Older, low mileage cars. bad news?

[k2397]

It's now over five years since the sad end of my beloved 4200 when this

became this

I had taken the car into a very reputable local paint shop for some minor work. On the day I was expecting to pick the car up from them, I got a phone call to say - that one of their employees had written it off. The owner of the firm was very apologetic, and I was compensated promptly and adequately.

It was a shock though. I didn't buy another Maserati straight away. But the desire has never gone away.

I'm now thinking about a Quattroporte V. I've always thought they are stunning cars and they seem great value at the moment. As a former Cambiocorsa owner the DuoSelect gearbox holds no terrors for me - I know its strengths and weaknesses and I would be happy to own a QP with either gearbox.

Recently I have seen a couple of older QPs (around 2005) advertised with very low mileages from new (18 to 25k miles in 10 years) - and supposedly good service histories. They look immaculate. The received wisdom, though, is that cars which have not been well used are trouble. Is this true or an old wives' tale? My budget would stretch to one of these, or maybe one of the earliest (2007-2008) cars with the ZF box and a "normal" mileage.

Needless to say, if at all possible I would get a car checked over by Emblem before committing myself. But what does the forum think? Does anyone have any experience of buying a very low mileage older car?

 

[conaero]

I remember this happening. Without naming names it met its sad demise at the hands in a bodyshop in the New Forest, Hampshire. I remember speaking to the owner who was very distraught about the entire incident.

With regards to the older low mileage cars, yes, they don't like to be sat, especially outside, unused, they respond well to being driven hard.

 

[safrane]

Its not the low miles but the interval between use...so it could have been used once a week for short but fun runs and be fine or it may have been left for the whole winter or summer whilst the owners usead an alternative or worse put into long term storage or sat on a forecourt.

A decent inspection and a deep service would sort out most cars, however recommissioning a stored car can cost a small fortune, so steer away from those left idle.

 

[Andyk]

If you can stretch to a 2007/2008 car then all the bettter.......HAve seen some of the low miles cars and they do look lovely...I would prefer to buy one thats been used as said above but with an inspection there shouldn't be an issue with a low miles car. There is a lovely blue one with only 18k on the clock that looks immaculate on Autotrader.

Thought it Exec GT looked lovely.....with 28k on the clock.

http://www.pistonheads.com/classifieds?Category=used-cars&M=712&Page=1&SortOptions=PriceLowToHigh

 

[Ewan]

The low mileage car, if cherished, garaged, and used occasionally, would be my choice. Low mileage is always worth more than high mileage. Loads of Masers (inc several of mine) are low mileage, as they are special-occasion cars. Of course, you can use them everyday and rack the miles up, but then you suffer the depreciation. My Shamal is 20 years old, has done 30,000 miles and is a spotless, perfect, concours winner (it would not be better for more use and more miles, it would be worse).