I wondered about that sticker saying "1987" on top of the coilpack. I'll have to contact the original owner and ask, because he never said anything about it.
Philly, go take a picture of yours - I gotta see it! Maybe I'll have to take some stickers OFF my car ... Wouldn't that be ironic?
And yes, I think properly maintained cars with 'normal' low mileage are probably better cars (and definitely more reliable) than true storage queens. Here's my reference points >>
1. I have an '82 Corvette Collector Edition with 454 miles. It's damn near perfect, but doesn't start and idle nearly as well as the other cars I own. I'd be hard pressed to drive it across the state, not just because I don't want to put miles on it, but I'm not sure I'd trust it long distance.
2. The '89 TTA is as represented, and has just enough miles on it to be right ... But no doubt a few more miles would have probably made it more solid. I'd feel better about driving a 50K mile car hard than I would this one, not just because I don't want to abuse it, but the same answer as above.
3. I also own an '85 IROC-Z with 3,800 miles on it. That's the best starting, idling, and 'newest' feeling vehicle in the entire collection. That thing feels as rock solid and tight as the '01 Viper GTS. Sure it isn't to the same standards of performance or quality, but it feels NEW without feeling fragile.
Yeah, that's the word I was looking for - Fragile. I'm sure these crazy low mileage cars aren't going to just fall apart sitting there, but I'd trust them more as 'drivers' if they had miles on them. But they aren't drivers ...
Mike M
(Jim I'll buy a set when you're done)
