Rust proofing worth it?

Yeah I was thinking of the stuff they put on the roads going to and from those areas. Might be worth it to just wash down after.

 

If you go that route, try something like this, I can thoroughly wash off the undercarriage/frame in under 10 minutes:
https://www.tacomaworld.com/threads...solidation-thread.355928/page-4#post-11718350

or as others have noted, just place a lawn sprinkler underneath.

 

I think you'd be fine with that approach. At the end of the day, the frame/underside is going to corrode some either way, especially with the Tacoma and their track record. Unless you need everything to last 40 years and look pristine, sometimes it's just easiest to do what you can and let it happen at the slowest rate that's economical.

A quick metallurgy lesson, to explain my reasoning here: all metals corrode (yes, even stainless steel!), but do so at different rates (and in the case of SS, in a slightly different manner). Magnesium corrodes faster than iron, iron corrodes faster than aluminum, aluminum corrodes faster than gold, gold corrodes very, very, very slowly.

When a vehicle is built with metal, that vehicle is destined to corrode away. Environmental differences that each metal is exposed to will dictate the rate in which this deterioration occurs. All modern car manufacturers coat their metal parts in the factory to help combat the exposure to the typical intended environment of their product. Less bare metal and less exposure to the environment = slower rate of corrosion (there's other tricks, like alloy composition and such, but we'll stick to the basics of coating effects). If the vehicle is used in a manner which damages this coating (think rock chips underneath and wheel wells, dragging on top of rocks, etc) then that protection is gone. In Arizona, that's fine and not a huge compromise to it's corrosion rate. In a salt state, that's bad because now that the coating is gone, the salts/moisture/chemicals that accelerate corrosion rates can now contaminate the metal and it's downhill battle from there. Corrosion under remaining coated areas starts to disbond the coating, allowing more corrosion and it snowballs. Also a big factor is any given coatings resistance to wear. If it wears well and slow, then good. If it's crap and wears quick, then naturally that opens up exposure to the environmental factors that much quicker in the parts life.

This is why modern cars can resist corroding way better than say cars of the 1950's; addition of coatings or improved coatings. This is also why Toyota has such a bad record with Tacoma frames; their coating isn't good enough (either in application or coating choice, not sure) to live up to a practical design life. It's really an avoidable mistake that's costing them a fortune on the back end.

 

My truck is a 2001 been in Canada its whole life (rust belt). It has been under coated every year in the fall with one gallon of Fluid film. It has the original paint. I do all of my own work on truck including under coating. The only area with rust is the gas tank skid plate. The frame has been done inside and out. Any where you wipe the under coating off of frame there is still paint on it no rust at all, but it was done before any rust started. There are lots of truck around here about 10 years old from every maker that have never been under coated and have bad or broken frames. I would not put any under coating on that dried. It starts to peel after awhile and holds the salt and crap behind it making things here rust faster. Under coating (wet) makes things vey messy to work on but I can live with that.

 

It would be interesting to find out, in the end, what Toyota's actual cost for class action related frame replacements. I read somewhere that the $3.4 billion estimate was based on 225,000 vehicles ('05 to '10 Tacomas, '07 and '08 Tundras, and '05 to '08 Sequoias) at $15k or so a pop, plus the cost of inspecting and applying CRC to some unspecified number of vehicles.

However I can found no mention of the $3.4b amount in the settlement documents, so it appears it is not a hard liability cap--just an estimate that someone came up with...

 

I had been curious as to the condition of "rust belt" trucks that had been meticulously (arguably "properly") maintained as you have done. Perhaps Toyota's only fault is that they did not specify such regular maintenance for harsh environments...

 

I know a guy that works for Toyota. He has replaced many frames on these truck through work. He told me a short time ago that they have never replaced a frame on a truck that was under coated with wet under coating yearly. Mostly trucks that were never under coated or had some kind of hard dried under coating on them.

 

You don't drive on the beach? I keep my 04 frame maintained with undercoating. Maybe every 18 months go back under and spray away. I also do a lot of beach driving and don't always wash it off afterwards. My frame still looks new underneath.

 

My wife and I are not now big "beach goers", though we used to go quite a bit 25 years ago--she cannot be in the sun and I was never that wild about it. Also Saint Augustine beach has been "replenished" (by pumping powder from the ocean floor up onto the beach) so often that over that time it has become 4WD only territory.

Two or three years ago they posted it as such, it now really is; and the "gatekeepers" at the ramps (March 1 through Labor Day) will not let 2WD vehicles on the beach...

 

Yeah believe me we have lost a ton of beach over here in Daytona. It's funny how people can still doubt climate change when 15 years ago there was at least 200 more yards to the beach. Are beaches are shut off to all cars at high tide now.

 

Here it is more mother nature not liking the fact that they dredged the Saint Augustine inlet to allow larger vessels to enter the ICW (SA inlet was not navigable, you had to come up the Matanzas from what is not Marinland--that's why Fort Matanzas protected SA until larger cannon were made); and screwed up the natural tidal flow in the process--Anastasia Island and Saint Augustine Beach have been eroding since that was done.

 

No dude. Rubberized "spray on goop" is in absolutely no way better in any regard whatsoever than a proven and professionally applied product like Krown.
You don't have to "maintain and oil" a krown coating. Go to the shop once a year and have it applied. Even if you stop having applications done, there is no need to worry about moisture being trapped against the frame where you cannot see it. The rubberized coating is good for coating your rusty frame before you sell the vehicle so the poor sap buying it has no idea you're selling him/her a shitbox.

 

My frame appears to have been coated by the dealer at the initial time or purchase - this is probably your best bet because the metal had not been exposed to the elements... After owning a 91 wrangler and constantly battling rust throughout, I will never avoid undercoatings of some sort.

 

What did you use to plug up that 2 1/4 inch hole?

 

Definitely get it treated, however the method on which to use will depend on the current frame condition. Once rust starts it will never stop. If you spray it with the rubber compound, which does work. It usually needs to be applied when everything is new and clean, or after a whole lot of scrubbing.

Myself, I oil spray my truck every year in the fall before the roads get salted/brined (live in Ont, Canada-salted road capital of north america hahaha. You can use krown or similiar but beware of drilling the panels. Every car around here that had been drilled started rusting out in those areas (manily from the exposed metal and shavings now it the panels). I prefer to pull the factory plugs and spray through those. Mines a 2015 which I had since 73km (now 56,000km) and there is barely an rust (only a tiny bit) on the frame.

Avoid washing the undercairage in the winter untill mid spring as the water behaves as a catalyst towards the salt and brine, thus accelerating any corrosion and making it seep in the crevices (this is where oil spraying is great)