Re: [FWDLK] 58 Mopar rust problem?

["David Grove Grove Automotive" <groveautomotive@xxxxxx>]

Hello all.  Perhaps the reason the front 8 or 10 inches of the fenders were
not undercoated is due to a "shield" of sorts being there?  I noticed this
on my 59 (Plymouth).  While replacing the fenders, I noticed that the
shield was bolted in place, and at the top of the shield was a strip of
rubber, evidently to "seal" this shield to the top inside of the fender,
maybe to protect the headlamp bucket area from spraying salt, mud, rocks
etc?  Don't know for sure, but I do know that the rubber "seal" had shrunk
in size, and left a good 1/2" gap or so at the top, thus allowing
*whatever* to be flung in there off the rotating front tires.  This neat
little "shield" also prevented one from washing anything out of there with
a hose.  Perhaps it also prevented any undercoating from being applied to
the front part of the fenders?   Don't know, but I do know that my new
fenders did not recieve the shield - just plenty of undercoating.
Regards,
DaveG.

----------
> From: Ron Waters <Ronbo97@xxxxxxxx>
> To: L-FORWARDLOOK@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [FWDLK] 58 Mopar rust problem?
> Date: Sunday, January 30, 2000 8:38 PM
>
> Most of our cars rusted from the inside out.  Any water (dirt, sand,
SALT,
> etc) that got into the rockers ate its way out.  Since the trunk lids
were
> not sealed very well, water, etc. got in and settled in the lowest parts
of
> the trunks and ate its way out.  Lapped sheet metal, which is plentiful
on
> our cars is a breeding ground for rust.  My experience from looking at
rust
> free original fenders is that they were not undercoated in the last 8-10
> inches (the eyebrow area).  The rest of the inner fender did have some
> undercoating in the form of a tough coating that even 40 years later is
> tough to remove.  Chrysler could have eliminated the nightmare of
headlites
> falling out of fenders if they had taken the time to fully undercoat the
> inner parts of the fenders.
>
> Ron