rust protection?

Hi...

Just about to get the rust check people to treat my car,
when I came across a potentially interesting ad in this
week's Canadian Tire flyer.

Product is called "Counteract", on sale for 199 Canadian,
and claims to "cover your car with an electrical charge,
to prevent and inhibit rust"

Maker claims it's been around for 20 years, so wonder if
any of you might have any experience with it? Or even
opinions?

Thanks, and take care.

Ken

"Ken Weitzel" > wrote in message
news:XUJJg.487088$Mn5.240546@pd7tw3no...
>
> Hi...
>
> Just about to get the rust check people to treat my car,
> when I came across a potentially interesting ad in this
> week's Canadian Tire flyer.
>
> Product is called "Counteract", on sale for 199 Canadian,
> and claims to "cover your car with an electrical charge,
> to prevent and inhibit rust"
>
> Maker claims it's been around for 20 years, so wonder if
> any of you might have any experience with it? Or even
> opinions?
>
> Thanks, and take care.
>
> Ken
>
Chrysler has 10Y/100K mile warranty. Me personally, its a waste of money and
in some cases undercoating/rustproofing may cause more damage in the long
run,

My opinion

Glenn Beasley
Chrysler Tech

I agree. I have a '97 Dodge Caravan with 200+ thousand kilometers on it.

It's never been rustproofed or undercoated and there's not a speck of rust
on it.

Ed

"maxpower" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Ken Weitzel" > wrote in message
> news:XUJJg.487088$Mn5.240546@pd7tw3no...
>>
>> Hi...
>>
>> Just about to get the rust check people to treat my car,
>> when I came across a potentially interesting ad in this
>> week's Canadian Tire flyer.
>>
>> Product is called "Counteract", on sale for 199 Canadian,
>> and claims to "cover your car with an electrical charge,
>> to prevent and inhibit rust"
>>
>> Maker claims it's been around for 20 years, so wonder if
>> any of you might have any experience with it? Or even
>> opinions?
>>
>> Thanks, and take care.
>>
>> Ken
>>
> Chrysler has 10Y/100K mile warranty. Me personally, its a waste of money
> and
> in some cases undercoating/rustproofing may cause more damage in the long
> run,
>
> My opinion
>
> Glenn Beasley
> Chrysler Tech
>
>

maxpower wrote:
> "Ken Weitzel" > wrote in message
> news:XUJJg.487088$Mn5.240546@pd7tw3no...
>> Hi...
>>
>> Just about to get the rust check people to treat my car,
>> when I came across a potentially interesting ad in this
>> week's Canadian Tire flyer.
>>
>> Product is called "Counteract", on sale for 199 Canadian,
>> and claims to "cover your car with an electrical charge,
>> to prevent and inhibit rust"
>>
>> Maker claims it's been around for 20 years, so wonder if
>> any of you might have any experience with it? Or even
>> opinions?
>>
>> Thanks, and take care.
>>
>> Ken
>>
> Chrysler has 10Y/100K mile warranty. Me personally, its a waste of money and
> in some cases undercoating/rustproofing may cause more damage in the long
> run,
>
> My opinion
>
> Glenn Beasley
> Chrysler Tech

Hi Glenn...

Think I've misled you; not unusual for me nowadays

No warranty left, got a 94 lhs that's every bit as good as
brand new. In fact if I showed it to you, and IF you couldn't
recognize the year I betcha I could have you believing it was
only a year or two old. (except for the sun roof, which doesn't
close in the right position, which will be another story)

Rust check isn't undercoating; it's stuff (looks like thick oil)
that they spray everywhere. Drill small holes in everything
and spray it in. then plug the holes. Costs about 150 bucks,
and should be re-done every year. It works well.

The other thing I just noticed in the canadian tire flier is
totally electronic, and I can't decide whether it pie in the
sky or worthwhile. Seeing I can't properly describe it, here's
a link:

> http://www.canadiantire.ca/assortmen...romSearch=true

Lemme know what you think..

Thanks, and take care.

Ken

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 19:52:50 -0400, "maxpower"
> wrote:


>Chrysler has 10Y/100K mile warranty. Me personally, its a waste of money and
>in some cases undercoating/rustproofing may cause more damage in the long
>run,
>
>My opinion
>
>Glenn Beasley
>Chrysler Tech <snip>

Not just your opinion, but Consumer's Union's opinion some years back,
as well. They, being locating up in the Rust Belt of upstate Noo
Yawk, were already innately familiar with "car cancer" and did some
surveys of cars that had various "rust proofing" treatments. It was
bad news for the big Midwest-based chain rustproofer at the time,
Ziebart. CU said that there was actually more "rot" on floor pans and
in B pillars on Ziebart treated cars because the drain and weep holes
in such cars were routinely clogged with their spray-on material. The
cars that had the least amount of rust damage were those 1.) without
"undercoating" 2.) parked in unheated garages and 3.) the owner would
flush the underside of the car regularly or have it washed at a car
wash with "undercarriage jets."

Your money, your car....a Chrysler pro and CU can't be wrong! I do
have a friend up in Noo Hampstah who used to spray the underside of
his VW diesel with used motor oil twice or three times a season (QUITE
illegal, really) and never had a rust problem in 11 years. In that
state, that's saying something!
>

DeserTBoB wrote:
>
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 19:52:50 -0400, "maxpower"
> > wrote:
>
> >Chrysler has 10Y/100K mile warranty. Me personally, its a waste of money and
> >in some cases undercoating/rustproofing may cause more damage in the long
> >run,
> >
> >My opinion
> >
> >Glenn Beasley
> >Chrysler Tech <snip>
>
> Not just your opinion, but Consumer's Union's opinion some years back,
> as well. They, being locating up in the Rust Belt of upstate Noo
> Yawk, were already innately familiar with "car cancer" and did some
> surveys of cars that had various "rust proofing" treatments. It was
> bad news for the big Midwest-based chain rustproofer at the time,
> Ziebart. CU said that there was actually more "rot" on floor pans and
> in B pillars on Ziebart treated cars because the drain and weep holes
> in such cars were routinely clogged with their spray-on material. The
> cars that had the least amount of rust damage were those 1.) without
> "undercoating" 2.) parked in unheated garages and 3.) the owner would
> flush the underside of the car regularly or have it washed at a car
> wash with "undercarriage jets."
>
> Your money, your car....a Chrysler pro and CU can't be wrong! I do
> have a friend up in Noo Hampstah who used to spray the underside of
> his VW diesel with used motor oil twice or three times a season (QUITE
> illegal, really) and never had a rust problem in 11 years. In that
> state, that's saying something!
> >

I had a 1951 Studebaker that had some surface rust here and there on the
bottom. There had been an oil leak in the past, which left its mark in
the form of caked on greasy dirt. Under that, the car was in like-new
condition. Oil leaks have some benefits, apparently.

In article <LxNJg.490264$iF6.284392@pd7tw2no>,
Ken Weitzel > wrote:

> Rust check isn't undercoating; it's stuff (looks like thick oil)
> that they spray everywhere. Drill small holes in everything
> and spray it in. then plug the holes. Costs about 150 bucks,
> and should be re-done every year. It works well.
I used a spray on grease on a '63 Chev II. Worked great, but a bit
messy on long grass until it hardens a bit.
for a last 10 years all I do is spray a bit of WD40 into the door drain
holes every few years. I drive in very road salty conditions to the ski
hills.

I just noticed the first rust on my '95 Concord, along the weld of the
left rear door bottom. Since this is not the worst door bottom exposure
I expect some build problem. I'll clean it off and apply some rust
sealer, then touch up.

On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 00:03:46 -0500, Robbie and Laura Reynolds
> wrote:

>I had a 1951 Studebaker that had some surface rust here and there on the
>bottom. There had been an oil leak in the past, which left its mark in
>the form of caked on greasy dirt. Under that, the car was in like-new
>condition. Oil leaks have some benefits, apparently. <snip>

Lube oil leaks do, but ATF, being mineral based, is more soluable in
water and doesn't seem to help as much in that regard. Stinks worse
when hot, too. Someday, I'll learn not to get that stuff in my hair
when I do transmission service.

Ken Weitzel wrote:
> Hi...
>
> Just about to get the rust check people to treat my car,
> when I came across a potentially interesting ad in this
> week's Canadian Tire flyer.
>
> Product is called "Counteract", on sale for 199 Canadian,
> and claims to "cover your car with an electrical charge,
> to prevent and inhibit rust"
>
> Maker claims it's been around for 20 years, so wonder if
> any of you might have any experience with it? Or even
> opinions?
>
> Thanks, and take care.
>
> Ken

The best rust protector believe it or not, is motor oil. Back in the
1960-70's, there were a few local body shops and garages performing the
service, before the waste oil laws became really strict. They would
put your car on a lift, and coat the entire bottom of the car with a
fine mist of motor oil. After driving it a few days, a fine layer of
dust would be stuck to that oil. It will never rust. These garages
had a regular schedule and people would come in yearly or every 2 years
for the service.

If you take a look at some really older cars like 1950-60's models,
you'll see the driveshaft/transmission tunnel and center crossmember
are never rusted out. That's because the oil that blows back off the
engine coats that area continuously. But they would rust along the
floor sides, where the oil doesn't reach.

It works.

The problem with an "undercoating" is, it eventually dries and
chips/flakes off.

For a complete restoration, the best thing to use is a 2-part epoxy.
First the frame and underbody must be sandlbasted to bare metal, or
dipped in a stripper tank. Then it is primed with self-etching zinc
primer, then the 2-part epoxy which contains a hardener just like glue.
The result is bombproof and will outlive the car's owner.

duty-honor-country wrote:
> Ken Weitzel wrote:
>> Hi...
>>
>> Just about to get the rust check people to treat my car,
>> when I came across a potentially interesting ad in this
>> week's Canadian Tire flyer.
>>
>> Product is called "Counteract", on sale for 199 Canadian,
>> and claims to "cover your car with an electrical charge,
>> to prevent and inhibit rust"
>>
>> Maker claims it's been around for 20 years, so wonder if
>> any of you might have any experience with it? Or even
>> opinions?
>>
>> Thanks, and take care.
>>
>> Ken
>
> The best rust protector believe it or not, is motor oil. Back in the
> 1960-70's, there were a few local body shops and garages performing
> the service, before the waste oil laws became really strict. They
> would put your car on a lift, and coat the entire bottom of the car
> with a fine mist of motor oil. After driving it a few days, a fine
> layer of dust would be stuck to that oil. It will never rust. These
> garages had a regular schedule and people would come in yearly or
> every 2 years for the service.
>
> If you take a look at some really older cars like 1950-60's models,
> you'll see the driveshaft/transmission tunnel and center crossmember
> are never rusted out. That's because the oil that blows back off the
> engine coats that area continuously. But they would rust along the
> floor sides, where the oil doesn't reach.
>
> It works.
>
> The problem with an "undercoating" is, it eventually dries and
> chips/flakes off.
>
> For a complete restoration, the best thing to use is a 2-part epoxy.
> First the frame and underbody must be sandlbasted to bare metal, or
> dipped in a stripper tank. Then it is primed with self-etching zinc
> primer, then the 2-part epoxy which contains a hardener just like
> glue. The result is bombproof and will outlive the car's owner.

Re electronic protection - it was put into some modern holdens here in
Australia snd was a constant low voltage device. As far as how successful it
was I do not know.
Lushy