<VV> Re: Another Take on Low Mileage - minimal Corvair

[GYoungwolf@aol.com]

As a once frequent (to my wife's chagrin) buyer of collector cars, I have 
some experience with the long term "cost" of low mileage old cars. Lest we 
forget, cars of old did not have the long warranties that we can enjoy today. I 
recall that 12K was about all you could get for a while, moving up to 36K, and 
then big jumps to today's 100K on some cars. I discovered that manufacturers knew 
what they were doing :-). When I was in the exotic car market for several 
years, the popular thinking was to not purchase one (Maserati, Lamborghini, 
Pantera, Porsche, etc.) with less than 40K, because that's about when everything 
started failing, regardless of age. Getting one that had more than that, along 
with repair receipts, helped ensure that expensive parts such as cylinder heads 
($4K on a Lambo), and transaxles ($15K on a Pantera or Porsche), etc., had 
been replaced with better quality aftermarket parts. About the only thing in my 
'72 Pantera (38K) that hasn't been replaced (by the PO), is the transaxle and 
interior. Of course, if one is partial to "trailer queens", then this argument 
is moot :-). In short, old original parts are practically guaranteed to 
fail... and should certainly be considered in the cost of keeping a low mileage car 
drivable.
FWIW,
Grant Young
Every time I hear the term "low mileage" I am curious what that means in a
40 year old car.  As far as I am concerned, even a very low mileage car
(under 1,000 miles) would likely be in a state of deterioration after 40
years unless it had been meticulously prepped and stored in a light free low
humidity environment.  Many times people seem to go bonkers when the car has
"only 30,000 miles" or whatever, neglecting the fact that sometimes all it
takes is one drive in the wrong kind of weather and the years will take
their toll.