What's low mileage?

[shaunmbenson]

Hey gang

Curious your thoughts on low mileage for different cars/years.

In my case I bought an 85 in 2014 with 50k miles. I considered that low
Now it has 75k miles. Starting to seem less low.

[Farrell]

hard to say really. 75k i would say is lower and by no means considered high mileage. but there are still cars out there with 5-20k on them and thats definitely low mileage.

[Skwerl]

My head says 75k miles over 31 years is still easily garage queen status (2400 miles a year??) but my gut says the crossover from "low mileage" to "driver mileage" is around 40-50k. There are still plenty of people who want a car with a few miles on it, though, so it's not like you've driven out all of the value, but I think you're at the point where the snooty mileage-obsessed collectors wouldn't be too interested and you won't be able to get any premiums.

[shaunmbenson]

Makes sense -- Aside from my bolt-on steering wheel mod and remove radio mods the car looks just shy of new still but would never interest a collector - original paint with less marks than my 2 year old Hyundai but underside some bolt and components surface rust, PO bent a few seams jacking badly etc.

I've never owned one of these for more than 2 years and now that I'm about to with this one I'm thinking of how to maintain it beyond the basics and while I will never restrict my useage I want to always keep her on the right side of value and condition wherever possible.

[Nick Triesch]

Considering that most 10 years old cars have 140,000 on them , my 30 year old Porsche with 151000 is low mileage. If you have a 356 it does not matter. Soon, with long hoods, it will not matter.

[gearby]

I consider my '72 with 103k on it to be low mileage but not reall low. The real problem with ultra low mileage cars is that you don't want to drive them for fear of diminishing their value, but most people buy these cars because they want to drive them. I would never buy an ultra-low mile car. I want to be able to drive it without feeling guilty. I would say your car at 75,000 original is still a low mile car. I would say any 89 or earlier car with less than a hundred K is low mileage

[Matt Monson]

Originally Posted by Nick Triesch

Considering that most 10 years old cars have 140,000 on them , my 30 year old Porsche with 151000 is low mileage. If you have a 356 it does not matter. Soon, with long hoods, it will not matter.

I agree with this. Eventualy with IB cars it won't matter either. When I got my 86 at around 95k mi I considered it low mileage. Now that its closer to 110k I still consider it low mileage but if I ever went to sell it I would not use that used car salesman buzzword in the ad. I would only use it with a verifiable sub 50k mi car like my old 68. That car had 42k mi on it with two owners prior to me.

[Macroni]

75K is low miles in my book for an 1985.

[Nick Triesch]

Wow! now an 85 with that kind of mileage spent a lot of time sitting. what a shame.

[COLB]

From a price premium standpoint, I think any 74-89 Porsche with verified mileage under 100k is a "low miles" car. Under that, I think the inflection points are:

under 20k (museum pieces) 2x value
20-50k (investment level) 1.5x value
50-80k (garage queens) 1.25x value
80-100k (low mileage "drivers") 1x -- this is the band that probably defines the "market price" if any level of condition is held constant

the difference in market within the 20-30k mileage bands is minimal, and vary more due to options & color than mileage.

Mileage on the vast majority of cars old enough to have 5-digit Odometers is pretty much meaningless, as so few have the documentation to verify it anyway, and most have been restored to the point it is irrelevant.

[thamlin000]

Exactly. Can't trust these odometers and speedos are easily changed out. Without service records to verify mileage, it is mileage unknown.

[NYNick]

Mileage, while a value barometer to many, is a somewhat absurd and overly simplistic evaluation tool.

Race cars that are driven hard and serviced heavily are considered valuable, while high mileage stock 911's with regular service intervals are considered less so. Which would you rather own?

To me, a 'properly' serviced high mileage Porsche is a the epitome of the brand. It was born to be driven, it was and still is.

A trailer queen, low mileage museum piece is just plain dumb. What are you saving? There's an entire Porsche building in Germany dedicated to the history of the brand. Do you really think your car is that important? Very, very few people own cars that are historically significant. You most likely are not one of them. A 73 RS, yes. A 930, no. Certainly an 82 Targa with 40K matters not.

Ferry created these cars for the people, to be driven, not lusted after or drooled over. Get over yourself and your self imposed importance. Drive the piss out of your car. You owe it to yourself and the Porsche you own.

[350 SIX]

Originally Posted by NYNick

Mileage, while a value barometer to many, is a somewhat absurd and overly simplistic evaluation tool.

Race cars that are driven hard and serviced heavily are considered valuable, while high mileage stock 911's with regular service intervals are considered less so. Which would you rather own?

To me, a 'properly' serviced high mileage Porsche is a the epitome of the brand. It was born to be driven, it was and still is.

A trailer queen, low mileage museum piece is just plain dumb. What are you saving? There's an entire Porsche building in Germany dedicated to the history of the brand. Do you really think your car is that important? Very, very few people own cars that are historically significant. You most likely are not one of them. A 73 RS, yes. A 930, no. Certainly an 82 Targa with 40K matters not.

Ferry created these cars for the people, to be driven, not lusted after or drooled over. Get over yourself and your self imposed importance. Drive the piss out of your car. You owe it to yourself and the Porsche you own.

Bible...

[techweenie]

Before the 17-digit VIN, cars are under the radar for 3rd party reporting - making records vital.

I'd say 3-6K miles a year is "low mileage." for 3.0 and 3.2 cars. But for older cars to qualify, they need to be under that annual range. Sounds 'dealer-esque,' but a documented 'mostly freeway miles' car is going to suffer the least from accumulated miles. It won't look or feel like a car that accumulated its miles in 30 mile jaunts.

A side note:
Look at the number of 81 and 82 911SCs out there with moderate mileage claims. Then look at the speedometers. Most go to 150 or 160. As delivered, these cars had speedometers that topped out at 85. How many of the newly-swapped in speedometers were set at the final mileage of the ones removed? Few, would be my guess.

[specialtyoneinc]

Originally Posted by NYNick

Mileage, while a value barometer to many, is a somewhat absurd and overly simplistic evaluation tool.

Race cars that are driven hard and serviced heavily are considered valuable, while high mileage stock 911's with regular service intervals are considered less so. Which would you rather own?

To me, a 'properly' serviced high mileage Porsche is a the epitome of the brand. It was born to be driven, it was and still is.

A trailer queen, low mileage museum piece is just plain dumb. What are you saving? There's an entire Porsche building in Germany dedicated to the history of the brand. Do you really think your car is that important? Very, very few people own cars that are historically significant. You most likely are not one of them. A 73 RS, yes. A 930, no. Certainly an 82 Targa with 40K matters not.

Ferry created these cars for the people, to be driven, not lusted after or drooled over. Get over yourself and your self imposed importance. Drive the piss out of your car. You owe it to yourself and the Porsche you own.

[Rawknees'Turbo]

Originally Posted by NYNick

Race cars that are driven hard and serviced heavily are considered valuable, while high mileage stock 911's with regular service intervals are considered less so. Which would you rather own?

The race car, butt only as long as it had fender flares (big'ins), a big tail, turbo powaa', ice-cold a/c, and a tunebox with a usb port!

I wouldn't own a stock 911 - might buy one stock but it wouldn't remain that way for long.

Really good points in your post, by the way.

[COLB]

Originally Posted by NYNick

Mileage, while a value barometer to many, is a somewhat absurd and overly simplistic evaluation tool.

Race cars that are driven hard and serviced heavily are considered valuable, while high mileage stock 911's with regular service intervals are considered less so. Which would you rather own?

To me, a 'properly' serviced high mileage Porsche is a the epitome of the brand. It was born to be driven, it was and still is.

A trailer queen, low mileage museum piece is just plain dumb. What are you saving? There's an entire Porsche building in Germany dedicated to the history of the brand. Do you really think your car is that important? Very, very few people own cars that are historically significant. You most likely are not one of them. A 73 RS, yes. A 930, no. Certainly an 82 Targa with 40K matters not.

Ferry created these cars for the people, to be driven, not lusted after or drooled over. Get over yourself and your self imposed importance. Drive the piss out of your car. You owe it to yourself and the Porsche you own.

As an actual barometer of roadworthiness, mileage is less useful a barometer the older a car gets. Dry-rotted seals, gaskets, fuel hoses, hardened bushings, brittle plastic sensor insulation, gummed up fuel systems, corroded brake systems -- components of these cars "age out" whether you drive them or not, and usually faster if they sit.

But what you think a car is worth and what you can buy it for are two different things.

All things being equal, verified mileage is a significant value in car prices. The Mecum auction results reinforce that. The market puts a premium on vehicles under 100k, like it or not.