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).
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.
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.
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.