RM> Factory rustproofing is okay but, as you suggested, doesn't stand up
RM> forever. Usually you can trust it for 5 or 6 years but then should
RM> start getting the thinner oily type rust proofing done which is
RM> sprayed inside of doors through holes they drill and elsewhere all
RM> over the car. It tends to 'creep' into every tiny space helping to
RM> stop rust from forming.

ZI>Yep! I believe some people -- who know they'll keep the car for many years to
  >me -- visit a rust proofing company right away when the car is brand new, and
  >t that drilling + thin wax from the beginning. I'm not sure how much of that
  > any of it) is actually performed at the car factories by default these days.

Maybe the more expensive cars are different but I don't think the factory
rust proofing is very good. I'm sure they use some because there is
usually a period of a few years where rust is covered by warranty but
the good stuff is costly. The 6 year coating I got costs close to $1000.

I felt good though when my usual mechanic when doing an oil change
and totat car checkup for me called me out into the shop to show
me my car up on the hoist so I could see the heavy off-white coating
of that material. He was quite impressed.

ZI>Actually, I was (until now) convinced that more countries than Sweden and Nor
  > use those 10 km "miles" as a convenient way of "ditching" a digit, but I gue
  >not... :-D

RM> They must give fuel economy there in gallons per mile rather than
RM> miles per gallon.      B)

ZI>Yep, kind of -- fuel economy is usually specified as litres per 100 km in Eur
  >, I believe, both in ads and in the car itself (on the trip computer).

Yes.. I'm old enough I still think in gallons and miles and when I
see my fuel economy on the car computer, I later have to convert it
to MPG since that's what I know best.

ZI>But, in Sweden -- as we have those 10-km Swedish "miles" :-D -- people (but n
  >companies or the trip computers) usually state litres per (Swedish) "mile" wh
  >talking about fuel economy. Where anything below 1 litre per "mile" is good f
  >an older or larger car (gas), and anything above it is... not as efficient as
  >e would wish. 

ZI>Although I remember seeing those bumper stickers stating that any car that do
  >'t consume at least 2 litres per (Swedish) "mile" isn't a real car. :-D

Ha.. right.. My current car works out slightly better than that 1 litre
per mile, but not by as much as I'd hoped when I bought it..

My first car, that 575 HP Chevelle SS, started off using about 4 litres
per your 'mile'.. Good thing gas was cheap back then.

It was maybe 425 HP when I bought it but my major rebuild greatly
boosted that HP, but I expected the fuel economy to get even worse.
The big surprise was the fuel economy almost doubled, as long as I
was driving calmly at normal speeds.   B)

Have a good one Zip..

---
 * SLMR Rob  * I've got a pornographic memory
 * Origin: Capitol City Online (618:250/1)