97 boxster for 27 K?

[xclusivecar]

I'd be concerned with the low mileage. I know most people consider this a perk...but it can actually be a major problem. Either way, 27K for this car is insane. It sounds as if the seller is looking for a sucker!

rdancd816- I hope your car continues to offer great performance and reliability. But 4,000 miles since November is hardly putting it through it's paces. As for upkeep costs...take some matters into your own hands such as oil changes, spark plug changes, belts, etc...and you can save a ton of cash while learning a bunch about the car and enjoying an afternoon!

[denverpete]

Wow! That's incredibly steep for a '97.

Keep looking....

[threpwood]

26-27K for 97 is a too much. But hey, if it's spotless like porcelein and if you fall in love with it and have lots of $ why not

I'd say look for 2000 models, preferrably 2002+. Year AND milage are the key.

[Ronzi]

Ultra-low mileage cars are always a problem, price-wise. Sellers alway feel, with some justification, that they deserve a premium for the low mileage, perfect condition, etc. The problem is, for you as a buyer, the only way to "protect" your investment is to not drive the car, thus preserving the low mileage.
The presumption here is that you are buying a car to drive, not as a museum piece.