OV9

Just posted up a new karenable.com blog on the Tyranny of Low Mileage.

https://karenable.com/the-tyranny-of-low-mileage/

Comments?

Absolutely agree. Car crime as noted previously. I hadn’t realised some older cars escaped this nonsense. Good to know.

mik wrote: Sun Sep 13, 2020 11:15 pm Absolutely agree. Car crime as noted previously. I hadn’t realised some older cars escaped this nonsense. Good to know.

With the older stuff I think the low mileage collectors are sane enough to realise that they have no way of verifying the mileage.
When I was doing classic/collectors cars as my main job, almost any car that had been restored in Italy had their odo reset to zero, as they considered it ‘as new’.

I remember as a kid in the late 80s one of my Dads customers doing 60,000 miles a year in a 911 Turbo, disconnecting the speedo after 6,000 miles then reconnecting it at 12 months when he traded it in for the next one, so as SSO says, there’s no point believing mileage until well into the 90s - Ferrari and Maserati were still using mechanical odometers into the 2000s.

When I took apart the odo on my 968 to replace a broken cog, I did wonder how easy it would be to roll the KMs back

Interesting article, SSO.

Of course as we're not only car enthusiasts, we're also driving enthusiasts so we're far happier seeing people use their cars as intended and enjoy them. It is annoying when cars appreciate out of reach

Very good article. I find it pretty depressing when I see all of these cars which have hardly ever been driven and just change hands over & over with a little increase in miles. Honestly, what's the point? Not to mention, as you say, the potential mechanical issues this gives.

I've never understood mileage being the be-all and end-all about some car values, particularly over condition, service history etc.

Endlessly debatable isn't it.

To me, some cars are made to be more beautiful than they are functional.

Others are more functional than they are beautiful. But a purity of function can be in itself a thing of beauty.

Some are valued because of their history, symbolising a temporal good fortune that connects the great stories.

Personally I could value and appreciate examples of all three. Actually [mention]SSO[/mention] I'd be interested in yours.


The attribute that doesn't really click with me is valuing its to appeal someone else. I don't really care if someone's appreciation of those three attributes differs or not.

But if my own definition of the value of something is how much someone else wants it that's all a bit weird. I can only describe it as selfish. It's living life as a zero sum game.

That's a naive worldview but I'm fairly comfortable with it.

RobYob wrote: Mon Sep 14, 2020 2:23 pm

But if my own definition of the value of something is how much someone else wants it that's all a bit weird. I can only describe it as selfish. It's living life as a zero sum game.

That's a naive worldview but I'm fairly comfortable with it.

Of course you only develop your own view of what is valuable by interacting with and being influenced by others, but maybe we shouldn't go down that rabbit hole.

That mega miles 996 springs to mind.

The people who I know with Ferraris (including [mention]IanF[/mention], formerly of this parish, whereabouts unknown) haven't had issues with them but they exercise them regularly. The 166 was quite like a supercar in this (and only this) way and the beginning of the end was when it got shunted and then sat around for 5 months or so.

Jimexpl wrote: Mon Sep 14, 2020 6:59 am

mik wrote: Sun Sep 13, 2020 11:15 pm Absolutely agree. Car crime as noted previously. I hadn’t realised some older cars escaped this nonsense. Good to know.

With the older stuff I think the low mileage collectors are sane enough to realise that they have no way of verifying the mileage.
When I was doing classic/collectors cars as my main job, almost any car that had been restored in Italy had their odo reset to zero, as they considered it ‘as new’.

I remember as a kid in the late 80s one of my Dads customers doing 60,000 miles a year in a 911 Turbo, disconnecting the speedo after 6,000 miles then reconnecting it at 12 months when he traded it in for the next one, so as SSO says, there’s no point believing mileage until well into the 90s - Ferrari and Maserati were still using mechanical odometers into the 2000s.

I think it takes almost a full 5 minutes to disconnect the odometer on a 288 GTO.....

RobYob wrote: Mon Sep 14, 2020 2:23 pm Endlessly debatable isn't it.

To me, some cars are made to be more beautiful than they are functional.

Others are more functional than they are beautiful. But a purity of function can be in itself a thing of beauty.

Some are valued because of their history, symbolising a temporal good fortune that connects the great stories.

Personally I could value and appreciate examples of all three. Actually @SSO I'd be interested in yours.


The attribute that doesn't really click with me is valuing its to appeal someone else. I don't really care if someone's appreciation of those three attributes differs or not.

But if my own definition of the value of something is how much someone else wants it that's all a bit weird. I can only describe it as selfish. It's living life as a zero sum game.

That's a naive worldview but I'm fairly comfortable with it.

Here are a few recent (and in development) examples:

Functional: McLaren Senna
Beautiful: De Tomaso P72 or Ferrari Icona SP1
Purity of Function: SCG 004S or T.50

Jimmy Choo wrote: Mon Sep 14, 2020 3:01 pm That mega miles 996 springs to mind.

The people who I know with Ferraris (including @IanF, formerly of this parish, whereabouts unknown) haven't had issues with them but they exercise them regularly. The 166 was quite like a supercar in this (and only this) way and the beginning of the end was when it got shunted and then sat around for 5 months or so.

Overall that's certainly been my experience with Ferraris, drive them and they are quite reliable. Let them sit and then all sorts of bad things start to happen.

SSO wrote: Mon Sep 14, 2020 3:09 pm

Jimmy Choo wrote: Mon Sep 14, 2020 3:01 pm That mega miles 996 springs to mind.

The people who I know with Ferraris (including @IanF, formerly of this parish, whereabouts unknown) haven't had issues with them but they exercise them regularly. The 166 was quite like a supercar in this (and only this) way and the beginning of the end was when it got shunted and then sat around for 5 months or so.

Overall that's certainly been my experience with Ferraris, drive them and they are quite reliable. Let them sit and then all sorts of bad things start to happen.

What about Lamborghini? Obviously they're not your cup of tea but I'd guess that at the point at which Audi took over they got less temperamental.

Jimmy Choo wrote: Mon Sep 14, 2020 9:18 pm

SSO wrote: Mon Sep 14, 2020 3:09 pm

Jimmy Choo wrote: Mon Sep 14, 2020 3:01 pm That mega miles 996 springs to mind.

The people who I know with Ferraris (including @IanF, formerly of this parish, whereabouts unknown) haven't had issues with them but they exercise them regularly. The 166 was quite like a supercar in this (and only this) way and the beginning of the end was when it got shunted and then sat around for 5 months or so.

Overall that's certainly been my experience with Ferraris, drive them and they are quite reliable. Let them sit and then all sorts of bad things start to happen.

What about Lamborghini? Obviously they're not your cup of tea but I'd guess that at the point at which Audi took over they got less temperamental.

Yup, Lambos today are quite reliable which is very disconcerting when you think of what a Lamborghini used to represent.