The later stuff 94 on the scuttle panels aways seem to rust badly?

Austin Vs Rover For Rust
#16
Posted 27 July 2013 - 09:22 AM
#17
Posted 27 July 2013 - 09:44 AM
My first mini was a 1 owner 1976 car. I bought it when it 11 years old and it fell to bits with rust............ Its just a Mini thing. This time round we bought one that has been
fully restored.
#18
Posted 27 July 2013 - 10:42 AM
Late 80's/early 90's don't tend to be anywhere near as bad as the Mpi's, but tend to be worse than earlier models in my experience. I have an 85 model and a 93 model. The body work is considerably worse on the 93 model despite, it being eight years newer. I've also looked over a few Mpi models over the years with view to buying, and been truly horrified by the level of corrosion on the, despite them being considerably newer than either of my minis.
#19
Posted 27 July 2013 - 10:52 AM
#20
Posted 27 July 2013 - 10:55 AM
If done properly the repairs often out live the originals, so it's not surprising to see earlier cars with less rot.
plus the early cars that were rotten were worthless and so were scrapped, whereas now a rusty shell goes for quite a bit more than scrap value, so rusty 90s cars live on :)
#21
Posted 27 July 2013 - 11:54 PM
I think I've got a better idea of what to take into consideration, thanks guys
#22
Posted 28 July 2013 - 03:31 AM
All utter nonsense.
Use your car and it won't decay.
Leave it standing and it will rust like an antique tractor at the rusty tractor museum of forgotten rust.
The myth of silver paint on Mayfairs is nonsence, the myth of Austin vs Rover is nonsence.
Cars that stand still decay, cars that go boogying about go on for ever.
Buy a Brand new Rolls Royce tomorrow, leave it standing in your garden for 30 years and then ask me why it's rusty...
What rust really likes is TIME STOOD STILL.
Keep it painted, keep it working and it will go on and on...
#23
Posted 28 July 2013 - 06:13 AM
Rover had to make cost savings to pay for all the design changes on those models and so sacrifices were made in rustproofing.
Without being unkind, is that an actual fact, or something someone has made up?
I would be surprised if this is the case, but would be interested to know.
#24
Posted 28 July 2013 - 09:03 PM
Rover Rover Rover Rover... the rust seen on even the last cars is incomparable with any other car of a similar vintage... but then I guess the mini isn't like any other car. Even so, it maybe wasn't the best idea to store bare bodyshells outside between painting!
#25
Posted 29 July 2013 - 06:25 AM
I remember going to an air show somewhere in the late 70s and seeing a brand new (One or two days old August 1st registration) Rover SD1... the sills on both sides were bubbling up with rust....
#26
Posted 29 July 2013 - 08:29 AM
I heard from a friend that it's the quality of the steel which is the culprit in later minis. Apparently they bought some steel from Fiat (I think), in exchange for moulds. However this steel is rumoured to have been acquired from China as part of another deal. This steel was of very dubious quality, hence why the later Rover Minis would rust badly, and in often 'strange' places (e.g the middle of a panel).
** DISCLAIMER ** I'm not passing this off as fact, just relaying a story I've been told
#27
Posted 29 July 2013 - 09:33 AM
Don't buy a car based on the year it was built. Buy it on its individual merits. Thoroughly check it out, and look after it and rust treat it properly.
#28
Posted 29 July 2013 - 10:53 AM
There probably is something in the windscreen scuttle rust issue - the Mpi's thicker screen will have have had an impact on how well the seal works.
Paint variations are likely to be down to regulations over solvent fumes and trying to reduce drying times to speed up production, the later cars also have more junk stuffed under their wings & MPI's lack the "multi purpose fan heater" for the nearside wheel arch.
#29
Posted 29 July 2013 - 12:01 PM
Also seems like the wider seal tend to hold water in the ridge below it, that could make a difference
#30
Posted 29 July 2013 - 12:10 PM
This sweeping generalisation does not stand up to close inspection of any kind. Whilst I agree that using cars is the way to go in terms of mechanical reliability, for corrosion I would love to know exactly how driving it stops a chemical reaction from occurring. Take my two cars as an example. My daily is a 78 MGB Gt which is used day in day out whatever the weather, my mini is an 82 and is not taken out in the rain and is SORN over the winter. It covered 600 miles last year. Which has deteriorated the most in the last three years? Obviously it is the MGB, its not bad but needs bits doing. The mini is exactly the same as it was three years ago. Both are garaged, both have been extensively treated with Bilthamber products. Drive a rolls Royce for thirty years, parked overnight in your garden and it will just as rusty if not more so.All utter nonsense.
Use your car and it won't decay.
Leave it standing and it will rust like an antique tractor at the rusty tractor museum of forgotten rust.
The myth of silver paint on Mayfairs is nonsence, the myth of Austin vs Rover is nonsence.
Cars that stand still decay, cars that go boogying about go on for ever.
Buy a Brand new Rolls Royce tomorrow, leave it standing in your garden for 30 years and then ask me why it's rusty...
What rust really likes is TIME STOOD STILL.
Keep it painted, keep it working and it will go on and on...
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users