Vintage cars - value and mileage

[david c.]

I'm interested in the collective wisdom on the relevance of mileage on a vintage car. Obviously on a modern daily-driver, mileage very much affects value. But how does low mileage affect the value of vintage cars, where wear and consumables likely all need replaced due to age anyway.

Reason for my question: I recently made a deal to buy a 69 Mustang fastback. The seller's dad bought it new. It's been raced and repainted and is while solid no show car. But we both thought the car had 40k orig miles and made a deal based on that. Turns out the odometer has turned over and it has 104k on the clock. (We both overlooked that the odo tracks tenths.) When we decided on a price, it was with me understanding the car needs an unpredictable amount of work and that hasn't changed with this new info.

He and I are simply trying to figure out what the fair thing to do is. I like the car, but in part I wanted it because a one family car with 40k miles seemed really interesting/cool to me.

What's a fair way to decide what % less the car is worth given the reality it doesn't have the low orig miles? I don't want to be unfair with the seller. And he still wants to sell it. We are both being really reasonable here I think. We just need some insights on the mileage-value proposition.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Dave

[Heel n Toe]

It would probably be a good idea to talk to a few people in a nearby town/city in a classic car club, or more specifically, a Mustang club... get several informed opinions. If you can find someone to talk with and you're pretty sure they wouldn't try to buy it out from under you, take them with you to see the car and talk with the owner (maybe at a neutral location instead of at the owner's home, if you get what I mean).

[johnco]

to have a 47yr old car with only 40k miles, I would have to have left it parked for at least 45-46 yrs.

[wdfifteen]

If you really want the car buy it. A car that old needs a ton of work no matter how many miles it has on it.

[id10t]

Originally Posted by johnco

to have a 57yr old car with only 40k miles, I would have to have left it parked for at least 55-56 yrs.

Indeed - while my '65 356 has been parked for a total of 20 years or so (with some driving in between) it still has 148k on the clock...

[MBAtarga]

I'd say if it HAD been 40k, single owner, original paint, the mileage increase would have been a bigger hit against value. Being that it's no longer original with the repaint, not so much.

[tevake]

It's funny that the seller did not know of the extra 100K miles. That sort of knowledge is part of the Extra value of a one owner car.

And like you, the idea of a low miles one owner car is somewhat significant in a collector car to me.
In actual fact the condition of the car and how it was cared for are as significant in its current value.

Is it a fastback model, larger engine, floor shifter manual etc set up the way you would want it to be. These all should play into the value for you.

It does sound like both parties are trying to be reasonable. I'd be careful about bringing in too many other mustang guys into the picture.

Let us know how it goes.

Cheers Richard

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by MBAtarga

I'd say if it HAD been 40k, single owner, original paint, the mileage increase would have been a bigger hit against value. Being that it's no longer original with the repaint, not so much.

Yup. Totally original with low miles is a big premium. On a car that has been repainted and will need a large amount of restoration, it's fairly irrelevant. Lots of full restorations reset the odometer to zero, that shows how little it matters.

[Christien]

The flipside is that low miles can be a problem. I recently bought an 87 911 with less than 38k miles on it that needed a top end rebuild because it hadn't been driven enough. Was 104 a typo? Did you mean 140? 104 I would think would be the sweet spot between not being driven like a taxi, but being driven enough to keep the car happy. Even 140 doesn't sound too bad.

[RF5BPilot]

At some point, unless the miles are ridiculously low and this is a collector vehicle for investment purposes -- to be shown not driven-- the miles don't matter any longer. Only the vehicle condition matters. (On many older cars, any relationship between true miles and the odometer are purely coincidental, anyway.)

So, size up the condition of the car, what you have to do to get it in the condition you want, then estimate what you'd need to buy it for to achieve your goals within your budget. It may work or not.

As others have said, low miles on older cars is often an indicator of more work to do and not an advantage.

A good PPI should identify the key issues. The good news is that as cars get older, they (usually) get simpler so the ability to evaluate their condition, address known issues and work on them is more straightforward. Good luck on your project.

[david c.]

While it was repainted once that was decades ago. The car was hidden away in a garage for decades. It's otherwise highly original and unrestored. It's a Mach 1 fastback with a 351. We are also here in California and by all accounts after it was built in San Jose this car spent it's whole life in east (dry) San Diego.

The way I look at it, the fact that it has 104k rather than 40k Miles has some effect on its value. My gut tells me it's in the 20% range. Does that sound way off to anyone here? I want to be fair. Put another way, I would've offered about 20% less had I not believed one of its attributes was very low mileage.

For what it's worth, low mileage cars exist. Sure - it's unusual. But as an example I have a 63 Volvo P1800S that has 35k on it. My childhood neighbor bought it brand new and I've known him and the car since the early 80's, so I know that is accurate.

[onewhippedpuppy]

If the car is mostly a survivor then that changes things. 20% sounds reasonable.

[fastfredracing]

Hi Dave !!!

[david c.]

Fast Fred! How's life in the Burgh my friend?! (Can you believe I may be owning not one but TWO Ford Mustangs in the next couple of weeks? - I have a 2015 GT, too.)

I'll stop out there next time I'm home.

[Brian 162]

To me the fact the car is a one owner vehicle is worth more than the mileage. As long as the body won't put you in the poor house.
As someone else said, check the Mustang club or a Mustang forum.
The cars are meant to be driven. I don't believe all these low mileage cars anyway.
Good luck

[manbridge 74]

40k or 104k won't really matter when it comes to creating carnage at cars n coffee gigs.

I keed!

Buy on condition is what I'd say.

[tabs]

40, 104 or 140k does not really matter on a nearly 50 year old car. Condition and originality means more...is it straight?

I got a 69 mach with the 428 SCJ.

It is a 351 Windsor...

[david c.]

Guys - the seller and I agreed to knock the price down by 20%. He and I agreed on the misunderstanding. Interestingly, I talked to a "certified" vintage car appraiser and his suggestion was to reduce the sale price by a cents-per-mile approach. In my view that was too harsh because it would've led to a HUGE reduction in the sales price far beyond what I thought was equitable in this situation.

I generally agree with all of you that condition is the most important thing. Yes, it is a straight car but as it turns out it's just a straight car without the added quality of having quirky low original mileage.

Once I get the car home in a few weeks I'll post some photos. It's a cool car. Although there was no barn involved, if this was a 911 it would undoubtedly turn into some thread with "barn find" in the title. But in actuality it's just a cool old blue Mustang with good bones that I happened across because the guy who is painting my 912 is the neighbor of the family selling the Mustang. Good car karma I guess.

Until then, here's a placeholder photo I found on the net. It looks like this but a lot less shiny:

[david c.]

[DanielDudley]

If that's the car, it's not what I was expecting for a ''barn find''. Certainly doesn't look like a car that was raced and repainted.

Nice score.