I’m a natural skeptic, and the myth that bad Russian steel was the reason Italian cars in the seventies rusted so badly has always seemed dubious to me. It’s right up there in automotive internet myths along with the VW Beetle being nothing more than a ripped-off Tatra 97 and the 1962 downsized Plymouth and Dodges being solely the result of something overheard at a garden party. Yes, we all like simple answers, but life—and cars—are more complex than that.
I’ve long wanted to do a dive on this issue of bad Russian steel, but someone already beat me to it, in this video. It’s well done, and the research, although not utterly exhaustive and 100% conclusive, is really quite good. Don’t blame the Russians, this time.
First off, there’s no conclusive evidence that Fiat ever used Russian steel. Italy was Europe’s second largest producer of steel in Europe, and there are documents that state that the Russians were going to pay Fiat for the technology transfer to build the 124 (Lada) in oil, which rather makes more sense, since Italy was heavily dependent on imported oil. Is it theoretically possible that Fiat bought some Russian steel? Yes, but there’s no concrete evidence, and there’s evidence to the contrary.
In any case, Alfa Romeo (which was not owned by Fiat until 1986) clearly used steel from a major plant very close to the Alfa Sud Plant. The Alfa Sud had the worst reputation for rusting, but as I’ve read before, there were numerous reasons for that, and not because of the steel. Due to constant strikes at that plant, bodies that had already been dewaxed were left outside during work stoppages, so that corrosion started even before the bodies were primered and painted. And clearly there was little or no genuine effort to mitigate corrosion in the way these cars were built and painted.
The Lancia Beta also had a terrible reputation. The Beta range of cars were all-new, the first to be designed, engineered and produced under Fiat’s ownership. It appears that rust-proofing on these cars simply was not given adequate attention, and combined again with labor issues and work stoppages, they rusted very readily, especially the subframe that supported the engine and transmission. Lancia ended up withdrawing from the UK market due to this issue, and had to buy back a number of cars.
The reality is that other European cars were rusting as bad, or almost as badly, as the Lancias and Alfas. This was a notorious era for rust, and in the US the problem was also severe, both with domestic cars (some worse than others) and Japanese imports, some of which undoubtedly rusted every bit as badly as these Italian cars.
The use of salt increased dramatically in the 60s and 70s, and the proliferation of new cars and bodies along with a constant pressure to reduce production costs combined to make the seventies the decade of corrosion. New processes to reduce rust were developed and implemented, and the issue steadily improved throughout the 80s.
I don’t find this guy to be a credible historian. At about 7 minutes and 48 seconds into the video, he says that “Franklin Roosevelt’ wasn’t yet President of the United States…in 1965. I thought it was all pretty compelling right up until that moment.
Admittedly, he fumbled that, and apologized in the comments. But then he’s not an American. FDR Jr. was actually a Fiat distributor in the US, among other things.
Yeah, I saw that, and he acknowledged that mistake in a comment. Considering he’s an Italian-born Englishman, born ten-twenty years after FDR died, not a big blot on his credibility about Alfa history. Back to the main topic, thanks for posting this. When I bought my 1975 Alfetta in 1977, it already had serious rust – and this was in California, though it was a 49-state car. In those pre-Internet days, rust was taken for granted on many cars, even locally, though Fiats and Vega’s were generally considered the worst. I don’t think anyone suspected GM of buying Soviet steel for the Lordstown products. In fact, though I’m not a metallurgist, I’m not sure that the provenance or even makeup of any mild stamping steel affects its rust resistance. It’s all in the handling, prep, assembly and design, to avoid bare spots and areas which trap moisture or road debris. Only high chromium and/or molybdenum content “stainless steels”, with 10-50x the amount of these elements than even in chrome-moly steels, inherently resist rust. DeLorean and Cybertruck are examples.
“already rusting in the brochure”, as the saying goes (went).
Kind of like the joke about Chevrolet Vegas, they started to rust in the showroom. Not sure, however, how big a joke that was 🙂
There was a well-known saying about Studebakers rusting:
Studebaker; where the rust goes in before the paint goes on!
The DeLorean is an example; the Cybertruck is a fairytale. Perhaps one day that will change, or perhaps not.
Franklin D. Roosevelt Jr. was a U.S. Under Secretary of Commerce in 1965.
What is little known: Rust was invented at/by Karmann and was applied exclusively in-house, initially. Fiat was just the first manufacturer to have the process licensed for use in their own plants. Shortly after, the rest of the industry followed suit.
Thanks for this – I have read/heard the “Russian steel” thing many times and attributed to many cars. Bare steel exposed to the elements will rust. Bare steel exposed to salt spray rusts faster. I think the only true answer to what causes cars to rust is either designs that trap mosture/debris or a production process that does not adequately protect panels (either before, during or after assembly).
Dman raises an interesting question for someone like me with about zero chemistry knowledge – do some mild steel alloys rust faster than other mild steel alloys?
Yeah easy to blame Russian steel for rust eh, were US and Australian cars made of Russian steel because those rusted just as bad yet the Russian built Ladas we had swapped for out butter mountain didnt rust out any faster than anything else.
Back to my youth, the seventies.
Good rust proofing: Mercedes-Benz and Volvo.
Acceptable: German Fords, Opel and VW. I especially remember the Opel Ascona B and Kadett D as solid cars.
Sheer horror: anything from the UK, France, Italy and Japan. Severe rust and rot in about three years.
Add SAAB to those with better than average rust proofing methods, we’ve had 7 of them, all were quite good in that regard even when over 10 years old. Our ’87 is still quite solid.
I’m sure about that, but SAABs, Audis and BMWs were still rather thin on the ground back then (in my neck of the woods, anyway). Unlike Mercedes-Benz, by the way. Many W115 and later W123 diesels were around, and certainly not only as taxi-cabs.
The real answer to this hot mess is start making car body’s out of stainless steel. Problem solved.
Maybe it should be noted that Packard built the famous bridge across East Grand Boulevard to connect its body plant with its assembly plant in 1939, in part to keep the bodies from ever sitting outside. Seems logical! But as we’ve seen on other CC posts, it was common for Hudson and Nash to truck unfinished bodies from one site to another well into the 1950s.
Perhaps industry practice didn’t put a lot of emphasis on keeping unpainted bodies out of the weather until much later than you’d think.
I ran across an odd fact in an old Collectible Auto mag this morning. Pontiac, and possibly Dodge, manufactured mostly-aluminum bodies in the early ’60s. But it wasn’t about rust. The bodies were solely available to NASCAR teams for minimum weight.
Detroit was willing to spend tremendous money and effort on racing, and never thought about amortizing the expense by selling to uncool non-racing customers.
Up to WW2, the vast majority of cars wore out mechanically before the body fell apart.
Changes in body designs and mechanical improvements after the war resulted in various cars trapping dirt & moisture in lower body cavities, while drive trains, suspension and brakes were better as a result of what was learned during WW2. This new combination meant cars were now mechanically lasting longer, while the sheet metal fell apart earlier.
Salt was not used anywhere before WW2. And then its use gradually spread. In Iowa City in the early 1960s, there was no salt; just plowing and cinders. And it’s still not used in some areas, like good old Oregon!
The ever wider and greater use of salt on the roads was a huge factor of the rust crisis in the 60s and 70s. I hate to think of how pre-war cars would have stood up to heavy salt use.
And another thing: prior to WW2, it was very common to put the car away in the garage during the winter months, in the pre-suburban era. Folks just reverted to using public transportation for work if needed.
But even without salt, the poswar “envelope” bodies were built with lots of places that trapped dirt that was kept moist from periodic road spray. All of those cars of the 50s that rusted over the headlights – every one of those areas would get packed with moist dirt – I dug an amazing amount of it out of the fenders of my 59 Fury, and that otherwise rust-free car was seeing the beginnings of rust bubbles there. Pre-war cars had simple, rounded fender shapes that road spray would rinse out, and running boards that were open to the elements. Postwar cars had complex fenders that trapped dirt and rocker panels that did the same thing. The use of salt took a bad situation and made it worse.
Big credit to American Motors Corporation for adopting galvanized steel across their domestic car lines by the 1980s, and equally importantly, widely promoting it. Helping distinguishing their obsolete cars (Concord/Spirit/Eagle) from the Big Three’s newer designs. Even if the competition was adopting galvanized steel as well, AMC made it a key selling point, that was convincing.
Just brutal (and not forgivable), that European brands with dubious durability reputations already, did not address this as aggressively as AMC did. And expect to achieve long term success in the US and Canada.
Their commercials featuring actor Sam Groom, were very effective, and memorable. As too, their print ads. AMCs were previously rusters. Brands like Alfa, Lancia, MG, etc., are attached to rust.
Citroens and peugeots are galvanised now they simply dont rust NZ assembled Toyotas were galvanised from the early 90s mechanical issues take them out of service not rust.
All from the era when the Italians built cars for themselves, the Southern European market where the weather is similar to California so they didn’t really take anti corrosion seriously . OK ” English cars rusted in the brochure ” but then the technology was notv there. Ziebart undersea used to just Com off in scabs a few later after a contaminated application. My 1980 Spitfire had no rush proofing what’s so ever. At 6 years old the trunk floor seam had rusted thru.
I always thought the type, or quality of steel has a lot to do with it.
From my own experiences and those of friends, there seem to be a change in steel around 1972 for British cars. Before, they were normal or average at rust proofing – taking into account that the average life span of a vehicle was only 8 years or less.
After 1972, cars began to rust much faster.
My father owned a 1977 Triumph 2500, four years old. It already had rust everywhere. Later I owned a 1971 Triumph 2000 (same body as the 2500) which at the time was 18 years old but had almost no rust (and was not a garage queen).
Same for Rootes cars we owned: before 1970 or so, fine. Later: rust appearing everywhere.
BMC cars usually were OK whereas British Leyland cars were rot boxes.
I read somewhere long ago it had to do with the carbon content of the steel. Maybe the French and Italians (both very bad rusters) had a bad-steel supplier for years?
I’d read somewhere a few years ago that Fiats from the ’60s and ’70s were only painted where the sheet metal was visible – so not inside the fenders, or under the cowl, perhaps not under the carpet, etc.
If true, this goes a long way toward explaining the rust issues
It was not just European brands that rusted. My parents had a 61 Olds that they bought new and by 67 it had significant rust. The rear doors were close to rusting through. This was in Toronto, so lots of snow and salt. My dad worked for the TTC (Toronto public transit) and they were doing an evaluation of Ziebart rustproofing at that time, so he was really up on vehicle rusting. He said the bad rusting on the Olds was because he drove it to work and he got to park it in a heated bus garage, so the salt got to really do its work.
I am reminded of a detail I left out of my VW Jetta COAL post: when we were at the dealer looking at the car, the salesman prattled on at smug length about how VWs were built of fine, new German steel—not like other makes made out of cheaper recycled steel from who knows what countries.
I am also reminded of Lee Iacocca in the ’80s excoriating the Japanese out one side of his mouth as a bunch of slimy; underhanded; conniving; four-flushing; no-good; low-down; terrible; horrible cheat-bags ruining America…while out the other side of his mouth authorising Chrysler’s purchase of high-test rust-resistant steel from Nippon Steel, because the American steel companies either wouldn’t or couldn’t. if you can find a better steel…buy it, I guess?
That steel was used to build minivans and K-car descendents, and—judging by what I saw in salty Michigan and Ontario, those cars seemed notably less rust-prone than many comparable models from other makers.
I had understood that Chrysler started using galvanized steel in its lower bodies starting around 1980 or so. But you are right, that those cars were extremely resistant to rust.
I would like to know more about what kind of steel Chrysler were buying from whom at what times, because without that this what I described smells a little like a campfire story. The way I presently understand it, yes, they bought the Japanese steel on an ongoing basis, starting sometime after they had started phasing in galvanised lower-body steel.
I once read an article that there is a different reason, one I can explain.
The European Community of Coal and Steel, the forerunner of the EEC and the EU allowed a request from the French and Italian governnent to use a larger percentage of scrap metal to be used in the production of steel for automobiles. -I have never been able to find that article again unfortunately-
This happened in 1967 or 68.
In a way this may explain why earlier models of Peugeot 404’s, Renault 16’s and Alfa Giulia’s were less rust prone then later examples.
Further the automobile industry in Europe grew tremendously, I believe Fiat grew 6 fold in the sixties and seventies and was hungry for steel so this can be a reason for the steel hunger in Europe.
Alfa used the same steel in Milan as in Naples according Matteo from Roadster life on youtube, anyway this factory near Naples produced Renault 4 Vans before turning to Sud production.
There is nothing intrinsically inferior about recycled steel, and a significant portion of all steel production is recycled steel. That’s the beauty of steel.
The 1970 Fiat 125S my parents bought new in 1970 was stayed in the family until the early 1980s One bubble in the LFF mudguard in that time
The two Lancia Betas had no rust issues, ditto the Fiat 132 and 128. Or the Alfa 33 Quatro Dad had for over a decade.
They all called Australia home, other than the 125S which spend time in New Guinea, the UK and much of Europe, before coming to Australia.
My sister’s 128 was a different story though!
My Grandad was works manager for Lancia in the UK in the 60s and 70s, and I can confirm it was indeed poor quality, largely recycled, Russian steel. My Grandad used to say you could sometimes see traces of coca Cola logos in the raw sheet stock – I thought he was joking, but my Dad who is (of course) older than me has a better memory and awareness of that which Grandad was showing is and reckons it was not a joke.