Yes
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
Every nice car I ever had in the NE disintegrated into a pile rust buckets. Every make and manufacturer.
It’s just ****ing par for the course unless you have a dedicated space where you hide your heirlooms during the winter that’s HVAC controlled; and if you do, all of these conversations are ****ing moot because you are playing a different game.
It’s just ****ing par for the course unless you have a dedicated space where you hide your heirlooms during the winter that’s HVAC controlled; and if you do, all of these conversations are ****ing moot because you are playing a different game.
Glad I live far enough north to have an actual winter but far enough south that my vehicles aren't totally destroyed!
In all seriousness, do folks not undercoat up there? It seems like there would be a shop on every corner applying Fluid Film, Woolwax, RP 342, Krown, etc. We have just a couple down here - which is why I just DIY it. Probably won't totally stop the process but at least slow it down.
Traditional undercoating makes rust worse.
There are shops that do Fluid Film but it is not widely used. Most people simply don’t keep a car for 10 years.
- Thread starter
- #85
What do you consider traditional undercoating?
Back in the 1960s and 1970s, there were companies that would spray a rubber-like coating on the bottom of the car. That coating would simply trap moisture against the frame and body. In contrast, oil based rustproofing like Fluid Film won’t trap moisture against the car.
Of course, a lot of mechanics hate working on cars that have been treated with oil based coatings.
Last edited:
Agreed, the traditional hard undercoating sucks. My WW/FF job has done great over the past 3 years - and I'm just now needing to touch it up. I'm guessing annual touch ups would be required in the NE. Given the low cost of those treatments (maybe $200 at a shop?) it seems like a good investment to keep a vehicle from disintegrating.
I remember Ziebart commercials
That was the company name I was unable to remember. Thank you. Yes, Ziebart was one of (the?) big companies applying “rustproofing”. It was often a dealer pack that dealers put on new cars at a grossly inflated price. It made rusting worse.
A lot of people only keep cars for a few years in today's world. Rust only matters to folks like us who want their trucks to last half a century.
- Thread starter
- #91
I’m in this camp if I buy a fancy Land Cruiser.
An accurate assessment. I'm very much in the minority of folks who keep vehicles a long time and DIY maintain them meticulously. I see them as investments and try to reduce depreciation.
Last edited:
In my experience- an engine gets more mpg running higher octane fuel than 87.
In my experience- octane 87 regular fuel is MORE expensive to use per mile than 89. It’s a fool’s choice (on my vehicles).
Sure, higher octane fuel is more expensive per gal but it more than makes up for it with increased mpg, better performance and a much better driving experience.
In my experience- regular octane 87 gas is crap in so many ways — and it’s the most expensive gas per mile to boot.
In my experience- octane 87 regular fuel is MORE expensive to use per mile than 89. It’s a fool’s choice (on my vehicles).
Sure, higher octane fuel is more expensive per gal but it more than makes up for it with increased mpg, better performance and a much better driving experience.
In my experience- regular octane 87 gas is crap in so many ways — and it’s the most expensive gas per mile to boot.
My 3FE can run on stale Mexican beer from the night before.
I think most know on this forum, so apologize stating the obvious.
87 vs 89 vs 91 octane fuel:
- Energy content is the same, this itself is not the reason for any fuel economy gains observed
- Higher octane fuel is required on higher compression ratio engines to prevent early explosion or engine knock
- Higher compression engines are more efficient per thermodynamic basics (search for Carnot cycle and read up if you like)
- Turbo(s) increase engine fill pressure and often require higher octane fuel to prevent knock
- Most Toyota engines tuned for 87 do not improve on fuel economy when 89 is used as the compression ratio does not change. This is pretty much the case for the 3UR-FE and many Toyota engines sold in the US, at least pre turbo era. What OSS is observing makes no sense unless the higher octane he buys has less ethanol content or he has a LX570 supposedly tuned for 91.
- Now if 89 or 91 octane would be the design basis, then with 87 the motor management start detecting knock and would delay ignition timing and on most Toyota engines adjust valve timing through VVTi. In general relying on this for prolonged time is not a good idea as under high load engine knock becomes inevitable. 3UR-FE and many Toyota engines to date are tuned for 87, with the exception of the 3UR-FE in the LX570.
- Most gasoline brands sold have augmented additive packages in 89 or 91 octane fuel to keep valves clean and basically to persuade the public to spend more money. However, per regulations, 87 has additives to clean the valves and the additional packages in 89 and 91 is pretty much a sales pitch burned up in front of your eyes.
- Being port (good, like the 3UR-FE) or direct injection (not good as additives do nothing) or a combination (good as well, on newer Toyota engines) is most critical for keeping the inlet valves clean.
For my LC200 I will not waste money on 89 or 91, unless somebody can point me to the brand selling 89 with less ethanol content. This could make sense as Gasoline has about 125000 BTU/US gallon and Ethanol has 76 to 84,000 BTU/US Gallon. However a couple % reduction in Ethanol content is of course not going to make up for the cost difference between 87 and 89, so I doubt this is the way. As far as I know all 87, 89 or 91 have 10% Ethanol, unless sold differently as a separate non methanol grade and at big $$$ premium (like Sunoco does at some places).
Do what you like of course, however I do not spent additional moneys on higher octane fuel and follow manufacturer guidance.
87 vs 89 vs 91 octane fuel:
- Energy content is the same, this itself is not the reason for any fuel economy gains observed
- Higher octane fuel is required on higher compression ratio engines to prevent early explosion or engine knock
- Higher compression engines are more efficient per thermodynamic basics (search for Carnot cycle and read up if you like)
- Turbo(s) increase engine fill pressure and often require higher octane fuel to prevent knock
- Most Toyota engines tuned for 87 do not improve on fuel economy when 89 is used as the compression ratio does not change. This is pretty much the case for the 3UR-FE and many Toyota engines sold in the US, at least pre turbo era. What OSS is observing makes no sense unless the higher octane he buys has less ethanol content or he has a LX570 supposedly tuned for 91.
- Now if 89 or 91 octane would be the design basis, then with 87 the motor management start detecting knock and would delay ignition timing and on most Toyota engines adjust valve timing through VVTi. In general relying on this for prolonged time is not a good idea as under high load engine knock becomes inevitable. 3UR-FE and many Toyota engines to date are tuned for 87, with the exception of the 3UR-FE in the LX570.
- Most gasoline brands sold have augmented additive packages in 89 or 91 octane fuel to keep valves clean and basically to persuade the public to spend more money. However, per regulations, 87 has additives to clean the valves and the additional packages in 89 and 91 is pretty much a sales pitch burned up in front of your eyes.
- Being port (good, like the 3UR-FE) or direct injection (not good as additives do nothing) or a combination (good as well, on newer Toyota engines) is most critical for keeping the inlet valves clean.
For my LC200 I will not waste money on 89 or 91, unless somebody can point me to the brand selling 89 with less ethanol content. This could make sense as Gasoline has about 125000 BTU/US gallon and Ethanol has 76 to 84,000 BTU/US Gallon. However a couple % reduction in Ethanol content is of course not going to make up for the cost difference between 87 and 89, so I doubt this is the way. As far as I know all 87, 89 or 91 have 10% Ethanol, unless sold differently as a separate non methanol grade and at big $$$ premium (like Sunoco does at some places).
Do what you like of course, however I do not spent additional moneys on higher octane fuel and follow manufacturer guidance.
Last edited:
??? Half a century?? Mine is only 49 years old…I’d better get more than a year out of it!
Yup. My 1980 Corolla SR5 rusted badly within 5 years. I kept my '87 Integra for 13 years, but by that point the rear wheel arches were rotting. I sold my 2000 GTI before it could rust because it was a POS. The frame on my '03 4Runner rusted so badly that Toyota paid most of the cost of replacing it. I thought I would then keep it a long while, but then the structure around the sunroof rusted and I dumped it, rather than pouring more money into a 13-year-old vehicle.
