Later Puma rust quicker?

ProjectPuma

Help Support ProjectPuma:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

CherryVimto

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 28, 2013
Messages
2,297
Location
Hampshire
There has been a few comments on here with regards to how quick the later Pumas seem to rust compared to the earlier ones.

My first Puma was a '98. I had it for 3 years before the rust got hold of it.

My second was a 2002 Thunder. I had that around a year until that was rust ridden.

Thirdly was a 2001. When I bought that I had someone look over it with me and confirmed the underside was sound, albeit a small rust patch in the passenger floor. Literally within a few months it had rotted out.

From my personal experience I think the later Pumas rust quicker than the earlier ones.

Discuss......
 
red said:
I personally think it's just luck of the draw.

I agree with this.
If a car gets used regularly through a few wet winters then it's going to be a lot more susceptible to the rust monster.
Paul
 
I agree with Tony. It sort of makes sense baring in mind that the presses were soft tooling. By the time they were using up the last of the 1.7s and knocking out the Thunders, there were reports that the dies for the shell were knackered and that they were basically having to hand finish them to get the panels to fit. It stands to reason that the tolerances were going to be pretty lose by that time so there's going to be more space between the pressings for water to sit and the body to rust.

Also, from personal experience, the rust on the floor pan of my 97 car is pretty solid even now with 104,000 miles. Many of those years it lived in Worthing by the sea. My neighbours 2000 model has lived inland, done marginally less miles and is pretty damn crusty underneath. In fact, some poking with a screwdriver would likely produce some fairly large holes. Most of the true horror images of rust that I've seen have been on Thunders. It's a shame as they are by far the nicest spec!

Obviously, it's not always going to follow the same pattern, as a late car that has been pampered, kept in a heated garage etc is going to be in good shape.

Just my 2 cents!
 
Just to add to this old thread, whenever I see a puma on the street I have a look at the rear arches. Yes, I am a bit sad. It may be just my imagination, but in 9/10 cases the drivers side always seems to be worse than the other (as is the case with my own puma) which I find a little odd and can't think why
 
Fanwheel said:
[post]356291[/post] ...and can't think why
the drivers side is subjected to more stone chips, grit, salt and dirt thrown up from other cars than the passenger side :grin:
 
The Arch Bishop said:
[post]356301[/post]
Frank said:
[post]356292[/post]
Fanwheel said:
[post]356291[/post] and can't think why
It's because every journey has a driver, but not always a passenger.
Ooooo..... deep! :lol:
Hmm, yes, that did read more like a fortune cookie than I intended. :) It just means that as people breathe out water vapour (about 1 litre every 3 hours or so) and because not all journeys are accompanied then there is a slight bias for more water vapour being around on the driver's side of the car.

Add that to the water vapour around in warm air, cool the whole lot and bingo, like dew on morning grass, you have condensate eager to leap into the acute internal angles of the rear arches, which Ford left totally unprotected when undersealing.

That slight vapour bias means that across a number of years there is a tendency for the rear driver's arch to get whacked first.
 
Frank said:
[post]356292[/post]
Fanwheel said:
[post]356291[/post] and can't think why
It's because every journey has a driver, but not always a passenger.

Unless its a Volvo/BMW/Audi/Range Rover company car and then its just got a complete twat sitting in the seat without a care for anyone else on the road.

On the age/rust thing.,.


I pulled a 97 apart last year with 64K on it and it was very rusty, just scrapped a 2000 with 69K on it and it was surprisingly solid. Only got scrapped because some Fiesta Zetec S loon bought a perfectly good car to wreck for the engine and I bought the remains for £50 to strip bits off.
 
I had a 51 plate 1.6 from new, rusted away within 5 years. In 2014 I had a 1.7 black X reg and there was severe rust and now I have a 51 plate thunder edition and its rust free. But it has been well cared for and will live in my heated garage over the winter and will only come out in spring/ summer when the weather is warm and on sunny days. :cool:
 
I also think it depends on where in the country you live.

My 1999 T lived all its life in and around the Kent coast so the inner sills and rear arches have rusted - been repaired and looked after by me since to hold off further rust;

but, my 1998 T plate Puma that I owned for a while (which SLEEMAN has now bought) lived all its life in and around Cobham, South London and the rear wheel arches and inner sills were perfect (after 17 years).

It does also depend on how well looked after the car was in its early years'. The first Puma I owned was in 2005 (a 1.7 in blue/grey). It was 3 years old and had been meticulously wax oiled from new. I kept up this regime until I sold the car in 2008 and we had moved to Kent by then.

There was never any rust on that car.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top