Rustproof and undercoat

Ever since companies started using better coatings and adding warranties for long term corrosion damage you have not needed after market coatings. There is a danger in heavy coatings that might actually trap water in voids against the metal. With what you said though, I don't see any concerns over an oil spray, or even something like a "paint" coating like penetrol being used.

A lot of the warranties offered by the aftermarket included language about giving you your money back. Those are a racket. Charge you for a spray and then if they didn't screw up your protection they look good. If it goes bad, they give you your money back. That's like free money

 

I was told that they cannot undercoat because of a type of seal they put on the underside of the car between metal joints. The undercoat just drips off of that seal.

 

One look under the Prius will show that undercoating would be a disaster. Why? The bottom of the prius is enclosed with a bunch of panels held in place with bolts and plastic fasteners. Undercoating would cover these fasteners up and make it much more difficult to remove the panels in order to access something that needs to be repaired.

Also, as others have already said, the vehicles of the last decade or so have much better body materials and much better anticorrosion processes. Undercoating is no longer needed, and can actually cause corrosion.

Oil coatings are not necessary either, and can, like undercoating, cause problems. For example, this oil can seep into wiring harnesses and degrade the insulation over individual wires

Jim

 

I will confirm this. I bought a can of spray on rubberized undercoat (mainly for the exposed (untreated but painted) metal in the wheel wells and though it worked fine on those areas, where it got on the stuff (undercoat) that was already there, it never "dried" and essentially "dripped off".

Peter

 

Try polyurea spray to protect your vehicle from rust,scratches and chemical corrosion.I have used high pressure spray on .e.g ultimate linings,xtremeliners etc.

 

Total waste of time and money, in my opinion.

 

just got my baby last night and as usual the salesman tried to sell me undercoating and rust proofing. he even went so far as to say all mfg's rust proofing is void as soon as its hit by salt, thus requiring after market rust proofing. did not pass the smelll test but wanted to verify with you all. In the past I have had great success with z-bart on other vehicles but like some stated above, in this case it sure looks like an added mess if I have it applied. any further thoughts from soon to be frigid chicago?

 

It isn't necessary unless you have too much money in your pocket. Then getting the treatment helps lighten your wallet.

The above example is classic salesman bs. HE should be sprayed with the undercoating.

 

Such egregious lies by sales people really ought to be illegal. It is in fact; conning is illegal, but we tolerate it from salespeople all the time.

 

Reminds me of the movie Fargo.

The sales manager is closing a deal and says to the customers: "We added the super-duper under-coatin'". The customer says: "We didn't want no under-coatin". Sales manager: "But this is the best under-coatin' there is". Customer: "We didn't ask for nor under-coatin and we ain't payin' fer it". Sales Manager: "You don't understand, this is the best under-coatin' there is, trust me, you want this under-coatin'". Customer: "We didn't ask fer no under-coatin', we don't want no under-coatin', and we ain't gonna pay fer no under-coatin'". (Try to imagine this conversation in your best North Dakota accent).

This was all paraphrased but you get the idea.

 

The OP's sales-droid was on the up-and-up; yours unfortunately was full of, uh, salt (but your sense of smell works just fine). In reality, there have been numerous recalls by pretty much every manufacturer to address any number of issues--usually brakes and the such, not undercarriage rust or corrosion--whereby they limit it to certain 'salt' states. They typically list a bunch of states in which the car was sold or is currently registered, saying the recall applies there but sometimes not in a state a few miles away. From a consumer's perspective, this is patently stupid; as an example, I've seen MD listed as a state on the recall list, while VA is not, as though the sun shines bright and there is no snow the instant you cross the Potomac. (Here Chrysler Minivans In Salt Belt States Recalled is an example for an airbag sensor issue where the line was drawn between MD and VA; it is also perhaps an example where undercoating would compound the problem, being an airbag sensor issue). Also, such a recall could apply to a five-year-old car, bought and driven for three years in PA, then sold to someone who moves to Phoenix, and never gets the recall notice... Obviously, they make the distinction for financial reasonns beneficial to them.

The above is a little different than the question you ask, but it speaks to the fact that the manufacturers generally stand behind the ability of their vehicles to withstand the rigors of doing their stated purpose--e.g., being driven. Even, heaven forfend, in (gasp) winter. As another poster suggested, it is your salestron, not the car, that should be sprayed with an oily, toxic, unnecessary and potentially damaging material.

btw the worst possible thing you could do would be to wait through a winter, or any extended period of driving, and then undercoat it. That would trap any potentially corrosive materials permanently against the undercarriage. If you're concerned about this issue, one thing you can do that might be worth the while is to take it through a carwash periodically during winter, and get the chassis bath--that would at least rinse the salt off.
Cheers,
~T

 

tks all, good to hear its not needed. I guess since i beat him/them down so bad on the price he was trying to get some back with the undercoating and extended warranty lines.
now the fun begins in adding stuff like floor mats, cargo mats and stuff.
tks all.