any thoughts..?

[keith2.2]

Here's an interesting one ( )

just looking through the history because I noticed the belt and tensioner were replaced at 67k because (predictably) the tensioner had failed.

It states on the service notes belt and tensioner failed because original had fallen apart. valves damaged but heads need removal to assess.

the car has done 20k miles since then, and appears to all intents and purposes to be running absolutely fine. Can't find anything to suggest the head was ever removed, but can't see any reason to.

Going to do a fluid and filter change on it all myself but does the fact that it's since done 20k miles suggest there probably isn't actually an issue?

[ians]

it begs the question of how they knew (or thought) that there was valve damage (quite likely admitedly).   Maybe just covering their backs?

Personally if its running fine, no noises, performance and economy as expected I would leave well alone.

[Richard A]

If it is a 2.2 'four pot' it may of got away with it. 20k is a lot of miles to cover with bent valves or a damaged head !!!!
Best of luck, regards
richard

[keith2.2]

it's an MV6  

no funny noises, performance is sooo-blimmen-perb, mpg is great (so far).

Guess it must be all good and happy!