Celica vs supra factory body prep

[Tomkat]

I started my love affair with these cars by owning a 83 Celica GT. Fun car, except for the body. I sold it in 91 and was looking to replace it with a GTS. I found that all the Celica's were suffering from alot of rust problems. When I started looking at Supra's I found the bodies were in much better shape overall.

With this said, does anyone know how the factory body prep differed on these cars.

Tom

[rabidchimp.com]

My guess...and its just a guess, is that they did not prep the cars differently. I think that you are finding more rusty Celicas, due to quantity produced, and the the fact that people tend to take care of more expensive cars a bit better.
-Aaron

[Greg G]

I agree with Aaron. Let me also add that perhaps the few Supras you have run into in better shape were because of some dealer added (aftermarket) protection. My car got some Ziebart treatment (not by my choice). Holes were drilled into door jambs and rocker crevices so they could spray some undercoating-type crap in there. Another one back then was Poly-Glycoat. I always figured them to be a cheesey means for dealers to extract extra dollars from a pennies-cheap process, but perhaps they did help in the long run.

Heres a photo of my drivers door VIN plate. I flipped the image sideways so its easier to read the plate, but point is, you can see the Ziebart plug capping the hole after they've sprayed it.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/1003/greg84mk2/Supra/38a.jpg

[Nukes25]

yeah, owning an 85 celica gt, an 84 supra, and an 85 supra, I'd say there was no real difference in the way it was prepped from factory, it's in the aftermarket rust protection added, or just overall care its been given over the years

[Dangerous Ken]

Having cars from both coasts, I'd say the cars from the east were sold the Zie Bart like Greg mentioned.
Two of the most fully loaded L types I have came from the east, where the dealer had no problem selling over $2K of 'dealer added' and 'toyota optional' items over the factory invoice.

The cars all rust in the rear quarters and fender edges regardless of origin.

Ken

[Tomkat]

Ok, but I do't think so. Today you hardly ever see a Celica from that era on the road. I am making this observation from 1991 when the cars were only 6-8 years old. We have never had any cars with rust inhibiter here and I looked at least 6 Celica's and a dozen Supras and they were consistently different. The Celica's had several rust prone areas and the Supras very little to none.

[SilverMk2]

About the only area where they are different is in the hatch. The bullet clip holes in the hatch for the emblems is a rust starter area the Supra doesn't have. However, the majority of it is how they were treated. I mean how many sub 50k miles Celicas are out there vs Supras? There are quite a few Supras, but I can't think of many Celicas. I know most of the Celicas I see at the yards out here are in the 250k+ mile range. I hardly see in Mk2s in the yard with that mileage.

[stevrock]

Well, celica's were cheaper, so of course more of them were bought.
Since they were cheaper the younger crowd could afford them, and do whatever they wished with them.

Like the drifters of today beating the crap out of the MKII, you had (insert fad here) guys beating the crap out of them then.
It's relly an issue of price and availablility to people that would beat the snot out of them.

[Andrew]

WOW Someone else has the Ziebart rust protection as well! I thought it was just me!

[Greg G]

Dont act so proud Andrew... basically just implies the person who originally bought your car was a chump. LOL

[SilverMk2]

Does ziebart = 3M rubberized undercoating? If so I bet that is a mess. Heck my silver car doesn't even have any undercoating in the wheel wells. Still sort of shiny silver :D

[Dangerous Ken]

There's were two or more viscosities of ziebart sold to north easterners who see rusted cars in as little as three years :rolleyes: .

One was sprayed / squirted in the bottom of inner fenders with a wand and the other was 'splattered' in a external mix type of airgun. That would be the rubbery stuff on the horizontals. The stock black 'undercoat' applied on the outside bottom (black) was probably plenty adequate (to a north easterner), but the sales people never told you it was already there, they had to sell a rubbery 'skin' so said north easterner would be Proud :) .

Ken

[Tomkat]

Ok, since no one really knows what they are talking about, I will see what I can find out. You are all forgetting that I'm talking about 1991, before some of you were born. Colorado doesn't have a lot of problem with rust and I could see clear differences in the cars. Japanese cars from the 70's were known for poor rust protection. The '76 B210 I owned for a while was rusting apart in less then 10 years. The 1884 I ended up purchasing, had over 100K on it and almost no rust. I was only looking at the cheaper Supras in the paper. Back then sports cars were not popular and the value difference between a Celica and Supra was only a couple grand. Most of the Supras I looked at had not been garaged much and most had over 60K miles.

I was hoping we had someone that worked in a dealer back then and had some knowledge.

[Dangerous Ken]

Ok, since no one really knows what they are talking about...

I was hoping we had someone that worked in a dealer back then and had some knowledge.

If you are refuting the postings presented based on someone working in a dealership, then you Tom don't know what you are Asking about.
Rust prevention applied to japanese steel is done at the mill and at the toyota factory. Dealers applied whatever they could sell to the already manufactured in Japan car.

Ken

[Greg G]

Ok, since no one really knows what they are talking about, I will see what I can find out. You are all forgetting that I'm talking about 1991, before some of you were born.

I was hoping we had someone that worked in a dealer back then and had some knowledge.

I really take offense to your statement. I assure you the specific people who took the time to reply to your question are very knowledgeable mk2-wise.

Take some time to understand who you are conversing with before you diss them. Personally Ive spend more hours tearing mk2s apart at boneyards than I care to count, and Ive worked very hard to restore several back to better-than-showroom condition. I know them intimately IMHO. In 1991, I was just finishing the last of my college courses.

LOL @ you thinking that a hump @ a dealership holds the key to your question. We have stated that perhaps some bullshit undercoating and paint sealant may have aided the metal's durablitlity, but dont expect a a scientific study to back it up.

Next time, call up the 800 GO-TOYOTA # and see how helpful they are. Maybe they'll be nice enough to pass you to the vendor in Japan who actually supplied the raw sheetmetal 20+ years ago.

[Tomkat]

I didn't want to piss anyone off (well maybe a little) and I thank you all for any insight. It just seemed like no one had any specific info. and they were giving there best educated quess. I'm only talking from my personal experience as well and so I may be completely off base. I'm soo impressed with the vast amount of knowledge that exists on our forum, so I was expecting a disertation on the submolecular structure of steel and it's corrosive properties.

[SupraWes]

I heard years ago that Toyota changed their metal prep in 85 and the 85 and newer cars are less prone to rusting.

[stevrock]

Say that to my truck.....

[supra8215]

Dont act so proud Andrew... basically just implies the person who originally bought your car was a chump. LOLHhahaha...

I had that in my 82, I think. I don't remember there being a little thing saying the rust prone stuff. I'll ask the new owner and update.

But I think it did had it because when I was messing with the rear 1/4 panel, I put my hand down tehre and pulled it out, and it was all black and had a tar like stuff on it. It was really weird. But my stepdad said it was undercoating. Which explains now.