1999+ - Low Mileage v. Higher Mileage - Maintenance - Help on purchase choices please

I have been looking to buy a 911, on and off, for years. I am looking at 1999-2002 right now. I have a couple of 1999's I am interested in but both are pretty low mileage. Well, one is under 20k miles and one is under 30k. They are a little costlier than the higher mileage ones. My buddy is very knowledgeable with cars and suggests the super low miles may be too low in miles. That these cars often don't get the maintenance, like oil changes, as owners think they can do it every 3,000 miles. Well, of course, every 3,000 miles might be 2 years or more. He says you have to change every few months regardless of miles. I wonder if that's overboard or maybe he is right!? In fact, one of the ones I like has barely been driven for the last two years and hasn't had an oil change (or anything of note) done since 2007. My friend says I should pass on that one for sure. What would you look for in terms of mileage and maintenance records? I was hoping some of you Porsche experts could shed some light to help me out. Thanks in advance for any help you can offer!

Just my vote: I would be very wary of a car that had been driven less than 3,000 miles or so a year unless you knew for a fact that the owner had gone to great lengths to maintain it with that in mind. A low mile car that was maintained according to the odometer is often a bad day waiting to happen, no matter how pretty it is. If you, yourself, plan to keep it as a garage queen, then maybe it's a risk worth taking. But if the car is going to be pressed into regular duty after a decade of sitting in a garage, you'd want to be prepared to spend some money on it. Personally, for a car you planned to use regularly, I would weigh a record of diligent maintenance over low mileage any day. IMO, these cars particularly love TLC and will give it back to you with durability. Expect lots of opinions on this. Lots of happy sunny day drivers on this board, and lots of year round DDs, too.

What do you plan on using the car for? Daily Driving, year round, summer toy, garage queen driven very little.

Quotes source post: 7134078

Agree with your buddy to some extent. The problem with very low mile cars is severalfold: Problems appear from miles driven, not time car spends sitting in garage. Not being driven many miles any inherent problems may not have had time to appear. The next owner runs the very real risk any inherent problems will appear doing his time with vehicle. To some owners servicing is done on a miles basis only. There is no attention paid to the recommendation that the oil be changed every xxxx miles *OR* every year and because the car doesn't cover the xxxx miles the oil is not changed every year but when the car reaches the xxxx miles threshold. Even if the owners can show yearly oil/filter services, but can't show the car was treated to brake fluid changes every 2 years, a coolant change or even two would be nice, then the car has not been properly cared for. How much risk are you assuming? No one can know. The early water cooled 3.4l 996 engines seem a bit more prone to serious engine troubles, but that is just my unscientific opinion. I do believe that one should be aware the risk is not zero that the car -- primarily the engine and that is the most expensive item to replace should it need it -- could develop severe if not catastrophic engine problems. Does this mean I would not buy one of these cars? Not necessarily. If I found an otherwise good car, well cared for, and in good condition, and provided the price was right, I'd be interested. But I would have to get a price that makes what I feel to be a real risk acceptable. And I would argue that the low miles counts for nothing towards the seller asking a higher price and in fact counts towards me offering a lower price. You want to avoid if you can paying a premium for a low miles car. If you drive the car any at all, then the premium vanishes as the miles accumulate. You suffer the depreciation the other owner, the previous owner avoided when he sold the car at a premium for its low miles. Either of the two cars you are considering should be subjected to the most thorough PPI. I'd even so far as to have the oil analyzed in both engines. Specifically I would be concerned mainly any presence of any contaminates that hint at the presence of coolant in the oil. If any present, I'd walk. The presence of coolant in the oil, even a trace, could be due to a crack in a cylinder, or head (though I think the cylinder crack is a more common failure), or even possibly a soon to fail head coolant plug). Any one of these conditions fully developed is a serious condition and can render the engine useless. Even if caught in time the owner would be looking at in the case of a cracked cylinder a new engine most likely. The other conditions are less expensive to address but not cheap by any means. The cost to properly address any of these conditions represents considerable expense that would represent a large fraction of the used car's purchase price and value. Sincerely, Macster.

Thanks guys. I am keeping the Honda Accord for primary daily driving. I would imagine driving this to work a couple days a week (well, 5 days a week at first I am sure!), take the kids somewhere on the weekend, etc.... I would imagine 5,000 miles a year. I am not a track guy. Will be around town mostly. Maybe occasional trip in the mountains (wine country).

Service records are certainly important, and low mileage 911s can have issues( I think)if they sit more than they are driven. Any vehicle that is rarely used will encounter problems due to lack of regular use. But, we often tend to be attracted to the 'low' mileage cars for some reason.GL

Also I'd like to add that for low miles car, the cars were not driven enough that the tires may have developed flat-spots. If you're looking at a car that was driven less than 3k miles a year and sat in the garage mostly, those tires will become questionable. Severly flat-spotted tires will require replacement. You'll have to take that into account. I just had this same experience recently when I bought an MB S-class that was barely driven. Drove it and sure enough, the tire(s) had a flat-spot and made the car vibrate at ~65-70mph. No fix around it. New tires necessary.

Quotes source post: 7136419

Good point. In fact, I wouldn't drive hard on performance tires that were more than 4 or so years old, even if they were perfect. The same chemical properties that make them sticky when new will turn them into hockey pucks when they age. (That's why I learned how to read tire construction date codes. Cheap performance tires are pretty expensive if they turn out to be old stock and only have a year or two left in them!)

knowing about tire aging really hit home when mine almost blew out.... had a LARGE bubble in one. Turns out they "looked" good but were old and driving just slightly hard almost cost me the whole game. I got really lucky and thinking back makes me scared (seriously) I bought the car with the old tires already on it, but understand how they could get there....buy a cheap used set and mount them up, they still have tread. Next thing ya know you could be spinning across the pavement, thru the grass and towards the trees.... and I am not joking

Quotes source post: 7136500

long vid worth watching

Thanks for the tips. You guys are full of good info. You also have some very nice looking cars!

Yeah, the thing is that it's hard to justify a big premium for super low mile older car for those reasons. Especially a car that's been just sitting in a garage for 2 years or something may show problems later due to that lack of use/lubrication/regular servicing.... My '99 has been great, got it with about 49k miles and up to about 63k now and just did 60k service with my indy and no issues....also just did the smog, ditto.