 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | 05-01-2005 |
| Location: | Minneapolis, Minnesota USA |
| Posts: | 575 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
For either the early Mk-I, or the later Mk-II, one thing is for sure... they're now all 'old'. How good or bad an example is now, and how leak-free, is going to be a function of how well it has been maintained through the last (almost) 49 years. Original build quality or 'issues' is less of a factor compared to how well it has been cared for. A Mk-1 that has been well cared for could very well be better than a later Mk-II that has been 'maintenance-ignored'.
Having said that, you mention oil leaks, so I presume that's a higher concern for you. If that's the case, then consider that the early Mk-I engines did have an 'old-school' ('old' even back in the day) 'rope' style rear main seal. As was-is typical of that early type of seal, it's going to be more likely to develop oil leaks than the later Mk-II's 'lip' style of rear main seal.
And it's not a matter of simply installing the later style lip seal into an early Mk-I engine. The back end of the Mk-II cylinder block was re-designed with specific features to accept the lip seal. Those features do not exist on a Mk-I block, so converting to a later lip seal is not a simple, bolt-on task.
Well cared for, both the Mk-I and Mk-II can be reliable cars with minimal problems. However, if parked and ignored until the stray day when you want to take a nice top-down drive, then all the issues you may have heard about can happen. 'Maintenance-free' cars are a modern myth... like Unicorns, they dont' exist. Vintage cars, both foreign and Detroit iron, require regular maintenance, and are not to be ignored.
So, what's your planned role in the relationship going forward? That answer may have more to do with whether this Feb '73 Mk-I is for you. You don't need to tell us, just have an honest conversation with a mirror.
Regards,
Tim Engel