rhkwon

Guys,

This may or may not have been discussed much but I'd like to know how you feel about age vs. mileage. I've been looking at some S2's with fairly low mileage varying anywhere from 30K to 45K. I would think that at this low mileage, there would'nt be many things that have worn out. But considering these cars are up to 15 years old, does'nt time and age play a role in what may need to be replaced? Don't the belts and seals become brittle over time even if it has'nt been driven much? Also, the famous chain pad. Over time, would'nt that become brittle also? Just curious as to what everyone thinks because maybe low mileage is'nt necessarily a good thing.

GOBOGIE

Looks to me you've got the idea. Low mileage isn't always the holy grail. I bought a lower (not low as in 20-30K) car but like how the car is still a looker. Some guys really really like the lower mileage cars and others say they same as you just did.

It's really a coin toss between the good and the bad.

L8 APEKS

That being said, mileage isn't always a bad thing.

Driving a car keeps internal parts lubricated and prevents things from sticking...but rubber parts like o-rings and belts deteriorate over time, regardless of mileage.

You should take both into consideration, but the overall condition of the car regardless of the age or mileage should be the deciding factor IMHO. Case in point...my '88 Cadillac Fleetwood drives just like it did the day it was new (I inherited it from my aunt recently).

That Caddy is about to hit 231,000 miles. It's been serviced meticulously all it's life, and drives nicer than most 100,000 mile cars I've had!

Bones944

My company car is a 1997 GMC safari van with 287,000 miles and drives like a new one. It is maintained regularly and doesn't use any oil at all. Of course it has had wheel bearings, brakes, shocks replaced etc, but the daily driving keeps the seals and gaskets lubricated and soft. While looking through the PO's records on my 951 ( I bought it 2 years ago with 78k miles) a receipt from the Porsche dealer's service dept had a recommendation of " car needs to be driven more often". I still don't drive it much, but I try to put 50 miles a week or so on it.

Tom R.

dont forget the rubber center clutch. mine disintegrated in '00 with 56k on the car, and plenty of meat left on the clutch.

KLR

One of the issues with a lower mileage car is that you'll likely find that none of the things that crop up in the 60-100K timeframe have been dealt with, but will probably need attention shortly due to age/mileage. In particular, I'm thinking of the steering rack, oil cooler seals, front seals, clutch, control arms, hoses, brakes, and shocks. None of these things are a big deal by themselves, but they can certainly start to feel very painful if they hit you all at once within your first 18 months of ownership. My car's PO dealt with most of this stuff over the course of about 24 months after he'd owned the car for a few years, and it felt to him like a never ending stream of low four figure repair bills that grew frustrating quickly.

Luis de Prat

They still tend to look much better overall, though! Less rock chips, less seat bolster wear, etc. Worth the maintenance updates, IMHO.

Blue S2

Personally, i think it doesnt matter what the mileagle is with sports cars is. It is the care that counts.

You drive the car and parts wear out.
You let the car sit and parts rot.
You end up changing everything regardless.

On a similar note, I don't think there is a car on this planet with more rubber than a 944.

RMills944

Rubber parts in general (motor mounts, clutch center, bushings) are going to get dryrot even if they sit, possibly worse if they sit. There are always things like that to look at when buying a used car. The hoses are another thing to look at. Anything rubber in general.

KLR

It's kind of interesting to note that 25 years seems to be about the point at which many people don't seriously consider the mileage of a used car anymore. If you look at 911 ads, you often see that the mileage isn't noted for pre-SC cars. I suppose that even if it is, there's no way to know how accurate/inaccurate it is. I mean, can you really tell the difference between an 80K and 120K long nose 911? 80K cars have lots of pedal and bolster wear too.

Legoland951

I prefer a high mileage car that has been maintained for less money. Every used car needs work and a 15 year old paint job is a 15 year old paint job. Interior wear depends on the person who owned it. A 125lb owner will probably have less wear in 200k miles of driving than a 300lb owner in 50k miles. Driving with low oil for 100 miles or no oil for 5 miles does much more damage than 400k of well maintained miles. Old leather gets hard even if no one sits in it. I have an 89 951 with original 80k miles with a huge rip in the driver seat, broken clock, worn spot in carpet (past owner spilled some sort of chemical), broken sunroof, and many other problems because a thrasher stripper owned the car before. I believe the owner and how the car was treated is much more important than the mileage.

Henry964

I bought my 24 years old car with 63000 kms made, the car was hardly used for many years.
In some ways this is great (interior is perfect) but in other ways it is a big problem as I am having a different mechanical trouble every month

Friendan

I'm in the same boat, I bought my car with 73k kms, but it hadn't moved in over 5 years...Not only did all the fluids have to be changed, spark plugs, fuel pump (seized)...then the water pump, belts, rollers and seals....but now some other little things are coming up...so there are a lot of things that needed to be done...but on the plus side, paint and interior are mint as it was always garaged.