Engine Revs per Mile vs. Wear

[S2000driver]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris B.:
I see quiet a few Hondas that are rusted in the fender areas here in Colorado where cars don't rust. More Hondas then anything and mostly Accords.

---

It's true about Hondas--the older the worst.

Most of the rust I see started where added-on trim that was supposed to protect the paint from damage. "Fender-well trim" is the biggest culprit, mud flaps is second. The dirt collects there in pockets, and holds the water against the metal constantly. A definite rust factory, thanks to dealers who insist you need this stuff when you buy the car.

Two of my newer Hondas have a couple inches of plastic body instead of painted metal around the wheel wells. A little less sparkle but a lot more durable and trouble-free.

And the S2000? I took no extra body cladding, splash guards, or wheel trim!

[ February 11, 2004, 10:21 PM: Message edited by: S2000driver ]

 

[moribundman]

quote:

---

Imports just rot away in the rust belt. American cars are better built in that respect.

---

That '85 Buick Century I had for a couple years rusted away in the mild California climate. The 1985 Chevy Celebrity I owned had 10" holes under the carpeting. None of the European cars that were in my family or that I've owned, has had a problem with rust, save the 1967 VW Beetle:

1974 Beetle
1979 Austin Allegro
1980 VW Passat
1980 VW Scirocco (my first car, bought it used in '87)
1981 Opel Kadett
1989 VW Scirocco (not a US model)
1994 VW Corrado
1996 Audi A4 (my current car. No rust, looks brand-new)

Of course, we always got a cosmolene undercoating before winter time and we did get the undercarriage thoroughly cleaned before spring.

 

[Chris B.]

I know what you mean about trim causing rust. On my Camaro I have mud flaps but both front and rear are bolted on to the rubber bumper or composit fender so no worrie on rust. I still try to keep the dirt out from under them.

 

[harrydog]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kestas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cousincletus:
About reliability and durability, I don't see hardly any older imports on the road compared to domestics. Wonder why?...

---

Imports just rot away in the rust belt. American cars are better built in that respect. Having an engine last 250,000 miles doesn't mean much on a car if the doors are falling off. An engine can be replaced, but when the body starts falling apart it's off to the junk yard!

---

That's a huge generality and a false one at that. As an example, I don't think any American car has as much effort put in to rust prevention as VW, Audi, and Porsche. They have a 12 year/unlimited mileage warranty against rust. Every part of the body shell is two-sided galvanized, with the floor pan and parts that aren't visible being hot-dipped galvanized. The entire body shell is then dipped in a bath of zinc phosphate primer. All welded seams are then caulked and the underbody sprayed with the "rubberized" undercoating. Then the body has the final coats of paint applied and finally the body cavities are flooded with hot wax.
I don't think "American cars are better built in that respect."

[ February 12, 2004, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: harrydog ]

 

[Patman]

There is not a single spot of rust on the body of my 95 Firebird Formula. Of course most of it is composite plastic, but there are some metal parts too, such as the hood and the rear quarter panels, and those have zero rust on them.

 

[XS650]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patman:
There is not a single spot of rust on the body of my 95 Firebird Formula.

---

My 96 Corvette doesn't have any body rust either.

 

[CelicaGT6]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mal:
Just wondering! Has anyone found a correlation between engine revolutions per mile and engine life in miles? In top gear and at road speeds, some smaller 4 cylinder engines turn over lots more times per mile than some of the bigger V-8s and V-6's. Do the slower turning engines tend to last longer? Or is the wear so minimal under normal operation that maintenance, number of cold starts, short trips, etc. have more to do with wear?

---

If you make the assumption that over the lifetime of two engines, the larger engine averages 1/2 the cycles of the smaller one, you would still need to look at the surface area of each engine to see overall which engine would last longer.

If, for example, you looked at two toyota engines:

3SGE - 2.0L 4 cyl twin cam
1UZFE - 4.0L 8 cyl twin cam

The 3SGE has an 86mmx86mm bore/stroke while the 1UZ has a 87.5x82mm stroke. So as it stands, the total surface area of the larger engine is nearly twice since each cylinder is pretty close in volume(499cc vs 462cc).

However, neglecting rod ratios, mass, and wear on everything but the cylinder walls, if the smaller engine has twice the cycles as the larger one but 1/2 the surface area, the total wear is the same but its now concentrated on 4 cylinders instead of across 8. So it could be said that per cylinder, a high revving 4 cylinder engine will wear faster vs a low revving v8.

In reality, there are just too many variables to make a generalized statement regarding wear and you would need to include the masses, and the kinematics of the rotational assemblies.

 

[Mal]

Guess the bottom line is, assuming proper care and maintenance, they'll all last longer than most of us ever drive them. I'm amazed at how good most engines are these days. I can remember back in the 60's, my Dad's Olds had to be overhauled at 80K. Now my '95 Taurus has 93K, doesn't use any oil and drives almost as good as new. I'm sure I'll get tired of it before I wear it out.