The thread below regarding the T-code 66 and the recent post from the VMF'er who belatedly discovered that the "original" mileage had been misrepresented triggered an interesting question. Can the mileage ever be too high or too little?
IMHO, high mileage is irrelevant when it comes to vintage cars that are going to be fully restored even if they are being restored as daily drivers. In most of these cases, the car will undergo a full mechanical overhaul with all body parts brought back to good (if not perfect) condition. When finished, they will range from generally reliable to trailer queen. Either way, I think the historical mileage they carry is irrelevant.
The question of low mileage is much more interesting. Most of us understand that leaving a car to sit for long periods of time without adequate maintenance or exercise qualifies as neglect. Yet our instinct is to look at low mileage on a 35-year-old car and start to wonder if we have a jewel on our hands. In the vintage car hobby, this seems to be a strong enough totem as to become something we want to believe versus something about which we should be extremely suspicious.
My personal opnion is that, unless the vehicle in question is a fully documented, unrestored trailer queen, low mileage is not only irrelevant but should be viewed as a red flag and the prospective value of the vehicle reduced accordingly. As Steve noted in the T-code post, a vehicle that was properly placed in long-term storage (or driven sparingly) shouldn't need restoration work. If it does, or if it has received restoration work, then the mileage is less important than the fact that the car was neglected for an extended period and will require work to make it right again. Any value would have to attach only to the completeness of the car, not to any consideration of having been lightly used. And in that context, the car would be no more valuable than a higher mileage, but similarly complete, example.
So, what say you, VMF? Does low mileage count?
IMHO, high mileage is irrelevant when it comes to vintage cars that are going to be fully restored even if they are being restored as daily drivers. In most of these cases, the car will undergo a full mechanical overhaul with all body parts brought back to good (if not perfect) condition. When finished, they will range from generally reliable to trailer queen. Either way, I think the historical mileage they carry is irrelevant.
The question of low mileage is much more interesting. Most of us understand that leaving a car to sit for long periods of time without adequate maintenance or exercise qualifies as neglect. Yet our instinct is to look at low mileage on a 35-year-old car and start to wonder if we have a jewel on our hands. In the vintage car hobby, this seems to be a strong enough totem as to become something we want to believe versus something about which we should be extremely suspicious.
My personal opnion is that, unless the vehicle in question is a fully documented, unrestored trailer queen, low mileage is not only irrelevant but should be viewed as a red flag and the prospective value of the vehicle reduced accordingly. As Steve noted in the T-code post, a vehicle that was properly placed in long-term storage (or driven sparingly) shouldn't need restoration work. If it does, or if it has received restoration work, then the mileage is less important than the fact that the car was neglected for an extended period and will require work to make it right again. Any value would have to attach only to the completeness of the car, not to any consideration of having been lightly used. And in that context, the car would be no more valuable than a higher mileage, but similarly complete, example.
So, what say you, VMF? Does low mileage count?