# Krown vs Corrosion free



## namelessone

*deleted*

deleted


----------



## agent99

It's definitely a good idea to rust proof your car if you intend to keep it for any length of time. It won't stop all the rust, but it will help.

I have used Krown and Rust-Check. I would like to try Corrosion Free, but only applicator in our area is it seems, Canadian Tire. Reviews on-line not good!

I have a problem with Krown who I have used for years. We have our cars sprayed in late December. Then they are parked in garage until we get back in April. One car has to then be parked in driveway. Well, the Krown continues to drip all summer. We may be saving our car from rust, but we are ruining our driveway! It will probably cost us more to recoat our driveway than our car is worth. 

For this reason, Corrosion Free is of interest. I believe there is a good applicator in Ottawa.


----------



## Ponderling

I'm giving Krown a run on three vehicles, to see if it forestalls longer term hassles, as I tend to drive them to 14-16years if nothing otherwise is crapping out on them.

I have been at it for three years now. Tend to get them sprayed in the spring or summer so the stuff is more mobile to seep into cracks, etc. Yes, don't park it in the garage or office underground for the first day. 

Time will tell. 
The shop seems to be the key thing that differentiates love or hate of Krown dripping. I am happy so far with the guys in Streetsville I use.


----------



## agent99

Ponderling said:


> Yes, don't park it in the garage or office underground for the first day.


More like the first year. Our car that was sprayed last December is still dripping. As temperatures increase it flows and drips off. Krown product is same regardless of applicator. I have been using Krown for more than 20 years. Just finally realized that ruining my driveway to save car may not make sense.


----------



## MrMatt

How long are you keeping a vehicle for rust to be a problem, it isn't really an issue in the first decade+.


----------



## carverman

agent99 said:


> We may be saving our car from rust, but we are ruining our driveway! It will probably cost us more to recoat our driveway than our car is worth.
> 
> For this reason, Corrosion Free is of interest. I believe there is a good applicator in Ottawa.


Just had my driveway replaced last year and it was half a driveway because I live in a semi ($2600) and that was the best deal I could find, so you definitely don't want
to park a dripping car done with very liquid rustproofing on an asphalt driveway unless it has been sealed with a a good quality "airport grade" driveway sealer.

CTC seems to have the monopoly on Corrosion Free here in Ottawa, but there is a small shop (on a side street in Ottawa) that appears to be able to apply Corrosion Free as
well..Holiday Auto Centre on Louisa street. 

As far as anti corrosion applicators, there are lots of them with different products. Ziebart is also a no drip anti corrosion, but it has to be applied to a relatively new or "clean
late model" used car, and there is yearly inspections and reapplications if necessary, so they are more expensive than Krown.

Depending on the age of the car, how the rust proofing is applied, and how much the car is driven on wet salty roads in winter, rust proofing is always a decision that
comes with mixed blessings and savings. 

Corrosion can start in many places..hidden areas around the wheel wheels, underside of the floor area, the rocker panels and other areas that although treated with a anti corrosion still manage to corrode in the winter months.
The other problem is that like the song goes."rust never sleeps"...it keeps working on the car all the time. Any pits on the outside paint, can lead to a rust hole eventually where
the rust proofing is not done. 

Cars can corrode in many ways, from the inside out.... and from the outside in...it all depends on the specific "rusting pattern' of each vehicle. 
Of course with any rustproofing LIMITED WARRANTY, the warranty applies mainly to reapplication of the their product and NOT REPAIRS of the rusted out parts.

So caveat here, if your car still gets rust holes due to surface rust, don't expect to convince the rust proofers to repair the rust holes in your car. 
The limited warranty such as it is, mainly a 'warm feeling" given to the customer that they stand behind their product. 

http://www.corrosionfree.com/warranty.html



> SURFACE CORROSION may result from a stone chip or other form of abrasion.
> For vehicles protected by Formula 2000, 3000, or CSC850, the Warranty will apply to
> the extent described herein.
> 
> At the first sign of rust or corrosion, the customer must return to a Corrosion FREE Zone facility *where the surface corrosion will be treated
> on a no charge basis. *This service will stop the surface corrosion, *giving the customer ample opportunity to have the paint damage repaired at his or her expense.*
> 
> Corrosion FREE is not responsible for repainting damage caused by paint chipping or blistering.


----------



## AltaRed

I've never applied aftermarket products since the automakers moved to 7 year corrosion penetration warranties. The last vehicles I had 'rust proofed' were bought in the 1970's and I've never had rust perforation on a vehicle since that time (I keep vehicles 10-15 years). Granted I have not lived in the rust belt since the mid-1980's but Calgary, for example, uses a fair bit of salt mixture too. IMO, these products are more damaging than what they are protecting. Any invasive techniques damage the integrity of the automakers' 'shell'.


----------



## carverman

AltaRed said:


> I've never applied aftermarket products since the automakers moved to 7 year corrosion penetration warranties. The last vehicles I had 'rust proofed' were bought in the 1970's and I've never had rust perforation on a vehicle since that time (I keep vehicles 10-15 years). Granted I have not lived in the rust belt since the mid-1980's but Calgary, for example, uses a fair bit of salt mixture too. IMO, these products are more damaging than what they are protecting. Any invasive techniques damage the integrity of the automakers' 'shell'.


Most of the more modern cars use a lot of plastic so it's not as necessary to rustproof them when they are new due to the manufacturer's corrosion warranty. 
Dealers see after market rustproofing as additional money maker for them at time of sale. 
Depending on the manufacturer, the model and year, serious corrosion can be a problem if the vehicle is kept more than 10 years as the modern cars have no frame,
it's just a pressed floor pan with some stiffners welded on in certain places to hang exhaust off.

Rust holes in the floor pan can weaken the vehicle severely, never mind making the vehicle unable to pass the safety test for possible resale. If any
floor pan/bodystructural stiffners rust out, the floor pan will be so weak that it can collapse if the vehicle hits a big pothole or even heavy braking stresses. 

I had a 98 Chrysler product truck (Dakota), that was rustproofed by the dealer as I wanted extra corrosion protection being a new vehicle. It was fine for about 5 years, no visible rust. Then within 5-10 years, the steel painted bumpers started to rust out from INSIDE...bad recycled metal used, I guess, and always on the drivers side where the road salt snow accumulation in the winter would be present on the centre part of the road. Fortunately being a truck it still had a box frame to provide body integrity. 

It got steadily worse after 10 years..bumpers rusted right through with holes on the drives side, lots of corrosion underneath even though I had it oil sprayed every couple of years. 
I owned it from 1998 to 2012, when I finally sold it, but the repairs, in order to pass the safety (brake lines rusted out and split on two separate occasions, rust inside the box around the wheel wells, rusted out back bumper and other areas where the salt/corrosion got into, cost me about the same as I sold the vehicle for. 
It was used in Ottawa winters where LOTs of salt is used due to freezing rain, this accelerated the rusting problem even with 5 applications of oil spray every couple of years.

In the 14 years I owned it: 
Year 1-5 (dealer after market rustproofing) No visible signs of rust 
Years 5-10 (3 applications of after market rust proofing about every second fall) Visible signs of rust and paint deterioration.
Years 10-14 (I think there was at least 1 application of after market rust proofing like Krown or similar( More rust, bumpers especially and underneath)

Would the truck have lasted 14 years without the additional oil spray every 2 years? Don't know about other brands, but with Chrysler products, I doubt it, as the metal used
these days is very thin, they use a LOT of recycled vehicle metal, which means it has some impurities in the steel after smelting, rolling it out into sheet metal to make vehicles again.

It's a crap shoot these days with new cars. I suppose if you don't plan on keeping the vehicle more than 5 years, or at least until the warranty runs out, you may not need
after market rustproofing, if you don't live in the RUST BELT, and save some money. However, it's the luck of the draw.


----------



## My Own Advisor

I've gotten almost 16 years out of my Mazda. No rust-proofing, ever. I hope to get 17 or 18. Yeah, it's rusting but I don't think it owes me anything.


----------



## doctrine

I have a 17 year old car. It's gotten Krown about 5 or 6 times. There is almost no body rust. I would say that it's been worth the $600-700 spent if you compare it to a similar year car with holes through the doors.


----------



## carverman

My Own Advisor said:


> I've gotten almost 16 years out of my Mazda. No rust-proofing, ever. I hope to get 17 or 18. Yeah, it's rusting but I don't think it owes me anything.


You must be either lucky or perhaps have a model that has better steel in it, if you live in Ottawa and drive it on the salt slushy roads. My friend's 2002 Mazda Protege is on its last legs with rust underneath affecting the integrity of the un-ibody floor. It was oil sprayed about every 2 years, AFTER he bought it USED back in 2008, 
nevertheless, it has deteriorated quite a bit in the last 2 years, as it is now facing it's 13th Ottawa winter.

Two years ago the oilsprayer mentioned when they had the car on the hoist, severe rust deterioration underneath, as one of the structural rails supporting the floor pan was rusted through making the car "unsafe" in their words. 

He finally found a independent garage that welded an additional support member to the drivers's side in an attempt to stiffen the underside where the original rail had rotted out.
That cost $800+ tax for the welding labour and materials and it turned out to be a more difficult job than first thought as there was so much rust on the underside that welding the new metal to weld with the rusted floor turned out to be harder than expected. 

So far the repair has worked, extending the life of the car by 2 years plus, but my friend also had to fiberglass the rusted out areas around the rear fender wells last year, and this year the underside again where there was a hole through the floor pan. 

At this point he may squeeze another winter out of it and perhaps a year or two, but the body is very fragile at this point. The holes in the rocker panels and floor had to be filled with expanding styrofoam first and then he put fiberglass matts and resin to cover the foam. 

Yet the engine, tranny and transaxle, brakes are still fine on this car after 128,000 km.


----------



## hystat

AltaRed said:


> I've never applied aftermarket products since the automakers moved to 7 year corrosion penetration warranties. The last vehicles I had 'rust proofed' were bought in the 1970's and I've never had rust perforation on a vehicle since that time (I keep vehicles 10-15 years). Granted I have not lived in the rust belt since the mid-1980's but Calgary, for example, uses a fair bit of salt mixture too. IMO, these products are more damaging than what they are protecting. Any invasive techniques damage the integrity of the automakers' 'shell'.


Krown and others do a great job of protecting electrical connections. The city of Ottawa used to get their fleet of snow removal graders Krowned. It reduced a plethora of electrical issues to "negligible".


----------



## namelessone

I've decided to use Boeshield which was developed by Boeing for aircrafts.


----------



## Cal

I do rust check, which I believe is same as krown.

You sure about the Boeshield on an auto? They don't have autos listed for it to be used on, and it states for use for minor corrosion for the aerospace usage, on the website. Use whatever you want, I don't care, didn't know if you read their website or not or fully understood the product.


----------



## agent99

Cal said:


> I do rust check, which I believe is same as krown.
> 
> You sure about the Boeshield on an auto? They don't have autos listed for it to be used on, and it states for use for minor corrosion for the aerospace usage, on the website. Use whatever you want, I don't care, didn't know if you read their website or not or fully understood the product.


Krown & Rustcheck are competing products and not the same. But in essence they work the same way. I have seen rows of DofD jeeps and trucks lining up to be treated (we have a base nearby). 

Boeshield do say their product is good for cars. But who applies it? It is not cheap - About US$120/gal. Not sure how many gallons it would take if you had a compressor, a gun and a place you don't mind messing up to do the work. 

I have used spray cans of Krown and Rust Check for DIY smaller jobs. Also Fluid film which is sold in a number of places, even CTC. It is used by US Nay, where rust is probably a bigger problem than on aluminum aircraft! http://www.fluid-film.com/company.html

I agree about not using these products on new cars. I wouldn't want to do anything until the 7 year no-corrode warranty has expired. After that, even on what was an expensive euro car, I have had it Krown treated.


----------



## carverman

agent99 said:


> I agree about not using these products on new cars. I wouldn't want to do anything until the 7 year no-corrode warranty has expired. After that, even on what was an expensive euro car, I have had it Krown treated.


Using a product that was designed for aluminum aircraft on vehicles exposed to road salt doesn't make a lot of sense, not to mention any economic advantage.
Aircraft corrosion is gradual, vehicle corrosion in rust belt areas is much faster. Not only do electrical connectors corrode from the salt spray and corrosive atmosphere, but sheet metal, when wet will start to oxidize and corrode over time.

Both Krown and Rust Check are effective, but the applicators tend to coat everything in their drippy formula which makes it more difficult to have any warranty work done, or even repairs after the warranty period expires, as the stuff has to be wiped off in most cases, but is the price you have to pay to reduce corrosion even if the manufacturer claims that their vehicle already comes with corrosion protection.

Perhaps in a dry desert environment, that may be true, but the worse environment is the wet slushy salt that sticks to the wheel wheels and underside of the body. 
No matter how much corrosion protection the vehicle has, it is never enough, and if you don't re-apply ever year, the rust starts again in the nooks and crannies. 

I remember a while back, CTC (and maybe others), were selling a form of electronic "cathodic protection" against corrosion, similar to what is used on ships, but unlike ships, cars are not immersed in salt water all the time, so it would seem to me that this electrical do-dad wasn't that effective on vehicles as claimed to be, 
and here is factual proof. 

The Q-panels were subjected to salt spray in a cabinet environment.

http://ecclesautoservice.ca/do-electronic-rust-protectors-work/

Here is a quote from their findings:



> As expected, the panels protected by Krown T-40 showed very little rusting. Some run-down from the sides of the panel was observed, but otherwise the face of the panel was shiny and free of rust. The tape that covered the side and top edges of the test panel had pulled way during the second day of the test, and that is where rusting originated.
> 
> The blank Q-panels were, as expected, thoroughly rusted. The faces of both panels were
> entirely covered in rust.





> The Q-panels protected by the electronic devices were indistinguishable from the blank panels. *The faces of both panels protected by the electronic devices were entirely
> covered in rust*.





> These results undercut the inference offered by the devices’ manufacturer that laboratory tests demonstrate real-world rust protection when the device is properly installed in an
> automobile. Whatever the details of the alleged ‘protective’ mechanism might be, the device is supposed to protect the car body lying in the field created by the device between the two protective electrodes. That is the theory.





> The field created by the device in a small Q-panel is much more intense than any in a car body in which the device was properly installed.
> More rust protection is to be expected from a more intense field. Yet, the devices were unable to protect a Q-panel in a salt-spray cabinet at all, for there was no
> difference in appearance between them and the unprotected blank panels.
> 
> The Krown panels, on the other hand, were well protected compared with the blanks.


----------



## lonewolf

I have used electronic rust control for about the last 15 years it seams to work very well. Lot cheaper then rust check over the long run.


----------



## carverman

lonewolf said:


> I have used electronic rust control for about the last 15 years it seams to work very well. Lot cheaper then rust check over the long run.


I suppose it would depend on where you live. If you are living in an area that has lots of salt spray on the roads, like Ottawa, and you use your vehicle to drive to work
every working day in the winter months, it may not be as effective as living in another area, where the vehicle is not exposed to those road extremes.


----------



## KLR650

I am a big believer in Krown and have never had an issue with driveway damage. Krown claims their product will not damage asphalt, which seems to be true. Probably helps that we have our driveway sealed every couple years. Even when parked on the street right after Krown is applied, the resultant oil spots disappear within a month or 2. 

Nobody has yet mentioned the importance of washing your vehicle regularly to prevent corrosion, especially in winter and spring. I go to a carwash that uses a high pressure under-spray to clean underneath. I usually use it a couple times over the winter and spring to clear out accumulated road salt and/or calcium chloride.


----------



## leoc2

lonewolf said:


> I have used electronic rust control for about the last 15 years it seams to work very well. Lot cheaper then rust check over the long run.


From this link:
http://www.corrosion-doctors.org/Car/carCP.htm

Why these gadgets do not work?

One has to understand the principle of CP to understand that the technique works by forcing a protective flow of electrons to the metal that needs protection. For this process to work, you need a complete electrical circuit to bring the electrons back. In the case of an outboard motor on a boat, the sea water completes the circuit. In the case of a bridge, the wet soil completes the circuit.

But in your car, the only way to complete the circuit on all the metal in your car is to drive into seawater or be buried in soil! There are various products on the market claiming to provide cathodic electrochemical protection to your car, just by injecting electrons into your metal work - but they don't work. Countries like Canada and the U.S.A. have actually got court orders to stop these products from being sold - simply because they don't work. In your car, there are lots of little nooks and crannies where dirt and/or water can collect. The rust happens not where the metal is dry, nor where the metal is wet - but at the interface between the wet and dry metal. So if you screwed a bunch of anodes right on the interface or one or two millimeters thereof, you would protect your car. But you would need thousands of these anodes over your car.


----------



## carverman

KLR650 said:


> Nobody has yet mentioned the importance of washing your vehicle regularly to prevent corrosion, especially in winter and spring. I go to a carwash that uses a high pressure under-spray to clean underneath. I usually use it a couple times over the winter and spring to clear out accumulated road salt and/or calcium chloride.


Washing the underside of the car, and wheel wheels is an important step in reducing corrosion from salt..but the fact still remains that during the winter months, when the metal
is wet, corrosion can still occur. The period from November to March is when most corrosion occurs. It doesn't happen in the other months or at least as rapidly as it does
during the winter months. 
Case in point..take the car to a salt free environment, or a dry desert environment where there is very little snow and no salt used, like Arizona or California and corrosion is practically
non existent there.


----------



## Petrus62

My car is 11 years old and has no corrosion at all


----------



## carverman

leoc2 said:


> From this link:
> http://www.corrosion-doctors.org/Car/carCP.htm
> 
> Why these gadgets do not work?
> 
> One has to understand the principle of CP to understand that the technique works by forcing a protective flow of electrons to the metal that needs protection. For this process to work, you need a complete electrical circuit to bring the electrons back. In the case of an outboard motor on a boat, the sea water completes the circuit. In the case of a bridge, the wet soil completes the circuit.
> 
> But in your car, the only way to complete the circuit on all the metal in your car is to drive into seawater or be buried in soil! There are various products on the market claiming to provide cathodic electrochemical protection to your car, just by injecting electrons into your metal work - but they don't work. Countries like Canada and the U.S.A. have actually got court orders to stop these products from being sold - simply because they don't work. In your car, there are lots of little nooks and crannies where dirt and/or water can collect. The rust happens not where the metal is dry, nor where the metal is wet - but at the interface between the wet and dry metal. So if you screwed a bunch of anodes right on the interface or one or two millimeters thereof, you would protect your car. But you would need thousands of these anodes over your car.


You make a valid point on cathodic protection (or conversely sacrifical anode protection). In my area, the city had a contractor install 3 sacrificial anodes buried in the soil deep enough where the soil doesn't dry out and connected these anodes to the water hydrants, water main. Although about 40 years later, it is still not to late to do this as eventually the metal water pipes will corrode and breakage could occur due to frost heaves or even the water pressure.

In hot water tanks, there is the sacrificial anode immersed in the water and that seems to work to protect the inside liner of the tank, sacrificial anodes on ships work the same way as the salt water is a conductor for the free electrons.

However on cars, that operate on rubber tires, which are an insulator, the effect is not quite the same. While there may be a difference of electrical potential between one end of the car and the other, it will be small, even of the cathodic protective device polarizes the car chassis from the car's battery. 
Obviously an anode and cathode has to be involved here in order for electrons to flow
and avoid a complete short, typically a polarized car body can act as the cathode and some kind of galvanic metal (zinc) as a sacrificial polarized anode.



> In the application of passive cathodic protection, a galvanic anode, a piece of a more electrochemically "active" metal, is attached to the vulnerable metal surface where it is exposed to an electrolyte. Galvanic anodes are selected because they have a more "active" voltage (more negative electrode potential) than the metal of the target structure (typically steel). For effective cathodic protection, the *potential of the steel surface is polarized (pushed) more negative until the surface has a uniform potential*.
> 
> At that stage, the *driving force for the corrosion reaction with the protected surface is removed*. The *galvanic anode continues to corrode, consuming the anode material until eventually it must be replaced. *Polarization of the target structure is caused by the electron flow from the anode to the cathode, so the two metals must have a good electrically conductive contact. The driving force for the cathodic protection current is the difference in electrode potential between the anode and the cathode.[8]


Why does steel (as in car bodies) rust and corrode in the first place? 

Rust is the result of the reaction of iron with the environment or fluid to which any steel or iron is exposed.

As an example steel can rust when exposed to the atmosphere due to the reaction with rainwater or humidity, and it can corrode even if immersed in water.



> From a theoretical point electrochemical corrosion is the most important mechanism that causes Rust on Steel.
> 
> Four conditions must exist before electrochemical corrosion can proceed:
> 
> (1) there must be something that rusts , the metal anode, where the oxidation reaction takes place
> 
> (2) there must be a cathode, where the reduction reaction takes place
> 
> (3) there must be continuous conductive liquid path (electrolyte, usually condensate and salt or other contaminations), for example: water, seawater, condensing water, humidity..
> 
> (4) there must be a conductor to carry the flow of electrons from the anode to the cathode.
> 
> This conductor is usually in the form of metal-to-metal contact such as in bolted or riveted joints.
> 
> The elimination of any one of the four conditions will remove the conditions that causes rust on steel.


Ideally, all the car manufacturers would need to do to make cars last longer and stop the rusting, is to coat one side of the panels with zinc, but that would defeat planned obsolescence and the reason they introduce a new model year to keep them in business.


----------



## namelessone

Finally, I bought a can of Boeshield but gave up the idea of jacking up the car and do the dirty work and risking the car falling on me. I went to Canadian tire and did under body corrosion free for $67 after tax. That stuff doesn't dry up. I hope it won't trap moisture and water on the metal surface when it rains and snow. I checked out the bottom of my car. My 8 years old car is in surprisingly good shape. There's little rust at the bottom of car. The brake lines look very good.Not sure if it's covered with rubber tube, the colour is black. No rust on it. It helps I only drive 7000km per year. I think I'll keep it until it's 13 to 15 years old if the corrosion free stuff prevents the rust from getting worst. I think I can keep it until 20 years old? but the current car has poor small over lap crash safety rating. I want to get another car with good small over lap crash rating.


----------

