This probably shouldn't even been a post, its more like myself talking to myself out loud. More like a cry out loud, about how ugly the truth is about Bonneville'*. I guess i just wanted to let it out that frustration that got into me after having gone through 2 of our Bonneville that we have recently bought. one is 92 another 96, both SSEI supercharged, and both fully loaded, beautiful cars. Yet both rusted to its cores underneaths. I mean what the hell were they thinking? These cars rust out in most crucial and important places. On back on the strut towers, specially right one. Front sub-frame, right above the bushing and the suspension end, which mounts to the body in that place. In a front wheel well, specially left side, right off of the front shock. This cars are so badly designed that after about 10yrs of use, they are ready to fall through. its a shame!

I agree.... But just make sure that bulletproof and underestimated powertrain lives a long life in another body, wheather it be the usualy, GP, Ultra, Bonneville, GS, ect or be creative... Fiero, Alero, Grand Am, Or a Dune Buggy!

The Bonneville will be a dying breed one day, so take great pride and care in the one u have.

Thats what friends with welders and cut off wheels are for!!!

thanks for reminding me how lucky I am to live in Montana. Rust free cars. They put some salt on the roads but if you use the car wash once a weak you have no problems.

At least you can drive them till the wheels fall off and then a little longer.

Looking around I see many more of these old H body GM'* than most other manufacturers cars. You live in Michigan..a salt and rust state and you are talking about cars that are over 14 years old.

Sorry I'm not commiserating with you, I do a lot of work on these cars and the majority are still in very good shape underneath.

It seam like you guys are pretty mad at me thinking that I'm bad mouthing a car or whatever. I did mentioned howevere that it was just a personal thought. I understand what many of you are saying bout salt and all, but all in all I still am dissappointed in a design or build quaility of the body of those cars. I know that the cars last long time interms of engine and tranny but it'* like having a house which is big comfy and great, yet sitting on fragile and unstable foundation. :( the only reason I started it is because I can tell that the rate of speed at which those cars rust is faster then usual. It'* off off a cheaper abd smaller cars, if that make sence, I mean it'* fully loaded muscle car, GM should of invested in it'* back bone more thrn ehat they did. The damn car is 97 and already in need of fabrication. I have seen many other 90s cars which held up to salt much better in general. I just think it'* a flaws on GM part going cheap on protection and coating of the undercarriage, since I won't blame them for a design as it makes no sence to do so, since no one knows how it'll work unless u make a car and put it through things. At thr end I guess what I'm saying is that I'd rather got these two ninnies and found that they need some work done on druvability issues instead of what I found. In comparacent I think u would agree that ud rather buy a house that need a new roof or windows instead of crumpling foundation.;( I love those cars, their comfy loaded and fast but unstable in crussial way.

There some autospell mistakes like ninnies which suppost to be bonnies lol and other smaller once, which I'm sorry bout. I used a phone to reply and it always does it. Lol

I see how good u guys are getting back at this add, which makes me wonder if any of you saw another one I posted, more important one for me atleast, where I needed a help with advicehttps://www.gmforum.com/showthread.php?t=297658.

I'm not mad or sticking up for the cars...just kinda saying.. you live in the rustiest place on the planet..lol