wwest

Isn't a bit foolish to do a leakdown test with a COLD engine?

Plus the engine spends 98% of the time running HOT. So that's the important leakdown values.

Steam Driver

Good point; you can't really do a valid leakdown test on a cold engine. Also one that's been sitting that long might give bad readings now but be just fine after it's been run again awhile. You see this in aircraft engines a lot. (A LOT of them sit for long periods. We had one at our airport once that the only time it was run was at annual inspections! They kept it in license, didn't fly it.)

I have all the issues mentioned above with my SC, but I bought it as a project so I knew all that going in.

theiceman

this is an old thread from last year . I imagine the proposed buyer walked .. or we would have heard from him .. or maybe hes on Pelican .. so much for keeping us posted

porsche951

Back in the early nineties I was considering a late eighties (1988 I think) 911 Cab that had been, "light rollover" according to seller. Only had 20k miles and they were asking $15k for a car that booked for $30 at the time. I passed on it but always kind of wish I'd gone for it. Of course this car was 100% functional save for a couple of dangling side mirrors and dents on every concievable piece of sheet metal. Only you can determine what's cheap enough.

Peter Zimmermann

It's perfectly fine to do a leak down test on a cold engine, but only if it ran that morning or the day before. Never do a leak down test on an engine that's out of storage without being driven 100 or so miles first; your chances of accurate results are slim to none. BTW; doing the test on a cold engine simplifies the air hose install/removal from the spark plug holes. If the engine is hot, many times the o-ring on the hose, where it seals against the head, won't release after the cylinder is tested.