Topic: Undercoat Protection is it a waste of money?

[Cortina]

Undercoat Protection is it a waste of money?

I had my car undercoated. Right now I'm buying another car for a friend of mind. who says undercoating is a scam and waste of money. So made me think. Perhaps I have wasted my money. But I don't think so.

[Dante]

I  don't think so, but next time I'll look for a third-party shop instead of the dealer.

[xviper]

It depends on where you live and how much salt they put on the roads.  In Ontario, I suspect they use more salt than the international fish market, so perhaps undercoating is worth it.  Like paint protection, undercoating is a low cost, HIGH profit margin process for the dealer or shop that puts it on.
Also, consider that most modern day vehicles are rustproofed extremely well right from the factory.  I have never undercoated any car I've bought in the past 20 years and none have developed underbody rust.  For those of us on the prairies, undercoating is NOT worth it if you are getting for extra rust protection.
However, undercoating serves another purpose and that is to add a bit more insulation from road noise.  If that's what you're after, then it's worth it.  In general, it is not.

[toolatecrew]

Like anything there are no 100% absolute.

Undercoating is only useful if the current protection on the car is ineffective. I suppose if you had a 10-15 year old car where the origional undercoating was not great or worn out it could help but IMO any modern car that doesn't have good enough factory rust protection to last the lifetime of the vehicle? You should not buy that vehicle.

[initial_D]

Spray enuff of it under on, act as noise insulation as well.

[Cortina]

Oh I feel I've wasted 500 bucks. Oh well. I've spent the money now its too late. I thought it was very good idea at the time. Honda never sold the Undercoat Protection  to me. I asked for Undercoat Protection to be done. which they were happy to do.

[Snowman]

I look under my Subaru’s and see a thick layer of factory applied rust prevention coating. I think spot treatment of suspension, cables and lines might be a good idea if you are planning to keep the vehicle more than 5 years but other than that is a waste of money. Besides you are trusting the skill and ability of some loser making minimum wage to apply the coating for you.

[Arctic_White]

It depends on where you live and how much salt they put on the roads.  In Ontario, I suspect they use more salt than the international fish market, so perhaps undercoating is worth it.  Like paint protection, undercoating is a low cost, HIGH profit margin process for the dealer or shop that puts it on.
Also, consider that most modern day vehicles are rustproofed extremely well right from the factory.  I have never undercoated any car I've bought in the past 20 years and none have developed underbody rust.  For those of us on the prairies, undercoating is NOT worth it if you are getting for extra rust protection.
However, undercoating serves another purpose and that is to add a bit more insulation from road noise.  If that's what you're after, then it's worth it.  In general, it is not.

Very good point.  I got the undercoating on the Civic and it does improve road noise a tad bit.  I paid $220-something (plus taxes) for it.  To me, it was certainly worth the cost.

Perhaps it will increase the re-sale value a few years down the road?

[xviper]

Perhaps it will increase the re-sale value a few years down the road?

As much as we would all hope that this is the case, the harsh reality is that it likely will not affect resale years down the road.  Most people won't even look or ask about such a thing nor will they even consider it to add to the value of the vehicle.  Your vehicle will take a harder "hit" if the underbody is in poor shape, yet if it's in great shape, this will only keep it in the running and not necessary add resale value.  Therefore, if the undercoating has otherwise helped to preserve your vehicle, it will be more sellable but this doesn't mean it will be worth any more than another similar vehicle that is in the same condition and didn't have the process done.  On the other hand, it won't be determined if the undercoating actually contributed to that condition or if the car would have done quite well without it.

[dr_spock]

I don't think it would hurt to have an extra layer of protection.   I didn't get my car undercoated and I noticed now there is rust in spots where the factory coating had been scraped or knocked off by pot holes, speed bumps, rocks, etc.  It also depends on how long you plan to own your car.  Probably not worth it if you're leasing and returning it in 4 years or less.  

[ArticSteve]

Undercoat Protection is it a waste of money?

All depends on the product.  All the dripless/waxoil type treatments are actually detrimental to the vehicle.  They all dry out and when that happens moisture/salt brine penetrates the stuff and then festers between the fittings and the frame parts and the gook.

The profit margin is not high, it's extreme high.  Maximum product and labour never exceeds $50. and that is for door panels, trunk, etc. too.

The only stuff to use is Krown and if you can't find a Krown dealer, it's predecessor, Rust Check is second best.

Search Krown here, but essentially one can get away with every other year.  You can buy it in large pales from any Krown dealer and do it yourself if you dare.  

[Arctic_White]

Perhaps it will increase the re-sale value a few years down the road?

As much as we would all hope that this is the case, the harsh reality is that it likely will not affect resale years down the road.  Most people won't even look or ask about such a thing nor will they even consider it to add to the value of the vehicle.  Your vehicle will take a harder "hit" if the underbody is in poor shape, yet if it's in great shape, this will only keep it in the running and not necessary add resale value.  Therefore, if the undercoating has otherwise helped to preserve your vehicle, it will be more sellable but this doesn't mean it will be worth any more than another similar vehicle that is in the same condition and didn't have the process done.  On the other hand, it won't be determined if the undercoating actually contributed to that condition or if the car would have done quite well without it.

I see.  Thanks for the information.   

[mar1990]

... but IMO any modern car that doesn't have good enough factory rust protection to last the lifetime of the vehicle? You should not buy that vehicle.

You must only keep cars for 4 years.
How are going to know that when you buy it (new or nearly new)!

Manufacturers only guarantee perforation, which means a hole through and through.  That would only cover a bad manufacturing defect. 

My 03 corolla has rust on it.  One spot was under the trunk lid where it contacts the rubber seal, 3 of my door sills (rocks would get trapped between the plastic door sill and the painted metal), and a rust bubble on the front hood.  Toyota covered the door sill rust - twice (the second time, they put a clear tape that extends past the plastic sill), and the trunk one as well.  It was no dice on the rust bubble, even though the paint is not broken thus not caused by a stone chip. 

There's another poster that has a problem with their Mazda.  Until a car is built without iron, I doubt you'll get away from the rust issue.
Especially is you live in a salt belt.

[xviper]

Some people are confusing "undercoating" with "rust proofing".  These are 2 different things.  Undercoating (which is the topic of this thread) is that black tarry spray they put on all the underbody surfaces.  Rustproofing is a sort of waxy spray they blow into all spaces of double body panels.  In some cases, they even drill holes (where there are none) to get this goo in.
Undercoating will NOT do anything for rust forming under the trunk lid or the top portion of door sills or under the hood.

[initial_D]

Some people are confusing "undercoating" with "rust proofing".  These are 2 different things.  Undercoating (which is the topic of this thread) is that black tarry spray they put on all the underbody surfaces.  Rustproofing is a sort of waxy spray they blow into all spaces of double body panels.  In some cases, they even drill holes (where there are none) to get this goo in.
Undercoating will NOT do anything for rust forming under the trunk lid or the top portion of door sills or under the hood.

Did you get that from a car salesman or finance manger? 

[mar1990]

Undercoating will NOT do anything for rust forming under the trunk lid or the top portion of door sills or under the hood.

I hope you weren't inferring my post as expecting undercoating to have prevented these issues.  I was just making a comment about TLC's comment about expecting cars to have good enough factory rust proofing.

[ArticSteve]

Undercoating (which is the topic of this thread) is that black tarry spray they put on all the underbody surfaces

That stuff is pretty well history now.  Even Ziebart, who were famous for their heavy black guck now use a light coloured dripless waxy stuff.

http://www.ziebartbrampton.com/protection.htm#rust

I know a few of the GM dealers in my locale use a black paint like substance (very thin'just like paint) on the underside to make it look effective.    But all dealers make their own independent arrangements and the companies have no say in what they use. AND in the long haul, all ineffective.

[xviper]

Did you get that from a car salesman or finance manger? 

Haha!  Good one!   

Undercoating will NOT do anything for rust forming under the trunk lid or the top portion of door sills or under the hood.

I hope you weren't inferring my post as expecting undercoating to have prevented these issues.  I was just making a comment about TLC's comment about expecting cars to have good enough factory rust proofing.

I was blind but now I see.   

[toolatecrew]

... but IMO any modern car that doesn't have good enough factory rust protection to last the lifetime of the vehicle? You should not buy that vehicle.

You must only keep cars for 4 years.
How are going to know that when you buy it (new or nearly new)!

Manufacturers only guarantee perforation, which means a hole through and through.  That would only cover a bad manufacturing defect. 

My 03 corolla has rust on it.  One spot was under the trunk lid where it contacts the rubber seal, 3 of my door sills (rocks would get trapped between the plastic door sill and the painted metal), and a rust bubble on the front hood.  Toyota covered the door sill rust - twice (the second time, they put a clear tape that extends past the plastic sill), and the trunk one as well.  It was no dice on the rust bubble, even though the paint is not broken thus not caused by a stone chip. 

There's another poster that has a problem with their Mazda.  Until a car is built without iron, I doubt you'll get away from the rust issue.
Especially is you live in a salt belt.

I do live in the salt belt. Nova scotia uses a ton of the stuff. But if they don't make a car so the underbody won't rust out and be dangerous in 5 years there is something seriously wrong with today's modern technology.

[ToyotaBoy30]

My thoughts for rust proof from an engineers perspective: Toyota Camry Hybrid 2012

The vehicle is made of G90 or G60 galvanized sheet metal - or as the specifications read "fully galvanized metal"

-This means that 0.90 ounces of zinc coating per square foot of sheet metal.  Zinc is a rust inhibitor, only if it breaks down to the base metal does rust begin to form.

-Providing a petroleum based coating such as tar may add an additional layer of protection by preventing chips from breaking down the zinc layer but over time this may also break down.

In my opinion I think you can save the 800 bucks from the dealer by not rust proofing, if you live in canada and you like the added protection you can use alternatives that are less expensive such as Krown sprays or others, but you may need to apply on a yearly basis. (Apparently this has been tested by the Canadian Armed Forces and +80% effective.)

My thoughts for sound dampening with the use of underside coating from an engineers perspective: Toyota Camry Hybrid 2012

-Adding mass dampens vibrational transmission or air borne noise transmission. The mass of the heavier tar coating may provide some attenuation but minimal.

I doubt that the mass increase on coating is sufficient per squarefoot to absorb sound or reflect it to make a noticeable difference.  Keep in mind a reduction in 3dB is typically required for humans to notice.