So, can it be said that the low mileage for these cars is due to:
A) Poor quality
or
B) Thirst?
I would have kept driving mine, I think they're lovely.
Stop focusing on the mileage, true or not it makes little difference on any car of this age. How well she was maintained and stored will matter far more.So, can it be said that the low mileage for these cars is due to:
A) Poor quality
or
B) Thirst?
I would have kept driving mine, I think they're lovely.
Lots of $$$$ for a "mostly restored" vehicle. Strange to require restioration after only 58,000 miles. Perhaps 158,000???
Point-Counterpoint:Yep. Odometer says: 158000
Any Mopar odometer that has rolled over never has all of the individual numeric wheels line up again. That's designed in.
Stop focusing on the mileage, true or not it makes little difference on any car of this age. How well she was maintained and stored will matter far more.
At a glance, the interior looks good... she was stored with some protection. Rust issues would be related to use and washing. Paint, if original. would be a factor in outdoor storage.
Mileage really only plays out as a good thing to watch if you have a well documented survivor and want to sell to the big name auction crowd. Low mileage is often worse for overall mechanical condition.
Thanks Steve, all things being equal... you are right. The point I was eluding to was the focus on mileage... there are plenty of low mile messes, with no other redeeming qualities and all you hear everyone talking about is the miles.I usually agree with you Cantflip, but not on this one. I would always definitely prefer a low mileage car that was well maintained over a well maintained high mileage one. The electrical systems on these cars were their weakest points IMO, and they don't do well with mileage/use. And the interiors are nearly always better too. I tend to shy away from high mileage cars even if they were well maintained, unless they are my only option and I just have to have one.