All that rust - is it bad design, or ....

[Bluesman]

....shoddy assembly quality/workmanship or both?

I have to spell it out - during the resto of this car, I have seen terrifying samples of bad design, bad assembly procedures/methods and downright bad workmanship. It stands clear to me that this Morris was not intended to last forever, maybe even less than most common-man-cars of the same time. In my opinion, it´s pure luck (or a combo of luck & hard work from restorers) that so many of them actually are still rolling.

Examples:
a) chassis spot welds made without any quality control. I have seen long lines of spots that have NOT bitten - and in structurally important sections (bulkhead to chassis leg, rear inner wing to outer wing flange etc). I have seen spot welds that have been torn apart by chassis movements - and it´s not from metal fatigue; I know how that looks

b) underseal directly on blank steel (no paint has ever reached the area, much less any primer) or underseal on just barely painted areas

c) cover paint on blank steel (no primer) - and not in a thick coat either, mostly overspray

I could go on with boxed sections (A post) lacking any sign of rust protection yada yada, but this may just be food enough for thought. I don´t want a flame war or heated discussion, I just want to see if this strikes a bell with some of you.

I claim that with better procedures, lots of Moggys would have had less rust. I have actually never seen a car with so many built-in rust traps. Add salt water, humid air and so-so workmanship and QC = disaster. Even the old VW:s were better. Am I totally wrong? Or am I just temporarily disgusted ?

Your views welcome. And if it´s too much OT - please feel free to move it to the Off Topic section.

Cheers /Richard

[Sidney'61]

The question is was your car built in England? or was it one of those CKD jobbies? If it was built over in Sweden or somewhere it could well be their fault!

[Bluesman]

Nope - it´s definitely a Brit-assembled car - LH-drive-converted for export at the factory (and lacking an outside door lock on the driver side). I could give you pics of the chassis plates (IIRC they say Morris Oxford Cowley etc etc) but...

Edit: And - yes, I understand that the design and production method is partly inherited from previous generations of cars, just as the tools are, but still - I am surprised to see beancounter-style expense-cutting procedures at the wheel...in the 1950:s already.

/R

[bigginger]

Yup, I'm horrified by some of the very obvious rust traps and occasional (factory) bad workmanship. The car was (just to try and explain the 'bean counting' thing) designed and first built (methods and practices presumably decided on) when this country was recovering from WWII - the phrase at the time was "export or die", I believe, and the idea was in fairly large part to get money into Britain as quickly as possible. Seems like a fairly reasonable approach really, and it worked. I don't think the phrase 'rust trap' would have ever occured to Sir Alec either, and can't imagine he was designing for a 40/50/60 yearlifespan
a

[rayofleamington]

In UK production, the entire shell was dipped...
I've done major shell work on half a dozen Minors and have yet to find more than one spot weld on a sill that had not taken properly.

If your car had lots of spot welds that were poor, then something seriously bad about that car!!
I've seen this on other cars (not Minors) where structural areas just fell apart in a crash due to bad spot welds - It's pretty scary.

As for your "over spray on bare steel" I'd guess this is the fault of a garage or DIYer. If the car was made like that, after so many decades you'd not find any paint at all - just rust.

My 57 has a very good shell - not by luck or by the efforts of restoration (it never had any before I got it). The shell was made of good quality steel and well painted in the factory. Sadly it had been neglected since the day it was sold, and got used and abused.

Nothing lasts forever. The ones that survive in perfect condition are usually well treated and re-treated with waxoil...

[MoggyTech]

A lot of the rust found on Morris Minors, is due to age/neglect IMHO. Production finished in the early 70's and back then few companies had managed to make inroads into rust prevention. I can remember the Datsun 120Y, and rear wheel arches that disolved as you drove them out of a showroom.

You have to ask how many previous owners cleared the rust trap areas of debris every spring. Rear of front wings need cleaning out/checked every year. Sill drain holes need to be cleared every few months, same for drain holes in the bottom of the doors. Rear wheel arches need cleaning as well, and the front spring hangers.

As for poor spot welding, I've never seen this on any Morris Minor I have worked on.

I would say that the Morris Minor is pretty sturdy for it's age. I have seen unrestored cars at shows, rust free, due to carefull maintenance.

Of course you always get the odd rogue car that has been poorly built (Monday morning cars).

[chickenjohn]

You'll find similar or worse rust on other cars from 60's 70's etc. Most Vauxhalls, fords and nearly all Japanese cars from the era have simply rusted away and there would be less left than you see on your Morris.

Cortinas, for example would regularly rust out their strut tops within 5 years from new. A Minor lasted a lot longer than that.

[Orkney]

Did the mog have a designed sevice life of ??? years ?

Apparently most of the early japanese cars disintegrated simply because they came off the production line then spent 6 weeks or whatever at sea on the transport ship - no aircon / climate control on them in those days so were exposed to a very harsh salt environment from new.

[Bluesman]

Awright - part of this, part of that, I guess. One thing is clear - and I will have to give the factory cred for that - they used top notch quality steel! If they hadn´t, there would be *nada* left. Even today, it´s easy to find shiny steel on the Mog. That would never be the case on an early jap car, agreed.

Let´s leave it at that. Good to see that I am not the only one with a so-so QC:d/manufactured car (even if it´s 50 years old).

(And no, this chassis was not dipped in any paint or primer. Sprayed, yes, electrostat-painted maybe (very unlikely) but dipped? No, allow me to doubt it. If it had been, there would have been traces of paint inside the hinge pillar - I suppose they dipped the shells without the doors on them - , inside the boxed section where the door light switch lives and other similar places, and traces of paint in panel joints where the spot welds have never bitten. And why is there absolutely no paint whatsoever inside the chassis legs?)

Anyway - good that there are a few left, it´s a lovely little car after all is said and done.

Cheers /Richard

[AndrewSkinner]

If you log onto youtube and watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8U_w4dJTq4

It must have been on TV a while ago but it is very interesting. All about Morris, the mini and allot about Sir Alec.

I think it was this program that mentioned the Morris had more spot welds/inch than most cars of the day.

[Bluesman]

Cool - thanks for that link - extremely educational!

/Richard

[bigginger]

(And no, this chassis was not dipped in any paint or primer. /Richard

If it was Cowley built, then yes it was, on a giant spit running through the hole in the bulkhead. It may not show now, but I don't think they'd have made an exception
a

[dunketh]

I certainly agree with you regarding 'rust traps'.
The design of the sills and the wonderful back seat 'box section-come-water collector' certainly promotes rot.
In the case of the back seat area this effects the spring hangers directly beneath it too!

The short answer is - no car is 'intended' to last 40-50 even 60 years.
You should have replaced it with a Marina 30 years ago, then worked your way up through the BMC range.