I prefer GM products over any import brand just because parts are cheaper overall. Everything mechanical will eventually break.
Toyota vs GM rust compare.
- Thread starter LeakySeals
- Start date
- Status
GM uses US sourced steel. Toyota may not. I stopped allowing Chinese steel in my parts to GM and Ford because they often failed to meet certifications they claimed. Material certs were often wrong when I tested the chemistry and mechanical properties they rarely met all of them. The US makes the best steel in the world except maybe small batch specialty steel. Commercial bulk steel in US is the best and the reason for this difference.
^ Can't be assumed the steel is US sourced on the individual components. If I recall correctly Timken is/was one hub source and they have moved some if not all manufacturing overseas, over a decade ago. Regardless Timken is still one of my preferred hub brands.
Originally Posted by double vanos
Doesn't surprise me. Wasn't Toyota the manufacturer that had rusting frames on some of their trucks?
A US based frame maker incorrectly built it and Toyota obviously was lax on QA of that supplied part unfortunately. Does not correlate to brakes at all.
Doesn't surprise me. Wasn't Toyota the manufacturer that had rusting frames on some of their trucks?
A US based frame maker incorrectly built it and Toyota obviously was lax on QA of that supplied part unfortunately. Does not correlate to brakes at all.
The 95 GMC in my sig is rust free, always outside and gets washed maybe twice during the winter. It does get an undercarrige oiling in the fall. Just last week changed front roters and calipers since 1997 and 130 thousand miles. Have absolutely no idea why such good fortune.
Originally Posted by DriveHard
I live in the rust belt and have owned all kinds of American and foreign cars. In my observations, Nissan by far and away rusts the easiest. The Nissan in my signature is rust free on the exterior, but every gosh darn nut and bolt on the undercarriage has to be broken off, ground off, or chiseled off...just terrible.
We have a 2017 Sentra. The trunk lid is bubbling ...
I live in the rust belt and have owned all kinds of American and foreign cars. In my observations, Nissan by far and away rusts the easiest. The Nissan in my signature is rust free on the exterior, but every gosh darn nut and bolt on the undercarriage has to be broken off, ground off, or chiseled off...just terrible.
We have a 2017 Sentra. The trunk lid is bubbling ...
JTK
$100 Site Donor 2025
Originally Posted by Miller88
We have a 2017 Sentra. The trunk lid is bubbling ...
In regards to the 2017, if the rust is around the chrome piece, have a dealer look at it. I had this repaired on our 2016 Quest at 50k miles last year. Nissan basically paid for the repair.
We have a 2017 Sentra. The trunk lid is bubbling ...
In regards to the 2017, if the rust is around the chrome piece, have a dealer look at it. I had this repaired on our 2016 Quest at 50k miles last year. Nissan basically paid for the repair.
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2018
- Messages
- 127
I've seen beat-up cars that were in worse shape than non-beat up cars, too.
What's the point? I know what point you were shooting for, but man... Talk about apples to donkeys.
I will say that overall, in NE PA, I would bet the average 1998 Sienna has less rust issues than the average GMT800 or even GMT900 truck or SUV. Around here, the GMT800 is known specifically for bad rust issues - frame, body, axle, exhaust, brake lines, you name it. But, hey, you can probably find a rust-free and a rusty in just about any area to try to prove a point.
What's the point? I know what point you were shooting for, but man... Talk about apples to donkeys.
I will say that overall, in NE PA, I would bet the average 1998 Sienna has less rust issues than the average GMT800 or even GMT900 truck or SUV. Around here, the GMT800 is known specifically for bad rust issues - frame, body, axle, exhaust, brake lines, you name it. But, hey, you can probably find a rust-free and a rusty in just about any area to try to prove a point.
I'm not trying to prove anything. Not trying to make any point. I posted observations from two recent brake jobs with rotors removed. People can draw their own conclusions.
What they have in common:
Both resided on the same street since new.
Both use the same hilly heavily salted roads.
Both had pad changes but still have original factory rotors.
What they don't:
Age. The Sienna is 6 years newer. 2012 vs 2006.
Manufacturer.
What they have in common:
Both resided on the same street since new.
Both use the same hilly heavily salted roads.
Both had pad changes but still have original factory rotors.
What they don't:
Age. The Sienna is 6 years newer. 2012 vs 2006.
Manufacturer.
Originally Posted by LeakySeals
I'm not trying to prove anything. Not trying to make any point. I posted observations from two recent brake jobs with rotors removed. People can draw their own conclusions.
What they have in common:
Both resided on the same street since new.
Both use the same hilly heavily salted roads.
Both had pad changes but still have original factory rotors.
What they don't:
Age. The Sienna is 6 years newer. 2012 vs 2006.
Manufacturer.
What they have in common has literally nothing to do with things like ground clearance, aerodynamic design that may help mitigate water away from the brakes, etc.
There are way too many variables involved to conclude anything.
I'm not trying to prove anything. Not trying to make any point. I posted observations from two recent brake jobs with rotors removed. People can draw their own conclusions.
What they have in common:
Both resided on the same street since new.
Both use the same hilly heavily salted roads.
Both had pad changes but still have original factory rotors.
What they don't:
Age. The Sienna is 6 years newer. 2012 vs 2006.
Manufacturer.
What they have in common has literally nothing to do with things like ground clearance, aerodynamic design that may help mitigate water away from the brakes, etc.
There are way too many variables involved to conclude anything.
GON
$150 Site Donor 2025
I much prefer a picture of the brake and fuel pipes, and the connection of the lines at the fuel filter. I am quite confident a entirely different story will be told.
As a lifelong GM buyer since my 1973 El Camino- I gave up GM vehicles after the brake pipes failed in a parking lot while my Wife was driving, from corrossion on my Wife's 2000 Oldsmobile Bravada with 60k miles. Also had the brake pipes and transmission lines fail on my 1991 Silverado 2400 in 1993. My Son's Blazer had fuel lines and brake lines fail.
What was most disturbing- was GM sells most of its products to working class people in the North. Not a lot of GM in sunny California. GM uses the cheapest steel for it brake pipes, while many German and Japanese manufacturers use a copper nickel blend.
Even worse on the Blazer/ Bravada/ Jimmy line, the fuel and brake pipes are are located in a position where salt can easily get in to rest on top of the pipe and lines, but can't easily get out. The salt lives on top of the pipe and lines. GM made the Blazer with the same extremely careless design since the 1980s, and in 2000 they never adjusted the location and/or the material to prevent extreme premature failure.
GM could care less about its customers and the value it provides. GM announced major layoffs in North America today, I bet the vast majority are from the uSA and Canada, and almost none from Mexico.
As a lifelong GM buyer since my 1973 El Camino- I gave up GM vehicles after the brake pipes failed in a parking lot while my Wife was driving, from corrossion on my Wife's 2000 Oldsmobile Bravada with 60k miles. Also had the brake pipes and transmission lines fail on my 1991 Silverado 2400 in 1993. My Son's Blazer had fuel lines and brake lines fail.
What was most disturbing- was GM sells most of its products to working class people in the North. Not a lot of GM in sunny California. GM uses the cheapest steel for it brake pipes, while many German and Japanese manufacturers use a copper nickel blend.
Even worse on the Blazer/ Bravada/ Jimmy line, the fuel and brake pipes are are located in a position where salt can easily get in to rest on top of the pipe and lines, but can't easily get out. The salt lives on top of the pipe and lines. GM made the Blazer with the same extremely careless design since the 1980s, and in 2000 they never adjusted the location and/or the material to prevent extreme premature failure.
GM could care less about its customers and the value it provides. GM announced major layoffs in North America today, I bet the vast majority are from the uSA and Canada, and almost none from Mexico.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by LeakySeals
I'm not trying to prove anything. Not trying to make any point. I posted observations from two recent brake jobs with rotors removed. People can draw their own conclusions.
What they have in common:
Both resided on the same street since new.
Both use the same hilly heavily salted roads.
Both had pad changes but still have original factory rotors.
What they don't:
Age. The Sienna is 6 years newer. 2012 vs 2006.
Manufacturer.
Unless they drove nose to tail everywhere, every single day, they didn't see the same conditions. So ultimately no valid conclusion can be drawn.
I'm not trying to prove anything. Not trying to make any point. I posted observations from two recent brake jobs with rotors removed. People can draw their own conclusions.
What they have in common:
Both resided on the same street since new.
Both use the same hilly heavily salted roads.
Both had pad changes but still have original factory rotors.
What they don't:
Age. The Sienna is 6 years newer. 2012 vs 2006.
Manufacturer.
Unless they drove nose to tail everywhere, every single day, they didn't see the same conditions. So ultimately no valid conclusion can be drawn.
GON
$150 Site Donor 2025
Here is a picture of a my Wife's 60,000 mile Olds Bravada, garage kept, rear brake lines. Note the lines in the picture were the least corroded of all the brake pipe, but the only ones I could take a picture of while installed. When the brake pipe failed above the fuel pump, I replaced all the brake pipe with copper-nickel pipe, I think under $100 my cost. GM probablly could use copper nickel instead of cheap steel for under $10 per car... but they chose not to.
Originally Posted by GON
Here is a picture of a my Wife's 60,000 mile Olds Bravada, garage kept, rear brake lines. Note the lines in the picture were the least corroded of all the brake pipe, but the only ones I could take a picture of while installed. When the brake pipe failed above the fuel pump, I replaced all the brake pipe with copper-nickel pipe, I think under $100 my cost. GM probablly could use copper nickel instead of cheap steel for under $10 per car... but they chose not to.
Wow. The Sienna, the Escalade, not even the rot box Maxima is that bad. Nowhere close. Looks like it was submerged in salt water. Or never washed. Or a garage with moisture problems. Because its everything evenly.
Here is a picture of a my Wife's 60,000 mile Olds Bravada, garage kept, rear brake lines. Note the lines in the picture were the least corroded of all the brake pipe, but the only ones I could take a picture of while installed. When the brake pipe failed above the fuel pump, I replaced all the brake pipe with copper-nickel pipe, I think under $100 my cost. GM probablly could use copper nickel instead of cheap steel for under $10 per car... but they chose not to.
Wow. The Sienna, the Escalade, not even the rot box Maxima is that bad. Nowhere close. Looks like it was submerged in salt water. Or never washed. Or a garage with moisture problems. Because its everything evenly.
GON
$150 Site Donor 2025
Originally Posted by LeakySeals
Originally Posted by GON
Here is a picture of a my Wife's 60,000 mile Olds Bravada, garage kept, rear brake lines. Note the lines in the picture were the least corroded of all the brake pipe, but the only ones I could take a picture of while installed. When the brake pipe failed above the fuel pump, I replaced all the brake pipe with copper-nickel pipe, I think under $100 my cost. GM probablly could use copper nickel instead of cheap steel for under $10 per car... but they chose not to.
Wow. The Sienna, the Escalade, not even the rot box Maxima is that bad. Nowhere close. Looks like it was submerged in salt water. Or never washed. Or a garage with moisture problems. Because its everything evenly.
Nope, just very, very poor quality steel brake pipe used by GM. My Wife does not drive when roads are bad. The Bravada looked new when these pictures were taken.
Garage kept, always washed with undercarriage wash. There is a reason the Germans went to copper nickel brake pipe- and there is a simple reason GM did not. GM cares not a hoot about its customers, it believes they will buy GM to be loyal to the USA- and they exploit that.
Originally Posted by GON
Here is a picture of a my Wife's 60,000 mile Olds Bravada, garage kept, rear brake lines. Note the lines in the picture were the least corroded of all the brake pipe, but the only ones I could take a picture of while installed. When the brake pipe failed above the fuel pump, I replaced all the brake pipe with copper-nickel pipe, I think under $100 my cost. GM probablly could use copper nickel instead of cheap steel for under $10 per car... but they chose not to.
Wow. The Sienna, the Escalade, not even the rot box Maxima is that bad. Nowhere close. Looks like it was submerged in salt water. Or never washed. Or a garage with moisture problems. Because its everything evenly.
Nope, just very, very poor quality steel brake pipe used by GM. My Wife does not drive when roads are bad. The Bravada looked new when these pictures were taken.
Garage kept, always washed with undercarriage wash. There is a reason the Germans went to copper nickel brake pipe- and there is a simple reason GM did not. GM cares not a hoot about its customers, it believes they will buy GM to be loyal to the USA- and they exploit that.
Originally Posted by GON
Originally Posted by LeakySeals
Originally Posted by GON
Here is a picture of a my Wife's 60,000 mile Olds Bravada, garage kept, rear brake lines. Note the lines in the picture were the least corroded of all the brake pipe, but the only ones I could take a picture of while installed. When the brake pipe failed above the fuel pump, I replaced all the brake pipe with copper-nickel pipe, I think under $100 my cost. GM probablly could use copper nickel instead of cheap steel for under $10 per car... but they chose not to.
Wow. The Sienna, the Escalade, not even the rot box Maxima is that bad. Nowhere close. Looks like it was submerged in salt water. Or never washed. Or a garage with moisture problems. Because its everything evenly.
Nope, just very, very poor quality steel brake pipe used by GM. My Wife does not drive when roads are bad. The Bravada looked new when these pictures were taken.
Garage kept, always washed with undercarriage wash. There is a reason the Germans went to copper nickel brake pipe- and there is a simple reason GM did not. GM cares not a hoot about its customers, it believes they will buy GM to be loyal to the USA- and they exploit that.
I see more than brake pipe rot. Every metal of every type on that axle is rotted. You only mention miles, what year is it?
Originally Posted by LeakySeals
Originally Posted by GON
Here is a picture of a my Wife's 60,000 mile Olds Bravada, garage kept, rear brake lines. Note the lines in the picture were the least corroded of all the brake pipe, but the only ones I could take a picture of while installed. When the brake pipe failed above the fuel pump, I replaced all the brake pipe with copper-nickel pipe, I think under $100 my cost. GM probablly could use copper nickel instead of cheap steel for under $10 per car... but they chose not to.
Wow. The Sienna, the Escalade, not even the rot box Maxima is that bad. Nowhere close. Looks like it was submerged in salt water. Or never washed. Or a garage with moisture problems. Because its everything evenly.
Nope, just very, very poor quality steel brake pipe used by GM. My Wife does not drive when roads are bad. The Bravada looked new when these pictures were taken.
Garage kept, always washed with undercarriage wash. There is a reason the Germans went to copper nickel brake pipe- and there is a simple reason GM did not. GM cares not a hoot about its customers, it believes they will buy GM to be loyal to the USA- and they exploit that.
I see more than brake pipe rot. Every metal of every type on that axle is rotted. You only mention miles, what year is it?
GON
$150 Site Donor 2025
Originally Posted by LeakySeals
Originally Posted by GON
Originally Posted by LeakySeals
Originally Posted by GON
Here is a picture of a my Wife's 60,000 mile Olds Bravada, garage kept, rear brake lines. Note the lines in the picture were the least corroded of all the brake pipe, but the only ones I could take a picture of while installed. When the brake pipe failed above the fuel pump, I replaced all the brake pipe with copper-nickel pipe, I think under $100 my cost. GM probablly could use copper nickel instead of cheap steel for under $10 per car... but they chose not to.
Wow. The Sienna, the Escalade, not even the rot box Maxima is that bad. Nowhere close. Looks like it was submerged in salt water. Or never washed. Or a garage with moisture problems. Because its everything evenly.
Nope, just very, very poor quality steel brake pipe used by GM. My Wife does not drive when roads are bad. The Bravada looked new when these pictures were taken.
Garage kept, always washed with undercarriage wash. There is a reason the Germans went to copper nickel brake pipe- and there is a simple reason GM did not. GM cares not a hoot about its customers, it believes they will buy GM to be loyal to the USA- and they exploit that.
I see more than brake pipe rot. Every metal of every type on that axle is rotted. You only mention miles, what year is it?
It was a 2000 Bravada, failed brake pipes at 60,000k. Like issues on many GM vehicles, somehow very little attention. A class action lawsuit for this was lost by the Plaintiffs.
I don't care about axle rust, etc. I don't like the axle, body rusting, but generally does not impact safety. I do care about pre-mature brake pipe failing because of cheap material, when the manufacturer knows this, and there is a preventative action that can be taken for about $10 per vehicle during the manufacturing process (copper nickel pipe). Somehow the Germans vehicle manufactures care, they went to copper nickle 25+ years ago, GM could care less. You buy a Chevy for the bow-tie, not the quality design and materials.
This from a loyal GM owner and new GM vehicle buyer for thres decades. The cheap stell brake pipe GM used was the reason I will not consider buying a new GM.
Originally Posted by GON
Originally Posted by LeakySeals
Originally Posted by GON
Here is a picture of a my Wife's 60,000 mile Olds Bravada, garage kept, rear brake lines. Note the lines in the picture were the least corroded of all the brake pipe, but the only ones I could take a picture of while installed. When the brake pipe failed above the fuel pump, I replaced all the brake pipe with copper-nickel pipe, I think under $100 my cost. GM probablly could use copper nickel instead of cheap steel for under $10 per car... but they chose not to.
Wow. The Sienna, the Escalade, not even the rot box Maxima is that bad. Nowhere close. Looks like it was submerged in salt water. Or never washed. Or a garage with moisture problems. Because its everything evenly.
Nope, just very, very poor quality steel brake pipe used by GM. My Wife does not drive when roads are bad. The Bravada looked new when these pictures were taken.
Garage kept, always washed with undercarriage wash. There is a reason the Germans went to copper nickel brake pipe- and there is a simple reason GM did not. GM cares not a hoot about its customers, it believes they will buy GM to be loyal to the USA- and they exploit that.
I see more than brake pipe rot. Every metal of every type on that axle is rotted. You only mention miles, what year is it?
It was a 2000 Bravada, failed brake pipes at 60,000k. Like issues on many GM vehicles, somehow very little attention. A class action lawsuit for this was lost by the Plaintiffs.
I don't care about axle rust, etc. I don't like the axle, body rusting, but generally does not impact safety. I do care about pre-mature brake pipe failing because of cheap material, when the manufacturer knows this, and there is a preventative action that can be taken for about $10 per vehicle during the manufacturing process (copper nickel pipe). Somehow the Germans vehicle manufactures care, they went to copper nickle 25+ years ago, GM could care less. You buy a Chevy for the bow-tie, not the quality design and materials.
This from a loyal GM owner and new GM vehicle buyer for thres decades. The cheap stell brake pipe GM used was the reason I will not consider buying a new GM.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by GON
Originally Posted by LeakySeals
Originally Posted by GON
Here is a picture of a my Wife's 60,000 mile Olds Bravada, garage kept, rear brake lines. Note the lines in the picture were the least corroded of all the brake pipe, but the only ones I could take a picture of while installed. When the brake pipe failed above the fuel pump, I replaced all the brake pipe with copper-nickel pipe, I think under $100 my cost. GM probablly could use copper nickel instead of cheap steel for under $10 per car... but they chose not to.
Wow. The Sienna, the Escalade, not even the rot box Maxima is that bad. Nowhere close. Looks like it was submerged in salt water. Or never washed. Or a garage with moisture problems. Because its everything evenly.
Nope, just very, very poor quality steel brake pipe used by GM. My Wife does not drive when roads are bad. The Bravada looked new when these pictures were taken.
Garage kept, always washed with undercarriage wash. There is a reason the Germans went to copper nickel brake pipe- and there is a simple reason GM did not. GM cares not a hoot about its customers, it believes they will buy GM to be loyal to the USA- and they exploit that.
I've never heard them called "pipes" before...I've always called them brake lines...
Originally Posted by LeakySeals
Originally Posted by GON
Here is a picture of a my Wife's 60,000 mile Olds Bravada, garage kept, rear brake lines. Note the lines in the picture were the least corroded of all the brake pipe, but the only ones I could take a picture of while installed. When the brake pipe failed above the fuel pump, I replaced all the brake pipe with copper-nickel pipe, I think under $100 my cost. GM probablly could use copper nickel instead of cheap steel for under $10 per car... but they chose not to.
Wow. The Sienna, the Escalade, not even the rot box Maxima is that bad. Nowhere close. Looks like it was submerged in salt water. Or never washed. Or a garage with moisture problems. Because its everything evenly.
Nope, just very, very poor quality steel brake pipe used by GM. My Wife does not drive when roads are bad. The Bravada looked new when these pictures were taken.
Garage kept, always washed with undercarriage wash. There is a reason the Germans went to copper nickel brake pipe- and there is a simple reason GM did not. GM cares not a hoot about its customers, it believes they will buy GM to be loyal to the USA- and they exploit that.
I've never heard them called "pipes" before...I've always called them brake lines...
Originally Posted by JTK
Originally Posted by Miller88
We have a 2017 Sentra. The trunk lid is bubbling ...
In regards to the 2017, if the rust is around the chrome piece, have a dealer look at it. I had this repaired on our 2016 Quest at 50k miles last year. Nissan basically paid for the repair.
That's exactly where it is rusting.
It's just a lease, and it gets turned in 14 months from now.
Originally Posted by Miller88
We have a 2017 Sentra. The trunk lid is bubbling ...
In regards to the 2017, if the rust is around the chrome piece, have a dealer look at it. I had this repaired on our 2016 Quest at 50k miles last year. Nissan basically paid for the repair.
That's exactly where it is rusting.
It's just a lease, and it gets turned in 14 months from now.
- Status
