Originally Posted by loveracing1988
It depends on the vehicle. If a vehicle is prone to rust undercoating is a necessity, I had a 95 escort, when I got rid of it it was 15 years and 185000 miles old. There were a few small spots of rust but that was it, a identical car without undercoating would have had both rear quarter panels about ready to fall off. My dad has a F 250 (looks like a f150 though) he just got his first rust spot this last spring. His brother has a truck 1 year older and did not have it undercoated, his doors are rotting out and so are his fenders. Every vehicle is prone to rusting wherever water can just sit and eat away at the metal, will the wk2 be that way? No one will know for a few years. It also comes down to how good the undercoating is, if it all runs off in a year it won't do anything, but if you fond somewhere where they take all body panels and trim panels off to fill the doors and fenders and such with undercoating it is worth it.
You have no idea if that Escort would have rotted without it. None. You'd have to run the same car side by side to know. And do it on 10 cars. Then you'll have some stats.
If it made you feel good, great.
You are more likely to cause issues than prevent any.
Remove the body panels, you nuts !!!
Probably the most common thing that causes rust is clogged drains, from pine needles and such. You are more likely to clog a drain by spraying goo on the bottom. Keep them clear and wash your car at least once a year
and you'll be fine.