What is a better buy? Low mile 360 or a higher mile 360?

If you're planning on driving it and putting real miles on it, seems like car number 1 is the way to go.

 

+1

 

Sold my 360 with 22k miles and just bought a 360 with 9k miles. My first car was regularly driven thruout time by its owners and was solid but it soon was due for new clutch, belt etc. This new one I just bought needed everything done and costs 10k but in return I basically have a "new" car. I say go with the less mile car, do what needs to be done and you'll have a piece of mind and good resale and you won't have to worry about the stupid miles thing. Whichever you chose-good problem to have.

 

Ι think the best buy is one with reasonably miles, perhaps 4-5k a year

 

I think for the long run the lower-mile option makes more sense.

Indeed it will be a bit more costly (both up-front & with some extra maintenance maybe) but then you will be more comfortable both after having done the necessary maintenance as you will put the majority of the miles on the car yourself also if you decide to sell it in the future it will have more advantage than the "higher" mile option.

Also, 30/5 Kmiles/owners ratio seems a bit too much in my opinion, just doesn't feel right for some reason

 

Do you want to maximize your resale or do you want to drive it and enjoy the car? The answer to this question will determine which car to buy.

If you want to drive it for 3 years and then sell it to move up to a later model, buy the lower mileage example.

If you want to buy it and hold on to it for a while, and enjoy it and no have to worry about depreciation.. buy the second.

So you buy the low mileage example and pay.. what.. 80-90k for it? Versus the what 70-80k for the higher mileage example (BTW I'd be more aggressive with pricing than that $10k). If you drive it scarcely for 3 years, lets say 1000 miles a year, then you can sell a car with 11k miles as a low mileage car. If you drive it 20k miles in the next 3 years.. no matter how nice it looks it's then going to be a "high mileage" car and it will get clumped into the other cars on the market (instantaneously branded as "needing a million things" by any of the armchair QBs) with 30-50k miles. Once these cars hit 30k miles, the price differential is less than those with less than 10k miles. In addition, it stand no less risk or having any major problem as any other car. 8k mile cars have issues just like 15-20k mile cars have issues.. only you're paying top dollar to have the same issues (if they occur), PLUS you take a greater hit on depreciation mile for mile than for a high mileage car. 8-20k is a greater hit in resale than 30-50k miles.

If you're actually going to drive it.. spend less and get the car with the higher miles IMHO. You're not going to be afraid to drive it and actually use it. I bought mine with 46k and it's REALLY nice to have a car you don't have to worry about every little bird dropping and chip and ding.

Re servicing: Might be fine.. might need camshaft seals or other rubber... won't know until the PPI or actually driving it around town. Wouldn't know as my seals haven't leaked a drop in 3 years I've had mine...

 

They're both low miles, buy the cheaper one!

 

If you’re buying it for the next guy, the car with 8K miles may (or may not!) be better. It costs more to buy and will cost more and take longer to get running properly. However, it may (or may not!) be easier to sell later on.

If you’re buying to enjoy the car for yourself, the 30K car clearly sounds superior. Apparently driven regularly and well cared for, you’ll end up with exactly the same car but much more quickly and for less money. You can probably talk the current owner down even further by beating him up over the “high” miles (wink, wink).

In a couple years it’s likely depreciation will erase most of the difference in value between the cars anyway, so why pay more and buy into all the hassle now? I see nothing but disadvantages to the 8K car, but that’s just me.

P.S. Don’t tell the current owner, but 30K well maintained miles on a 360 is less than a bug on the windshield of it’s useful life.

 

Buy the car you fall in love with, that's also in your budget. The depreciation on both examples should be linear. The maintenance should be linear. So focus on getting what you want.

 

Not that it's an apples-to-apples comparison but I bought my TR which had been sitting 10 years, took me almost 3 years to sort it out (even after a full engine-out). Same with a T-Bird I had that had been sitting.

My 2003 360 which had been driven regularly (had 8K miles when I bought it) has been so far trouble-free.

 

neither car seems particularly higher mileage to me. That being said I would buy the one with 30k on it in a heartbeat. Regularly driven and serviced cars always have few problems.

One thing to keep in mind, however, is if you have to do the belt service. From your original post it looks like both cars will need a belt service, so thatll be 3-4k out of your pocket. I would spend 10k less on the higher mileage car but ask them to include the major service, so the car is truly good to drive without needing a penny for at least a year.

 

Someone else posted a question about reliability yesterday, and my answer was that time driven and time serviced are more important that mileage. #2 fails both criteria, it has not been serviced or driven and so is a complete mystery as to what issues it hides. Don't get fooled by the low mileageage somehow magically creating value. Depreciating based on mileage only makes sense for used cars that are daily drivers where getting close to 100K+ miles may mean you are nearing the service life expectancy of critical parts like a transmission or differential.

A Ferrari that has seen regular use, but not abuse, and routine service is something I would look for. For me, I figure around 1-3K miles per year is a sign that the car was driven often enough to keep on top of services and prevent deterioration of the car. A Ferrari that was driven daily for just one year to rack up 15K miles after never being driven for years prior would worry me. Means someone on a budget might have bought it to drive the hell out of it and then dump it before servicing it, leaving the next owner to pay the maintenance bill they racked up.

 

Your cost / mile will converge quickly. You seem a bit too fixated on depreciation, and the most dangerous kind; depreciation from use.

Just reiterate a quote from a wise chatter (paraphrased); Not driving your Ferrari so the next guy will have a low milage example, is like not shagging your girlfriend so the next guy has a less used model.

If you drive it 10k, then you are talking a 18k Vs 40k car. likely still a $10k delta in nominal dollars and 3.4% inflation * number_of_years_owned * $10k in real dollars. i.e. 5 years: $8k in real dollars. Sure low milage cars depreciate more, until they become high milage cars.

The Ferrari definition of high milage around here is a polarizing topic to be avoided, but seems to smell like 12k. So your high depreciation miles will soon be over on the 8k mile unit, unless you are talking 300 miles a year, then once again you will be in the linear range.

In the end we are talking about a few grand. For most Ferrari buyers getting the right car is key. One clutch and belt change will push deltas in depreciation into the background noise.

I buy based on love. ...now I date based on miles. Go figure

 

Love = How beautiful/visceral response

The latter aspect= ( [Age/2.2] * E (waist-32)+hip/waist-.7) / BAL

 

It's only in the USA that I've seen mileage be such an issue on these types of cars. Ferraris are meant to be driven-drive the hell out of it. You have one life, live it, drive it every day. I easily put on 600-1200 miles a moth on my ferraris-I didn't work my butt off half of my life to finally have them and then stare at them in the garage
You will have a bit harder time reselling the 30k car cause by the time you're done with it it'll be pushing 40k and it's an unknown territory for most people here in the US. If you can get the other car ready then get that cause you'll never end up worrying about the damn miles. Both will really end up costing you the same thing in service. I had to do everything on my 9k 360 but the good thing is now I know it's done and won't need a thing for the next 3 years. I'll put 10k miles on it and won't have much worry to sell whereas a 40k mile 360 is gonna attract a lot of lowballers. The fact however is the fact: 30k miles is more wear than 9k miles-period, on any level or car. The 9k mile car might be a bit more of a headache upfront but maybe that's just the good thing abou it....

 

I wouldn't buy car number two. I'd be concerned about the effects of it having sat for so long unused and unserviced and the potential for unreliability and bills once it started being driven regularly.

 

Not sure wy. It's a myth. If a car sat around for 2 years you're gonna have a dead battery, some fluid accumulation and tire discplacement. Non issue and fixable for $1500. I'd be more worried how a 30k was driven.

 

No brainer, get the less mile car.

 

If you're thinking of a CS, then I would say the better buy would be a CS now. You won't be losing money through depreciation of the 360 and IMO CS prices are just going to go up in the future.

 

Here's a thought. My 40k mile+ 360 gave me no headaches from day 1... because it was driven and things were updated by prior owners... who drove it.

If that was all it needed... the myth would never have emerged and nobody would doubt that a car with negligible miles was superior. The problem is.. there are problems with semi-handbuilt cars when they sit. Same for Porsches.

 

from my experience any car that is left sitting and not driven will have problems. the mechanical parts need to be kept well lubricated the moving to prevent deterioration.