1991 Reatta price check

[steve90]

Just looked at a red/red 1991 coupe with sunroof/cd/16 way seats. This is a one-owner mostly Minnesota car with 104,000 miles. No red flags on Carfax except mileage jumped dramaticaly last 2-3 years in Montana (probably lots of highway miles). Paint and interior looked very good, power antenna is stuck, rough shift indicator, muffler/exhaust system a bit rusty, good rubber(Michelins), good wheels. I did not drive car, so not sure what works and what doesn't. Dealer is asking $8950 which, in my opinion, is way too high given the mileage and the crazy Reatta marketplace. Also,the dealer is selling "as-as" with no warranty. Assuming that the mechanicals are good, what price range do you think should buy this car??? Thanks fellow Reatta owners!<P>Steve

[Guest]

Hi Steve.....Just my opinion, but sounds like a $6000.00 car if everything else checks out ok.<P>Mike Book BCA # 9202<BR>Reatta Club # 407<BR>BDE # 109

[Guest]

Steve90,<P>Mike is in the target zone. I've been looking for the right 91 Reatta, at the right price, at the right "time" for several years (but not red). I stay up on prices for 91's on a regional basis. Believe me, what a 91 Reatta sells for in area (state)can be considerably different than in another area. I would bet the dealer doesn't have more than $4000.00 in the car. Retail can be as high as $8500.00 with those miles. However, that's in great shape inside and out, and some kind of 90 day to 1 year warranty at least. For an "as is" deal. If you decide to go after it, I'd make a first offer of $5500.00, tell the dealer that offer is good for a few days, and WALK AWAY. If he doesn't call you, and you think you can't live without it, go back and make a "final" $6000.00 offer like Mike says above. If the dealer doesn't grab that, then look for another car, with lower miles. For a 91, half the miles (50K) can also mean twice the price. As Dennis M. says, "It's just my opinion, I could be wrong". Good Luck.

[Guest]

One price point is an '89 w. 76,000 miles in the area adverised on cars.com whose price dropped from $6500 to $5900.<P>The antenna is only $73 from gmpartsdirect.com.<P>Based on the mileage if it were me I would be in the $2500-3000 range. The car may hold up for quite a bit longer, but the market isn't going to bear more. When they took the car in I'm sure the previous owner took it in the shorts as well.

[Guest]

One Steve to another- I would think you should be able to buy the '91 for no more than $5,000.00. The suggestion that you can buy it for $3,000.00 seems to be off the mark. Recently bought a '91 with high mileage for a little less than $5,000.00. I got a 90 days warranty too. It would seem that the dealer would move the car for $4,500-$5,000.if he really wants to move it. IF MORE THAN $5,500.REQUIRED-PASS ON IT

[Barney Eaton]

Remember there were only 1214 Reatta coupes built in '91, and while you may not care, the bright red with red interior was only available in 1991. The reason..in the earlier years, the red interior was actually burgundy and the bright red exterior was not offered with the burgundy (red) interior until 1991 when the interior became "flame red".<BR>I believe $6,000-$7,000 is reasonable for a decent car, since this has the CD, Sunroof and 16 way seat, that would make it worth more than a car without the options. <BR>You might try offering the dealer $6,000 if they replace the exhaust and fix the antenna.<BR>That gives them an "out" to counter with $6,000 as-is.<P><BR>

[Guest]

Interesting, I learn something new here almost every day.<P>I would not, however, concern myself with hurting the feelings of the salesmane with a low offer. I've certainly heard enough of them from dealerships in my day!

[Guest]

Steve90, You've got some different, yet all good opinions here. It's your call how much you "low ball". Please post a reply and let us know what happens with the dealer. When there's only 1214 cars (to start with) spread out worldwide, well, it means every 91 has some collectors value. Still, the mileage is a BIG item. Tell us what happens. I'd like to hear "the rest of the story".

[Hank Ryan]

Steve, 104K miles on a 10-year-old car should not be considered "high". The type of miles (stop-and-go versus interstate) has a considerable effect on the overall wear-and-tear on the vehicle. The overall condition of the car is significantly more important than the mileage. In fact, sometimes "more miles" is better. In the 1970's I used to advise friends that were considering used Jaguar XJ6 sedans to pay a premium if they found one with over 30K milea on it. That meant it had been on the road rather than in the shop! Lots of people make the mistake of focusing on the deal rather than the car. If it's not a good car, it's probably not a good deal at any price.<P>------------------<BR>-HANK RYAN-<BR>Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

[Guest]

Hank, your reasoning is really loopy. A 100k mile car is going to be worth less than a 30k mile car simply because it is driven more. And just because a car has low miles on it doesn't mean that it has spent the last ten years sitting in a shop. When I was looking for a Reatta convertible, I wouldn't even consider buying one with over 50k miles, and I found one at 34k. The owner babied the car, in a carpeted garage yet. Money aside, why should I buy a 100k+ mile car over a 34k mile car? It's a simple fact that driving a car puts more wear and tear on it than letting it sit in a garage. And before you say it, I'm aware of the fact that cars are meant to be driven and if they're not all the rubber parts dry up and the gas goes sour. I'm talking about a low-mileage car that is only drive a few thousand miles a year, which is exactly what I got. It was worth considerably more to me than a car that someone has abused for ten years.

[Guest Stan Leslie]

If this is VIN# 1408, it was logged in the database as 'for sale' in Minnesota on 10/98 with 43,000 miles. That would mean it acquired 60,000 miles in 2 yrs and 3 months, after averaging 6k/yr for the first 6 yrs.

[steve90]

Thanks Stan...I saw the same thing on Carfax. In fact when I first saw it on the dealer website, it had 162,000 miles. The local paper said 104,000 miles. I pointed out the discrepancy to the dealer. 104,762 is the correct mileage. According to one of the salesmen, this is a one owner car. I think that is incorrect. Carfax shows that it changed hands on 9/16/98. The car apparently spent a couple of years out in Montana where its not hard to rack up a lot of miles driving between "ranches". I'm unsure if 60 grand mileage in two years is bad. In any case, the dealer has not responded to my $5000 offer. I'd be surprised if they had more than $4000 in the car. But, this is a Mercedes/Audi Dealer and maybe they backed themselves in a corner and gave too much for it. They've had the car a couple of months. Here's another case where <BR>Carfax can help in the investigation process. <P><p>[This message has been edited by steve90 (edited 01-27-2001).]

[Hank Ryan]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Anonymous:<BR><B>Hank, your reasoning is really loopy. A 100k mile car is going to be worth less than a 30k mile car simply because it is driven more. And just because a car has low miles on it doesn't mean that it has spent the last ten years sitting in a shop. When I was looking for a Reatta convertible, I wouldn't even consider buying one with over 50k miles, and I found one at 34k. The owner babied the car, in a carpeted garage yet. Money aside, why should I buy a 100k+ mile car over a 34k mile car? It's a simple fact that driving a car puts more wear and tear on it than letting it sit in a garage. And before you say it, I'm aware of the fact that cars are meant to be driven and if they're not all the rubber parts dry up and the gas goes sour. I'm talking about a low-mileage car that is only drive a few thousand miles a year, which is exactly what I got. It was worth considerably more to me than a car that someone has abused for ten years.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well, I probably should have clarified that I'm not looking at this from the "collector" standpoint. I'm looking at it from the standpoint of finding an everyday driver. If two near-identical cars have the same drivability, then I certainly agree that the one with lower mileage should command the higher price. However, the mileage on a vehicle is only one measure of the wear-and-tear it has been through. For example, a 15,000-mile manual shift car in San Francisco will probably have much more wear-and-tear on the clutch and brakes than a similar 50,000-mile car that has spent its life in Oklahoma.<P>I'm glad you found a Reatta that met your criteria. When I was looking, I looked for one that had been driven 5,000 to 12,000 miles per year. I knew I would be putting a fair number of miles on the car, so I didn't want to pay a premium for a "low mileage" car that I knew would not be "low mileage" when/if I ever decided to sell it. Of course, if I had found a well-maintained, low mileage car without the price premium, I would have purchased it. I believe that, when one is looking for an older car to use as an every-day driver rather than for collecting, the mileage on the car is secondary to its overall drivability.<P>BTW, as I have stated in a previous post, my 1991 Coupe currently has 122,000 miles. (It had 58,000 miles when I bought it in April 1997.) If I covered up the odometer, and let you drive it, I doubt you would determine that it has been abused. And I have seen a few low mileage Reattas that I believe have been abused. [g]<P>Rambling ---- I had a 1972 Volvo 1800ES that I bought in 1977 with 20,000 miles and sold in 1987 with 250,000 miles. I sold it for significantly more than some similar 1800ESes that had less than 100,000 miles had sold for. Why? Because the overall condition of the car was much better than the lower mileage cars.<P>Hope to see my Reatta turn 250,000. Wishing others the same.<P><BR>------------------<BR>-HANK RYAN-<BR>Oklahoma City, Oklahoma<p>[This message has been edited by Hank Ryan (edited 01-27-2001).]