Author Topic: low mileage- a problem?  (Read 2704 times)

chuck3fire

  • Guest
low mileage- a problem?
« on: November 24, 2007, 15:44:43 »
I am about to become a owner of a 1967 230SL the only info I have so far is: Eng # 127981-10-001157 (153624), Chassis # 113042-10-001163 , Body # 113042-101163 Supposedly built March 1967 BUT it appears to have only 37,000 original miles (I know, and trust,two of the 4 previous owners. I have seen some posts that indicate that low mileage is more of a problem then rust. Also it hasn't been run in 20 years although it's been kept covered in a garage. Could this car be a a waste of time?

DavidAPease

  • Full Member
  • Silver
  • ****
  • USA, CA, Chico
  • Posts: 384
  • Audit Committee
Re: low mileage- a problem?
« Reply #1 on: November 24, 2007, 15:59:42 »
Chuck,

The 37,000 miles is probably about as reliable as the build date of March, 1967; check our database, and you'll see that this car was built in November, 1963. (Number 1163 in 11/63.)

There is a LOT of information on this site on what to look for when considering purchasing a 113, as well as on potential problems with a car that has been sitting for 20 years. There is no way to know if the car could be a waste of time without a thorough inspection. If you're not familiar with these cars, consider having someone who is evaluate it for you. (You could start with some photos here.)

Good luck!

-David Pease
'66 French 230SL
-David Pease
 '66 230SL (Originally sold in Paris)

jameshoward

  • Associate Member
  • Platinum
  • ******
  • United States, New Jersey (formerly of London)
  • Posts: 1570
Re: low mileage- a problem?
« Reply #2 on: November 24, 2007, 16:09:25 »
There are many people on this site far better placed to answer this issue than I, but here's a view from someone with a high mileage car that doesn't seem to have sat still for too long.

First, if you're about to become the owner, then it's a bit late for 'is it a waste of time.' The question, 'is it a waste of money' might be more relevant, in which case it depends on what you're paying. You seem quite certain about the provenance, so it should be OK.

I imagine that you might need to consider carefully how you approach your project if the car has not been run for 20 years. You could do a lot of damage by trying to start her too soon if she isn't already running. There is a lot on this site about starting cars that have not run, and the general consensus seems to err on the site of taking it easy and ensuring that key components are up to the job: FI pump is not frozen (old fuel gone to varnish); fuel tank free from old fuel and not rusted; fuel pump OK (varnish again); engine not frozen; hoses/lubes in good order, etc. As for the mileage, provided the car has been stored with a degree of care, and provided you approach the start up carefully taking advice where you feel you need to, I can think only that a low mileage engine wouldn't be a bad thing. A low mileage car that has been stored for a long time might need additional TLC (there's a lot of rubber on the chassis: engine mounts; subframe mounts; suspension, etc) that might have turned to dust and which could need work, together with the brakes, but again I would imagine that much depends on how it was stored and how much you're paying.

Either way, there is a ton of help here and lots of great stuff to be found. I hope your car works out well for you. Don't forget to post some photos.

JH
James Howard
1966 LHD 230SL

Chad

  • Guest
Re: low mileage- a problem?
« Reply #3 on: November 24, 2007, 16:12:44 »
Perhaps you made a typo in the VIN?  Is it a very early 230? March 67 seems late for a 230 with that VIN... I think that maybe they were making 250 only at the time cause they switched model designations, right?

I am amazed at how many low mileage cars are out there of recent.

1967 230SL
« Last Edit: November 24, 2007, 16:13:25 by Chad »