Save this car!

[72Fury]

Truecoat .. I don't want it

But the car has truecoat, that's why it cost more!

 

[1978 NYB]

Ziebart is the only product that I'll use on my cars.

 

[tallhair]

But the car has truecoat, that's why it cost more!

But I specifically told you when I ordered it I didn't want the Gol Darn Truecoat !!!

 

[Big_John]

Well, we've never done this before. But seeing as it's special circumstances and all, he says I can knock a hundred dollars off that Trucoat.

 

[tallhair]

You lied to me, Mr Lundegaard. You're a bald-faced liar.

 

[Greg B.]

This '73 looks very solid and the interior appears to have held up well. Looks like a bashed-in front fender on the drivers side. But it would be a good one to save I think.

Up here in Eastern Canada rust is a huge issue. In the '70s there were a whole bunch of outfits doing it - Ziebart was the biggest but there were others. We had a '74 Maverick from new with "Armor-Coat" rustproofing and that thing rusted like it was in a salt water bath every day - never saw a car rust that bad. The first hole appeared within about 18 months and within 3 years there were holes everywhere. Front of the hood inner structure was totally gone, for example. Worthless. We then got a '78 LeMans wagon new and gave it the "Tuff-Coat Dinol" treatment and it was equally worthless, though that car didn't go quite as quickly as the Ford. However dad realized he had a problem when the factory roof rack detached itself from the roof due to rust in the sheetmetal after 3 years.

For the last couple of decades rustproofing here has gone in a different direction with products that get reapplied every year. They are more of a liquid rather than the thick, semi-hard coating of the Ziebart type. Rust Check and Krown appear to be the two leading operators. The stuff seems to work.

 

[cm23uoc]

got a '78 LeMans wagon new and gave it the "Tuff-Coat Dinol" treatment and it was equally worthless, though that car didn't go quite as quickly as the Ford. .

Had good results with Dinol products in the past; our 91 DD Volvo has the Tuff-Coat underbody protection which is now on for 13 years and still "waxy" underneath the dry surface. But your'e right it is outdated these days in general.

 

['69FuryIIIConvertible]

This '73 looks very solid and the interior appears to have held up well. Looks like a bashed-in front fender on the drivers side. But it would be a good one to save I think.

Up here in Eastern Canada rust is a huge issue. In the '70s there were a whole bunch of outfits doing it - Ziebart was the biggest but there were others. We had a '74 Maverick from new with "Armor-Coat" rustproofing and that thing rusted like it was in a salt water bath every day - never saw a car rust that bad. The first hole appeared within about 18 months and within 3 years there were holes everywhere. Front of the hood inner structure was totally gone, for example. Worthless. We then got a '78 LeMans wagon new and gave it the "Tuff-Coat Dinol" treatment and it was equally worthless, though that car didn't go quite as quickly as the Ford. However dad realized he had a problem when the factory roof rack detached itself from the roof due to rust in the sheetmetal after 3 years.

For the last couple of decades rustproofing here has gone in a different direction with products that get reapplied every year. They are more of a liquid rather than the thick, semi-hard coating of the Ziebart type. Rust Check and Krown appear to be the two leading operators. The stuff seems to work.

Greg, my grandfather has had his first gen S10 done done by Rust Check every year since new, body is mint and I'm sure you know how they like to rust, my Cheyenne was done every year by Krown and is nearly perfect other than a very small spot caused by a stone chip (I have a appointment in August for it to be repaired) So I'm a believer in both, considering I've seen both in very bad examples fairly soon after they were new.

 

[mdh157]

it's another rare rust-free car from PA.........and I suppose what is chasing people is the fact that it needs a fender and a qtr

 

[polara71]

it's another rare rust-free car from PA.........and I suppose what is chasing people is the fact that it needs a fender and a qtr

But otherwise its a great cruiser

 

[Pete Kaczmarski]

Glenn B should get into this discussion. For years he sold rust proofing product (salesman) and applied it the cars for almost thirty years.

 

[commando1]

I need opinions from everybody about the value of my car. It's 100% rust free but every sq. in. of the car's metal that you cant see is covered with the thickest layer of Zeibart I have ever seen. Every crevice was saturated. And it really makes the wheel wells, engine compartment, undercarriage look like it was dipped in asphalt. Has the Ziebart helped or hurt the value?

< Sent from my tablet >

 

[cm23uoc]

Well to my experience it adds nothing to the value, you just have the value of a rust free car, if this was accomplished by rust protection or simply by good environmental circumstances doesn't play a role. Very few would even argue due to the thick cover underneath the condition is hard to inspect and if rust is nestled in it grows unnoticed and would prefer the unprepped rust free car for that reason.

I have had quite a lot cars that came with some kind of underbody protection, even that old black tar type if applied regularly helps, I had once a car from 57 with partly half an inch of that stuff on and practically rust free.

 

[fc7_plumcrazy]

I had two cars with Ziebart protection. One was good, one was bad.

The good one was a 70 Fury Sport Suburban, bought from the original owner in Tampa bay area, lived its first years in NY state near the Niagara falls. So it has seen salt an co. Great body only had on rusthole in the dog leg infront of the rear tire.

Second car was a Canadian 71 RR 440+6. Rusted bad. Floors, cowl, quarters, wheelhouses etcetcetc. It was a mess, Ziebart hasn't helped that car.

@Stan: Honestly: To me it is a downvalue. There is no rust showing right now (good) but who knows what is really under it (being 100% sure). The bad (worst) thing for me is: It doesn't look original like it rolled of the factory. The dealer had good intentions bad opening the hood and seeing undersoating is not what I want to see. Just my personal taste and opinion.

Carsten

 

[commando1]

@Stan: Honestly: To me it is a downvalue. There is no rust showing right now (good) but who knows what is really under it (being 100% sure). The bad (worst) thing for me is: It doesn't look original like it rolled of the factory. The dealer had good intentions bad opening the hood and seeing undersoating is not what I want to see. Just my personal taste and opinion.

Carsten

It's a real double-edged sword. It saved the car but the engine compartment looks like crap.
BUT...
I'm thrilled she did it. And I could care less it devalues the car. Working with an original rust free car is priceless.

 

[cm23uoc]

With a good portion of elbow grease and some chemicals you could always reverse this, maybe even with iceblasting involved; but would it be worth it ?

Got myself a thickly wax and oil covered car from 1962 that is silver gray met. and the car exposes spots of red primer they used with this single stage met. hue, this would look quite interesting, but I leave it alone with the good wax protection.