Disturbing Trend in GRM and CM

At least it's disturbing to me. In both the newest issues there is reference to having to rebuild an engine. In GRM it's the 911 and in CM it's the Corvair. However, neither of these engines were "rebuilt" according the definition I've always used. The 911 got a valve job and some misc. repairs. The Corvair appears to have had more work done, but the crank wasn't touched. I understand that it was in good shape.
I also understand that my comments may seem a little trivial. Anyone that reads the articles will know what was and wasn't done to each vehicle. My concern is that if this trend continues, the definition of the term "rebuilt" could possibly get diluted to a point where it means that a valve job is the same as an engine rebuild. Where I come from, a rebuild would include much more than what was done to either of these engines, including a complete tear down of the engine, a thorough cleaning of the block and heads, inspection of piston taper, line bore, deck straightness, cam bearings, crank and rod bearings, rod bolts, piston pins, oil pump, etc... These two projects clearly didn't go that far.
Now, if someone is advertising a vehicle for sale and states that the engine is rebuilt, I expect that more than a valve job and some repairs were done to it. I myself would verify what was done before I buy a car, but someone else may not. What about someone that isn't that knowledgeable about the inner workings of an engine, buys a car that is supposed to have a rebuild, and a short time later it spins a rod bearing?
Too many times I've run into people that mis-use many automotive terms, including this one. That's to be expected when talking with average joes, but I personally think an authoritive auto mag should strive for higher accuracy. Just my viewpoint, so keep that in mind when you flame me, k?

True don't let "rebuild" go the way of "bricked" in the electronics world. It originally meant that a device couldn't be made to run again, without specialized hardware to reflash it at the least, but was diluted to the point where it now describes any problem that causes a boot/startup failure.

If the engine comes out of the car, it is a rebuild in my book. How extensive is up to your budget and what is needed. I swapped in a new long block and went through the heads thoroughly on the MR2, but that would not be a rebuild by your definition. To each his own I suppose.

pinchvalve wrote: If the engine comes out of the car, it is a rebuild in my book. How extensive is up to your budget and what is needed. I swapped in a new long block and went through the heads thoroughly on the MR2, but that would not be a rebuild by your definition. To each his own I suppose.

I've taken engines out of cars to paint them. That's a rebuild? Was your long block new? Then that would be a new long block with rebuilt heads. Was it rebuilt? Then it's a rebuilt engine. Was it used? Then it's a used long block with rebuilt heads.
If the 911 engine was rebuilt, then what do you call it when the engine is disassembled, cleaned, inspected, machined, bad parts replaced, and re-assembled?

Ah, a rebuilt vs. reconditioned thread.

I've rebult lots of engines with the block still in the car. Rebuild is something like overhaul. In my definition, rebuild would mean possible cylinder boring an new pistons etc. Overhaul would be new rings , crank and rod berings, valve job,. Similar to refreshing.

rebuild- build again or renew.

recondition- restore to good or satisfactory condition

overhaul- examine thoroughly so as to make any repairs or changes that are needed.

Kind of like tomaato or tomahto.

In reply to iceracer:

But would you call a valve job and some misc repairs a rebuild?

no, I'd call it a valve job, and if questioned I'd mention the misc repairs

No I completely agree on this, I've noticed a few of the write-ups to be 'light' and less than technically exact. Besides the 'rebuild' on the Porsche which amounted to a stud extraction and a head reconditioning, it wasn't anything more. The injector article comes to mind as well. The claim that it fattened the power band when clearly the graph dips and bobs back and forth seems to be a half-truth. I would have simply said, have your injectors cleaned and flow matched, and newer is better since it's seen less cycles and is less likely to fail (statistically speaking). Part of the results could be sample size related, but at least you did an analysis which most don't. I do miss the days when multiple items were compared side-by-side like tires, brakes, suspension setups, etc. Those were serious and provided the readership with encyclopedic knowledge.

Valid points. We're generally better than this, but in the culture at large paying for something is often depicted as the act of making: "I'm building a house" When it's the contracftor and his crews doing the work. "I rebuilt the engine" when you had a shop do it. It's a cheap way for people to embelish their accomplishments. It's kind of like the adult version of giving trophys to every member of a sports team that finished in last place.

I have a friend who hooked up with an extremely hot woman a couple of years ago. One of the things that attracted her to him was that as a car buff, she'd dated any number of men who talked the talk. But my pal was the first who really built cars (Restorations, Locosts and such) instead of those who flapped their gums and cut checks.

Exactly. a valve job is just that. No way is it a rebuild.

Raze wrote: I've noticed a few of the write-ups to be 'light' and less than technically exact.

Big time. Pull out a copy from 10 years ago and compare.

Much less DIY now; lots more buying expensive things and having others install them.

Don't tell anyone, but now days when my copy of GRMS shows up, it might sit there for several days before I get around to reading it. Didn't used to be that way.

So I guess throwing in a Qt of Motor Honey or Restore is not a rebuild either?

foxtrapper wrote:

Raze wrote: I've noticed a few of the write-ups to be 'light' and less than technically exact.

Big time. Pull out a copy from 10 years ago and compare. Much less DIY now; lots more buying expensive things and having others install them. Don't tell anyone, but now days when my copy of GRMS shows up, it might sit there for several days before I get around to reading it. Didn't used to be that way.

It does seem to be moving away from what it once was and getting more like other car mags. Another disturbing trend in my book.

I subscribed for three or four years a decade ago. Then I let my subscription lapse for 8 years and now I'm back at it. I see a lot more "this is what a shop did to our car" and a lot less "this is pictures of us wrenching on our car in the garage". It's still head and shoulders above the rest of what is in print and I really should have picked up a CM sub when it was cheap, but yea, I almost feel like they need a boost of younger guys with emptier pockets and dirtier hands writing articles for them. Or something.

pinchvalve wrote: If the engine comes out of the car, it is a rebuild in my book...

So if I buy a car with a "rebuilt engine", then find out that the previous owner called it rebuilt because he removed it to paint the engine bay, that's okay? ... No.

To me, "rebuilt" means the engine was fully disassembled, the cylinders honed, rings and bearings replaced, valves done, etc.

Next we'll be discussing what exactly "mid-engine" means...

If it doesn't have all new bearings, and the associated required machine work, it's not rebuilt in my book.

In reply to mazdeuce:

I agree, actually. No offense, it's the best magazine in the world (they both are), but yeah, it definitely shows that money isn't as tight around GRM headquarters as it once was. We're all still suckers with no cash. The $201x stuff is always my favorite issue. The "here are some pictures we took at the shop that did this work" stuff makes me think I'm watching Overhaulin' or reading "Chevy High Performance" sometimes. Car Craft went through the same phase, as did Hot Rod. I can see the need for balance. I understand the income for the average subscriber is about on that level, but my household gross income starts with a 6 and only has five digits. My bank account only has four digits. If I were faced with a big bill to rebuild an engine (HA!) it would just sit until I could do it myself. I suspect the boards are a bit more leaning to this side than the average reader, though. Most folks don't blink at the thought of spending 10k on a car that they don't have a title for. I'm not most folks. A lot of us here (the boards) are not.

How about this one for a teaser:

I put in a new cam, cam bearings, main bearings, rod bearings, lifters, head gaskets, pushrods, timing set, oil pump, oil pump driveshaft, freeze plugs, spark plugs and new main seals in an SBC about 6 months ago.

Is this rebuilt? I didn't touch the pistons (they stayed in the block).

tuna55 wrote: I agree, actually. No offense, it's the best magazine in the world (they both are), but yeah, it definitely shows that money isn't as tight around GRM headquarters as it once was.

I suspect the amount of available time to do their own work is a factor. From what I can tell the GRM staff is in it up to their eyeballs just to get magazines out the door every month.

I always thought rebuild = all wear surfaces and related assemblies refinished or replaced as needed.

I understand all of your complaints.

Here's some reassurance- I'm a poor college student, and planning to do more and more writing in the future.

I'm purposely picking classes so I can spend more time at the office, and I will get more cheap stuff in the magazine even if it kills me.

We haven't forgotten about you guys, but it is true that most readers won't rebuild an engine themselves.

I'd say if you've removed everything from the block and reassembled, regardless of what was replaced, it was a rebuild. I've done it. Only once, though. Everything else was a refresh of some sort. I literally did take the engine out of a truck to clean it up and put it back in a weekend before, that was most certainly not rebuilding it.

In reply to tuna55:

My feeling has always been that the articles showing them doing it in their garage are applicable to everyone. If you do it yourself then it shows you what you're likely to go through and gives you a realistic idea of whether you can handle it or not. If you pay someone, it shows you what your shop is doing. When I see pictures of a shop doing it I usually come away thinking that the job would probably suck without a lift and air tools. That's what I really hate about Chevy High Performance and such. Building a cheap turbo system out of junkyard parts while the engine is out of the car and bolted to an engine dyno without any concerns about packaging in a real car doesn't have that much applicability to someone who has to figure out how to make it fit. I already know the engine will make more power, what I don't know is how the hell to make it fit in my car! I'll stop now. GRM and CM are fantastic magazines. I love them. I have the GRM calendar hanging in my kitchen and run GRM stickers on all my cars. Maybe we're all getting old.

wvumtnbkr wrote: How about this one for a teaser: I put in a new cam, cam bearings, main bearings, rod bearings, lifters, head gaskets, pushrods, timing set, oil pump, oil pump driveshaft, freeze plugs, spark plugs and new main seals in an SBC about 6 months ago. Is this rebuilt? I didn't touch the pistons (they stayed in the block).

I'd call that rebuild-with-an-asterisk, and spelled out like you said it there. Then I'd ask why you left the pistons in, what the cylinder walls looked like, and so forth.

Er, actually, you mentioned not touching the pistons, but you didn't mention doing anything to the heads. Assuming nothing there, I'd call that a rebuilt-bottom-end-with-asterisk... I guess?