Hello! ...what is the consensus on low mileage cars?

Hi all, Have recently signed up here after having done some background research to support my desire to get into 911 ownership and set my sights on a 996. I love the C4S' looks, but wary of the 3.6 engine and it's woes. I actually prefer the front end (lights) of the 996.1, and understand the 3.4 to be the less compromised engine from a bore scoring perspective, as well as the earlier 3.4s also less prone to IMS bearing failure. The 3.4 is a cheaper car than the C4S, and I like the idea of my entry point to 911 ownership being lower, so that even with some major maintenance required can be kept under £20k (entry point for C4S...). Hopefully the above makes sense and is not too waffly, but look forward to contributing to the forum, and getting into a 996 this year! As for the topic title, what is the consensus on low mileage cars? On the face of it, appears to be an attractive proposition, due to perceived value. However, is less use a good thing? What are the major points to look out for when considering a low mileage car? Eg. I have been looking into an early 3.4 996, with c.35,000 miles. Having only done 5,000 in the last 5 years by the current owner.

Yep, a low mileage 996.1 3.4 is a good car to go for. If you can find one, try for one with the option 220 LSD, and no sunroof, and the GT3 bodykit. If you manage that then you've got a unicorn that will only go one way in value even if you add a few miles. Some stuff will still need replacing as the rubber doesn't age well, such as the AOS, and suspension bits, but on the whole, after a C4S an early car with those options is the best investment and also the best drive.

I understand the GT3 kit (although not my preference) and LSD as an option, but why do non-sunroof cars have a higher perceived value? I'm aware of the 'investment' approach, and would be over the moon with zero depreciation, however the main appeal to me is a NA RWD manual sports car with character (not many of those being made any more)! I can't get think of anything better that suits this description, with enough power to enjoy, but not so much the fun is over too quickly before getting into licence losing speeds. (...at this budget)

Condition ,condition, condition. That's the 3 things to focus on if you're not bothered about investment but want loads of hassle free fun. :thumb: Good luck with the search and never be afraid to ask the most stupidest of questions on here if you're unsure about something. :thumbs:

I don't place much on low mileage. It'll be more expensive and as soon as you start to use it you'll start to erode a lot of its value. How it's been looked after is for me far more important. I agree on the early 3.4 tho - most robust engine, and cheapest! Win win

And better dial layout. They totally cocked the gen 2 up with the digital speedo.

I think 'totally cocked up' is a bit strong. I didn't even notice until somebody pointed it out to me. MC

If your eyesight is as bad as mine then yes. Gen 1 is slap bang in the middle in large font, gen 2 is just a small blur behind the lh side of the wheel.

At least the position on the Gen 2 is more consistent with it being the speed measurement, as it is in the speedometer. MC

Rev counter and digital speed slap bang in the middle and larger than any others is perfect, hence porsche going back to that on the 997.

I'd probably lose my lisence in a gen 2 996 :grin:

Millby, as stated by posters already, the early 3.4's are arguably the best entry point for these cars. The most "bang for your buck" as it were. On the wider point about low mileage cars, this is a very interesting point in my opinion. A very low miles car will cost more to buy, but the new owner is then reluctant to drive it because doing so clobbers the value! Now, if (like me) you intend on doing very few miles anyway, that's OK. But if you'll do plenty of miles, then Alex's point is spot on - buy on condition, not mileage. Look for proper maintenance - not just regular servicing, but things like condensers, radiators, suspension, brakes and so on. If you buy privately from an enthusiast you can get a car that has had the above sort of things done to it, at a great price in what is a buyer's market. Why not create a "wanted" advert on here? Have fun, the hunt can be very enjoyable.

The reason for not wanting a sunroof is that it puts a lot of weight in the worst part of the car and reduces rigidity in the least rigid part of the shell, between the A and B pillars. If you're after a car to drive rather than just as a minimum miles investment then I would also echo the 'buy on condition' mantra, though fewer miles will generally mean less wear in expensive places like the engine and gearbox, on the proviso it's been looked after, i.e. oil changes annually regardless of how few miles it's done.

It has been noted often that the low mileage garage queens are more prone to issues than a car thats regularly used , which would make sense after all these cars were made to be used and driven. personally I would be looking for ave miles rather than low also as already mentioned your paying a premium for low miles it may not be as good but you will be frightened to enjoy it properly. always buy based on condition over spec or anything else. the other option to consider with a 20k budget is buy a broken one for 6/8k send it to Hartech for a rebuild and get back a car thats almost bullet proof and would be good for another 100k and all in for more or less your budget. :thumb:

I have a car with a sunroof, it doesn't suffer for it, I understand the ethos of this but driving a car on the road, are you going to feel the difference? highly unlikely.