Personally, I would buy it in an instant. I found my '94Z with 63,000 miles (really low considering the year) this past May. Excellent shape, well maintained, etc. Paid $5,800 for it. A lot of people told me that was about a grand too much. But to me, gettting out of my V6 and into a Z that had obviously been pampered was well worth it. The fact that other people think I paid too much never even crosses my mind. If you like the car, and it's what you want, you won't regret paying maybe a little extra. What if you never find another car that's the same combo of low mileage, looks and power again? You'll kick yourself for not buying this one.

P.S. mark896, I don't really understand your view. If you have two SS's sitting next to each other, both low mileage and mint condition, what difference does 2 years really make? Is the '02 going to magically last another 50,000 miles that the '00 won't be able to? Year matters to pencil pushers who need a formula to determine "worth." To someone buying the car, it doesn't really matter. Those two years are virtually identical cars anyways, and if the '00 is clean, it's just as good of a car to own.

 

i have to agree with you i bought my 1997 30th for 12,000 i would have paid 20,000 if i had 20,000 i prefer the lt1 so i bought one plus id like to have a 69 pace car but dont have 60,000 so i bought the next best thing.if i didnt have my car id buy that car in a second thats alot of car for the money i cant belive you could walk away from it!!newer isnt always better you tell me if it was a 1969 yenko forsale fore 20,000 or a 2002 camaro what would you buy um if you said 2002 your head is in your well you know!!!!!

 

Thanks for all the replys and opinions. I didnt buy that car because i found one thats closer and 3500 cheaper. A few more miles but still pretty stout. Runs 12.1 in the quarter. Its actually on this site for sale. Plus there is not one thing that i dont like about it. The other one had the tan leather interior and i am not a fan of that.