Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hey all,

Im looking at a car to buy at the moment. And the owner is unsure of the internals of the engine as it was built in japan etc

Is there any way, short of ripping the head off, i could find out or see whats in the engine??

Short answer, no.

Lol thanks!

bugger.

so if i remove the head to have a look ill be up for new gaskets etc

Unless its a metal Head Gasket and still fit to be re-used, yes.

Have you asked for receipts for the claimed engine work which may document what was done/fitted?

Plus im sure he wont be to happy getting the head removed to have a look only to find out its not and me not buying it :S

Put a proposal to him. If its a forgeded engine you'll buy it and pay the cost of removing the head for inspection. If it isnt he pays and you dont buy.

He was obviously the one that raised the possibility of it being a built engine so put him on the spot.

you want this:

SLIPV300E.jpg

but without receipts etc to prove exactly what is in there, and who built it, and how long ago it was built then you would be best off treating it as a standard factory engine and I certainly wouldn't pay any extra for a car that comes with a lucky dip engine.... which is what you have here.

Putting the scope down the plug hole aint gonna so much, all youre gonna see is carbon.

I dont know about 25s, but I know 26s have the baffle plates bolted to the bottom of the cradle, you wouldnt be able to see through those either going through the sump.

With no proof, id argue its standard and he trying to have you on.

..or you could put the boost to 2 bar and see if it cracks a ring land or not haha.

but without receipts etc to prove exactly what is in there, and who built it, and how long ago it was built then you would be best off treating it as a standard factory engine and I certainly wouldn't pay any extra for a car that comes with a lucky dip engine.... which is what you have here.

Exactly how i would treat it.

Even if it did have forged pistsons... if its been running in the high 200rwkw range for a few years its probably fairly tired anyhow from the beating it would have taken.

Either the seller pays to have it inspected, or you treat it as stock motor IMO.

You shouldnt be paying a cent, onus is on him to prove what he's selling, not you.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...