Why the premium for low mileage cars?

[autobonrun]

In the last six months, I've been in the market for cars on two separate occasions and notice people are asking a huge premium for cars with 20k miles and less even if they are over 10 years old. However, when I check the maintenance records for my SC, I find no major failures of items that are mileage/wear related, (e.g. tranny, engine mechanical components, etc.).

I do find failures that I attribute to age and maybe heat; such as seals, hoses, and electrical components. Even most shock absorber failures are because the seals leak. Engine seals are going to change size and shape with age, regardless of mileage.

If most failures are age related, why the big premium for low mileage cars if you're not buying them as a museum piece? Is it just psychological; an expensive feel-good feature? Won't the need for repairs still be there regardless of the mileage because of the age issue? I figure for the $10k premium some or asking for say low mileage 993's, I can replace a lot of worn out clutches.
This is the only major mileage related repair I can think of.

[Dantilla]

I've bought plenty of cars with high miliage, simply because of the lower purchase price. I haven't been disappointed yet.

If the car has been maintained, and is in good shape, I don't really care which little numbers in the odometer are showing.

[efhughes3]

I just paid a premium for a fairly low (37K) mileage '91 928. It was also fairly immaculate. My reasoning was to get a clean unmolested example. Could've saved $5K on another example, but I think the extra $ were well spent.

The tires had a lot of tread, but were 10 years old, so I changed them. All else on the motor looks great.

[si Banker]

I looked for a low mileage car because I wanted a car that was as new as possible. I found an 1987 coupe with 17,000 with all records. Other than replacing the oil tubes the motor is dry as a bone and zero issues, knock on wood.

I saw no problems and would gladly pay a premium for low mileage