Low mileage does not always mean it's worth more....
Sent from my Z899VL using Tapatalk
22 year old bike with 2900 miles? That's about 131 a year. Why wasn't it ridden more is what I'd ask, how long did it sit? How old are the tires? Has it even had an oil change?
Originally Posted by michiganteddybear
extremely low mileage is actually a detriment to most vehicles... rubber dry rots, fluids go bad, ect, ect
I would be willing to bet the tires are originals, which means that anyone riding on them is asking for a casket with their name on it.. so you would have to add a couple hundy for new tires before you do anything else with it. Also, battery (if not replaced just due to it going dead from age) will need to be replaced, there's 80ish bones as well..
Maintenance was kept up on it regularly, oil changes, tires..... There is no dry rotted rubber, I looked the bike over pretty damn well. I have been working on bikes for years and not the back yard type of mechanics either. So what you are saying is that.... if a 93-95 Vulcan with 25,000 miles is selling for $1700, that bike should be preferred over a low milage bike because its been used more and will be in better mechanical shape? I'd rather spend the extra $800 and get a clean bike that isnt dry rotted and get the extra 22,000 miles of life out of it..... battery is a couple years old, been on a tender on/off. Its fine.
so, with only 2900 miles on the clock, how many times has the oil been changed? what is the date on the tires? have the rear splines been lubed? when was the last time the brake fluid was changed? what do the air filters look like? are they original? if so, how often have then been removed, cleaned, and re-oiled?
lets see, according to KM math, this bike got ridden an average of 131 miles a year. that's about 1, full tank of gas, a year. as for the tires, on average, this bike should be on it's fourth set of Bridgestone Spitefire tires, by now. hmmm........