I bought a 69 reg Vitara 1 4 SZT in January this year to replace my 2012 Civic that had developed the oil consumption problem. I bought it because we fancied something fairly straightforward, minimal gizmos, and slightly raised ride height as the Civic often grounded out and we're not getting any younger. It hasn't disappointed, it's become one of my favourite cars. Our overall average mpg is over 50mpg, more on long runs, it's a very lightweight car which gives excellent economy, great performance and good handling, in fact it has minimal roll for a crossover and can really be hustled well down a twisty road. Many reviews mention cheap interior, well it's functional rather than luxurious but it's got everything I need. We both fine it very comfortable on long, trips right through France. Not the quietest on the autoroute but cruises very easily at 130kph. Luggage wise it's practical if not massive, a useful shape. Most of all, after the civic, it's much more responsive, loads of low down torque and far better visibility. It also is much more capable on rough tracks and lanes, campsites etc. I think you will enjoy it. There's a good owners forum on FB if you're interested( Vitara 2015 on)

I agree underseal might be worth doing if you know you are going to keep a car a long time. My problem with both the Mazda and a previous Civic was that I had maintained them as potential keepers only for other factors to intervene. The Mazda would have benefited from undersealing but it wasn’t just rust that means we are trading it in. It’s getting generally tired despite the work done. The Civic had the same oil issue as Baz’s.

In both cases the very good service histories got the same trade in offer as a car with just an oil service and stamp every year.
I fear a few hundred pounds on undersealing would suffer the same fate if we move it on at say eight years old. Money sunk with no return.
I might regret not getting it done but I’ll take my chances.

Edited by catsdad on 12/10/2023 at 14:02

The actual body underneath my 13yr old Toyota is solid and well protected but all of the suspension components are now showing substantial rust, this year for the Mot it needed two lower front arms and rear brake pipes, to me all of which should be made from non-rusting materials as they’re safety related and in a nasty environment for unprotected metal. Looking back 5yrs now I wish I’d spent the money having old Terrance undersealed rather than spending it on rusty suspension components.

I recently watched a video taken at the factory where they make and assemble various Landcruisers, appeared to be the Hino factory which makes sense.

The video showed the amount of detail and trouble that went into making the bodies, from scratch, multiple coats fopr corrosion resistance yet the body plonked on a black painted ladder chassis that miraculously appeared with no mention of rust prevention, in fact no mention whatsover of how it was made.

I know from experience with Landcruiser Hilux and similar, if it wasn't for chassis and live axle rust you really could buy a new one in your twenties and never need to buy another vehicle for the rest of your life...which probably answers why those parts aren't galvanised.

I don't use underseal type coverings any more, if the chassis and suspension parts are past prep priming and painting then it's marine grease hand painted on exposed areas and something oil based like ACF50 sprayed underneath and inside cavities annually (20 mins once up on ramps) to keep the rust at bay, such spraying has the added bonus of helping prevent bolts seizing the suspension supple and quiet and helps keep wet and salt from damaging sensors and wiring connectors.

How much extra would it cost to have these components galvanised at the factory? I’ll wager it would only add a few hundred quid to the cost of a new car and it would certainly extend its lifespan and cut costs, plus there’s a safety factor here too.

SLO, I doubt you are waiting for answers to your question. It would need an agreement between makers not to cut corners by NOT galvanising their cars' underpinnings. Various makers have invested in factory methods to prevent corrosion, and I think most have usually cut back on them for later generation models ?

I am lucky enough to have owned many Pug 205s, at least two of which are still running after 30 years without any mention of body corrosion at the MoT. In the late 80s Peugeot made a splash about their 7-stage coating process (it didn't involve galvanising), which seems to have been a good one - as long as the car never needed any body repairs ....

Building the suspension components of cars from metals that quickly turn to dust is about making money and nothing else. The actual body underneath my 13yr old Toyota is solid and well protected but all of the suspension components are now showing substantial rust, this year for the Mot it needed two lower front arms and rear brake pipes, to me all of which should be made from non-rusting materials as they’re safety related and in a nasty environment for unprotected metal. Looking back 5yrs now I wish I’d spent the money having old Terrance undersealed rather than spending it on rusty suspension components.

Rear brake pipes on the Avensis are a weak point. I managed to save mine before they completely succumbed by wire brushing and treating with a rust converter, then spraying clear Bilt hamber wax on them. If the later T27 estates are anything like the older T25 like mine was, there is a tight bend in the brake pipe that is hidden by the wheel arch material. The coating from the factory weakens here and it starts to perish first. I cut a flap in the wheel arch liner on both sides, which I could then push up to reveal the rest of the pipe.

My MOT man had an Avensis that burst both rear brake pipes in the brake test.

Mine went to the sc***yard due to rust on the sills 'affecting the rigidity of the vehicle'. But it was 19 years old. Suspension was getting tired and the electric steering intermittently failed, due to a malfunctioning steering module, not the motor.