[Shotimes] Looking to rejoin the ranks: Q on first gear power

[Donald Mallinson]

Ron,

We will probably have to agree to disagree on this, but an old "low 
mileage" car does not have to have ANY Problems or things to worry 
about.  Certainly not more than a higher mile car. 

Properly maintained and cared for, a low mile car is ALWAYS a better bet 
than a higher mileage car with the same care.  Why?  Because things wear 
out, and you can't avoid that, even with good care.  Of course if you 
have a 60,000 mile car with no maintenance that is just ready for a 
replacement of lots of parts (V6 SHO's for example, are prone to need 
tie rod ends, subframe bushings, water pump, cam and crank sensors and  
the cam belt change at this point.) it is going to be more trouble than 
a 120,000 mile car that has just had all that done (for the second 
time).  BUT, that same 120,000 mile car, if it has NOT had the work done 
is a MUCH worse risk than a 60,000 mile car that has just had the work 
done. 

So I just can't agree that a lower mile car will have more problems, all 
other things being equal. 

I have had a number of ultra low-mile old cars, mostly Muscle cars, but 
a 58 Impala with 50,000 miles was a superb car that needed a few things, 
but otherwise, was much better than any similar car with over 100,000 miles.

My '91 SHO with 50k feels tighter and is better in many respects than my 
182,000 mile '89, because it just has had that much less wear/tear.  
There are still things that the 50k mile car needed or needs, but no 
more than any other 50k mile SHO.

IF you change the fluids and maintain it, low miles will always be a 
better car than a higher mile one IMO.  A low mile car really won't leak 
more, or have other problems.  You can stick a car in a garage for 20 
years and drive it 10 miles a year and in 20 years it will drive like a 
brand new car.  But let it sit in the sun, don't change the fluids and 
abuse it otherwise, and it can be a bad deal.  It is all in the care.

Don Mallinson

Ron Porter wrote:

>You can't just look at the mileage. Age matters a LOT. Only 81K on a
>13-year-old car is quite hard on it.
>
>The example I have used is that '95 MTX that I owned & sold with about 90K
>on it, then I bought a two-SHO-enthusiast-owner '94 MTX with 168K miles on
>it. The '94 was well-maintained, and it was in TWICE the condition of that
>'95, even though it had almost twice the mileage on it.
>
>I would almost feel more comfortable with a 160K '92 than I would an 80K
>'92, assuming that both have been reasonably maintained, as the cars that
>are regularly driven seem to have fewer problems from my experience.
>
>Now, if I wanted a low-mileage, absolutely original SHO to use as a "garage
>queen", that's a different story. For a daily driver-type car, I would
>rather have the regularly-exercised SHO.
>
>Ron Porter
>
>Ron Porter
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: shotimes-admin@autox.team.net [mailto:shotimes-admin@autox.team.net]
>On Behalf Of David Early
>Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 11:42 AM
>To: shotimes@autox.team.net
>Subject: RE: [Shotimes] Looking to rejoin the ranks: Q on first gear power
>
>Well, I admit that I am somewhat downtrodden by the response from
>everyone...I admit that I hoped you all would talk me into it. <smiles>
>
>My biggest problem is I can't have 2 cars...not at a point where I can do
>that for a variety of reasons...
>
>It sounds like most would agree that the '92 SHO, even with 81k on it, is a
>much worse bet than the 66k '99 VW.  I mean, I like my car, but the SHO has
>a certain appeal as well.  I would NOT consider doing this if the mileage
>were not this close.  
>
>I know that I am taking a risk, and that repairs could be nasty, but
>frankly, they could be nasty on either car...German cars are not cheap to
>work on either...just a bit more mass produced.  The risk seems to be around
>which car is going to have the problems first.
>
>Any one else want to weigh in on this one?  Looking for the voice of
>experience...from all who care to comment.
>
>Thanks
>
>dave
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ian Fisher [mailto:dataflash@yahoo.com] 
>Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 8:33 AM
>To: David Early; shotimes@autox.team.net
>Subject: Re: [Shotimes] Looking to rejoin the ranks: Q on first gear power
>
>As a former ATX owner and a current MTX owner, I have
>always felt that the 3.2 in the ATX was stronger off
>the line than the 3.0 in the MTX. (more torque) I
>don't know for sure what you are feeling with this 92
>but over email, that would be my guess. Hey, you could
>always do a 3.2 swap! :)
>
>If I had a better more reliable car such as a Passat,
>I would consider supplementing it with an SHO but I'd
>never replace a newer, lower mile car with an SHO. You
>won't come out ahead. :)
>
>Ian
>93 mtx -3.2 any day now!
>_______________________________________________
>Shotimes mailing list
>Shotimes@autox.team.net
>http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo/shotimes
>_______________________________________________
>Shotimes mailing list
>Shotimes@autox.team.net
>http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo/shotimes