Only 258 miles. What did people do 20 years ago, buy a dozen of these in put them in storage? A low mileage GNX doesn't seem that rare.
Buick Regal 1987 BUICK REGAL GNX
Buick Regal 1987 BUICK REGAL GNX
FS: 1987 Buick Regal GNX # 486 Coupe
- Thread starter cfBuick
- Start date
Joe Kelsch
Eat Mo' Rats
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2005
If I would of bought that brand new it would have 200,000 miles on it by now. I didn't even pay as much for my house as what the bid's currently up to.
GNBRETT
Pelennor Fields
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2004
What is the purpose of buying a car if your not gonna drive it?
It certainly was not a good investment as far as a financial endeavor would go. I guess it would have been kool to look at in ones garage tho if you had money to burn. People with money to burn are those who owned many of the low mileage ones. $32k out the door for a car back in 1987 was quite a bit of money.
It certainly was not a good investment as far as a financial endeavor would go. I guess it would have been kool to look at in ones garage tho if you had money to burn. People with money to burn are those who owned many of the low mileage ones. $32k out the door for a car back in 1987 was quite a bit of money.
A low mileage turbo regal in general isn't "that" rare really. When these cars were built, the muscle car resto craze was in full swing and lots of people realized the potential value of modern muscle as well in the future. The turbo buicks stood out as a car that shouldn't have been as fast as it was and was a short lived oddity, which makes for collectability. Because of the potential future value, "lots" of people did buy them and mothball them straight away. It's unfortunate I suppose for those people that they made so many of these cars and they're still "too new" for them to really be worth some money. It's going to be a long time still before these cars will bring a reasonable return on the initial investment.
GNBRETT
Pelennor Fields
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2004
I guess that is true. Back then the T-Types, Turbo-T's, WE4's, Limited's were not viewed as a muscle car collectable to the same degree that a GNX or GN was.
GNregistry
Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2002
GNX with 258 miles is worth more no to drive it, just own it
less than 1000 miles are not even worth driving, and less than 20,000 miles makes you wonder if the seals are good enough to drive, what will happen to rear main seal and head gaskets... paying $20,000 for a 20 year old car... you gotta have cash or no debt to need a car like that... I always wanted one and then selling it is known for GNX's... The number of owners are very high for the number of actual owners for each GNX...
I don't drive my GN, why would I want one with less mileage...
I want one I can drive, so I purchased a 87 GN Hard Top. let the buick ride begin again... sputter sputter, damn it, is that the turbo... back to the shop, buy a new turbo... clink clank, damn it is that the tranny, back to the shop new tranny, weakest part needs attention, but I did it my way...
less than 1000 miles are not even worth driving, and less than 20,000 miles makes you wonder if the seals are good enough to drive, what will happen to rear main seal and head gaskets... paying $20,000 for a 20 year old car... you gotta have cash or no debt to need a car like that... I always wanted one and then selling it is known for GNX's... The number of owners are very high for the number of actual owners for each GNX...
I don't drive my GN, why would I want one with less mileage...
I want one I can drive, so I purchased a 87 GN Hard Top. let the buick ride begin again... sputter sputter, damn it, is that the turbo... back to the shop, buy a new turbo... clink clank, damn it is that the tranny, back to the shop new tranny, weakest part needs attention, but I did it my way...
GNregistry
Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2002
Funny how 50,000 miles is considered low mileage
Funny how 50,000 miles is considered low mileage
or 62,000 or 20,000 miles
the definition of low mileage is defined by the owner.
MY 87 GN has 38,000 and that is low...
I think under 40,000 is low miles
2,000 miles per year x 20 years = 40,000
What gets me is cars that have bad engines or body damage and dont drive, that is not the same as low mileage.
Funny how 50,000 miles is considered low mileage
or 62,000 or 20,000 miles
the definition of low mileage is defined by the owner.
MY 87 GN has 38,000 and that is low...
I think under 40,000 is low miles
2,000 miles per year x 20 years = 40,000
What gets me is cars that have bad engines or body damage and dont drive, that is not the same as low mileage.
I thought my 87 GN was low mileage, It has 8,000 miles on it but looks new, I saw in auto trader a 87 hard top with 60 mile that was never sold, The dealer wanted $24,000 for it, Like going back in time and buying a new Grand National and you would be the first owner,
I would stay away from this car. Look closely at the emblem on the trunk. Its not Right.
Something going on with this car.
Wow, good eye! And you are quite right, the emblem is too high.
GNBRETT
Pelennor Fields
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2004
I would stay away from this car. Look closely at the emblem on the trunk. Its not Right.
Something going on with this car.
I'm not sure that an emblem placed an inch or so higher then it should be would indicate something going on with the car. I would think a factory worker would be the one placing it on there. I can't see the placing of an emblem from the factory being an automated process. Likely human error.
Good point. It would however, make me nervous spending this kind of money though. Makes me think that the car may have been damaged in that area and the emblem not put back on correctly.
yep, you would think that with a known limited run that attention to detail was a priority
