Myths Debunked in The Toughest Undercoating Test! Winner may surprise you!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 มิ.ย. 2024
- One of the toughest and most realistic tests of some of the most well known brands in car undercoating & rust protection, along with some lesser known names. We debunk some myths and crown a winner that may surprise you.
We test No-drip oil, Krown, Fluidfilm, Extreme guard, Oil Gard, Corrosion Free, Rust Check and Waxoyl. This set of tests is one of the most comprehensive that you'll find.
We fully considered real world vehicle issues when creating these tests and only chose products designed and sold for automotive use.
0:00 Intro and test parameters
1:12 Products & benefits
4:52 Test layouts and why
6:16 Creeping test
7:32 Hardcore testing begins
10:38 Driveway Drip test
12:04 Initial rusting results
14:42 Overall results discussion &
16:02 Important notes
#Undercoating
#Fluidfilm
#krown
#rust
#rustcheck
#Waxoyl
#oilspray
#rustedcars
#rustproof
Link to test data-
zoomcleaner.ca/pages/rustproo...
Additional blog posts covering more subjects:
zoomcleaner.ca/blogs/the-garage
Disclaimer- Given that this video is intended to be educational, all external content of this video is under Fair Use, or Fair Dealing:
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the US Copyright Act in 1976 and Canada Copyright Act of 1985; Allowance is made for ‘Fair use’ or ‘Fair Dealing’ for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
Fair use or Fair Dealing is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, Educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use/dealing.
All rights and credit go directly to rightful owners of any external part of this content. No copyright infringement intended.
Music-
Positive Corporate by Mixaund
Motivate Me by Mixaund
Inspire And Motivate by Mixaund | mixaund.bandcamp.com
Upbeat by 2TECH-AUDIO
Presentation by 2TECH-AUDIO | 2tech-audio.bandcamp.com
Beautiful by LiQWYD | www.liqwydmusic.com
Music promoted by www.free-stock-music.com
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
ZOOM Concentrated Cleaner is an environmentally friendly, powerful general purpose cleaner, which is very effective on most outdoor and many indoor surfaces.
See www.zoomcleaner.ca for more details.
FB - ZOOM Concentrated Cleaner
IG - zoomconcentratedcleaner
I want to make your life easier. Outdoors. If you Camp/RV, have off-road vehicles, cars, bikes, boats, farm & heavy equipment, or like simply doing it yourself and want a straight-forward How-To video, then you’re at the right place. I’ll do the quickest, easiest, fastest ways for getting things done, or find the best products. - ยานยนต์และพาหนะ
Facebook community for rust prevention & discussing and solving rust problems. facebook.com/groups/212948928007753
This is some really great quality content and one of the most comprehensive tests of its kind here on youtube. Thank you.
Thanks, I appreciate that! It did take quite bit to put this one together. Please pass it around to friends, etc.
Great test! I've been using Corr Free and Fluid Film on my cars lately but will try the waxoyl this year. I stopped using Rust Check some time ago because low visc oil swells rubber and ruins door seals etc. I like the idea of a lighter oil for interior panels and the heavy stuff for the ext and have tried thinning Corr Free with varsol for interior panel spray to get it to atomize finer and drift around the panel interior more. I've found that the dust application toughens the coating and used to try to find a dusty road to drive on after treatment but now I just blow either limestone dust, or sometimes MDF sawdust, which is fine enough to go everywhere if you blow it under the car.
Thanks! When using Waxoyl underneath, it is best if it has a clean surface- ie. free of dirt, grease/oils and any loose scaly rust- the cleaner the better. A good thorough cleaning would be advised, ie a steam cleaning?. I agree that a lighter oil or lanolin based product can be just fine inside cavities- much less worries about water spray removing them there. A potential problem with using dust to toughen undersprays is that, over time the dust can soak most or all of the oil spray away from the vehicle and let water/salt get in against the surface. It can also fall off in chunks, exposing the metal..
Great vid. Covers a lot of things I hadn't seen before....
Thanks! I put a lot of thought into what the best tests would be to really simulate realistically what a car underbody goes thru in the winter.
Great test. I would like to see a rematch with the following added to the Waxoyl "high performers" : Woolwax, CRC Marine Corrosion Inhibitor, LPS 3, PB Blaster Surface Shield (apparently very close to Fluid Film).
If/When I get the time to do another one, I will also likely add another product called Prolab Bio-Progard, which is a biodegradable seed oil based product.
It'd be most interesting to see how old school lindseed oil and/or Penetrol stacks up against these specific rust inhibiting products.
Thank you for this informative video. If you plan to expand your testing even further, it would be interesting to include LPS 3 to see how it holds up to these conditions. Great job!
Thanks!! The only issue with LPS, as far as this video, would be that it's not specifically sold for Automotive use. An easy way to test it quickly would be to spray some on some clean metal & let it setup for a few days. Then hit it with spray from a household grade power washer in a similar manner as I used in the video. That will at least tell you quickly how it holds up to water spray....
@@thezoomguys385 is that product not cosmoline? Are any of the products you tested cosmoline? I ask for that reason, plus I'm curious if waxoyl is actually cosmoline. I hope you can reply. I very much appreciate your time and effort!
@@richcombs4805 Waxoyl isn't cosmoline per se. None of the products in this test are. However, I suspect that cosmoline, or the components of it are(or may be) used in the manufacture of Waxoyl, in some way shape or form. Modern Waxoyl has unique properties that allow it to act like a wax, but not dry out, crack or peel. If it gets dirty, it can be cleaned with a power washer, yet the waxoyl itself wont get removed by the power washer.
Lovely video. Well done, well done.
Thanks!! Much appreciated!
I use PB Blaster's, Surface Shield, I've been very impressed by it's longevity. Some people in my area have used NH black. I't as bad if not worse than Crown.
Thanks! I may add PB Blaster SS to a future test...
I powerwash under car then allow to dry and use WD40 as a rust repellent. I found that other rust treatments actually exacerbated problem by trapping water next to the metal. WD40 is 100% effective and easy to apply.
Certainly, that's a lot better than doing nothing. In the rust belt, I'd suggest that WD40 is too light and would easily get removed from road spray. Else you'd have to reapply it several times a weeks during peak snow season.
What are you better try fluid film WD-40 sucks cry it out yourself and do a test I'm not getting paid for saying this trust me
Nice work.
Thanks!!!
seems obvious that the way you did the pressure washing favors the items on the edges, as the items in the center get double the exposure and the nozzle is closer in the center. If you do again, I would suggest controlling for that factor. Also adding the clean, resale and other factors seems pretty subjective and doubles the weight of other exisitng factors. Also having both 10y cost and Anualized cost doubles that as a factor. It would be like having separate factors for cost/100ml and cost/200ml , it just weights the same factor higher,.
Hi David - Thanks for the input, but while it might appear like some panels got favored over other ones, we did take efforts to ensure that each panel got the same amount of exposure- or as reasonably close as possible.. Keep in mind that you only see snippets of the tests, not the whole tests.... Resale might seem subjective, but it it's not in general. It's only subjective on a vehicle by vehicle basis at time of sale subject to the individuals involved in the specific transaction. Across 1000 or 10000 vehicles, it's not subjective at all. On a large enough sample size, certain things will change average resale value objectively.
Annualized cost does play a very signficant factor, more so than you think...
There was a lot of thought put into the tests and grading factors...It took months to get them finalized & make it as fair as possible.
Also keep in mind that we did publish all of the test data, parameters etc, such that anyone could replicate the tests, if they choose...
I hope this is helpful?
That test should have been done on an inner cavity with a pinch-weld. Same thing you did, but do it to the outer portion of the part, and the inner portion should be treated as well, then the corroding mixture sprayed inside the cavity and out.
Perhaps. However, I'd suggest that most cavities like that, such as doors, cab corners,fenders & rockers probably rust out due to being unprotected & plain moisture getting in them, at least when they rust from the inside... Also, all of the products are likely to perform well in that type of test, given that there wouldn't be road spray or dirt hitting inside, so they should all continue to protect well in that scenario.
@@thezoomguys385
There's some logic to what you say, but there's a catch... Water (and salt) accumulate inside the inner cavities for longer, and can create more corrosion that way. There's a reason that the fenders and rockers are usually the first to rust out. A test like I suggested will show which product resist that for longer.
I fully agree with @shane250
I like how you went all in on getting the 1970's vibe!
Huh?
@@thezoomguys385 Well this is awkward. The oversaturated video, the "interesting" sounds quality, the cuts back and forth, still shots.. You were not doing it intentionally, to get some "old school vibes"?
@@GTrainRx7 Nope. Don't know anything about production, editing, or any of that stuff, or any of the things you mention. We do know that our vids have low production quality & that won't likely change anytime soon.
@@thezoomguys385 Pay no attention to the modern, tech editing nerds. Keep doing what you do, sir.
You should try Dominion Sure Seal, rustproofing, my understanding is that they make it for rustcheck and it is substantially cheaper if bought in larger quantities... The lighter viscosity makes it creep very well
Thanks. I believe that DSS and Rust Check may be part of the same company. Rust Check uses at least 2 products; the original, which is a very light product with viscosity similar to that of Krown. The 2nd product is Coat & Protect which was tested in this vid. You could use the Krown results in the vid to get an idea of how the thinner, original Rust Check product might perform. DSS also makes a no drip oil, which is very similar to the generic No-drip oil tested in this vid.
Test "Surface Shield" from Power Blaster. Sold at Home Depot. Has great reviews. Sticks very well.
Perhaps, in a future video ;)
Any difference with any if these products when used on metal with moderate pre existing rust?
Do you mean like the section in this video where the products were applied to pre-rusted metal?
@@thezoomguys385 my bad there. I guess I skipped thru some of it. Thanks.
Corrosion free is the best one that you can have a shop apply for you, but make sure its a good shop. I had a detailing / oil change / car wash place do it in Toronto (Sherway area) and the kid spent 2 hours painting my 4runner with it. I moved and took it to a speedy down in London and it was such a poor application I had to take it back. Used Oil gard once, by spring it looked like no oil had even been applied. Krown I think works best on a pre rusted car, it penetrates the rust and makes it fall off. After that I'd go corrosion free or the one that won this, but you'll have to do it yourself.
The tests showed that Rustcheck C&P outperformed CF. Certainly either one is way better than doing nothing, or installing the horrible asphalt or rubberized crap. That being said, in the real world a lot of it has to do with how well the install was done, conditions the vehicle is used in, how it's maintained, and several other factors.
Some pro installers are good, some are bad and some are so-so. Also, a good installer can have a bad day & vice versa.
I'd suggest that Krown isn't really able to make the rust fall off, as the rust would aleady have to be loose and crusty for that to happen, so it will fall off anyways.. Krown does have good creeping ability, so it can soak into the rust, but it also gets washed off quite easily. For whatever that's worth.
It looks like the cardboard test is more about wicking properties rather than creeping properties. Do you agree?
Creeping and wicking(capillary action) are essentially the same thing with cardboard, because the fibers are very short and randomly oriented & mixed with other solids. Both rely on surface adhesion of the liquid to the surface vs. cohesion between molecules. Cardboard also provides a much better visual than using a piece of sheet metal, glass, plastic or other hard surface. If you do this on a hard surface, you'll get similar results.
Very nice video, the waxoyl hardwax seems like a cavity wax and I used cavity wax on my truck 4 1/2 years ago. Maybe you could test SEM Cavity Wax, part number 39573. Keep up the fight against rust, we may not win but we can give rust a tough time!
Thanks! That's one I haven't heard of. Is it just sold thru autobody suppliers?
@thezoomguys385 I work at a automotive paint store so I'll have to say yes. SEM is owned by PPG. You can buy it on Amazon, $31.00 US funds as of this date. In the store were I work at, its about $25.00.
@@unclebs4732 Is that for the spray can, or the quart?
@@thezoomguys385 spray can
@@unclebs4732 Well, it certainly isn't a bargain basement product..... ;)
I have been using Fluid Film for 15 years on my daily driver in PA. Zero rust anywhere on the truck. The product is not meant to be pressure sprayed, nor do they claim that. The great thing about wool wax/Fluid film is they are not permanent.
Hi Congrats on your success with FF. Certainly, doing something about rust and being consistent can get great results. To clarify, the video isn't necessarily meant to show how the products perform with power washing on it's own, although that is something that many people do as part of winter maintenance. It's really meant to show how the various products perform against water spray that is likely to happen underneath a vehicle, from road spray, and/or power washing(either manual, or at an automatic car wash with underbody spray) Also note that the tip of the wand was purposely kept 3-4 ft away from the test panels to best simulate road spray.
Cheers!
Odd that the product that scores the highest in so many similar tests was not included. CRC 400 (sam as CRC 06026 Heavy Duty Corrosion Inhibitor) has repeatedly outscored many of the products included in this test. And the price point is in the same range. Is this just an oversight? I'm not advocating for the CRC products (far from it). Just curious to know why these products were excluded from the comparison?
It is a fair question -
The CRC product wasn't left out by accident. Firstly- It was left out because nobody installs it professionally(or at least I'm not aware that anyone does). I wanted a test that actually was for products that are not only marketed as rust-proofing for cars/trucks, but were also available to be both installed professionally and could also be installed as a DIY process.
Some of the other tests were including products that I felt were not realistic for the tests & for consumer or commercial level automotive uses.
Although CRC appears to do well in a couple of other tests, it's not specifically sold or marketed for rustproofing purposes for automotive use, and it would likely prove to be quite expensive to use annually on a vehicle.
Secondly- it appears to have some similarities to the Rust Check Coat & Protect. Several of the products I used in the test are also somewhat representational, so I used the ones that met the rationales that I chose for this test.
I hope that makes sense?
Additionally, I have provided all the test data & related info in the link in the description, so anyone could replicate the tests and use some of the products that did well in this test and add CRC. I'm happy to make myself available for to assist anyone that chose to do so. Unfortunately, I won't have time in the forseeable future to do a full 'part 2' of this test myself, which could include CRC.
I used that on my daughters' Jeeps, coating the exterior of the undercarriage, subframes and suspension with this Cosmoline type substance. Inside tubular suspensions pieces, subframes, doors, quarter panels, trunk and hood, I used Surface Shield and Woolwax. Those are spots I couldn't be sure of complete coverage, spraying blind. but I know they WILL creep into all the nooks and crannies. Time will tell, but I suspect their jeeps will do well compared to most here in the Salt Belt.
The best one is made from sheep wool, lanolin. Woolwax.
Well, Woolwax is quite similar to Fluid film & I expect would perform roughly similar to FF in these tests.
exactly. @@thezoomguys385
As a applicator I can attest to the durability of woolwax. After 2yrs in Maine it has held up really good. The high wash areas, wheelwells and rockers have lost some but they're still protected. Other areas it's still in great shape.
Woolwax outperformed fluid film. It's formulated as an undercoating. Fluid film is not.
@@user-bo2kc6kh4l But it does work, so there is that...
you should have included metal plate painted with tremclad rust paint.
the reason they paint the frame in the factory is because this is the best protection. it stops moisture and salt water from touching the metal.
the best maintenance system is painting with a brush thick coating where you see rust during the spring or summer and spraying rust proofing in the fall to get in all the cracks, etc.. maybe once when you purchase the vehicle getting professionally done as they spray in the frame, doors, etc..
this testing gives the false impression that rust proofing sprays are all you can do.. when there is no doubt that a thick coating of rust paint would have done better than everything, does not get washed off from driving in rain, snow, slush, and last much longer..
Our testing is only done as a comparison of products under the tests and parameters described in the vid. It doesn't create a false impression that, those are is the only approaches possible. It doesn't even imply that, so I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. Sure, a painted surface can provide another barrier against rust, but not all frames are painted from the factory- ie GM trucks, while other brands shed their paint quite easily. Ie Jeep and Ram.... However, painting was beside the point of this video, as the video was only to show comparative performance of specific products under specific circumstances.
To get rust paint to work, will require significant prep work, else it has no chance to adhere to a dirty, rusty surface underneath a vehicle, on a yearly basis.
@@thezoomguys385 rewatch the video. It talked about an overall yearly approach to corrosion prevention.
Additionally painting makes underneath of vehicle look clean and black. (Granted sone black products do that somewhat) during resale when under vehicle is checked people buy with confidence seeing black and no rust .
Tremclad rust paint IS a rust coating... The result is a cleaner finish. And surprisingly penetrates rusty surfaces well enough..
My suggestion. It's spring and summer time. Time to paint your rusty metal.
@@mysticjedi6730 I made the video. I know what's in it and what it says. Perhaps you shouldn't try to make it imply something that it doesn't?
Well, this took the "creep" out of the equation, because there were no inner cavities or pinch-welds. For those, you can't use the hard waxes, because those won't cure themselves, or creep into very narrow areas.
I think corrosion free or rust check should be used for inner cavities, where they won't be washed away, and their creep-ability and self-cure properties are important, and hard wax should be used anywhere else (pretty much anywhere you don't need a straw to reach).
Waxoyl isn't a hard wax when applied. For example, the cavity wax is quite liquid(when applied at the correct temps) and will seep into seams and pinch welds. After a period of time, it starts to setup and fully seal those areas. Then moisture can never get in. Using the products you mentioned inside body cavities can be quite effective as well.
Yup. Check "10 year of using cold galvanizing compound" toward end.
Blaster Surface Shield !!
The Vermonter
Meaning?
Krown creeps into joints and seams. Dirt and dust coat to allow ot stay. Power washing your under carriage isn't recommended. When driving in winter and rain, it doesn't act like a power sprayer to take oil off. Just a FYI.
To be fair, pretty much all products seep into seams and joints. Our creep test showed that.
Actually, driving in rain and salt slop can be very much like a power washer. When your front and/or rear tire hits a puddle at 70 mph, the splash hits the underside of the body at about that speed, which is very close to the speed of the water from the power washer in that test. Same with the water that is flung off tires at highway speeds.
Dirt and dust may hold the Krown in place better, but it's also going to hold water and salt in place as well, defeating the purpose over the long term.
I disagree about not washing the underside of your car. It's absolutely important, to not only keep things clean, but also get rid of salt.
Great video! The only comment I have is I believe the majority of vehicles that get sprayed at Rust Check Dealers have an application of their red thinner product, which may run as much as the Krown product and on your driveway.
Thanks! Their lighter red labeled product is definitely runny!
Anyone ever try petroleum based silicone tire dressing spray?
Creep cannot be measured using card board..................should have been metal.
Also, I noticed you did not test Cosmoline like 342 from Cosmoline Direct.
We found that cardboard does work fine for measuring creep. If you look at the panels when the products were applied and then again when the tests concluded, it does show how much each product creeped & it also better represents how each product can seep into tight areas, such as folded seams, etc.... Metal could have been used as well, but the cardboard 'shows' it much better as it gets dark, whereas metal wouldn't change colour.
Thanks for the note about Cosmoline - It wasn't included in this video because it's not professionally applied anywhere for consumers- or at least not commonly. We might do a future video on several of the ones suggested in the comments.
@@thezoomguys385 Thank you for responding to my comment and although I understand your thinking on "creep" of the various products your example is in error because the cardboard is a porous material that is "pulling" the material due to capillary action. The so-called "creep" action people speak of on metal is due to one thing "viscosity" of the material being applied. So, if a product can be applied with the viscosity of "water" for example, it will creep, seep, migrate etc. into the same areas as the salt water when the vehicle is driving on a road. So, with all of that being said, a good rust proofer needs to be able to get into all of the same areas, displace any water and NEUTRALIZE any salt in those areas. I have been working on the development of such a product for several years.
@@richardstone5241 "I understand your thinking on "creep" of the various products your example is in error because the cardboard is a porous material that is "pulling" the material due to capillary action."
Ummm, I think you may find that capilliary action and creep are essentially the same thing- they both work by the process of a low viscosity liquid being pulled along a surface, or thru fibers or micro-tubes, even against gravity. Capilliary action is more when aligned fibers, micro-tubes or similar do it.... In the case of cardboard- it's a whole bunch of microscopic surfaces and non-aligned fibers. The reason why we used cardboard is that it is a very easy to way illustrate it visually and it will show which products will ceep more and which ones will creep less. I'd strongly suggest that you'd get similar test results using smooth metal surfaces.
That fluid film you can smell from a couple feet away. Anything clothes you get it on should either be thrown away or have a pretreatment done to it before washing it.
FF definitely has a strong & unique aroma!
but i like smelling like an old goat for days. it's also good on toast.
Would be interested to see how these products do on an actual vehicle in use. Here's another good one. th-cam.com/video/9SOOfZFmhSY/w-d-xo.html
I had watched that vid, as well as several others, before this one was created. It's what led me to setup a checklist of things my vid needed to cover and what type of tests we needed. The best you can do is try to replicate what conditions could be like on a sample vehicle, as there are so many variables, on vehicles themselves, how they're driven, when & where they're driven, how they're maintained etc.
To really do a vehicle test, You'd need a fleet of vehicles, enough to do several with each product and have enough staff to put each car thru the same tests & conditions, over and over again. That would need a huge budget, lots of time and oversight.
Where’s the Surface Shield?
At the time this vid was created, I couldn't find any professional installers for it. That was part of the criteria; the products tested needed to be available thru both professional installation and DIY.
Who knows, maybe we could test it in an upcoming video......
Definitely should not have done the creep test on cardboard.
IMO, cardboard is actually a very good medium to demonstrate creep. It makes for a great visual and the same properties that allow a product to creep on a hard surface also allow it to creep on cardboard. It does a very good representation of the creeping process for each product.
Some of these products are intended to be removed by power washing. Power washing is NOT equal to road spray. This could have been a great test, except for this.
Sorry, but I have to respectfully disagree with you, especially in the way powerwashing was used in this video. I specifically setup the powerwashing process to replicate what road spray is going to be like at highway speeds, which is where product degradation will be the biggest potential issue. The spray tip was kept 3-4ft away from the test panels, so that the water speeds(at impact) would be down to about 50-70 mph(or less) and the water would be highly & finely misted. In many ways, this is actually much more gentle than a car hitting a 1" deep puddle at 70 mph, which can/will cause a hard edged wave to impact the chassis/underbody at that speed, or close to it. Also we only did limited hits on each panel with the power washer, which is much less than what a car would see on a long road trip, or commute on a sloppy winters day(or rainy day). The water speed calculations were based on commonly available & accepted math & physics calcs used for these things.
There was a lot of thought and consideration that went into each test in this vid. It took many, many hours to design it & set it all up before filming even started. Part of that process was looking at other test vids and see what they had done wrong in their tests (and why it was done wrong).
@@thezoomguys385 Please don't get me wrong, your test is still a valid comparison, and superbly conducted. But because of the pressure washer, it is not a test under "real world conditions." Unless of course it's for those people who apply one of these coatings and then go to a car wash with an undercarriage pressure wash. But you're not supposed to do that.
@@MrRoombato It's designed to simulate real world conditions, as close as reasonably possible, which it does. Not much else can be done short of actually using a vehicle and driving it on the roads(which means you'd need a bunch of identical vehicles, driving in identical conditions to be accurate when doing a real world test of multiple products). Even ASTM uses a spray test as one of their protocols in testing rustproofing. One of their's is a 1000hr salt spray test.
Definitely appreciate the video but it's not surprising that the product that you guys sell and are dealers for is the one that comes out on top.
Whether or not these results are true, this test is unfortunately very biased.
On the surface, it could certainly appear that way. However, we took a lot of pains to make the tests as fair as possible and did publish all of our test parameters, data, etc.., such that anyone else could repeat the tests, if they felt so inclined. We were prepared for the Waxoyl items to fail, or place in the middle of the results somewhere.
@@thezoomguys385 that's totally fair but an independent test would be more credible.
I appreciate all the testing but with the conflict of interest, this is an advertisement at best not an unbiased test.
@@Dangerzone1203 Again, That's why we published everything. Any independent person, or organization is welcome to run the exact same tests & we're confident that they will get similar results. I haven't seen any other test, by anyone else on YT do that(ie publish test parameters, data, etc...). Have you?
@@Dangerzone1203 Also, to be fair, we did ask some channels such as Project Farm to do a test with Waxoyl, quite some time ago. However, we realized that due to various constraints, it may take a long, long time for that to happen. (it takes a lot of time and work to do these tests and create the videos; .....well over 200hrs went into this video, alone.) So we made our own video & felt the fairest way to do it would be the way we did it. People can choose to take that however they will....
@@thezoomguys385 As a product engineer I understand everything you're saying and understand all the value in your tests but you need to appreciate the conflict of interest that you haven't also disclosed to your potential customers.
This is more of a promotional video to show off the capabilities of your product but the entire time it holds the tone of an independent test without disclosing the conflict of interest. Nothing wrong with showing off what you got but there's also no need to hide that you sell the product too. It comes off as deceptive.
Your numbers are wrong or mixed up somehow between fluid film and corrosion free.
Cost Category;
Corrosion free is much cheaper(3.75) than fluid film(5.90) and scores higher per 100ml.
10yr cost category;
Fluid Film is 1500 to 3000 and the much cheaper Corrosion Free is 2000 to 4000.
The annual cost is also off fluid film 150-300 and corrosion free 200-400.
Assuming you used 4litres(about a gallon) or 4000ml as your annual amount.
At 3.75 corrosion free would be 150 annually and 1500 for 10yrs.
Fluid film at 5.90 per 100ml would be 236 annually and 2360 for 10yrs.
You seemed to have flipped the numbers and gave fluid film a better score based on corrosion free's numbers.
Also in the spray and dust test you scored fluid film a 7 and corrosion free only a 4 yet in the very video itself you said they performed the same and you showed us this was true with our own eyes.
So considering that number is also way off and should be equal we will give corrosion free a 7 to match fluid film.
The corrected score is;
Fluid Film 45
Corrosion Free 51
Makes a big difference.
Canadian Military did their own study fluid film vs corrosion free in Canadian winters.
Corrosion free was rated higher and chosen as their rust treatment.
It got an 18 month durability and fluid film only 12months practical effectiveness.
To clarify- The long term costs are based on professional install costs for each respective product, as that's how most people are likely to get them installed. I used published numbers from installers in Ontario, when this vid was done, a year ago, and made allowances for variations that could happen.. Those costs are often different than retail costs of small DIY containers.
I didn't say in the vid that Fluid film and Corr Free performed the same on the rust & dust tests. I compared Corr Free to Oil Gard..
Regardless, it's like picking nits anyways, when looking at the big picture. It appears that you wanted Corr free to do better in the test, but this is the results that we obtained, trying to be as fair as possible. We did publish all out test data, parameters, etc., so that anyone is welcome to try and repeat the tests.
@@thezoomguys385 I'm from Ontario. Its 150 dollars to get core free done on the car. Its the standard at Canadian tire.
I have no bias toward Corrosion free. I use fluid film and do my own vehicle.
Wow! You take what i told you are facts and the numbers being obviously wrong according to the price per 100ml and try to gas light one of your viewers.
Then you say it was based on prices from Ontario where I live and know how much it costs and what they use at Canadian tire.
Also I was just giving the official test done by the Canadian Military in which corrosion free did better. It was an official test and it wasnt my bias which influenced the army.
Also corrosion free is only 70 dollars a gallon and fluid film is 105 here.
Nice try in gaslighting.
I thought you were trying to give unbiased info and when someone points out numbers that seem totally off...
Your whole video and the reason you did it was for info yet now you are saying the numbers are just nit picking?
What does that say about your whole project? You are the one that did a video on the topic and put out numbers but then you call your own findings nit picking.
@@optimoprimo132 ...
I'm not trying to gaslight you, or anyone. I couldn't be less interested in that.... Good lord....smh
I tried to clarify things in my last post, (but apparently that didn't work). You also made an incorrect claim about something I said in the vid, which I corrected you on. None of that is gaslighting.
The prices I posted represent a range & some installers charge more than your local CTC. Also CTC charges more for larger vehicles, which is what was also taken into account with the prices. There's no way for that part of it to be an exact science, no matter how much you want it to be.
Again, I'll repeat myself, as you seem to have missed this key point 2x already; The long term costs are ranges and based on the published professional install costs from a number of establishments. Maybe your local CTC is cheaper than other installers? So what? There's no attempt at misrepresentation here, or even implied..
The prices ARE NOT based on self install, as most people have no ability or equipment to do that. I'm not sure why you're stuck on that issue.......? Self install is a whole different aspect, which has too many complexities to even ponder.
This was a labor-intensive & thorough attempt to show a reasonable and fair test of a variety of rustproofing specific products in real world simulated tests, with a number of contingencies. Nothing more. Is it perfect? Hell no & nor is it claimed to be. If people get value from this video, then great! If not, well that's fine too.
If you like FF and have been using it, then please continue to do so. It's your vehicle, so treat it as you see fit.
This is just a free video on YT, just like billions of others. They are worth whatever value the viewer assigns to them. If you don't like it, hit the thumbs down button and move on. It's that simple.
some people get a bit carried away eh? @@thezoomguys385
Waxoyl, fail. So back in 2000 some north american used a wax product on their truck frames. Today all of the truck frames are completely rusted. What you don't see is the wax traps water and the metal rusts inside out. Toyota Tacoma did the same resulting in complete loss of profits having to replace 10000s of frames. Any product that could potentially trap moisture will have same effect. Very difficult to stimulate. Another way to look at it is if the product does not penetrate it will fail as it is only top coating trapping in moisture. An extreme version of penetration is wd40(displaces water). Trade off is wd40 does not last.
Well, let's see. The frame wax you are referring to is made by a company called Daubert Chemical, which is a completely different company making a completely different product, both chemically and in how it works. The Daubert product is a light product that is only designed to stay on the frames for a short period. Once it comes off, the frames rust. (I know this from personal experience) It was wasn't causing rust due to water getting behind it.
Saying Waxoyl is bad because of the the Daubert product would be like comparing plain dish soap to CLR and saying CLR is bad because the dish soap wouldn't remove lime deposits.
Waxoyl doesn't dry out and doesn't allow water to get behind it, if applied properly. I have personally seen 35 yr old vehicles that were sprayed at new with Waxoyl, and the waxoyl is still tacky & doing its job.
The products that do dry out are the asphalt and rubberized products, which do create huge problems after a few years.
Toyota didn't apply any wax or other product(except paint) to their frames on the Tacomas. They rotted out due to substandard materials used and peculiarites in the design. In the end, both Toyota and Dana(frame manufacturer) split the repair bill as they were both found responsible. As part of the fix on some trucks, Toyota did offer to spray a rust inhibitor product on the frames to help extend the life by a bit.
@@thezoomguys385
Very good, detailed reply. Bottom line from your reply, and also my experience (50 year truck owner), as long as the product used does not allow moisture to get behind it , short term or long term, good to go. In my world that means penetration, like mineral oils, transmission oil. Any kind of top coat without penetration, will eventually allow moisture in.
@@dalerobert6404 One thing I've noticed from this testing process is that a lot of annual products soak up dirt and dust- which in some cases helps them adhere better- as you can see in the video. However, over time they can also allow water/salt to soak in as well which eventually causes rust to start forming on the underbody surfaces. I suspect this must happen when they have soaked up a lot of dirt/dust. You can often see this in rural areas where people drive on gravel roads a lot. If they get sprayed annually with a no-drip oil, or fluid film or? - after a few years you can take a putty knife and scrape the congealed accumulated mess off & there is often rust on the surfaces. A product that penetrates well can really help on folded body seams and so on. Same as with a product that really seals well and doesn't dry out.
Still at the end of the day, using anything is better than doing nothing.
@@thezoomguys385 Repair Geek here on YT has multi-year tests of lanolin-based products- Fluid Film, Woolwax, Blaster SurfaceShield- no rust is apparent in his tests. Even with road spray, they seem to hold up well, even without annual appplications.
@@buddymorrissey Yes, I have seen his tests. However, I didn't feel that some of those tests were really representational of what the underbody of a car or truck is likely to see in the real world. I'm not saying they were bad tests, I just didn't feel that they were what I wanted to to see in a test of these types of products. So, that's what I tried to set up, was a set of tests with products that were as close to what the average person might actually use & what their vehicle might experience in winters, etc. I also looked at the ASTM tests & how they were done.
See, the average person is just looking for 'rustproofing' or 'undercoating', so will buy a product/service advertised for that and they are likely to go to an installer or buy some of it to DIY- some of the products used in other tests don't really appear to address that aspect, IMO (again, not trying to be critical, or negative)
Also, when their car is driving in town at 30mph, or on the hwy at 60mph, what is the spray conditions likely to be; speed, how much, where will it hit, etc...? Same with rural conditions on dusty dirt roads - how does that affect it? (Project Farm did approximate this as well, but used some products that I didn't feel that the average person would use)
I also wanted to test Waxoyl in these tests to see how it would fare against the annuals, which I hadn't seen done elsewhere.
I purposely avoided the asphalt and rubberized products, because they both become nightmares after about 2-3 yrs of service.
I hope that all makes sense?
Add Ziebart?
In this test, Ziebart wasn't chosen because it doesn't have a DIY option and (I believe, but not 100% sure - correct me if I'm wrong) that they use a rubberized product, which we wanted to stay away from, due to the problems associated with rubberized and asphalt. I hope that makes sense?
Ziebart is trash. You vehicle will rot even faster than if you used nothing
@@Doomzdayxx only as good as the guy applying it. Products work great, and if you put it on crap, it’s still going to be crap.
@@Tasteslikeink315doesn't matter who applies hard shell coatings, it always eventually cracks and let's moisture in, rotting your vehicle from the inside.
CRC is the best and you do not have it here.
Don't know if it's the best, as it wasn't tested here. It wasn't included, as it didn't meet the requirements of this test.
Ditch the ultra annoying background music, your video is barely audible with it
The music was chosen just for you! ;) lol
Only one person has complained in 17k views, so It's probably ok. :)
you guys have seen the Project Farm channel? You basically copied his video. His was also better.
We've have seen the Project Farm vid. We've also seen several others. There are a limited number of tests and methods to test rustproofing products. It's just that simple. Even the ASTM tests are similar. Watch this video thoroughly, carefully and fully and then watch the other ones. I think you'll find that our tests are much more extensive and also much more realistic to what a vehicle would likely experience. We also added other tests that others haven't done. We also only focused on automotive products, specifically.
I'd fully expect that Project Farm and others would have better production quality than our vids, as they are better at that & we even make fun of our own low quality production & editing... lol
You know who has tested more than anyone on metal surfaces is militarys all over world for a long long time they use cosmaline you can have blued guns in damp storage for over 100 yrs and still look brand new im about to order a but load
You're right, cosmoline has been used successfully for a long time, for things in storage & was even used for a long period for shipping vehicles across the ocean(and may still be). However, there's a big difference between something sitting in damp storage in a wooden crate & an active environment such as the underbody of a vehicle going down the highway after a fresh snowfall(and salting) in the salt belt, or down a gravel road at 50 mph.
@@thezoomguys385 cosmoline should be as good as waxoyl I would think. It's basically the same product: paraffin wax.