Porsche started galvanizing their bodies in the 1970s, VW started in the 1980s, Japan only started galvanizing their bodies in export markets, in response to the germans, and only recently (last 15 years) have been galvanizing all their bodies domestic and import.

>have been galvanizing all their bodies domestic and import.

This is because there's basically no market for used cars older than 5 years in Japan

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.picknbuy24.com/amp/column_1...

It's not uncommon to buy used car like newer than 10yo in Japan now. I can see many such cars at the road side used car shop. Because Japanese people especially in rural area (who need car) getting poor relatively, newer cars getting expensive thanks to safety and comfortable equipment, and reliability is improved, used cars getting more reasonable. After 13yo, vehicle tax increases so it's not popular but still sold, especially kei-cars are sold well because it's cheap for tax.

Still, according to this popular used car site, vehicle made in 2002-2011 is listed 109k, 2012-2021 is 319k so newer cars are more sold well. https://www.carsensor.net/usedcar/index.html

Is this new in Japan or has it always been the way?

There have been used car market like now at least for 25 years, but I believe acceptable car age getting wider. 8yo car should be fine to buy also in 2012.

Getting poor ?

There's a huge export market though: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_used_vehicle_export...

I read that something like 60% of cars registered in NZ are Japanese imports.

IMHO Japanese used car exports have a lot of the characteristics of "dumping" (in trade terms) but because there is no local vehicle manufacturing in most of the places they end up, nobody complains.

Yep, a huge number of our cars are Japanese imports. It means we can get a 5 year old Toyota/Mazda for the equivalent of about $6-7000 USD (or cheaper imported privately), which will run for another 150,000km with little difficulty.

We mostly don't have snow and I don't think any region salts their roads, so rust isn't much of an issue with something that new.

Dumping is when a country is subsidizing domestic production and selling a good internationally below cost. Japan isn't dumping because they don't subsidize the manufacturer. Instead they just have onerous regulations that make private parties sell their cars. They artificially stimulated local demand

I feel like that is a self-perpetuating cycle. Japanese carmakers build cars to rust out in half a decade and thus nobody wants to buy old rustbuckets thus the carmakers don't bother to build them to last.

It is a actually a legal and insurance issue in Japan. The costs are not tied to the quality of the vehicle. If it costs more to recertify a perfectly functional used vehicle than lease a brand new one, it makes sense to opt for new one.

A HUGE reform to our “throw-away 1 ton of iron” culture of ecology in Europe would be to rewrite the insurance estimates of cars.

The fact that insurances value a car of 35k€ at, I’m guessing, 25k€ at the exit of the garage, then 18, 12, 7, 4, 2k€ the following years, means that people see no value in used cars.

Whereas the real value of a car is certainly 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20k€ along the years, and when one recycles it, it’s actually a huge new cost for the household, for a car that could last 20 years. It breaks after 7 years? “Yeah buying a differential costs more than the entire price of the car, sir.”

But it isn't the insurance that defines the price,it is the sales market. It doesn't matter if insurance says it is worth 20k if people will only pay 2k

This was true in the 60s and 70s for Jap cars, they didnt make them to rust, they just didnt rust prevent like they do now. Go watch youtube and watch some rust belt mechanics like south main auto and u will see what what cars rust and what cars last now (hint, US made cars dont even last 10yrs with salt)

I personally drive a jap car from the 90s and 400+k on the clock. I can fix everything myself including rebuilding anything i need. My wipers arnt controlled by a CANN BUS, they use a simple mechanical switch. There is a new killer on the block that makes corrision look like childs play - its called computers. Cars these days are literly THROW away with the amount of electronics on them. Replacing the guage cluster on a new econo-car like a hyuandi can cost upwards of 8k. Instance write-off, doesnt matter that the engines wont lost 150k, because the electronics that manage it are discontinued way before that. Got a broken wire in your loom? thats 5k to replace.

The GP talked about Japan only applied rust protection on cars for the export market. Their domestic cars were designed to rust out.

Some Japanese brands are "galvanizing" instead of proper electro-galvanizing. Here is investigation into Mazda, legendary for rotting into nothing.

https://www.reddit.com/r/mazda3/comments/adioma/polish_autom...

the mazda3 used to be terrible for rusting but they changed something in 2007, a collegue mazda3 was from 2006 and it rusted so much thast it had almost no resale value, my gf mazda3 from 2008 sill looks new...

p.s. I live in a place were salt used to be applied aggressively in the winter. Nowadays they use more sand and only use salt when the road conditions really requires it. but it's a recent development (3 years at best)

The test was in 2019. Mazda was spraying a coat of zinc paint, dedicated metallurgical instrument was unable to detect galvanization process. Manufacturer protested claiming a coat of zinc is coat of zinc regardless of uniformity, adherence, purity or quality :)

Famously, 1990's Mitsubishi and Subaru vehicles can basically rust down to the frame before the drivetrain stops functioning. And they don't wait long to start on the former.

Interesting. Mine is a 2004 wrx and getting full of holes, but mechanic keeps assuring me drive train is solid and perfectly safe to drive.

I'm not confident enough on when that era ended to say it magically ended in 2000, just that it hadn't ended by late enough in the 90's to use a big fat brush and say "the 90's". The closest I've been to a Mitsubishi or Subaru maven is 2 degrees of separation.

Toyotas cost nothing compared to Porches, so 1-0 Japan vs rest of the world.

VW is an affordable brand.

And Skoda and SEAT are even more affordable brands, and essentially the same cars.

VW has been caught lying about the capabilities of their cars, then the executives blamed the engineers to cover their asses. If one needs a reason to forget about VW.

VW was the _first_ company selling diesel powered passenger vehicles to be caught lying. Opel/GM, Chrysler, Nissan, Jeep, Renault, Peugeot, Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Audi, and Porsche were all later caught somehow skirting diesel emissions testing. Basically all large truck manufacturers did it too.

Clean diesel is a myth, it never was a thing and the only reason anyone thought it was was because the entire auto industry was lying to regulators and customers for decades.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_emissions_scandal

Of these other scandals, which other companies have their, "executives blamed the engineers"

That is what I was highlighting. Not, "mistakes were made" but, "And they were, points fingers at scapegoat"

It's not fair to call those manufacturers are criminal like VW. VW (Bosch) cheats the emission test deliberately, but some other manufacturers don't cheat but emission is bad when condition is worse than test environment.

Toyota has their fair share of similar scandals. Maybe none at such as scale as WW, but still.

Unless you happen to think that reduced car ownership is good for the world!

Or, even better for the environment , we could kill all of human civilization! /s

>This is an important issue. People keep talking about recycling, but much more important than recycling is just being able to use a thing for longer before you are even thinking about recycling it.

Reduce, reuse, recycle. In that order

Well perhaps "retain" should be added. Making something last longer isn't quite "reduce" or "reuse".

Isn’t it reuse?

Reduce - don’t buy another car, reuse - keep using your car, or buy a used car, recycle - sell your old car for scrap.

Well I think of reuse as.. use it again after you've used it once. As opposed to, keep using it the first time and make its initial use last longer.

Perhaps we should add, "Reconsider" as in, "Reconsider purchasing the item, when it's not needed, or a better alternative exists".

Is there a difference between "reconsider" and "reduce"?

"Reduce" would imply "Do less of" while "reconsider" would imply "Maybe something else fits better". Instead of reducing your usage of plastic bags, reconsider if maybe paper bags works as well?

Which would reduce your use of plastic bags.

There would be a difference between reducing your use of motor vehicles and reconsidering using them at all if our lifestyle allows us to use an alternative, like an ebike.

Thanks for the downvotes for simply openly suggesting something fairly benign. A real vibrant and healthy community we have here.

And repair. Repairing always uses fewer resources than making new.

While I personally and professionally select use repairable items in lieu of non-repairable ones, I believe that this is not entirely a personal issue. Another r-word to add should be regulation. Without some degree of enforcement, the present set of incentives will continue to worsen the situation.

That's only true if you don't count skilled labor as a "resource". Repairing badly corroded vehicles isn't economically viable because it takes so much work to cut and weld the corroded body and frame parts. So that kind of repair is only done for collector items. Regular cars just get junked and replaced.

recycling is an issue of material consumption and pollution - if you are optimising for time and convenience, single use plastic is the best thing ever.

And labour is expensove because rent is expensive. Countries with cheap rent have enough labour to repair things, countries with expensive rent are throwing away perfectly good dishwasher because 1 motor must be replaced and there is noone to do it.

I was just listening to an economic analyst bleating how a potential fall in house prices would be terrible. Noone is reflecting on the fact that housing shortage has done more economic damage than the Plague.

Reduce trash by retaining things for longer. :D

But you're right, IMO. Maybe it should be retain, if you can't retain try to reduce, if you can't reduce reuse, if you can't reuse recycle

I think the idea is reducing consumption and it falls under that.

There is also a 0th R-word in that truism, which is "Refuse".

Refuse is funny because depending on how you pronounce it, it might not fit well.

Exactly. Reducing is the exact opposite of oxidising. Don't let your car rust!

Volvo led the way in this long before Japan got even close to figuring this out. That's why you still see ancient Volvo's drive around in numbers that are just way higher than any other brand.

I got the impression Volvo was able to do this for fairly small production runs, whereas the Japanese figured out how to consistently do it in large volumes.

That may well be so, Japanese cars had an absolutely terrible reputation for being rustbuckets in the 70's so they had to do something about it. Given the number of them that were manufactured the fact that they are so rare today is as far as I know uniquely due to the rust problem.

Mazdas are still rustbuckets today.

Mazda mostly sorted out their rust issues by the 2010s depending on model. A couple decades late, but they're pretty good now.

Isn't the Mazda 3 a really, really popular and pretty well-regarded car?

Yeah, it's a good car. Until it rusts. Supposedly they've fixed the rust problems in the new Skyactiv models, but I'd be weary of any Mazda before 2018.

Oh so you mean it quite literally - that's it's very rust prone.

Interesting! Any information on what they did wrong?

I'd say the Japanese figured out how to make this happen on a cheap car. Almost all high end european cars (including Volvos) had great rustproofing for a long time but cost far more than Japanese cars. The Japanese made the first reliable and long lasting low priced cars.

I think that was what I wanted to say. Thank you for putting it more clearly.

(In my mind, European craft production results in pricey cars, whereas large volumes only make sense for cheaper stuff.)

I came here to mention this about Volvos. Starting with the 7xx series (1982 on) they have been virtually rustproof. Old 7xx volvos are crazy cheap because they last forever, and there just isn't enough demand for the huge numbers of them still around...

Funny that you mention Volvo and I'm reading this today, since this weekend I was commenting to a friend that my 2004 XC70 had not a bit of rust even though it has spent all its time in the NE. I see so many much newer cars driving around that are very rusty.

Galvanized sheetmetal with a good quality coating will last you a lifetime.

But beware of accidents, make sure all the seams are checked near the point of impact and some way back from there.

I wonder if this is because Volvo comes from a country with strong winters? (although japan is an island with probably lots of salt water corrosion)

Are modern Volvos still better than average for corrosion resistance?

Somewhere in the late 90's early 2000's car manufacturers switched paint processes, typically to a water based paint.

That's the point in time where you could see the most clearly which manufacturers had their house in order in terms of weld cleaning, seam coating, basic material procurement and surface protection.

Some of them failed horribly, which led to some brands (for instance: Mercedes) having an undisclosed hit against their earnings to deal with the resulting rust issues on relatively new cars. It wasn't rare at all to see an early 2000's C-Class in the shop for the replacement of four doors, bonnet and rear hatch. And it wasn't rare to see them completely rusted out either a few years later. From Q1 2003 they galvanized those panels and then the problem stopped.

So everybody smartened up and now things are much better, to the point that there hardly are cars made that have serious rust issues. Coatings are a continuous materials science development front and some of the stuff that happened in the last decade and a half is extremely impressive.

Car bodies used to be gone long before the engines, those days are over.

VAG, Volvo, Mercedes, BMW all have a very good reputation nowadays for being rust resistant, I would not know of a favorite between those. By the way, Volvo is now Chinese (bought by scooter manufacturer Geely).

My own car is a 1997 (just before they switched paint formulation for that particular brand) and there isn't a spot of rust on it and as far as I know it has never had body work done. (Don't get me started about engines though...)

  So everybody smartened up and now things are much better, to the point that there hardly are cars made that have serious rust issues.

I find this entertaining. Come to upstate NY, USA where we liberally salt our roads in the winter. Definitely not "everybody" smartened up as it's still very common to find vehicles here that after 10 years should be declared unsafe to operate due to rust-through of critical structural components.

Interesting, any particular brands or is that across the board?

Here we liberally salt our roads as well in winter and in the past cars would not last a decade before falling apart. Now you really have to look to figure out which cars are new, 10 or 20 years old. Rust is - as far as I can see - a solved problem. Not many US cars on the road here though.

Chevrolet and GMC full size pickup trucks and SUVs are probably the worst offenders. Which seems counter intuitive since many of GM's engineering and design happens in northern climates with salted roads. It's not all of GM's vehicles which are subject to this, many do have good corrosion resistance, they just choose to only use such techniques on a subset of the vehicles they produce.

For example: https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/tsbs/2020/MC-10178959-9999.pdf

A few years back now Toyota had a big recall on Tundra pickups for improperly applied corrosion prevention. I'm to believe they corrected this as it was quite expensive for them to repair so many customer vehicles.

Just had to get rid of a 2011 Toyota SUV because corrosion on a hydraulic line cascaded to other problems. (Was overall in good shape but some sort of chip or other problem on the line caused issues.)

>A few years back now Toyota had a big recall

Mustie1, absolute YT gem of a human being, did a couple videos showing his efforts to salvage post recall Toyotas. Recall was a scam. Instead of replacing bad frame, or stripping, cleaning and repainting Toyota opted to pay third party contractor to just spray some black goo on frame rails so they last 12 more months while the goo hides corrosion (and traps more moisture speeding up the process).

RRRUST 2013 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s7N8QEAAeM

toyota 4runner frame rust repair 2013 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBB8YX1I1QU

more toyota frame repair 2013 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdLNKOdi4-A

Toyota Tundra frame repair 2016 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IBXYnYYccI

toyota tundra rusted frame repair update 2 winters later 2018 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nn-cqoVYQR0

TLDR involved welding plates to replace eaten metal and regularly coating in oil/liquid film protection every year.

Interesting. It was my understanding that the official Toyota procedure involved lifting the cab and bed off the existing frame and transplanting all of the rest of the truck to a new frame.

This seems to outline the requirements: https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/tsbs/2019/MC-10154787-9999.pdf

The warranty work is listed at about 40 hours of duration for frame replacement, which seems rather short to me. For about a million potentially affected vehicles that's not a cheap recall.

Maybe thats what they were supposed to do, but the post recall trucks Mustie1 worked on all looked the same - spray of hard coat over the corrosion/holes the size of a fist.

A big part, I think, is differing European attitudes towards maintenance. If there's a bit of coating damage and a rust spot somewhere detected by a mechanic in the US, everyone involved is likely to shrug and not bother with any remediation. The customer doesn't want to pay to prevent a problem that will manifest in years, and there's more lucrative work the mechanic could be doing.

Do aftermarket "anti-rust coatings" actually work? Y'know, the kind people are always trying to sell you at auto dealerships and the like?

They typically make rust and corrosion WORSE, not better. They remove factory lee plugs to spray their anti-corrosion goo in, then often fail to reinstall them or do it poorly. Their goop can clog the engineered drainage paths and cause water to accumulate and sit. Some places even drill additional holes thru virgin metal to access hidden areas, which damages the finish and exposes unprotected areas.

> Some places even drill additional holes thru virgin metal to access hidden areas, which damages the finish and exposes unprotected areas.

That's an exceptionally bad idea for another reason: cabling is often sandwiched in between two layers of sheetmetal to protect the loom from mechanical damage. If you start drilling holes in box members there is a fair chance that you'll end up doing damage to whatever is enclosed. And of course the debris from the drill is an excellent way to start the oxidization process.

That depends on the state of your paint. If the paint is still good it will help a bit because the coating will take some of the wear. But if the paint is already damaged then rust will have started and applying a coating on top of that won't make much difference, though it may slow things down a little bit.

The best protection against rust is to keep your car clean, especially from leaves, bird droppings and other debris. Wash but not too frequently and if there are scratches or other minor issues fix them immediately.

I appreciate this reply, thanks.

Yes if you use a liquid one like Fluid Film. No if you use a “hard” coating like Ziebart.

Volvo is owned by a Chinese parent company, but their operations are still based in the same places as before.

Using the definition implied by your comment, they were previously and “American” car manufacturer as they were sold to geeley by ford.

Edit: absurd typo, it is owned by a Chinese company.

> Volvo is not owned by a Chinese parent company, but their operations are still based in the same places as before.

You are welcome to use your own definition of the word 'owned' but I'll just stick to the dictionary one.

> Using the definition implied by your comment, they were previously and “American” car manufacturer as they were sold to geeley by ford.

https://www.industryweek.com/finance/software-systems/articl...

I highly suspect, based on facts about Volvo and the structure of that sentence, that they didn't mean to write "not owned", but rather "now owned."

Yes, that is indeed correct. Thank you for clarifying for me.

Ah, that could be, thank you for pointing that out. That would make a lot more sense. But then I still don't understand the comment. Volvo is now Chinese, whether you like it or not is another matter.

I never meant to say that Volvo isn’t Chinese. It’s just odd that people really feel the need to bring it up, despite the fact that operationally little is different.

It’s Chinese in the same way that Jeep/ram/dodge/Chrysler are Dutch now. No one ever seems to bring that up when they are mentioned, though.

> I never meant to say that Volvo isn’t Chinese.

Accepted.

> It’s just odd that people really feel the need to bring it up, despite the fact that operationally little is different.

It was merely for completeness' sake, and to indicate that since the days that Volvo pioneered this sort of thing the company had changed ownership.

> It’s Chinese in the same way that Jeep/ram/dodge/Chrysler are Dutch now.

That's a tax dodge and has very little to do with the actual ownership.

And no, Geely is really a Chinese company and really controls Volvo.

> No one ever seems to bring that up when they are mentioned, though.

Because most people are aware of the difference between a tax dodge and a controlling interest by a foreign company.

If you want to make a parallel with Stellantis I think it should stop with the shareholders of Stellantis which you'll find in Italy and France, not in NL.

Stellantis really is a European company, which was the point. I felt the need to choose a country so I chose where they’re headquartered. Regardless, most people would identify those brands as “American” cars, which was the overarching point.

> Regardless, most people would identify those brands as “American” cars, which was the overarching point.

Yes, car brand ownership is a mess. So if you want to buy an American car, I think your options are limited to Tesla.

Would you say that Arm is a Japanese company?

Yes, absolutely. As soon as majority ownership of a company changes from one nationality to another you're kidding yourself if you want to continue to see it as belonging to the country where it originated.

The shareholders control who runs the company, what it does, how it does it and ultimately where the profits are. It's just like outsourcing. But we don't like it when we look at Asian companies owning famous Western brands. But when McDonalds operates in China we're quick to call it an American company. That works both ways.

Apologies, that was a typo.

The risks of posting on a phone…

Someone else caught it and pointed that out. I totally missed it.

Hmm, we have one of the rusty c classes, made in South Africa. The doors, bonnet etc have been just fine. Underneath is the disaster. Particularly the rear end which has collapsed several times as it just rusted through in the first ten years. Bizarre. Bodged up by a backstreet garage it still goes, engine just fine, never a problem, just that faint disconcerting worry the wheels will fall off again...

Those engines last forever. I had a C-class from that vintage, it looked like you could walk in on one side and out the other without opening the doors (great: nobody ever thought of stealing that car). But the engine just kept on working and as far as I know it still runs (in Limburg, with a friend that I haven't seen since COVID).

My first car was a ‘96 Nissan Altima. By 2004 when I got it, the paint was worn away on the center of the hood and the top. My family got 3 new cars circa 2010, one of which is an Altima, never had this issue again. Perhaps this is explained by what you’re talking about?

Despite cars being on the road for longer than ever, I feel like I’ve seen far fewer “rust buckets” than in my youth

Many manufacturers are also plastic sheilding their cars from down under. Improves wind flow, noise isolation and prevents rust.

Toyota has had a serious problem with truck frames rusting.

https://www.autoblog.com/2016/11/14/toyota-3-billion-settlem...

You can and should fix this yourself if you own one. Spray cosmoline or fluid film on the frame. Cosmoline is perfect because you can pressure wash the dirt off but it won't disturb the cosmoline film.

At this point there is nothing to spray on, it all fell apart. It was already bad at the moment they did the recall 6 years ago with frames having fist sized holes. The way you could fix it was cutting the frame up and replacing with fresh metal plates piece by piece.

Their SUV/truck lower body panels also rust prematurely in the snow belt compared to contemporary American vehicles. This is particularly prominent on tailgates/hatches above the rear bumper when people don't diligently brush off the snow.

"They did this mostly by using better paints and making sure cars and car parts are painted more thoroughly."

Their cars last longer because they put more emphasis on durability and longevity than bleeding edge performance, for parts that matter in extending overall operating life of a vehicle.

Germans may use their dollars differently, designs that require tighter tolerance for higher performance. They may also skimp out on actual durability testing, serviceability of parts, etc. Again, prioritizing performance over other attributes.

Owning a 1994 Toyota pickup, this truck has been argued as one of the toughest trucks ever made. However, they rust. Badly.

It's usually the frame, starting from the inside where it collects dirt and water absorbs into it where it won't evaporate and will stay in there damp for months.

Cutting and welding patches onto a frame isn't the biggest deal, and you can install drain holes with places to spray cavity wax coatings.

Once it's rusty inside, you're gonna have a battle. It really needs to be coated from day and then maintained.

I just posted a bunch of YT links that show how that process looks like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32233327

that's a poor example of "modern". I've seen tools/parts that have been lying around wrapped in oiled paper since the 1930s, without a hint of rust.

The parts lying in oil paper were probably also covered in oil or more likely grease. Oil paper by itself does little to prevent rust. There are costs associated with covering parts with grease. You have to apply it everywhere, for many applications, you have to remove it before actually using the part, etc.

The product I linked automatically emits a chemical which clings to the metal and creates a microscopic protective barrier. The layer is so thin it does not affect the mechanical properties of the metal so it does not have to be removed. Although it will go away by itself several hours after the part is taken out of the special packaging.

Anyways, I am not trying to sell the stuff, just letting people know what is available out there.

Inhibitor paper is old tech though, was already around in 1970s.

why not? it does inhibit air/moisture exposure

the magic compound in the product you've linked doesn't cover the entire surface of the part you wrap in it, and it doesn't create a perfect seal, so it functions exactly as that oiled paper I saw did

I saw some pretty intricate automotive parts preserved that way. granted, they weren't exposed to the elements, but still - pristine. shiny like factory-new

>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.

> 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.

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.

Porsche 944s and 928s are far more rust resistant than most American or Japanese cars of the 80s or even 90s. Likewise with Volvos. The classic 911 was an old design that went through iterative improvements, and the 964 is better rust-proofed than most American or Japanese cars of the late 80s or 90s. Old Audis tend to have minimal rust, and old Mercedes-Benzes like the W126, W124, and W201, while they certainly can and do rust, their bodies tend to far outlast Japanese and American cars of the same era driven in similar conditions. Old W124s still soldier on as daily drivers and winter beaters in the cold and salty environments of post-Soviet states with mostly OK bodies, whereas Japanese cars of the 1980s almost all rotted away beyond repair being worthwhile more than a decade ago.

It is my impression that older Mercedes are pretty good in this department.

I still see so many mid-80's Accords in the US. Yes, there's probably a somewhat smaller share of them that survived than mid-80's BMWs, but there's a lot of factors that go into survival (Honda == cheaper to keep going as a beater; BMW == higher initial value / treated nicer for the earlier parts of its lifespan).

You see so many mid 80s Accords in the US for the same reason you still see a lot of 90s Caddys despite them being objectively crap cars. The people who bought them could afford to keep them nice, not beat the shit out of them and maintain them as they needed it so they lasted. Your average 1990ish Accord commuter sedan lived a far, far, far easier life, at least for the first 10-15yr than your average Ford Taurus or Subaru Legacy family wagon and it shows in the number that are still around today.

This is the same reason you see a lot more Grand Marquis and Town Cars to (non-cop) Crown Vics today than you did back when they were still making all those things. I cite this example specifically to control for literally every variable except the owners.

> Accord commuter sedan lived a far, far, far easier life

I think you've got this backwards when you're looking at the mid-80's. The Accord was very much a bottom-of-the-barrel option that didn't get as nice of care as most cars-- certainly compared to the European imports that you're comparing to. Especially e.g. probability of being garaged.

I came here to mention E-coat, though I'm thinking of it by another name, it's why in dry climates it's rare to see vintage fords rusted out, GM and Chrysler took longer to implement it.