Build vs buy, which will make me less poor?

[Nickanator8]

Hey guys, I've gotten the green light from the Minister of Finance to purchase a 986 Boxster. There are a few requirements she has imposed on the purchase, most notably it must be an automatic, but the search is officially on.

Here's the issue. The car that gave me the green light was not only outside of our budget (which is around $12k) but was basically a perfect example of a 986. 75k miles, 1 owner, lots of records, great condition, everything you could ask for.

The cars in my area that are under $12k are in rough shape, and range from $6k-$7.5k with varying degrees of neglect. Mileage ranges from 100k-150k, paint could use some work, suspension creaks, tops either are slow or completely missing the motors, the list goes on.

I've wanted a Boxster for a long time now, and I was always planning on doing my own maintenance. I know the general school of thought is to buy the best possible example of a car that you can afford, but what about a car that needs some work to get a deal?

Let's say I buy a car for $6k that needs $6k in parts plus my own labor in order to get it to a condition I would find acceptable. Assuming I have the time and inclination to do that work, is that a reasonable track to wander down?

The reason I am going down this thought experiment is because I recently got back a PPI on a car at the top of our budget that ended up needing a lot more work than we wanted to deal with at that price point. But, if the car were half the price it would have made sense, especially if I could do most of the work myself. I kind of assume any Boxster at this price point will need work, so why not go for the most affordable car and try to price the work into the theoretical total price?

Am I setting myself up for a lot of headaches and an empty wallet or is there some logic to this train of thought?