|
|
|
|
|
by throwaway0a5e
1423 days ago
|
|
>Japanese automakers did the world a great favor when in the 80s and 90s they made much longer lasting cars and made longevity and resale value an important consideration in the purchasing decision. They did this mostly by using better paints and making sure cars and car parts are painted more thoroughly. This is baseless fanboyism. The European carmakers lead the way with various degrees of zinc plating and dipped coatings being widely implemented on their products in the 70s and 80s. Then around that time lead paint got banned in the US (creating that generation of cars that faded a lot in the 80s) and everybody in the US market was like "hey, we need alternatives that don't break the bank, let's copy what they're doing". The Japanese and US makers both upped their game for the north American market over roughly the same time period. The Japanese have never really taken corrosion prevention very seriously before or since. They and the US makes generally take a "we do as good a job as we need to remain competitive but we don't go above and beyond" attitude whereas the Europeans tend to put quite a bit more effort in. Edit: If you want someone to lie to you to confirm your biases that's not gonna be me. |
|
Ford developed e-coat in the 50's. Everyone took up this to varying extents during the mid-to-late 70's.
> whereas the Europeans tend to put quite a bit more effort in.
I'm sorry, this just doesn't match my experience looking at mid-80's Japanese, American, and European cars. e.g. Porsche took up galvanizing during the transition from the 911S to the 911SC and further worked to improve coatings leading up to the Carrera 3.2 to attempt to control rust, but 3.2s still fared really poorly in the corrosion department. Ditto for BMWs of the era.
> This is baseless fanboyism.
> Edit: If you want someone to lie to you to confirm your biases that's not gonna be me.
You just made a bunch of unsupported assertions yourself leaning in the opposite direction.