Yep, as Scott says - that is how the engine is supposed to be. They had to tilt it so that it would fit in the bay correctly, mainly due the the size of the manifolds (don't forget that this has a twin cam head compared to the original 4-cyl head which was much narrower)
Anyway, that car looks distinctly 'average'. Not many extras from what I can see, not keen on some of the details - 'AMG' on the bootlid?!?
Surprised he didn't bother cleaning it and taking some proper pictures, and it might just be me or a trick of the light but it looks as though it's had some less than perfect paint matched along the sides?
In the guy's defence it's an 18 year old car. Of course it's been painted, probably several times.
It does have a full dealer history with receipts.
He hasn't steam cleaned the engine bay and appears quite honest in the description.
I don't like the colour but other than that it looks okay.
It's just little things that stand out , like the badges ...
Mines 16 years old now, and is in no way perfect , but i try and keep it as well as i can , and if someone had put the badges on the wrong way round , i would insist they were put back properly ....
I'm not disputing its probably had work , i know mine has , but you would expect things to be put back properly .....
I agree with Howard too. It's certainly not amongst the worst example out there, in fact, quite a lot better than that. It's not the car's fault that it has been fitted with an 'AMG' badge on the boot or that the owner reckons it'll do 155MPH. Things like this immediately make me more cautious when appraising a car.
Personally, it looks as though the owner has lifted his item description from the website of Merc Seller? The pictures are ok but why mention wear to the driver's seat, and then photograph the part that isn't worn etc?
Worth a look but important to buy with your eyes open