When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I’ve located a gorgeous 993 - spectacular car and phenomenally clean!
After PPI discovered the car has had a re-spray. We’re told it was wet sanded and re cleared. The job was clearly done “glass out” so its quality work.
I happen to enjoy the fact that the paint is perfect (as opposed to an original paint car with patina) Just preference - really enjoy the perfect paint.
For the rennlisters: Obviously the non original paint dimishes value, my question is; to what extent?
If this would be a $100k 30k mile example with original paint, how would I value the car with the paint work?
I’ll love the car as-is, I dont have to have original paint, I’m not a “collector” but I do have to acquire the car at the right price point becasue should I ever consider resale there will be the diminished value due to the paint - and maybe a limited pool of buyers. I dont want to lose my shirt on a car that should otherwise hold value or potentially appreciate more over time (yes I am aware I missed the boat to buy this car in 2008 when prices were reasonable)
At some point - say 10-15 years from now, is it fair to say many 993’s will start to see restoration and resprays will be more commonplace and generally accepted? Thanks in advance for thoughts...
You seem to be so certain that a re-spray diminishes value. Not so sure that's always the case. Perhaps on a garage queen with, say, less than 20K miles, but most 20K mile cars don't need a re-spray in the first place.
No one can look down the road 10-15 years, but look at it another way. Think of old early 911's or 356's. Does having a high quality re-spray seem to adversely affect their value? Not that I can see.
If you're not a collector and care more about driving it than an investment, I'd say go buy the car and enjoy it. Chances are very good that if/when you sell it, you won't lose money and probably make some, depending on how long you own it.
A PPI disclosed that a quarter panel of my now C4S was resprayed. The price was already so damn cheap, that I did not negotiate any reduction. If it was a collector car (RS, Turbo, 2s, 4S) with very low miles, I think it matters for price but you want a "driver". You may look at the wrong car for you if it is in the 100k$ range. The reduction in price would come at least as much from regular use.
A PPI disclosed that a quarter panel of my now C4S was resprayed. The price was already so damn cheap, that I did not negotiate any reduction. If it was a collector car (RS, Turbo, 2s, 4S) with very low miles, I think it matters for price but you want a "driver". You may look at the wrong car for you if it is in the 100k$ range. The reduction in price would come at least as much from regular use.
I wouldn't call what I'm after a "driver" - maybe better descriubed as a "show driver" Car in mint condition that would see maybe 1,000 miles per year. So it WILL be driven, but not enough to add significant miles. A 30k mile car for me may have 42k in 10 years time. Looking for that near perfect condition, fairly low miles, but not a car that Im afraid to ever enjoy. With that criteria they dont seem to be cheap.
I agree with previous posters. On a higher mile car, I see it as a potential bonus - if done well. On a low mile car, its a redflag until you feel comfortable with why the work was done.
I bought a car with 120k miles and it had a high-quality repaint under the previous owner. It looked (and still looks) pristine. The repaint, along with all new seals and trim, made the car more valuable to me. I passed on a car with lower miles but rough, original paint, in favor of a higher mile car that looks like new.
My standard poodle sprays and my miniature poodle follows him around and resprays. It doesn't seem to affect the value of stuff around the yard here much. I would buy a less expensive example since you will be driving it a bit. You can always have chips touched up and oxidation & scratches buffed out at any time and you will have the added benefits of saving a few tens of thousands of dollars and not needing to fret about incidental road happenings to the car's finish.
Andy
I have seen 10k mile cars with full resprays due to an overly picky owner. It all depends on how well it was done. I can usually tell if a car has been painted without a meter but having one for both ferris and non ferris metals is key if you look at lots of cars like I do.
Look for obvious signs like overspray and or paint lines in the door jams. If it has work done a decent meter can be had for a few hundred. Many times you will find areas that have heavy bondo and that is something you want to pay less for and can be expensive to fix or might have hidden accident damage.
I could see doing a full respray on my 30k miles 1996 C4S. Lots of road rash on lower bumper and smaller such stuff peppered here and there. Would love to have it perfect but then again how long does that last?
I was drooling over a friends 993 turbo that is flawless. I know several panels have been resprayed multiple times. I would still take it in a heartbeat!
To answer the OP’s question comes down to what you value more. Since we’re not really talking concourse collecter cars I say you view the transaction as a whole. Rust free chassis is the most appealing IMHO. Working your way down the list on your set of priorities etc the paint respray is a somewhat minor concern if done properly.
Car has been metered see attached image. After a respray would you expect what was 4.5 was now ALL EVEN - what I am seeing is the roof is 4.5 and the rest varies from 8 to 14. It looks great and the shop that PPI'd the car says it looks great, BUT these are the readings from the paint meter. Also keep in mind, the seller is still asking top dollar for the car. 30k mile C4S - all original with exception of this repaint.
That is not a respray...the roof is original paint...so I believe that is a repaired vandalism claim. No top quality shop would leave the roof original paint and blend in for a true repaint. That was done to save money. I wouldn’t pay top dollar for that quality of work...
I’d also bet that the glass wasn’t taken out for that paint job either.
That is not a respray...the roof is original paint...so I believe that is a repaired vandalism claim. No top quality shop would leave the roof original paint and blend in for a true repaint. That was done to save money. I wouldn’t pay top dollar for that quality of work...
I’d also bet that the glass wasn’t taken out for that paint job either.
That actually makes a lot of sense. I have to agree - if spending the money for a high quality repaint why on earth would you NOT repaint the roof.
01-16-2019, 02:39 PM
993 paint meter & value
