According to Drive Ranger XL and XLS are not selling?

[simon varley]

Originally Posted by PooDog

It's just a mild hybrid

mild hybrids aren't really hybrids at all. All they do is a bit of regen braking and turn the engine off when not needed. they don't have an electric motor for driving the car, just for restarting.

[PooDog]

Originally Posted by simon varley

mild hybrids aren't really hybrids at all. All they do is a bit of regen braking and turn the engine off when not needed. they don't have an electric motor for driving the car, just for restarting.

I agree

[kevino]

Simon
So an mhev still saves a reasonable per centage of fuel as starting a petrol car uses alot of fuel.
So are puma and focus mhev primarily a marketing exercise or a fuel saving exercise.

[simon varley]

Originally Posted by kevino

Simon
So an mhev still saves a reasonable per centage of fuel as starting a petrol car uses alot of fuel.
So are puma and focus mhev primarily a marketing exercise or a fuel saving exercise.

my opinion is mine alone, but I think mHEVs are 100% a marketing gimmick. The sticker value might show better FE, but then so does stop/start technology. Does it convert into a real world fuel saving? well, for me it doesn't. Maybe it does for some.

[Sprintey]

Originally Posted by simon varley

mild hybrids aren't really hybrids at all. All they do is a bit of regen braking and turn the engine off when not needed. they don't have an electric motor for driving the car, just for restarting.

Had a mate who did that with his HG panelvan. Down a hill would put it into neutral, and sometimes, with the 'economy' idle set, it would stall and turn itself off. The regen breaking was him frantically trying to restart it as he had power brakes. Fun times.

[roKWiz]

Originally Posted by Sprintey

Had a mate who did that with his HG panelvan. Down a hill would put it into neutral, and sometimes, with the 'economy' idle set, it would stall and turn itself off. The regen breaking was him frantically trying to restart it as he had power brakes. Fun times.

Georgia overdrive.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by simon varley

my opinion is mine alone, but I think mHEVs are 100% a marketing gimmick. The sticker value might show better FE, but then so does stop/start technology. Does it convert into a real world fuel saving? well, for me it doesn't. Maybe it does for some.

You’re on the money with mild hybrids, just a clever rework of the old GM BAS system.
Back then, GM was looking at ways to minimise idle fuel use on test cycle, a “cheat”.

Looking at actual hybrids like Escape with 1.1 Kwhr or the PHEV with 14.4 Kwhr,
the basic hybrid that’s not sold here is much better bang for bucks for fuel savings.
That small battery is way advanced of the passive hybrid stop-start which is a joke.

[Franco Cozzo]

[DFB FGXR6]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

All he did was moan about all the missing features. It's the base model moron!

[prydey]

Originally Posted by DFB FGXR6

All he did was moan about all the missing features. It's the base model moron!

It's Maric... Par for the course. Although he did review escape quite well a couple of years ago.

[Giant Cranium]

It’s missing things that should be in the base model. Cup holders and more storage. I find his reviews spot on.

[Franco Cozzo]

It's the base model but it's also $53K - I'm thinking that's where the emphasis is there.

Interestingly it's optioned up with the twin turbo engine though, curious what it costs in povvo spec single turbo guise.

If you were to compare it just on price that's i30N premium and mid spec WRX money and this thing has drum brakes on the rear axle and no auto up windows.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

.

If you were to compare it just on price that's i30N premium and mid spec WRX money and this thing has drum brakes on the rear axle and no auto up windows.

But you can put a tonne in the back, fit the wife and kids in, and tow the boat or van...

It's all about perspective.

Not to mention it still passes ADR's with drum brakes.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by prydey

But you can put a tonne in the back, fit the wife and kids in, and tow the boat or van...

It's all about perspective.

Not to mention it still passes ADR's with drum brakes.

Yeah but it costs 1/3rd to manufacture too, its a body on frame ute - so whats the excuse for the poor specifications and inclusions?

The VDJ79 Landcruiser passes ADRs too without meeting the side impact crash requirements of ADR85 - only because they increased its GVM specifically to avoid having to meet them.

So meeting ADRs with drum brakes is a bit of a moot point really, just because something meets the standards, doesn't particularly mean its good.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

Yeah but it costs 1/3rd to manufacture too, its a body on frame ute - so whats the excuse for the poor specifications and inclusions?

The VDJ79 Landcruiser passes ADRs too without meeting the side impact crash requirements of ADR85 - only because they increased its GVM specifically to avoid having to meet them.

So meeting ADRs with drum brakes is a bit of a moot point really, just because something meets the standards, doesn't particularly mean its good.

You can buy an ozito drill with batteries and charger and still have change compared to a makita skin. It's just how the world is. Products get sold for what they can sell for not what they're worth.

I do agree that the base ranger is expensive for what it is but hey, they can get away with it.. For now.

Picking on the brakes really is moot. The brakes work. It's the same as picking on Holden v8 models for having push rods. Yes, it's old tech, but it still works fine.

[DFB FGXR6]

Posted elsewhere but relevant to this thread -

Today I had the Jaguar in for it's 75,000 km service...........with 13,277 km on the clock.

This dealer is combined with Ford, Honda, VW and Audi so the loan cars can be varied. I was actually booked for a Puma but ended up with a new Ranger XLS instead.







This particular example was finished in Aluminum Silver and fitted with the Bi-Turbo / 10-speed 4x4 powertrain and was showing just on 6,000 km on the clock. Full retail on this vehicle is $60,178.

So, I had a chance to drive this car around a bit today and these are my notes -

Positives -

- The seats and overall ride are brilliant. Yes, you know it's a commercial vehicle but it's clear Ford put effort into tuning the ride to seats. The cloth trim undoubtably contributed to this factor over the leather clad PX III Wildtrack I'm comparing it to.

- The effort put into the little things is pleasing. Finally, rear air vents! The sidestep on the tub is a nice touch, as is the silly but novel measuring scale molded into the tailgate.



- The little touches made to the user interface are nice, the animated Ranger and Built Ford Tough logo's offer a little theater to the cabin, especially pleasing as this is considered an entry level spec.





- Say what you will about a tiny 2.0 diesel powering a 2.4 tonne pickup truck, but this engine and gearing are plenty powerful. I will say that the way Ford have "plumped" up the styling of the car has really increased room under the hood, there is a LOT of spare room under there.



- The overall driving experience is pleasant, steering feels good, brakes are fine and as mentioned, rides decently.

- This will be subjective, but I have come to really like the styling, especially at the rear. I even kinda like the cheap halogen headlights. Again, you can see where Ford have made gains in overall size, the cabin remaining static while the tub and front quarters have really been pushed out to gain width.



Negative's -

Sadly, there is so many areas where Ford have made change for change sake. Many little details that I'm sure you will adapt to over time, just keep in mind I'm coming from driving a PX of some sort for nearly 10 years now.

- The door handles are stupid, compounded by having a blanking piece where they used to be. You would get used to this but again, change for change sake.





- The location of the headlight controls which are obscured by the steering column is silly, especially considering they prioritized a useless storage slot over a more logical placement of these basic controls.



- The transmission selector has lost the S or Sport mode function. Now, this may sound trivial on a pickup truck, but I have found this mode to useful for towing or when on winding roads as it stops the gearbox from laboring the engine or hunting. The manual function is basically useless, taking far, far too long to respond to inputs and will override the driver anyway. What was wrong with the up-down function the early PX Ranger's had, they were even orientated it correctly with forward for a lower gear and backwards for a higher one.



- Engine vibration. This seems worse than the same powertrain in our Wildtrack. The calibration of the gearbox was also quite firm in it's shifting when coming to a stop.

- Interior material quality is absolutely crap. I know this is a entry level model, but I couldn't help feeling even my PX II XL had nicer materials. The overall build quality is fine, but the materials are hard as a rock and have that nasty scratchy feeling to them. I remind readers at this point that the vehicle costs over $60,000 without options. Not good enough!

- The lack of proper gauges bothers me. Sure, it looks cool, but the simulated fuel, temperature, revs and speedo lack clear legibility. Form over function. Saying that, I'm sure you would get used to them.



- The large central screen, again, looks cool but was way too laggy for a vehicle in this era.

- The tray had no lining and this example was already scratched and dented fairly badly. Think of this way, in 1999 Ford put a plastic tub liner in EVERY Falcon Ute they made, on a vehicle that started at about $25,000. And yet, this $60,000 pickup doesn't!

I can't help thinking if a little less money was put into the glitter of fancy screens and "easter eggs" and little more spent on the basics that this would be a more complete vehicle. I think the most egregious aspect was the animated welcome screen depicting a higher spec Sport or XLT.......on an entry XLS, as if to remind the customer every time he didn't have the flagship model.



Overall, I liked driving this particular vehicle, and I have no doubt it would be fine workhorse. However, the interior's nasty materials really let the side down, to the point where I don't see this being $60,000 vehicle, $45,000 tops in my opinion. No wonder Ford are having trouble selling these models.

I've gone to the trouble of writing all that because, ideally, I would like to upgrade my current PX II XL to the new model, but this experience has me questioning that desire.



My current Ranger, a single cab chassis with a custom steel tray, cost me just on $30,000 in 2016. The cheapest new Ranger now starts at $36,180 before on-roads and a tray, so let's say $40,000, meaning a 10k leap in cost. Admittedly, that includes an automatic transmission and a large increase in standard features. It also includes high-ride suspension, something completely useless on a 4x2.

Frankly, I don't want the single turbo 2.0 and 6 speed auto, meaning I need to get the 4x4 Bi-Turbo 10-speed. That spec starts at $47,280 before on-roads and a tray. That's $50k for an entry level single cab chassis work truck.

The reality is, the Ranger is the best of the bunch, which would justify a price premium, just not the one Ford are asking, especially with that interior. I think for now, it's best to wait this out and run up a few more km's on my current model.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by DFB FGXR6

Posted elsewhere but relevant to this thread -

Today I had the Jaguar in for it's 75,000 km service...........with 13,277 km on the clock.

This dealer is combined with Ford, Honda, VW and Audi so the loan cars can be varied. I was actually booked for a Puma but ended up with a new Ranger XLS instead.

image

image

image

This particular example was finished in Aluminum Silver and fitted with the Bi-Turbo / 10-speed 4x4 powertrain and was showing just on 6,000 km on the clock. Full retail on this vehicle is $60,178.

So, I had a chance to drive this car around a bit today and these are my notes -

Positives -

- The seats and overall ride are brilliant. Yes, you know it's a commercial vehicle but it's clear Ford put effort into tuning the ride to seats. The cloth trim undoubtably contributed to this factor over the leather clad PX III Wildtrack I'm comparing it to.

- The effort put into the little things is pleasing. Finally, rear air vents! The sidestep on the tub is a nice touch, as is the silly but novel measuring scale molded into the tailgate.

image

- The little touches made to the user interface are nice, the animated Ranger and Built Ford Tough logo's offer a little theater to the cabin, especially pleasing as this is considered an entry level spec.

image

image

- Say what you will about a tiny 2.0 diesel powering a 2.4 tonne pickup truck, but this engine and gearing are plenty powerful. I will say that the way Ford have "plumped" up the styling of the car has really increased room under the hood, there is a LOT of spare room under there.

image

- The overall driving experience is pleasant, steering feels good, brakes are fine and as mentioned, rides decently.

- This will be subjective, but I have come to really like the styling, especially at the rear. I even kinda like the cheap halogen headlights. Again, you can see where Ford have made gains in overall size, the cabin remaining static while the tub and front quarters have really been pushed out to gain width.

image

Negative's -

Sadly, there is so many areas where Ford have made change for change sake. Many little details that I'm sure you will adapt to over time, just keep in mind I'm coming from driving a PX of some sort for nearly 10 years now.

- The door handles are stupid, compounded by having a blanking piece where they used to be. You would get used to this but again, change for change sake.

image

image

- The location of the headlight controls which are obscured by the steering column is silly, especially considering they prioritized a useless storage slot over a more logical placement of these basic controls.

image

- The transmission selector has lost the S or Sport mode function. Now, this may sound trivial on a pickup truck, but I have found this mode to useful for towing or when on winding roads as it stops the gearbox from laboring the engine or hunting. The manual function is basically useless, taking far, far too long to respond to inputs and will override the driver anyway. What was wrong with the up-down function the early PX Ranger's had, they were even orientated it correctly with forward for a lower gear and backwards for a higher one.

image

- Engine vibration. This seems worse than the same powertrain in our Wildtrack. The calibration of the gearbox was also quite firm in it's shifting when coming to a stop.

- Interior material quality is absolutely crap. I know this is a entry level model, but I couldn't help feeling even my PX II XL had nicer materials. The overall build quality is fine, but the materials are hard as a rock and have that nasty scratchy feeling to them. I remind readers at this point that the vehicle costs over $60,000 without options. Not good enough!

- The lack of proper gauges bothers me. Sure, it looks cool, but the simulated fuel, temperature, revs and speedo lack clear legibility. Form over function. Saying that, I'm sure you would get used to them.

image

- The large central screen, again, looks cool but was way too laggy for a vehicle in this era.

- The tray had no lining and this example was already scratched and dented fairly badly. Think of this way, in 1999 Ford put a plastic tub liner in EVERY Falcon Ute they made, on a vehicle that started at about $25,000. And yet, this $60,000 pickup doesn't!

I can't help thinking if a little less money was put into the glitter of fancy screens and "easter eggs" and little more spent on the basics that this would be a more complete vehicle. I think the most egregious aspect was the animated welcome screen depicting a higher spec Sport or XLT.......on an entry XLS, as if to remind the customer every time he didn't have the flagship model.

image

Overall, I liked driving this particular vehicle, and I have no doubt it would be fine workhorse. However, the interior's nasty materials really let the side down, to the point where I don't see this being $60,000 vehicle, $45,000 tops in my opinion. No wonder Ford are having trouble selling these models.

I've gone to the trouble of writing all that because, ideally, I would like to upgrade my current PX II XL to the new model, but this experience has me questioning that desire.

image

My current Ranger, a single cab chassis with a custom steel tray, cost me just on $30,000 in 2016. The cheapest new Ranger now starts at $36,180 before on-roads and a tray, so let's say $40,000, meaning a 10k leap in cost. Admittedly, that includes an automatic transmission and a large increase in standard features. It also includes high-ride suspension, something completely useless on a 4x2.

Frankly, I don't want the single turbo 2.0 and 6 speed auto, meaning I need to get the 4x4 Bi-Turbo 10-speed. That spec starts at $47,280 before on-roads and a tray. That's $50k for an entry level single cab chassis work truck.

The reality is, the Ranger is the best of the bunch, which would justify a price premium, just not the one Ford are asking, especially with that interior. I think for now, it's best to wait this out and run up a few more km's on my current model.

Thanks for the detailed review, I'm a big fan of the very large engine bay, that's going to lead to reduced labour times and some good aftermarket options on dual battery setups.

I have a big problem with non responsive screens for interfaces, I've seen this on a couple cars now where the screens take ages to respond to your inputs, how come they've had this figured out on phones for 15 years and they seem to be using potatoes to power their infotainment systems in cars in 2023?

[naddis01]

Originally Posted by DFB FGXR6

Posted elsewhere but relevant to this thread -

Today I had the Jaguar in for it's 75,000 km service...........with 13,277 km on the clock.

This dealer is combined with Ford, Honda, VW and Audi so the loan cars can be varied. I was actually booked for a Puma but ended up with a new Ranger XLS instead.

image

image

image

This particular example was finished in Aluminum Silver and fitted with the Bi-Turbo / 10-speed 4x4 powertrain and was showing just on 6,000 km on the clock. Full retail on this vehicle is $60,178.

So, I had a chance to drive this car around a bit today and these are my notes -

Positives -

- The seats and overall ride are brilliant. Yes, you know it's a commercial vehicle but it's clear Ford put effort into tuning the ride to seats. The cloth trim undoubtably contributed to this factor over the leather clad PX III Wildtrack I'm comparing it to.

- The effort put into the little things is pleasing. Finally, rear air vents! The sidestep on the tub is a nice touch, as is the silly but novel measuring scale molded into the tailgate.

image

- The little touches made to the user interface are nice, the animated Ranger and Built Ford Tough logo's offer a little theater to the cabin, especially pleasing as this is considered an entry level spec.

image

image

- Say what you will about a tiny 2.0 diesel powering a 2.4 tonne pickup truck, but this engine and gearing are plenty powerful. I will say that the way Ford have "plumped" up the styling of the car has really increased room under the hood, there is a LOT of spare room under there.

image

- The overall driving experience is pleasant, steering feels good, brakes are fine and as mentioned, rides decently.

- This will be subjective, but I have come to really like the styling, especially at the rear. I even kinda like the cheap halogen headlights. Again, you can see where Ford have made gains in overall size, the cabin remaining static while the tub and front quarters have really been pushed out to gain width.

image

Negative's -

Sadly, there is so many areas where Ford have made change for change sake. Many little details that I'm sure you will adapt to over time, just keep in mind I'm coming from driving a PX of some sort for nearly 10 years now.

- The door handles are stupid, compounded by having a blanking piece where they used to be. You would get used to this but again, change for change sake.

image

image

- The location of the headlight controls which are obscured by the steering column is silly, especially considering they prioritized a useless storage slot over a more logical placement of these basic controls.

image

- The transmission selector has lost the S or Sport mode function. Now, this may sound trivial on a pickup truck, but I have found this mode to useful for towing or when on winding roads as it stops the gearbox from laboring the engine or hunting. The manual function is basically useless, taking far, far too long to respond to inputs and will override the driver anyway. What was wrong with the up-down function the early PX Ranger's had, they were even orientated it correctly with forward for a lower gear and backwards for a higher one.

image

- Engine vibration. This seems worse than the same powertrain in our Wildtrack. The calibration of the gearbox was also quite firm in it's shifting when coming to a stop.

- Interior material quality is absolutely crap. I know this is a entry level model, but I couldn't help feeling even my PX II XL had nicer materials. The overall build quality is fine, but the materials are hard as a rock and have that nasty scratchy feeling to them. I remind readers at this point that the vehicle costs over $60,000 without options. Not good enough!

- The lack of proper gauges bothers me. Sure, it looks cool, but the simulated fuel, temperature, revs and speedo lack clear legibility. Form over function. Saying that, I'm sure you would get used to them.

image

- The large central screen, again, looks cool but was way too laggy for a vehicle in this era.

- The tray had no lining and this example was already scratched and dented fairly badly. Think of this way, in 1999 Ford put a plastic tub liner in EVERY Falcon Ute they made, on a vehicle that started at about $25,000. And yet, this $60,000 pickup doesn't!

I can't help thinking if a little less money was put into the glitter of fancy screens and "easter eggs" and little more spent on the basics that this would be a more complete vehicle. I think the most egregious aspect was the animated welcome screen depicting a higher spec Sport or XLT.......on an entry XLS, as if to remind the customer every time he didn't have the flagship model.

image

Overall, I liked driving this particular vehicle, and I have no doubt it would be fine workhorse. However, the interior's nasty materials really let the side down, to the point where I don't see this being $60,000 vehicle, $45,000 tops in my opinion. No wonder Ford are having trouble selling these models.

I've gone to the trouble of writing all that because, ideally, I would like to upgrade my current PX II XL to the new model, but this experience has me questioning that desire.

image

My current Ranger, a single cab chassis with a custom steel tray, cost me just on $30,000 in 2016. The cheapest new Ranger now starts at $36,180 before on-roads and a tray, so let's say $40,000, meaning a 10k leap in cost. Admittedly, that includes an automatic transmission and a large increase in standard features. It also includes high-ride suspension, something completely useless on a 4x2.

Frankly, I don't want the single turbo 2.0 and 6 speed auto, meaning I need to get the 4x4 Bi-Turbo 10-speed. That spec starts at $47,280 before on-roads and a tray. That's $50k for an entry level single cab chassis work truck.

The reality is, the Ranger is the best of the bunch, which would justify a price premium, just not the one Ford are asking, especially with that interior. I think for now, it's best to wait this out and run up a few more km's on my current model.

Can I make a few counter points?

- I find the door handles great as you are holding a solid handle while opening. Handy in tight car spaces and windy days.

- While I agree the headlight switch is obscured, I don't think I've touched mine since I picked up the Raptor. The auto headlights do a great job. Maybe in foggy areas it would be a pain in the rectum.

- I can't say I've found the screen laggy. Unless there is a difference between the 10" in the XLS and the 12" version in the Raptor.

[Giant Cranium]

Some fair points. Except the tray liner. Ford put that factory for falcons otherwise they tray would have been useless

[simon varley]

after a short while I love the new door handles. if you reach across with your left hand, you naturally look over your shoulder as you open the door. Lifesaver for cyclists.

[DFB FGXR6]

Originally Posted by Giant Cranium

Some fair points. Except the tray liner. Ford put that factory for falcons otherwise they tray would have been useless
image

I know the plastic tub on Falcon Utes was like that. So why did they not build Ranger tubs the same way? The only reason I can think of was cost.

[Swordie]

Originally Posted by DFB FGXR6

My current Ranger, a single cab chassis with a custom steel tray, cost me just on $30,000 in 2016. The cheapest new Ranger now starts at $36,180 before on-roads and a tray, so let's say $40,000, meaning a 10k leap in cost. Admittedly, that includes an automatic transmission and a large increase in standard features. It also includes high-ride suspension, something completely useless on a 4x2.

Frankly, I don't want the single turbo 2.0 and 6 speed auto, meaning I need to get the 4x4 Bi-Turbo 10-speed. That spec starts at $47,280 before on-roads and a tray. That's $50k for an entry level single cab chassis work truck.

The reality is, the Ranger is the best of the bunch, which would justify a price premium, just not the one Ford are asking, especially with that interior. I think for now, it's best to wait this out and run up a few more km's on my current model.

Unfortunately overall most cars are at a premium at the moment. I wonder when it will change?

From of cost of ownership point of view secondhand highrider 2WD Hilux seems like a good buy as Toyotas hold their value and have the reliability reputation.

[simon varley]

Originally Posted by DFB FGXR6

I know the plastic tub on Falcon Utes was like that. So why did they not build Ranger tubs the same way? The only reason I can think of was cost.

I'm not sure I even understand your question?

[XR Martin]

At work, we got a late 2022 Workmate Hilux single cab 2wd, just realised that they no longer have intermittent wipers (letlone variable)

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by simon varley

after a short while I love the new door handles. if you reach across with your left hand, you naturally look over your shoulder as you open the door. Lifesaver for cyclists.

They are much more ergonomic. So simple to use.

First time i've ever heard someone complain about them. Usually the journos find something silly to pick on but they praised them.

And you can use them with thick gloves on too.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by XR Martin

At work, we got a late 2022 Workmate Hilux single cab 2wd, just realised that they no longer have intermittent wipers (letlone variable)

Chip shortage, must be shortage of three position wiper switches

They probably won't have brakes on the rear axle next - already has drums it's basically like having no brakes anyway

[DFB FGXR6]

Originally Posted by simon varley

I'm not sure I even understand your question?

Ford Australia built Falcon Ute tubs with the plastic bedliner as an integral part of the tub dating back to 1999.

Ranger tubs are all build with a steel bases and inner sides, up spec models then have a tub liner attached over the top. So, there is an element of redundancy and added weight here.

The observation I'm making is that Ford Australia showed innovation and built their tubs for Falcon in a smarter way, eliminating added steel, saving weight and giving all Ute customers a more versatile and durable solution. Plastic tubs also age better than painted steel, as mentioned, the car I drove was already jacked up with dints and scraped paint. I do remember at the time Ford making comment about those tubs being able to be replaced after hard use if required.

The way I see it, using past experience and knowledge could have been implemented here on the Ranger, making it a better workhorse in the process. I was probably too hard on this aspect in the review I posted last week, but I guess I'm intrigued at these sorts of decisions car makers make.

[simon varley]

Originally Posted by DFB FGXR6

Ford Australia built Falcon Ute tubs with the plastic bedliner as an integral part of the tub dating back to 1999.

Ranger tubs are all build with a steel bases and inner sides, up spec models then have a tub liner attached over the top. So, there is an element of redundancy and added weight here.

The observation I'm making is that Ford Australia showed innovation and built their tubs for Falcon in a smarter way,

no not really. using the Falcon analogy you'd have to fit a tub liner 100% which would totally void the cost save on the low series cars that don't have it fitted.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by simon varley

no not really. using the Falcon analogy you'd have to fit a tub liner 100% which would totally void the cost save on the low series cars that don't have it fitted.

Surely plastic is cheaper than steel?

[XR Martin]

Yeah the plastic tub of the AU onwards was genius.
However, the bean counters could have allowed rustproofing/galvanisation underneath on the frame.