If you had to pick one, which one would you choose?

Would you rather purchase a:
-'92 SVX with 120K miles for $3000 OR
-'92 SVX with 55K miles for $5000?

This is assuming that both SVXs are in good running condition, are LSI models, and have no transmission problems. Which would you choose?

[shelfy]

a 92 LSi?

if your selling them, lower the 120k and raise the 55k one..simple... i know the market is lil softer on the 2.7, i bought my 94 L (fwd) with 98k for 4500. in north cali.
if your buying one, buy a later model with decent milage and AWD they all seem to hover between 4k-7k. adn don't be afraid to step up a lil more on a NICER one..remember what your getting for your money and how rare it is (only 25,000 made) one day (i don't care what blue book is) it WILL be a collector car (valuble)

[freak customs]

also check out the vin #'s to see which car it is... for value purposes consider that the lower the last 4 digits are mean that the car is closer to the 1st one produced. for example, mine is #1137... i think there is someone here within the first 200 cars produced.

[mbtoloczko]

I'd go for the 55k miles machine. Don't even have to think about it.

[ensteele]

Originally posted by mbtoloczko
I'd go for the 55k miles machine. Don't even have to think about it.

Me too.

[Chiketkd]

Originally posted by mbtoloczko
I'd go for the 55k miles machine. Don't even have to think about it.

Agreed. No question about it...

-Chike

[majeskyb]

That depends- which one has a spoiler
I'd go for the lower milage one any day of the week, unless it's obvious that it wasn't taken care of

[Rotorflyr]

If both vehicles are in the same (or close to the same) shape, inside and out, I'd spend 2k more (if I had the money to spend) for the one with lower milage, especaily since in this case the lower milage one has less then 1/2 the miles of the cheaper one.
Oh and by the way, jklmnopqrst, there wasn't an LSI model in 92' it was the LSL

Buy them both!

[AppStateSVX]

well.....


since i've alerady got a 92 LS-L w/ 123k on it, same as above, I would definetely go with the 55k one, once you get above 100k, no matter what the car, little things start going wrong, as i've seen........

[Ron Mummert]

Well, let's see. (This is all hypothetical, right?) Show me the service records!
The 55K car is 5K away from a major recommended service interval. The 120K car may have just had its service work done. The 55K car is due to drop its tranny any minute now. The 120K car is no doubt on it 2nd tranny & has had a cooler installed due to its "premature" failure & the owner is not taking any more chances. The 55K car lives in Newark, NJ & is a low mileage vehicle because its never seen an interstate highway. The other car is a long distance commuter residing in Helena, Montana. The 55K car is owned by a junior college student nicknamed "Burn out". The 120K car is owned by a fisherman named Earl.

For the 2K difference, you can buy a set of new tires, new brakes & rotors, a spare radiator, a box o' bearings & 6 quarts of Mobile 1.

There's more to quality than mileage, ladies & gents.

Ron (More mileage than I care to admit).

Yes, it's all hypothetical. I know there are just about a million different types of variables, other than mileage, that need to be looked at before buying a car. In this particular poll, however, we can assume that: both cars have been owned by a middle-aged woman, have all recommended maintenance performed to them, and are well-taken care of.

I am just curious to see how much more valuable a low-mileage SVX is when compared to the normal 100K-plus SVXs. It looks like we can all agree that low miles are more desireable (obviously). However, the question is how much more money would you pay for that?

BTW, I mistakingly labeled the '92 SVX an "LSI" model whereas I should of really said "LSL." Thanks for keeping me honest.

[UberRoo]

I'm with Ron Mummert on this one. To me, 120k means "well-tested," whereas 55k means you're not buying, but rather gambling on a car. The maintenance history is the tiebreaker here. At 120k, it should have just been given a pretty good tune-up. At 55k, it needs one soon. This is only a few hundred bucks, so it's not a huge factor, but it's one factor anyway.

If, at 120k miles, it's a factory transmission that's still shifting strong, you're probably safe for many more miles. If it's a rebuilt transmission, (and it was done right,) you are again probably safe for many more miles. If, at 55k miles, it's the original transmission, you have no idea what's going to happen, when it will happen, or even if it will happen.

I guess I'd say this: If you're going to be keeping this baby for a very long time, go with the one that has lower miles. Figure that you'll need to spend some considerable money on it in the next couple of years, but after that, in the long run you've got lots of good miles left on it. If you're buying the car is just so you can "get your fix" and have some fun for a year or two, go with the high-mile car. Figure that you'll get a few years out of it and it'll only cost you a couple thousand bucks even if it's completely totaled by the time you're done with it. Even at a complete loss, it's still a lot less than payments on a newer ride.

I personally believe that age is harder on a car than miles. I would take a new car with high miles over an old car with low miles. Just parking a car for months without driving it can be pretty abusive. Things that worked when it was parked, don't always work when it's resurrected.