-7 years and then crumbled allowing water to pour in both ends filling trunks and dashes with water to rust all the floors.
Thanks for the history, Paul.
I had a 1975 Ford Gran Torino that spent its life in upstate NY. The only rust on the car was the right rear fender that the original owner wrinkled in an accident and had repaired.
It made up for it’s relative lack of rust in other ways :-/
Well, if that’s what BMW was doing in 2010 in South Carolina (Paul’s video), I trust that this was happening in Munich in February 2008 when my car rolled off the line.
Thank goodness, because I have had plenty of experience with other cars that were not the beneficiaries of EPD.
Now, another question is whether or not it’s possible to get states to stop using the corrosive chemicals – which at present go well beyond “salt” — on roads.
I think some class action lawsuits would get their attention.
I remember full size Fords frames rusting away to where the bumpers fell off in the 1960’s, four or five years old never dented cars were worthless .
-Nate
That was because Ford began using a fully boxed frame for its full-size Fords and Mercurys in 1965. Moisture would somehow get inside the frame, and it would then rust from the inside out.
I can’t believe that couldn’t be repaired. If the car was otherwise sound, it should have been worth it to repair the frame.
Had a Dodge (Mitsubishi) Colt. Great car, loved it. It had a long warranty against rust, ten years or lifetime, I can’t remember. About the ten year mark, the shock towers had become so rusted that I feared they would tear out. Northeastern salted roads. So I brought it to the dealer with my complaint. No, no, he said “That’s a guarantee against rust on the exterior body panels!”. And sure enough, there was no rust there. I asked which would he rather have, a hole in the rocker panel or the front suspension falling out? But he was insistent, the warranty was as stated. I have never bought another Dodge or Mitsubishi product. I have never had another new car that rusted.
We all know that it’s planned obsolescence. People are willing to repair mechanical issues for a long time but rust will drive them to a new car. New cars last ten years easily now, and manufacturers need to create an incentive to trade in. Consumers will no longer tolerate poor corrosion protection. Hence the proliferation of electronics that go out soon after the warranty ends.
Don,
The warranty stated outer body rust through. It had to on an outer body panel and it had to be a rust hole. Not surface rust that was let go. Not shock/strut towers. I would have at least had the rep look at it and make the decision.
It would seem that GM got the E-coat dip going in all their plants fairly quickly, and in particular when the process was introduced in the pickup/Blazer/Suburban plants in the mid-70’s those trucks stopped rusting as bad as they had been. Ford on the other hand really seemed to drag their feet on implementing the process across the board and I have been told you could get a pretty good idea at what plants Ford cars and trucks were built in during the 70’s by how quickly they rusted.
Grandpa always said “On a quiet day you can hear a Ford rust.”
He also said “A clean car drives better” so the man knew what he was talking about.
The ’67-72 GM trucks did not rust that quickly or badly. They were solid trucks.
But the ’73 and newer GM trucks were terrible for rust, even after a few years.
All those GM trucks rusted but the ’73 and newer Ford trucks were much better for rust.
Another factor was that sheet metal was getting thinner and thinner over the years. A modern car has paper thin sheet metal these days.
The aluminum F-series trucks have been around for 10 years now. They are hardly perfect, there are dissimilar metal issues, cracking issues, paint adhesion issues and body shops hate them, but they seem to be much better for outer body corrosion.
“Squarebody” GM trucks did rust badly, starting with the ’73 models. Since I saw top down rusting, as there are no salted roads here, I thought it was due to the changeover to water based paints, at least in California plants.
This is interesting, as I have several Annual Auto Issues of Consumer Reports from the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s. The magazine’s reliabilty surveys did ask owners about rust, and, with few exceptions, Ford, Mercury and Lincoln vehicles were not any worse than GM, Chrysler and AMC vehicles in this regard – at least according to those surveys.
I knew friends and family members who drove full-size Fords from 1969-72, and they were on the road for almost a decade. I also don’t remember them as being particularly rusty by the standards of that era. The Ford rusters I remember were all of the Mavericks/Comets and 1970-71 intermediates. Interestingly, I have a Ford Division brochure from the 1977 model year that is dedicated solely to the company’s efforts on rust-proofing, and lists the steps taken for each individual model to fight rust. The company must have been feeling the heat on the issue by that point.
Effective rust-proofing must have involved more than the use of e-coat. I remember the 1971-76 GM B- and C-bodies as being worse for rust than the preceding generation. The downsized 1977 B- and C-bodies, along with the downsized 1979 E-bodies, were quite good in this regard. The 1978 downsized intermediates were okay…the problem with them was cheap interior materials (vinyl and plastic) and detaching headliners.
For decades, I have been watching a ’70’s Ford truck literally dissolve in the front yard of a home on the road to Pololu at the NE corner of Hawaii, aka Big Island.
‘The Reckoning’ is a MUST read for any Auto enthusiast, business enthusiast, History enthusiast, Economy enthusiast, heck and USA enthusiast even.
Quite a read, and goes WAY beyond the Auto industry.
Full Of Rust, Dammit.
IIRC, there was a push by the Canadian government for some type of rust warranty on vehicles sold in the country. Detroit went into a panic, but finally relented. This evolved some time in the late 70’s or early 80’s. By default, the rust warranty was incorporated in all Detroit cars sold in North America.
My blood runs blue when it comes to the Big Three, but this is such a classically Ford thing to do. Fingers usually point to GM as the poster child of corporate cynicism, but Ford’s management are some of the greediest bastards in the industry if given the reins. On the flip-side, Ford at their best have given us some of the most iconic, forward-thinking, polished products this side of the Atlantic. It’s a toxic relationship.