This should generate some lively discussion...

Most of us have tried a variety of rust-prevention products.  If you're like me, you've found that some don't quite live up to expectations.  Many swear by a particular product, but I often wonder if their allegiance is tied to subconsciously defending the choice they made.  There are lot of manufacturer's claims published and a lot of one-use testimonials, but not much in the way solid comparative date to back them up.

Back in 2011, 'Classics Monthly' -- one of England's leading auto restoration publications -- began a test of a group of the leading, over-the-counter rust prevention products.  The test lasted for three years.  The products were split into two categories:  1) those for pre-paint treatment of exterior surfaces, and; 2) those for treatment of concealed internal surfaces (door cavities, frame rails, rocker sills, etc).  The results were quite interesting...

https://www.auson.se/sites/default/files/rusttest_noxudol_700_classic_monthly_uk_0.pdf 

My favorite to stop rust in its tracks.

It was interesting that the Por15 and the Eastwood were near the bottom. I would have liked to have seen them use the Eastwood internal frame coating to get a point of reference on that against the other internal coatings

3 hours ago, Patcon said:

It was interesting that the Por15 and the Eastwood were near the bottom. I would have liked to have seen them use the Eastwood internal frame coating to get a point of reference on that against the other internal coatings

i could be wrong, but I don't think that the Eastwood internal frame coating product had been introduced at the time when the magazine started their comparison test.