Stephen said:
Quite the contrary. The FWD's are unibodies which actually is a high
strength steel safety cage. All parts are made from galvanized metal
since rust weakens the metal and decreases the crash resistance. A car
with unibody construction that corrodes is an unsafe car. That was
unacceptable to Volvo.
The steel was galvanized. One-third of the FWD's body structure was made
of high strength steel (HSS). The HSS portions receive two different
zinc coating processes: the conventional electro-galvanized steel and
also a special hot dip process. In addition, areas prone to damage of
the galvanized layer such as wheel wells and door sills received a
durable plastic liner to prevent damage to the galvanizing. My 1995 850
has 153,000 miles and is definitely at least a 20-year car. The only
Volvo that I have had that showed rust was a 1971 1800E, the sports car.
On the flip side, I had a 1990 AWD Subaru Legacy that had the tail gate
rust out. The entire tail gate had to be replaced. Also, it had
wicked-bad torque steer. It wasn't long before it was replaced by a FWD
Volvo. The Volvo FWD models were specially designed not only for rust
prevention but also to minimize torque steer.
Ok looking back thats the second time you have corrected me on that.
You maybe right, I didn't register your reply the first time around and
have been repeating the mistake. I am of course only taking about hot
dip galvanising (or powder coat process), not electroplate Zinc which
helps but is no substitute in a wet climate beyond 12 years or so.
I could have sworn I had seen alot of older 850s with rust, maybe it was
just the wheels, faded paintwork, and general broken bits. The RWD
Volvos are in a different league to the FWD ones on reliability and
lifetime, but not economy/styling or handling (debatable).
HSS is of course more sensitive to rusting than the 'heavy duty steel'
used in the 940, hence hot dip galvanisation was essential on the 850
rather than a selling feature. Of course the marketing people will try
and convince otherwise.
Bascially we know from Volvo's add campaigns and general financial
problems in the 80s/90s that lifetime and reliability does not sell at
the price that it costs. I am fairly convinced that Volvo tried to
reduce cost deliberately at the expense of reliability in the FWD cars.
As a business strategy it worked, and fortunately leaving all these
very valuable old cars for only those in the know.
