In my experience most people and the auto manufacturers see vehicles as disposable so adding something like this would be a waste of time and money. Aircraft on the other hand are usually kept many times longer than cars and, as we all know, failure is going to end up worse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmill89
^This, today the "design-life" of the average automobile is 10 years/200,000 mi. (when the XJs were produced it was much less, 8 years/150,000 mi. was common in the 90s/early-00s, and if you go back to the 70s/80s when the XJ was first designed it was often only 6 years/100,000 mi). Granted many vehicles last longer than this, but this is the "goal" the engineers/designers are shooting for so they aren't generally going to spend more money/effort to make a vehicle last longer than this. Commercial aircraft on the other hand generally have a 30 year "design-life" so the extra cost of better corrosion prevention is justified.
Both responses are correct, of course, but we could use that to argue against the current process in use for the entire chassis/unit-bodies of cars that are dipped in a bath to electrocoat a corrosion resistant finish to them. Obviously, without it the bodies and pans themselves would experience rapid deterioration from corrosion so it can be said that the manufacturers are concerned about stopping it before it starts. This process step could include all the undercarriage components, that are otherwise currently uncoated and prone to rusting quickly, without much added expense. That's the perspective I'm taking on corrosion control.
The practice of dipping the entire unit body in a vat of anti-rust compound is actually very old. Rambler started doing it in the 1950s. (Of course materials and processes have greatly improved since then.)
