gsjohnson,

Sorry you did not like the anology...I thought about using one based on adding oil to the engine based upon the oil level guage or the dipstick but decided against it. I'm not sure what long road of discovery you are talking about but, I only rendered an opinion on the the condition of the motor in question when I was presented with information that was based upon what I believe to be a more definative test (leakdown versus compression). Mind you I am not alone in this opinion of leakdown versus compression tests, read some of the texts written by respected authors in the field like Mr. Dempsey and Mr. Anderson regarding the validity and pitfalls of the latter test.

My issue (not with you) is with a shop that wouldn't use the better test in the first place or even attempt to discover more about the scope of the repair before discussing it with the customer. Furthermore, if the customer is going to drop some serious money on a re-build then they can spend an extra 20-30 minutes to address his concerns rather than provide a glib response of "there is no point".

For myself, I would want to know the results of a leak down. That is my opinion. If you are satisfied proceeding with a re-build based on a compression test then that is your perogative. I suggest we agree to disagree and leave it at that. If you still wish to discuss this further please feel free to PM me.

I agree, in that you certainly have more definitve information as to precisely why this engine is smoking and using oil. My opinion was that you would be doing both the heads and the rings anyway despite what the test results were. And I think that the shop was saying the same thing. So why bother?
That's all.
But I do understand what you are saying...