Buy a car with NO history?

[alolympic]

Hi,
I am currently in discussion with someone who has a Toledo that has been 'Sprinted'.
I have been sent photos and the car looks great, very solid, only a few rust bubbles on 1 door.
I am planning on viewing the car in a couple of weeks, very keen on it. Problem is, the owner does not have any paperwork with the car.
I do not suspect anything dodgy but would you buy a Sprint engined car without any history?
Just a bit nervous that with my knowledge I could be stuck with all sorts of unknown problems
Thanks in advance.

[mbellinger]

I will preface my remarks my making it clear that Alistair and I have been in contact quite a bit off forum and that I have seen the same pictures as he kindly forwarded them seeking my opinion.

My own view is that I would be innately suspiscious if there is absolutely no paperwork at all in this case. I am a suspiscious type anyway, but this car looks to have had a lot of money lavished on it and to not keep a record of it is plain bonkers.

That said, I would still view the car because pictures can (and frequently do) hide a multitude of sins; and you only know for sure once you have seen the thing in the flesh. I have never seen a car look worse in pictures than it really is - pictures always flatter a car condition-wise.

Having seen the latest detail shots you sent me Alistair, I am less enthusiastic about the car than I was, as I think quite a few known problem areas have been "attended to". This does not necessarily make it a no-no, it has just made me reflect a bit more realistically.

I am happy to accompany you to look at the car (time and date permitting) if you want a second opinion.

The answer to your main question is that, yes I have bought cars with no history at all. But in this case I would tread carefully. Things will be clearer once we (you) have had a butchers.

[1300dolly]

i would also be carefull if it has had a lot of money spent on it and no paper trail.
if you want to know if the car is legit PM me the reg number as well as the chassis and engine number and i will check if it/the engine has a dubious past.

[David6214]

Whilst I agree with Martin and Justyn (that happens a lot!) I have been fortunate to buy vehicles with little or very little paerwork that have turned out to be absolute Gems. (I actually bought one from Martin that had minimal paperwork in spite of being much loved by the PO)

I have just done 2000 miles of trouble free motoring in a vectra that came with a V5c and an MOT in spite of being in the same family for 5 years and 100000 miles and having a new gearbox in that time.

Go look at it, take someone along for the ride (martin will be a top choice here ) and decide on the day.......I have paid, errrr fair prices, not asking prices....for err for cars with shall we say err limited paperwork

[Autonet7]

Agree with David. Bought loads of cars with no history.

Does history really matter on a car that old?

I'd buy on current condition based on a good inspection. If it all looks good, make a judgement. Lets face it it will have had many repairs in the past 30 odd years

OK, I have the advantage of being able to rectify almost anything that may go wrong myself, but then if you're buying an old Triumph (or any old car for that matter), I guess low maintenance isn't high on your check list.

Weekends spent tinkering under the bonnet or wheelarch is all part of classic car ownership, and Triumphs are not excempt from this.

[xvivalve]

Some folk keep paperwork, some dont.

When I bought KDU it had a log with date and mileage of every action (inc fuel!) meticulously kept and cross referenced to receipts. Needless to say I am guilty in not keeping this record up to date; my life is too busy for that! Personally when I buy a car I do not buy it with one eye on resale, I buy it for me; same with when I adapt a car, its for me. I have no interest in having to justify provenance at some unknown point in the future. I don't willfully destroy paperwork, but I bet I cannot find a complete record for any of my cars and some cars I will not be able to find any for! Saying that, I have a thick file here for the Interceptor...which left my ownership about 6 years ago!

Why worry?

Equally, when I bought MDU off a guy who'd owned it for 24 years, because I'd haggled with him, he told me there was no history with the car; he was the sort of guy who would have kept a file, but maliciously to spite me offering him less than his asking price, he kept it! So I have a 46k mile Sprint with no history whatsoever. Not a problem to me to be frank.

[mbellinger]

Ordinarily I would agree with you Alun.

In this particular case though the seller is purporting to have spent a lot of money putting the car together in the relatively recent past. Whilst we all lose paperwork over time, I can generally put my hand on bills from the recent past especially if they are quite big numbers (there is a bare shell, windows and running gear out respray involved in this case for example).

I'm not saying don't buy it. You generally get much more of a "feel" from a whites of the eyes conversation with the seller in any event.

I am merely saying exercise caution. I have offered to go with Alistair anyway as its quite useful in these sorts of situations to have a second view and to have numerical advantage when talking to the seller.

[xvivalve]

...and then there are cash jobs that don't generate any paperwork...I believe!

No, right to be cautious I guess...

[Lewis]

It's not a bright-yellow 2 door is it?

[SprintMWU773V]

Condition and quality of any work carried out is most important. Some might be overly concerned by the lack of history but it does happen. My Sprint came with a mountain of history and bills whereas my 1500 in the same family from new came with a few mot's a receipt for a repair for one of those MOT's. Whilst I believe that the 46k mileage is correct I cannot really back this up. I suspect there is paperwork somewhere but it's probably in a pile somewhere at the PO's house.

Whilst it is disappointing not to have a mountain of paperwork for the car, it is still a very good car mechanically certainly. OK so the body has a few knocks but the engine, gearbox etc are all in fine fettle and what tiny amount of work it has had seems to have been done well. By contrast my Sprint with its mountains of bills has suffered at the hands of bodgers in some places. All the history does for me in this instance is remind myself not to get the same people to do the work should it need any more.

If I were buying a modern car for reasonable cash then history is more important, cambelts can snap, oil can get sludgy if not replaced but this is a 30+ year old car.

As for my record keeping, whilst I don't keep a fuel record I do keep receipts for every car part, every repair etc on all of my cars. Not that I particularly want to sell any of them and by the time I come to sell my Focus the mileage will be so high the history won't matter. What I like to do though, particularly on the moderns is seeing what mileage tyres have done, brakes have done etc. I can't do this if I throw everything away when the bank statement has arrived.

[alolympic]

I appreciate everyone's different opinions, it is interesting to get different ways to look at it.
I very much appreciate Martin's advice thus far and am massively gratefully for the offer to come and view the car with me. If this can happen, this could well give me a lot more confidence in my decision.
My worries are probably based on my lack of confidence on spotting those potential issues. I am not an idiot and have owned a few classics including a Dolly but I am not confident that I could detect a timebomb sprint engine for example. The 'reconditioned' Rimmers engine could have been running for 150,000 for all I know. Tha box and diff could be a few thousand miles from being shot. I will go off what signals I can find when viewing it but have never even driven a Sprint before.
I also tend to let my heart rule my head and having seen pics of the car that seems to fit my brief so well, I am afraid that I will be incapable of making an objective choice! I need to take a checklist to check all known problem areas and be very systematic!
The other concern IMHO (open to abuse here) is that if someone cares nothing about documenting a rebuild, keeping receipts etc. then that same attention to detail may run to the build itself. A car can be made to look great for a short period with a lick of paint but what quality of prep underneath?
Anyway, still worth a view no doubt and fingers crossed it will be worth it!
Thanks guys
Can I also just say how great the owners are on this Forum, it is such a refreshing change from the Forum for my daily car. Serves me right for buying a French hot hatch! no wonder I yearn for another classic

[Purplebargeken]

Hi. I've had a few little Triumphs, only one had paperwork and that car needed a replacement front end (she is now called Tessa and lives in Coventry). The rest have been multi-owner no history cars, never let it worry me. All worked out well in the end. All needed work to some level. Mind you, I have never had a Sprint. I just like the smaller engined stuff I suppose.

As you say yourself, you have experience, which is helpful. I tend to worry more over bodywork than mechanical stuff, as it is all replaceable to some extent and help from the folk here is very forthcoming. We all try to help each other out, which is brill.

Go and have a good look, see what you think. Take Martin along. He is a sound bloke and uber knowledgable Good luck and keep us posted.

All the best.

Ken