You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!
Hey Guys, have been lurking for awhile and using the great FAQs here to aid me in my quest for an FD of my own. I have my eye on a few, and am looking to make a purchase around thanksgiving but had a few questions regarding miles on the chassis in respect to the age of the car and miles on the engine.
1. Is a high mileage chassis with a rebuilt motor preferable to a lower mileage car with an original motor? For example one of the FDs has 114k on the chassis, but a rebuilt motor with like 10k on a rebuild.
2. Is it worth it to pay more for a newer car with less mileage? For example, a 93 R1 w/78K on the odo, downpipe and Racing Beat catback For 15k vs. a 95 PEP w/ 67K on the odo, Fluidyne radiator and downpipe for 18K. Is it worth the extra 3 grand?
Any help would be appreciated.
I know these seem like some rather lame questions, but thanks for your time anyways fellas.
Personally, Id pay the extra 3k for the '95 with the Fluidyne over any of the others. First off its newer, with the slightly better quality (as Ive heard) interior. Less age on the chassis/motor. Upgraded radiator means that whoever had it before did reliability mods first, and that would imply that they took care of the car. And hey, its the rarest year imported, right?
If money is a huge factor, the '93 with 114k miles and a rebuild is probably the better choice. Find out where/who did the rebuild/reman first though. If it was done by a reputed shop, then its probably a good buy. If not...you never know what you get.
Personally, Id pay the extra 3k for the '95 with the Fluidyne over any of the others. First off its newer, with the slightly better quality (as Ive heard) interior. Less age on the chassis/motor. Upgraded radiator means that whoever had it before did reliability mods first, and that would imply that they took care of the car. And hey, its the rarest year imported, right?
If money is a huge factor, the '93 with 114k miles and a rebuild is probably the better choice. Find out where/who did the rebuild/reman first though. If it was done by a reputed shop, then its probably a good buy. If not...you never know what you get.
my thoughts exactly..
just think usage. The FD w/ higher miles has been taken out more, on more streets and freeways, and has seen more roads (good or bad) than the FD w/ fewer miles.
so... more miles COULD mean more wear and tear. Unless, one driver better maintained their FD better than the other, but that's a diff topic....
I bought mine with 114k miles on it however this car had almost everything upgraded for one reason or another. I would say my car was a good find except the engine, which was I got it for a good price. I believe all or most of the hoses were replaced recently and all the reliable mods have been done because the previous owners upgraded the parts. I would say in general the original motor with no mods is a worse than a higher mileage car with some reliable mods done. Just have extra money on hand if you and when you need to replace something.
i,ve got a 92 Type R ( NZ ) with 160,000ks,it had a rebulid about 10k ago, 3mm seals but not sure of the porting job, extend port me thinks. I changed my fuel filter yestreday and the one I pulled was an aftermarket one, I also purchased it with new pillow bushs and the clutch done absolutly bone stock plastic crap an all and she runs pretty good.
But there are also some noticable failures beginning to creep in mainly elecrical, fuses blowing , trouble with the window winders , headlight popups, thermosensor, drivers seat slider, bonnet opener,rear window water squirter,left door inside door opener, rear veiw mirror mount etc... apart from that it drives pretty.
i think you might be ahead to just ignore the odometer and look at the overall condition. ive seen really nice high mileage cars and junk low miles cars and everything in between. the important part is the interior, thats the hardest to fix, followed by the body and paint
Mileage is a lesser consideration for a reliable driver if it has a new motor and such. I have all the records for my car and the original motor on my car went at 35k miles. Many of the low mileage cars in pretty stock condition that I looked at had weak motors and some blew smoke at startup. Figure that any car you buy on its original engine will need a rebuild - the only question is when. For me, I preferred to get one that either had a rebuild or was priced low enough for me to rebuild it or was already blown. this way, I knew what I was working with from day one. No wondering about when it was going to blow.
Also, with a replaced/upgraded suspension, you don't have to worry about blown shocks and stuff. I don't consider 10-12 year shocks to have much life left in them.
In #2 I would consider both cars to be equivalent and all things being equal - (condition of paint/interior both start/drive well etc) I don't see why one might be worth $3k more than the other.
Haha thats funny cause one of the cars your talking about(93 w/pep 63k) is one of the cars im considering buying myself. but the 18k for it is kind of a turn off for me. Like alberto said its a stock motor and can go anytime. but of course when ya got the money ya cant find the car!
Miles on Chassis Factor?
Linear Mode
