I think know why there are so few old Mopars still around. (outside of cost)

[1969chargerrtse]

If you know me by now, you know I love old cars and I love old Mopars.  I gotta tell you though, I understand why these old Mopars didn't last long.  I was under my front fender peeking around as I ordered some of those silly rubber gaskets that go in front of this or behind that, and I can't believe the cars were designed that way?  Now I understand why you see rust holes in the oddest places like on top of fenders etc... like no other car?  Crazy, to have all these pockets for salt and water to sit in.  Truly what I feel is the reason for these wonderful, powerful, fantastically (is that really a word?) Muscle cars falling to their fate , rusting away.  I was used to GM cars with big one piece fender wells.  Anyone agree that theses pockets of areas trapped salt etc... and was the reason for rusting out earlier than other cars of the time?

[Mopar2Ya]

I don't find the way classic Mopars are built bad/odd. I had a '68 Rustang & it was similar w/o fenderwell like you're referring too. IMO Mopars are built stronger than the Fords of the era. The GM may have that inner fenderwell because they were mostly all full frame instead of unibody, it only took them 10 or so yrs to convert to that. I agree though an one piece inner fender would have saved a lot of front ends. The other horrible truth to remember is that these cars weren't meant to last forever, or the auto manufacturers would be out of business.

[1969chargerrtse]

I don't find the way classic Mopars are built bad/odd. I had a '68 Rustang & it was similar w/o fenderwell like you're referring too. IMO Mopars are built stronger than the Fords of the era. The GM may have that inner fenderwell because they were mostly all full frame instead of unibody, it only took them 10 or so yrs to convert to that. I agree though an one piece inner fender would have saved a lot of front ends. The other horrible truth to remember is that these cars weren't meant to last forever, or the auto manufacturers would be out of business.

The GM cars I was referring to would be like a 69 Camaro which is also unibody.

[Mopar2Ya]

The Camaro has an inner fender/splash shield (the frame & top of fender aren't exposed)? Honestly, I know almost nothing about GM's.

[Charger-Bodie]

I don't find the way classic Mopars are built bad/odd. I had a '68 Rustang & it was similar w/o fenderwell like you're referring too. IMO Mopars are built stronger than the Fords of the era. The GM may have that inner fenderwell because they were mostly all full frame instead of unibody, it only took them 10 or so yrs to convert to that. I agree though an one piece inner fender would have saved a lot of front ends. The other horrible truth to remember is that these cars weren't meant to last forever, or the auto manufacturers would be out of business.

The GM cars I was referring to would be like a 69 Camaro which is also unibody.

Rob,
a 69 Camaro is only half unibody, they have a bolt on front stub (sub frame) thats why they had inner fenders. All cars rust, they all have their own trouble spots.....aint too many 70 Chevelles with rust free ,patch free frames under them in this part of the country. A buddy of mine has a 67 Camaro vert and he had to rebuild the mount area of the sub frame and the body.

All cars rust , they just rust in differant trouble spots! period   

[1969chargerrtse]

I don't find the way classic Mopars are built bad/odd. I had a '68 Rustang & it was similar w/o fenderwell like you're referring too. IMO Mopars are built stronger than the Fords of the era. The GM may have that inner fenderwell because they were mostly all full frame instead of unibody, it only took them 10 or so yrs to convert to that. I agree though an one piece inner fender would have saved a lot of front ends. The other horrible truth to remember is that these cars weren't meant to last forever, or the auto manufacturers would be out of business.

The GM cars I was referring to would be like a 69 Camaro which is also unibody.

Rob,
a 69 Camaro is only half unibody, they have a bolt on front stub (sub frame) thats why they had inner fenders. All cars rust, they all have their own trouble spots.....aint too many 70 Chevelles with rust free ,patch free frames under them in this part of the country. A buddy of mine has a 67 Camaro vert and he had to rebuild the mount area of the sub frame and the body.

All cars rust , they just rust in differant trouble spots! period   

O.K by no means am I starting a GM / Mopar issue.  But, the unibody/A frame setup on the Camaro is the same on the Charger?  Big unibody shell, with K member for motor, but my original point was all the gaps etc... in the fender well area to rust out.  There is no protection on the inside of my Charger fender.  It is wide open for salt etc... .  The other cars ( notice I left manufacture out) have enclosed fender wells that protect that area.   Chevelles had complete full frames.

[Charger-Bodie]

Rob,

you may want to look back at some of youre Camaro pics, cause they have a subframe. there front suspension is just like a full frame , it just ends under the front floors.

[1969chargerrtse]

Rob,

you may want to look back at some of you're Camaro pics, cause they have a subframe

Oh, that's not the same as the Mopar K frame?    O.K.   Oh, I got ya, the subframe has front suspension etc..  O.K, can we agree the underside of the front Charger fender could of been better designed?  Can we go there.

[Charger-Bodie]

Rob,

you may want to look back at some of you're Camaro pics, cause they have a subframe

Oh, that's not the same as the Mopar K frame?    O.K.   Oh, I got ya, the subframe has front suspension etc..  O.K, can we agree the underside of the front Charger fender could of been better designed?  Can we go there.

not even close!

[69charger2002]

you are right about the front ends not being built to stand 40 years.. but then again, they didn't rust proof cars very well, and the undercoating did help, but not in odd spots.. as far the charger in particular, it had plenty of areas where water was prone to sit just based on it's beautiful body lines.. the back window area. you could have seen that area new and said "uh oh that may be a problem one day". then the slope of the trunk and the way water falls into the tail panel top(kind of like the 57 chevy drop off in the back onto that insert by the bumper)..the front fender back dogleg just traps water, leaves etc back there.. my buddy drives a charger every day and every 6 months he unbolts that part of the fender and cleans it out. it's disgusting just after 6 months..  look at the dodge trucks up until the early 90's, that roof rail that goes around the roof. you know over time with water sitting there they are prone to rust out there.. i remember watching some of them new and i was thinking that even back then.. point is over time cars will do it anyway on their own. in my opinion, from what i see, it almost seems as if cars of yesteryear were "rustproofed" about as good as cars of today. i have seen plenty of mid 90's cars/trucks already rusted to death, beds, cab corners, lower doors etc.. isn't that about how long it took for mopars to get bad? it's inevitable, unless you garage keep a car and only drive it in good weather
trav

[The70RT]

On a GM subframe you can unbolt and replace it fairly easy. On a MoPar your frame shop bound to straighten it back to specs. A Ford is just like a MoPar...once it gets hit in the front your in more trouble than a GM since you have to bend it back or cut and replace the rails. Upper areas of GM fenders are not subject to the elements as much. So with the unibody construction it takes a lot more work to get it back correct. I think that is why a lot more mopars fate came sooner....plus they made a lot less.

[68charger383]

I restored a 1967 camaro back in 1989 and you could buy everything needed from sheet metal to dash bezels etc. The mustangs are similar. Based on this fact, It made most GMs and Fords restorable without the need for a dedicated parts car or without the need to junk a car because it needed to much work or was sacrificed for another car. Also add the obvious factor that GM and Ford muscle cars outsold mopars 5 to 1. I think this explains the rarity factor of Mopars.

Hell, we still don't have the quality 1/4s or fenders available for our cars that have been around for a camaro/mustangs for at least 20 years! 

[Mike DC]

     

I've got a story about this issue that will make you wanna cry:


I have an old family friend who worked at the St. Louis assembly plant back in the day.  He has a story about this.  They had him spraying undercoating at one point.  He made a habit of spraying the stuff way up into the backs of the fenderwells and under the rear ends of the cars pretty heavily. 

Then one time a foreman or somebody saw him doing that and said, "Hey, some of those spots aren't designated areas."  My friend said, "Yeah I know, but I'm just trying to hit where the rust is really gonna start."  And the foreman kinda winks and says, "Yeah, heh, heh, but those aren't designated areas, are they?  Just spray it where you're supposed to from now on and nowhere else."

       

[Dave22443]

Wow Mike, thats pretty interesting.  My car was built in St. Louis. I wonder if your friend sprayed on my car?  I've got factory undercoating half way up the sail panels.  But after 40 years, I've still got a rock solid Mopar 

Tell your friend I said thanks!  (even if he didn't spray my car, somebody did!)

[Mike DC]

 
Ha ha, you never know! 

And I think he actually did say he was working on the B-body line during that incident. 
I know he's mentioned having worked on Coronets in the past, among other things.

   

 

[911bear]

  and to add to reason there are less muscle cars of any kind is the price of SCRAP METAL, THE EPA REGULATIONS , THE PRESIDENT, THE ECONOMY ahhhhhhh  you could just keep on and on . ive noticed seeing on the highway a lot of people hauling in junk cars to their local scrap yard and getting 200.00 dollars or more and with everything being so expensive as it is today people are just trying to survive . I hate it too but not much we can do but try and save every muscle car we can find ! lolol ok sorry for ranting it is just my  worth .
911bear

[Brock Samson]

 I know that GTOs back then had liners in the fenderwells as an option, I have often wondered why the rear wheelwells were compleatly open behind the tire and as a result crap from the road gets kicked up all under the rear of the car?.    I have wondered if that's really a good engineering feature in terms of rust proofing, but since the cars really are engineered so well and fenders were like that for decades, I assume they knew what was best... 
my modern chrysler has plastic liners all around the wheelwells which cleans very easily with tire cleaner and a kitchen sponge.

Optional GTO fender liner:

[JimShine]

I have a St. Louis '69 Charger here with extra undercoating in the upper areas of rear section. It is the only area that survived. The rest is rotted away.

The two biggest problems are the fact the subframe rails were not sealed off and the trunks rarely left without some sort of leak. The factory tried to put drains in the rails, but they clogged easily. The far majority of rot works from the inside out. Where your feet sit on the carpet, leaks into the trunk rot away the pans, lower quarters and rear crossmember. The drains in the rails get clogged and let moisture sit, rotting the metal away.

On the rubber issue, you can see that lots of damage was caused by the foam rubber gas tank pad. It would get wet and rot the center trunk pan from the outside while leaks on the inside let rot happen from the inside.

[The70RT]

I know that GTOs back then had liners in the fenderwells as an option, I have often wondered why the rear wheelwells were compleatly open behind the tire and as a result crap from the road gets kicked up all under the rear of the car?.    I have wondered if that's really a good engineering feature in terms of rust proofing, but since the cars really are engineered so well and fenders were like that for decades, I assume they knew what was best... 
my modern chrysler has plastic liners all around the wheelwells which cleans very easily with tire cleaner and a kitchen sponge.

Optional GTO fender liner:

I have a St. Louis '69 Charger here with extra undercoating in the upper areas of rear section. It is the only area that survived. The rest is rotted away.

The two biggest problems are the fact the subframe rails were not sealed off and the trunks rarely left without some sort of leak. The factory tried to put drains in the rails, but they clogged easily. The far majority of rot works from the inside out. Where your feet sit on the carpet, leaks into the trunk rot away the pans, lower quarters and rear crossmember. The drains in the rails get clogged and let moisture sit, rotting the metal away.

On the rubber issue, you can see that lots of damage was caused by the foam rubber gas tank pad. It would get wet and rot the center trunk pan from the outside while leaks on the inside let rot happen from the inside.

All the auto makers made areas on purpose that would collect debris and rust out. Look at some of the truck rear inner fender wells. They have a huge bracket above the tires so debris would collect and rust out the wheel well.

[Mike DC]

 

Modern panel stamping & welding tolerances combined with modern EDP coatings have mostly eliminated the problem.  Cars bodies don't last forever yet, but they last as long as the mechanicals do.  That's mostly what's important for transportation vehicles.