>
>
>....Well guys and gals, this makes it more of a challenge, huh? There is
>more to a car than just low miles. Which poses a question, I see more and
>more ads with "original miles" that are really low. ie, 60,000 on a 1957
>car is 1,428 average miles per year. Unless it was put on blocks as a late
>model car 35 years ago, this low mileage sure seems highly unlikely. More
>likely 160, 000, which is still only 3,800 average for a '57.
> MEL BOHNENCAMP WROTE:
>There are no floors and there is no frame. There also in no trunk floor.
>there are no fenders front or rear. Now you tell me what do you do with a
>car like that. You sure as heck dont restore it weather it is a 2 dr or
>4dr]
A few years ago I bought a '66 Olds Toronado with 38K "original" miles, and
the car was cherry. . .not just no rust, but also things like driver's seat
showed very little wear, not a lot of road grime on the engine, paint not
flaked or faded, etc. Same with a '63 Chev Impala 4dr I bought with a
supposed 75K miles. Very very nice cars, and you could believe the mileage
was actual because of the overall condition of the car.
Another car I ended up NOT buying was a '64 Chev Impala SS (yeah, I was into
Chevs about 10 years ago). They claimed 50, something thousand miles, but
there was heavy rust in the quarters, the seat was torn to rags and sagged
to the floorboards (must have been owned by a heavy guy), and the engine was
black with grime, and also barely held its own when trying to make it run,
among other various problems. If that car really had 50K or so actual
miles, then they were the hardest miles any car ever had. I would doubt the
reliability of any moving part that came from that car, simply because they
more than likely would have been totally worn out by the time someone pulled
the parts from the car. . . .
Mark mjh
|
|
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network