Rust: Ford vs Volvo
 

Working on a customer's Ford Focus not too long ago.
Now, for reference, it was a 2008 model and had just passed 100,000 miles.

So, 13-14 years old.

I remember shaking my head noticing the strut towers whilst I was pulling the spark plugs out.....

https://64.media.tumblr.com/18ba8a75...d4ad223097.jpg

https://64.media.tumblr.com/67342a4d...c2a73cc1ac.jpg


And then, comparing same area with my first gen P80 car....(V70) which is now 22 years old and has done 250,000 miles and is 8 years older....

I can also say that my previous S40 T5 (sitting on same chassis as the above focus, and slighty older 2007 '57'-plate) had zero rust in those areas. These Fords are just not built to last at all.

https://64.media.tumblr.com/cd0eb2aa...51cc7e7368.jpg

Excellent pictures, very illustrative. It's a shame, because Ford have made some dynamically excellent cars in recent years, and theyre far from being cheap any more.

They don't exactly sit upon the same chassis. Some components are shared, or more likely modified onto the Volvo which minimises design costs, but the "platform" is an architectural concept thather than a of physical piece sheet metal.

Scalable platforms work in the same way, but take the dimensional relationships further so stuff can be made bigger or smaller and still be produced on the same line.

There will be certain dimensional crossovers. For example, door hinges, suspension pick up points, engine mounts, etc, will share the same relationship in 3D space. This means suspension components engines, etc, transmissions, can be shared between the designs and even built in the same production line with minimal disruption.

As such, Volvo are able to design their monocoque to drain better, to use superior quality steel, and to use whatever anticorrosion processes they fancy instead of being restricted to directly using Fords sheet metal with all its shortcomings. Thankfully Volvo retained sufficient freedom of action under Ford ownership to be able to do this, and weren't forced into the indignity of having their products plop off a Ford production line on alternatve days with the Focus or Mundano.

Indeed, considering how badly Ford mismanaged their ownership of the PAG companies Volvo did pretty will to retain some integrity with their product.

I’ve had Fords with rust advisories on their first MOT at three years old (and a Mazda 3 at four years old). Pretty shocking really and the reason I’d never buy another Ford. Built to last 5-7 years max.

Some Volvo's might have had Ford chassis components but they were all treated and painted in Volvo factories.

I did a post a few years ago that I was helping my wife's friend find a £2.5k diesel runaround. We looked at about 10 - including 2 S40 2.0D which were my recommendation. Both the S40's were in significantly better condition than the Golfs and Focus we looked at - one Golf (56 plate but this was 4-5 years ago) had even had the sills welded.

The only time that I've really regretted not working harder at school was a few months into ownership of a 2012 Ford Ranger - because I couldn't afford a Hilux of the same age. The Ranger (designed by Ford in Australia) is a really well designed and useful car - but appalling build quality and consequently poor reliability.

You're comparing two cars. Just two. and two completely different ones at that.

Not all Ford Focus will have corrosion there and likewise, some will have gone off to meet their maker because of that issue already so really, it's not quite as simple as that and lets be fair, Volvo haven't exactly excelled at fending off corrosion - see for instance, 850 wings, S60 / V70 strut towers, P80 rear seat mounts, jacking points and the like.

You can argue that yours is fine, but others... they aren't and the same applies to a Ford Focus. Some will be worse than others depending on age, usage and the care they've had over the years. Granted Ford aren't reknowned for their rust proofing, but they're not alone.

As far as the rust on the Focus strut towers goes, doesn't look any worse than that on my 08 V50 and to be honest, looks a damn sight better than the S40 I looked at in a breaker today where the outer section of the strut tower looked like a good poke would make it very light and airy.

Yes granted I am comparing two very different cars, but anytime I've had to work on any kind of Ford, they never look great from underneath.

Perhaps Volvos are better at concealing their rust, but from the ones I've owned, especially pre-ford era, they generally seem to hold up a lot better than most brands.

and you wonder why they earnt the name "dagenham dustbins" ,,,

That term goes back much further than I care to remember and refers to a time when Ford cars didn't have wheel arch liners, and all the water and salt and mud thrown up by the front tyres found their way into various nice little traps where rust would germinate and bloom, leading to new air intakes and added ventilation for the outer and inner wings.

I owned two true Dagenham dustbins.The second one, a Ford Consul 2.5 V6 estate, appeared to include an unsuccessful attempt at gull-wing doors inasmuch as the door skins had largely separated from the doorframes due to rust inside the bottoms of the doors. This was in a six year-old car.

Things have certainly improved since then, and there are still some pristine early third generation Mondeos around.

Very rational but next time you are out driving through a city - have a look out for any Volvo and any Ford of say an 04 to 55 plate. I haven't quote done that but I bet you will find the Volvo's will be better lasting.

My 55 plate 2006 looks nothing like the focus. ( 93k miles )
In fact it's totally rust free.

Probably the best and most reliable car i have ever had in 50 years of driving, which includes many much newer cars.
Purchased 4.5 years ago for what was a bit above the market rate but never looked back.

Well that's the kiss of death. !!!!!!!