My definition of a "rust bucket" is clearly different to other peoples.

Back in the 80's and before some cars failed their first MOT due to rust, that did not affect any of the above.

Back in the 80's and before you would spend weeks in the summer touching up and repairing relatively new cars so they would get through the next winter, last time I needed to do major DIY like that was on a 3 year old Mk 2 Escort. I sold it before it was 4 years old, it was scrapped when it was 7 years old.

In the 70's I had a Vauxhall Viva, at 4 years old both front wings needed replacing due to the fact they were both totally rotted through.

Did you get any help form the manufacturers, of course not, there was no rust warranty back then.

On our street some people ar running cars that are 10 or more years old. At that age I am sure if I went round them with a magnifying glass I would find rust but compared to a 10 year old car of my youth they are immaculate, in truth they are better than a 3 year old car was in my youth.

With regards to Ford rusting to the mid 2000's we had 3 that were bought between 1999 and 2005. The Puma was sold when it was 6 1/2 years old and it was showing signs of the rear wheel arch rust that affects most Pumas now. But that does not make them a "rust bucket" by my definition. The Modeo had no rust when it was 3 years old and the C-Max was in the best shape for any 5 year old car I have owned.

People do not realise how lucky they are.

If you look at the latest Autobild just about all models of Mazda had a common complaint from customers and that was rust.

I don't often agree with anything Collos25 says but in this case he has a point - I've come across some quite seriously corroded Mazda 6s which are not that old. They look OK but when you get them up on a ramp I've known a few basically written off at MOT time as the underside protection is very poor.

There is a reason why any Mazda 6, diesel or petrol, is worth about £2.75 in the trade.