low milage?, was: <VV> Gorgeous 69 4-speed 140 hp Vert on E-bay

[Bill H.]

                                   B"H

Actually I think "low mileage" is a relative term. 
I've looked at hundreds of old cars for sale on e-bay,
that run the gamut from parts cars to pristine
originals.

Generally speaking, prices and desireability of
mileage, depend on the type of car.  For example,
there are a large number (disproportionate, actually)
of Vairs for sale with less than 50,000 miles.  On the
other hand, most Impalas and Chevelles I've seen have
far more miles, and usually go for many times the
price of a Vair.  I saw a nicely restored, non-SS '67
Impala Sport Coupe, black with red interior, with a
$32,000 asking price (I don't know if it sold for that
though).  That car had I think around 90,000 miles.  A
basket case '67 Camaro convertible will run you the
same price as a nice, clean, good-running Monza
droptop of the same vintage.  Most of the Corvairs
I've seen for sale do have less than 60,000 miles. 
Perhaps their owners wanted to preserve them, after
the end of the line was announed.  Or, they were
purchased by elderly folks looking for a good buy on
an economical compact that looked great and didn't
have a radiator or antifreeze to worry about.  They
drove their cars very little, passed on or gave their
cars to their progeny, who saw the Corvair as a
collectible, and saved them.  Also, there are
unfortunately Corvairs that were not taken good care
of as far as rust is concerned, which had mileages in
the 20- or 30-thousand range but were rustouts, or had
the front crossmember rust in half, etc.

So, by most standards, I would say 50,000 miles for a
Sixties car is exceptionally low mileage, except in
the case of Corvair, because there are so many
50,000-or-less-miles originals still around.

Isn't the Corvair always the exception anyway?...Bill
Hershkowitz


--- airvair <airvair at richnet.net> wrote:

> I wonder about the "low milage" thing myself. On
> eBay I see that phrase
> used all the time on Fieros (vintage '84-8) that
> have as much as 46,000
> miles on them. Sure, for a car that is expected to
> last at least 150,000
> miles or more, that's "nicely broken in" status. But
> LOW MILAGE?
> 
> My thought is that at a certain point, age makes
> milage become
> irrelevant. Only something under 10,000 miles could
> be termed low
> milage, and even then, that something might have to
> be considerably
> UNDER 10,000 miles to qualify.
> 
> A 46,000 mile car is still a 46,000 mile car,
> regardless of age. And a
> lot of wear can be put on a car in 46,000 miles.
> 
> -Mark
> 
> Bill Hubbell wrote:
> > 
> > As for this car, it looks very nice, but I think
> that the nearly 40 years
> > makes the "low mileage" claim a little less
> meaningful.  Eventually the
> > years take their toll on everything and everybody
> (self included).  The fact
> > that the car has been repainted, etc. additionally
> diminishes any value of
> > the "low mileage".
> > 
> > Bill Hubbell
> >
> 
> 



 
____________________________________________________________________________________
It's here! Your new message!  
Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/