errico

Hello

I ve been looking for a 996 turbo for awhile now and i came across an 01 with original 3k mile no x50. this car literally is new and sat its entire life !

The price is good compared to the others and its guards red, same price as an x50 2003 15-25k miles. I am asking myself if this could be, and if buying the garage queen of all queens is a wise move. Can all this effect the engine , turbos etc etc etc..dry seals

is it less risky buying a 15-25k mile car ?please let me know your input on this. And please give me your opinion on the red, id like to know what you think.

thank you

eric

jcalhoun

My first car was guards red and I seriously considered GR for my 996tt. I ended up buying a seal gray TT because it's a classy color and less of a target of unwanted attention. As far as the mileage only being 3k, I highly suggest that the car is driven for a solid 20-30 minutes and fully warmed up before ppi to hopefully reveal any leaks. I purchased my 03 TT last month with 18k miles. It had a full PPI that came out clean from a highly regarded shop. In the last month and 3k miles, I have replaced the diverter valves and power steering resevior at a tune of $1500, and I am still tracing a leak in the exhaust/boost hoses. A car with that low of miles doesn't necessarily deserve a premium price unless all issues (yes there will be some) are cleared up. Just make sure to factor in a few grand up front in unseen repairs.

errico

just to clarify it is 3000 miles.

thank you..the leaks worry me !

mmporsche

Do you know how the car was stored, i.e. climate controlled with the fluids drained or just parked and rarely driven? As jcalhoun says, expect leaks, probably no matter what. Also, from what I have read on this board, the general consensus is low mileage cars are often more troublesome than cars that have been driven more.

Guards red is a great color and is classic but definitely an attention getter from the police. 2001 is not as desirable as later years so you may be better off in the long run buying a newer example with more miles.

fly2low

Now owning my second 01, I am not reluctant to recommend one.
I would be wary of one with that few miles - unless you are starting a museum. The mechanical reasons have already been stated, and if your intent is to drive this thing like it should be, the premium paid for an ultra low mile sample will quickly be lost

BioBanker

If you intend to drive the car I'd probably move on.

If you too want a garage queen, this car is that!

I see it as having higher risk than a 20k-30k car, which hasn't really been used much either!

c32AMG-DTM

2001 Turbo, 3k miles or a 2003 Turbo X50 15-25k miles, for the same price?

IMHO, assuming equal or nearly equal condition, the latter is your better bet, unless you're a collector looking for the lowest mileage possible (and don't intend to put any more on yourself).

JG 996T

Car has sat for 11 years. If you can get a 2003 X50 for the "same price" - do it - after PPI.

Guards red is a great color.

errico

Thank you all.

errico

need a 993

Let me offer this:

I purchased an 03X50 2years ago with 2100 miles on it. I had my worries but couldn't pass on the aesthetic condition of the car. Now I'm at 9500 miles without any leaks or any problems whatsoever.

Car has been bulletproof. I realize this is just one case in point.
Let us know what you decide!

Last930

In my opinion, the whole 'low mileage is bad' arguement is flawed. If the car is running well, passes a good long test drive and ppi I would have no qualms about it, providing that the premium paid for the low mileage is not ridiculous. You would think the seals on these cars are made of balsa wood by all the comments about leaks cropping up once the cars are driven. I personally have bought a good number of very low mileage cars that were 'aged' some by the time of purchase, and have never experienced any problems other than a frozen brake caliper that was disclosed at the time of purchase. If the car is sitting outside in a field next to the ocean I would avoid it, but if it has been stored properly and runs well I would not worry about it. Remember - you cannot take mileage off a car. At least not legally!

SSST

All things being equal, I'd go with the 03 X50. 25K miles is barely broken in on these cars.

Regardless of your feelings on the low mileage issue, an 03 X50 is going to hold value better than an 01. The old advice of buying the newest you can afford is rarely wrong.

Macster

Low mileage brings with it some risk of seals leaking.

While a new car obviously can sit some time and not develop any leaks, a used car is not quite as immune to the effects of sitting unused.

I suspect it has something to do with the fact that as a car is used this tends to dry the seals out some. Sure, usage also helps 'wet' the seals and this works to extend the seal life.

But a used car is less tolerant of this inactivity since it has had some usage.

A leaking seal is not the end of the world, but it can put a real dampener on one's car experience to get an otherwise nearly new car home only to have it after some time spot the driveway like a puppy with a weak bladder living in a house with a new carpet.

Sure the leaks can be addressed if one can't live with them, but it can be expensive. (My 03 Turbo received a new tranny when its CPO covered tranny developed a selector shaft seal leak. Now had the car not been covered the cost to put this right was on the order of $4K to $5K or so. Ouch.)

My primary concern with an older low mileage is car is several fold. Problems appear from miles driven not time the car sits -- ignoring the effect this has on seals, gaskets, etc.) -- so a low miles car is still a new car (in miles) even if the car is 6 or 7 or 10 years old.

Without a warranty..., there's risk. I won't repeat what I experienced with my 03 Turbo which I bought in 09 with around 10K miles on it. (It might seem like I'm piling on but the car came with paperwork that indicated even before the 10K mile point it had some issues (rattles and I think a spoiler problem) that were taken care of by the new car warranty.)

But suffice to say things were peachy until the car had around 30K miles on it and again at around 50K miles. In both cases, boy was I darn glad the thing had a CPO warranty.

Lastly, the seller is going to expect he can ask for and get a premium price for the low miles car. Thus a buyer pays a high price for low miles but as he adds miles the low miles premium is lost, rather quickly.

The used car buyer experiences a larger depreciation hit for buying a low miles car.

But of course it is up to the buyer, the individual.

A 3K miles car in I suppose very good condition (my 03 with 10K miles was in pristine condition so I can imagine the 3K miles car is in even better shape, if that's possible) and that has some attraction to a buyer. I felt like even with 10K miles I was buying a new car at less than half its list price.

But a 3K mile car sans no warranty? I'd consider it but I'd have to have tucked away a considerable sum of money just in case.

The rule of thumb when buying a used car is to have 10% of the car's purchase price set aside just in case.

In my car's case I would have to have set aside nearly $6K ($5.7K). (I had that and more, but didn't expect I'd need it given the car came with a CPO warranty.) And had I had to pay for all the things that came up... that wouldn't have been enough.

Sincerely,

Macster.

rmc1148

I have owned over 60 cars in my life and low mileage is a plus period .If a part sits on a shelf new for ten years would you rather have it or one used for ten years.There are always exceptions and seals can leak etc but a low mile well kept car is hard to beat.Year has to be considered of course and put into the equation.I do not care if you buy a car with 10 or 100,000 miles there seems something will cost you after the sale lol but Im very fussy and like things to look 100%.I would buy the car that most appealed to you,as they both sound nice.

Dan87951

I would much rather have a 03 X50 with 20k miles than a 01 with 3k miles. Its definitely more car!