It seems like a car is looked down upon once it hits 100k miles.. I dont understand this, but consider a car in "very good" condition, say a 1995 6sp LT1 car with 20k miles, would reasonably be priced at ~ $10k - $14k.

Take the same car, in the same condition, but give it 150k miles. Now this car is a $7k car, right?

My question is, if you had to choose between the 2 examples, which would you select?

1. Low mile car with 20k miles, that sat for periods of time.

or

2. Higher mile car with 150k miles that has been driven consistently.

 

For me? Car #2..

It's what I intentionally purchased, actually. Think it was about 130K? And rough..

Because the first car has sat for so long there will be problems. Anything that old has problem.

By the time I have as much money in Car #2 as I would have in Car #1, all that stuff will be fixed.

And it is! New everything.. Engine. Trans. You name it, and I have less in it than a nice example of a 34 year old car that would just need multi-thousands to become a reliable driver ANYWAY..

But you have to get it cheap enough to make the difference.. Dunno that 3K would do it, but 4 or 5 would.

 

100k miles has carried on since the "old days". That used to be the standard mark. Still is, but not as relevant anymore of course, since cars last so long now.

Depends on the car. C4;s don't seem to like to sit. Old cars revive easy.

 

Confab, With all respect to your better knowledge than me I think it depends on how the low mileage was stored. Uncovered out in the pasture or kept in heated storage, covered, driven some and cared for. I bought my 96 last year with 27k miles and it looks and runs like new. Dan

 

Cool! Glad the purchase worked out for you. No offense intended.

And, frankly, my car is older than the example he listed above. 34 year old anything is going to be a problem unless it has been stored very carefully, so I just opted for the rough one and went through it. It made sense from my perspective and worked out well for me.

 

Car number one
Given the condition of the interior/exterior is in keeping with the lower mileage.
Both are going to require a lot of maintenance to get them on the road reliably.

 

If the low-miles car was:

1. Garage kept.
2. Used enough to burn at least a tank or two of fuel each year.
3. Properly maintained -- regular fluid service, etc.
4. Driven sensibly.
5. Kept away from salted roads or salt spray.
6. Kept rodent-free.

I would choose it without hesitation over a 150k mile car that appeared to be in comparable condition.

My Corvette is coming up on its 25th birthday, and its odometer reads in the low-60K mile range. It has been extremely reliable for the 14 years I've owned it, and I would not hesitate to drive it across the continent. It was ten years old when I bought it, and it had only 19k miles on it at that time. I paid top dollar for it, and have zero regrets. It still looks extremely good inside and out, and seems to gather compliments nearly every time I take it out.

None of this is to say that good 150k-mile C4s don't exist. They do. I wrench on my Corvette when it needs to be done. But I'd much spend my limited free time driving it.

Live well,

SJW

 

It all depends whether you know how to turn a wrench!

 

Given the choice between 20K and 150K miles, I'd go with 20K

Yeah, I'd second this.

 

Neither. I would prefer one in the middle of those two. A car with say 50-80K miles that saw a few thousand miles of driving each and every year. Driven just enough to keep the gremlins out but with just low enough mileage to still have a lot of life left in it. I found a great running 95 Vette with 80K on the clock so that's about 3500 miles a year since new. I figure I can at least double that mileage to 160K if not more.

 

Yes I agree.

 

give me the 150K car. I bought an 86 that should have been a part out car. I gave put many parts on ot and still have many more to go, Its getting out of the paint shop tomorrow@ a 9,000 paint job thats costing me 4,oook. Guy has his on shop, put it in during the winter slow time and he is a friend of mine,kept him just busy enough to put food on the table, and he is a friend of mine. It looks great now, I like working on it lin the drive way and love driving the Z51 equipt vette, Yes, would have been cheaper to buy the other in the long run, dont care. Got a ceap vette and a projert to keep my old retired butt busy.. I am proud of how far its come and yep, folks wave, Ahh, I also like running down rhe dragstrip sometimes.Last time I was there, the fellow that does the calender was running his too.

 

I will go with the lower mileage car also. My 96 had 24,500 on it when I purchased it in June. In great shape but still had to put some money into it. Leaking intake and the clutch master/slave cylinder. When I was looking it was in the 20,000 to 60,000 range. Plus it had service records to show what had been done before. More driving time and less time in the garage. It now runs like a new car.

 

#2

My 90 only has 118k on it, a little over 4k miles a year and runs and drives like it's new!

 

Id take a lower mile car anytime over a high mile car. I wouldnt really search out a high mile car to begin with.... but any car Id buy I would need to know it wasnt ragged on or beat to hell. Even a 20k mile car can be bagged out, but still look good. Use and maintenance is everything really..

 

YIKES! A $4,000k paint job BETTER LOOK GREAT!

 

Car #2 wouldn't sell for $7K where I live, maybe out west or down south. And the choice all depends on the buyer, right now low mileage C4's are starting to increase in price because there's less and less as time goes on.

 

Speaking from experience, I bought the 11,800 mile car that had sat for most of the 10 years prior to me buying it in July 2016.

Here is what I did because it needed to be done:

1. put in a DeWitts radiator, the old plastic weeped from age, not mileage
2. changed the oil twice just to flush it out with some driving in between
3. had the transmission serviced
4. changed the fluid in the diff
5. cleaned the interior of the car as it smelled from sitting
6. fixed the droopy headliner

paid for the trans service, bought the oil/filter from Walmart, pd them $5.50 to change the first time, did it myself the 2nd
installed the radiator myself, so the only cost was the radiator. Cost us maybe $20 to fix the headliner ourselves.

Here is what I did because I WANTED to do, not because I had to do.

1. changed the rear bearings, there was a little grease starting to weep around the seals.
2. redid the brakes, including new stainless flex lines, cause what is your life worth ?

Nowhere near the amount required to rehab an old car. Also it drives and looks like new. Didn't need paint, the weather seals are good except for the common problem where the hatch seals separate in the corners.

The money I put into goes toward making it better, increasing the performance level, not bringing it up to the level my car is at and then adding money on top of that.

Just like the other thread about the theoretical 300,000 mile car. If you can't do the work yourself, it gets very expensive to rehab a worn out car. There is one local that is sitting in a garage, can't be resold, because the old guy bought it on a whim, can't do the work, can't afford the work and it is not the best to drive.

If you can do the work yourself, by starting with a better platform, such as a 95/96 LTx (regardless of stick or auto) or one of the later LT5 cars and you are farther ahead.

The folks that can do the work themselves and have the facilities to do the work at, plus the tools are at a distinct advantage over the folks that can't, don't, don't have. The price differential really changes when you are paying someone else at $60.00 to $100.00 or more an hour labor, depending on what it is being done, where you live, and the quality of the person you are paying.

 

Vote here for 20k mi