I've started looking into buying a late spec Classic (around 8kish) and notice that a lot of cars seem to have had an engine rebuild at some time or other...

Question is, is that a good thing or a bad thing? The way I see it is:

Good Thing
Brand New Parts/Engine
Very Low Mileage

Bad Thing
Sign of a thrashed car
Possible other damage that hasn't been repaired/replaced

Any thoughts from owners out there?

Cheers
Jon

 

Well dependant on the rest of the car being sound FOR ME it would generally be down to who did the rebuild and how comprehensive the rebuild was...and also when the rebuild was done - ie was it done by the current owner - does he seem the sort to have had it fixed at 'no expense spared' - did they check the transmission etc etc...how many miles since the rebuild...what was the reason for the rebuild - had the car been standing or was it a blow up...it is on the original turbo ?

A full rebuild by a TOP company with lots of experience in boxer engines can be approaching as good as a new engine if it's had top spec parts and was run in properly...

You can always get a compression test and a thorough mechanical inspection done...but on a car like that (8K) a GOOD rebuild could be £4K a bad home rebuild (just rings, shells and gaskets, maybe new clutch etc) could be £800 so check the bills...

 

A rebuild could be a good thing if it was done properly but I would want to know who did the rebuild, what is their experience and where is the detailed bill.

 

Yes i agree.

 

After finding out why the rebuild and who did it, I would have NO problem, (also subject to the rest of the car being in good condition)

Dan

 

Another aspect to consider is how long ago the rebuild was completed.
A very recent rebuild will not have time to "bed in" and any potential defects not apparent, whereas a 10-15k old rebuild should still sound sweet with good compression and oil pressure.

 

I'm in the same boat - Looking for a V5 Type-R STi and majority of them have had a rebuild. I suppose if its been done by a reputable company then all should be ok. Although i would contact the people that did the rebuild and see if they know of any other probs with the car, has it been back for services after it has been run in.

I viewed a V5 STi yesterday - had a rebuild in Oct '05 - owner said everything was sweet with the car - rang the company and they said all was ok but when i asked about the turbo they said it hadn't been replaced - As it was the turbo was whining on it - told the owner who in turn did 'knock it off the price' but the rest of the car as a bit of a dog so i left it.

So personally - i would prefer it with a rebuild (saves you from getting it done) As long as it sdone properly..!

 

This sounds familiar. Got a few hundred pounds knocked off of my version 5 Type R when I bought it as it had a whiney turbo. Turned out it was a vf24 with a roller bearing (they all sound like that) and was actually an upgrade oiption in jap land.

 

I sold my MY00 at 72k miles, having had a full rebuild at 61k. The car had never been abused - quite the opposite - but for reasons which remain unexplained to this day, no. 4 big end had failed without warning. The rebuild was done by a Subaru main dealer using all new parts, though it did need an oil leak rectifying about 1000 miles later.

I heard from the new owner a year after the sale, he was very happy with the car - so, clearly, having had an engine rebuild hadn't caused any problems.

 

Most of the comments have been said above. At the end of the day, the engine will wear out, either through mileage or abuse - one day it will need a rebuild. This applies to all mechanical applications - aircraft/boats etc... The main issue is who well was it done, as with any job, you can bodge it or do it properly. You must satisfy yourself its been done properly, or look elsewhere.