Is it worth more money to sell Camaro that has never seen rain or snow?

[OHIOSS]

I live in northern Ohio and I have been really anal about taking my Camaro (SS/RS w/ 2SS package) out in the rain or snow. I'm trying to keep my car as close to new condition as possible, but I am also concerned about the resale value of my car because I will likely buy a newer model Camaro in the future.

Do you guys think there is any tangible value when selling a used car/Camaro that has never seen rain or snow? Or is the inherent value of a vehicle that hasn't seen rain or snow simply by how it effects the condition of the car?

If its only the actual condition of the car that effects the value, do you think that a car that has never seen rain or snow can actually be in better condition than say a car that sat outside it's whole life? My thinking is that by not allowing the under carriage of the car to get wet, and keeping it garaged will keep the bottom of the car in great shape. How many of you have ever been influenced by the condition of the under carriage? I don't recall ever looking at the under side of a used car, let alone let it effect my decision to buy it or not.


Russ

[tommygun6644]

It's always a nice selling point when selling private party to say "no winters".

As far as a trade-in goes I don't think it matters.


All in all, if you keep the salt off it I don't think it really matters. Personally I don't drive mine in the winter because I don't feel like buying a new set of tires and I don't want to deal with the headache of something possibly happening to it. You always have to worry about other drivers, accidents, the winter nasty stuff, etc.

[Camaro_Corvette]

I don't really care if it has never seen rain. But snow is an entirely different story. If I was buying a used camaro, that would definitely be something that I want to hear about the car.

[fastal]

In the short term of 5-10 years I don't see any difference between a well cared for car that is a daily driver and one that has never seen rain/snow. Most people are not even going to care that you state it hasn't seen rain/snow, because just how can you prove it? Longer term you might begin to see some differences.

Until the car becomes a classic pretty much no one will look closely at the under-carriage. I'm sure a few people here will say they do, but this site isn't a valid sample of the buying public.

[rodimus prime]

snow and rain are both water.

The car gets doused by GM to make sure it doesnt leak in the first place. Dont wash the car ever because its the same thing as rain.

I can understand the salt thing with snow, but typically never seen rain or snow is about the same as adult driven.....i.e. been driven every winter in rain and snow and car was thrashed. I dont buy from people that post that up, because its stupid and I usually dont believe them.

[Nutbutt]

As far as I'm concerned, a car is that housed by the ocean see more damage than the snow belt people. These car are always exposed to salt. It all depends on the owner and how he/she takes care of the car. I can't say I would pay more for a car that was stated to never seen the winter, its nice but doesn't factor into any blue book I have ever seem.

[bmac]

Originally Posted by Russ Hunsaker

How many of you have ever been influenced by the condition of the under carriage? I don't recall ever looking at the under side of a used car, let alone let it effect my decision to buy it or not.


Russ

When I was looking for a used car for my son, I had each one inspected by a trusted mechanic. There were at least three that we passed on due to extensive frame rust. Not surprisingly, these rust buckets were all from the northern US.

I remember growing up that my dad always had his new cars "undercoated" as soon as he bought one. Being from PA and putting many miles on each car while working as a traveling salesman, he probably replaced cars due to excessive mileage long before he would have any problems from rust. I seem to recall that one of the benefits of undercoating to him (in addition to rust prevention) was reduction in road noise.

Having lived most of my life in the south, I can't think of the last time I've heard anyone mention undercoating a vehicle. Is it still done up north?

[ffrcobra_65]

how does one prove it?

[wullger]

I think they apply some sort of undercoating to the vehicles from the factory, now.

[flyby]

Even if it were true it would be hard to prove if not impossible and I am pretty sure no one would believe it either.

[coolman]

The only thing that makes a diff is the condition. If a car is taken good care of it can be in snow and rain and still look as good a one that never saw it. What makes cars that don't see rain and snow worth more I think, is the fact that they usually have less stone chips and scratches because they don't get as many miles on them which is another factor of the
value.

[tommygun6644]

Rain is a different story in my opinion since you can take your Camaro out on a sunny day and it begins to rain. However you make the decision to drive your Camaro in the winter months.

That said, driving your car in your winter isn't inherently bad. It's the fact that you open yourself up to more risks than you would in the summer months in terms of the car's youthful appearance and overall risk to accidents.

Someone may be turned off by buying a car that wasn't stored in the winter because someone who drove it in the winter may not have taken all that great of care of it. May not be true, but that is the message that is conveyed compared to someone who stored it.

[chef-beavis]

there IS absolutely a difference. A car or motorcycle that has never seen rain or only gotten "caught" on a few rare occasions and promptly cleaned up will undoubtedly have a nicer, cleaner undercarriage. The are a ton of fasteners and shields and other items that recieve little or no corrosion protective coatings during manufacture. Less exposure to moisture and salt = less corrosion or none. Would I look? Absolutely. Would it swing my vote vs. another car with all other variables being equal? Yes.

Think about it. If you are shopping for a classic and one is cheesy underneath and another is rock solid, which do you want? How do you think one sirvived that way vs. the other?

How much one would pay for a premium for the dry car and how many years would you have to baby it to see the pay-off? Who knows. I would flip an extra $500 easy for a clean car. Is $500 worth it to you to never drive yours in the rain???

Up to you, but there are people that look and care.

[coolman]

Originally Posted by chef-beavis

there IS absolutely a difference. A car or motorcycle that has never seen rain or only gotten "caught" on a few rare occasions and promptly cleaned up will undoubtedly have a nicer, cleaner undercarriage. The are a ton of fasteners and shields and other items that recieve little or no corrosion protective coatings during manufacture. Less exposure to moisture and salt = less corrosion or none. Would I look? Absolutely. Would it swing my vote vs. another car with all other variables being equal? Yes.

Think about it. If you are shopping for a classic and one is cheesy underneath and another is rock solid, which do you want? How do you think one sirvived that way vs. the other?

How much one would pay for a premium for the dry car and how many years would you have to baby it to see the pay-off? Who knows. I would flip an extra $500 easy for a clean car. Is $500 worth it to you to never drive yours in the rain???

Up to you, but there are people that look and care.

But,like I said" IF YOU TAKE CARE OF IT" the under side will look just as good.
I never put my hot rods away dirty. I've already come home very late at night and got stuck in the rain and washed my car before going to bed. I do agree with you though, if you drive it as an everyday car in snow and salt it will look pretty bad underneath. I guess It also depends on how much you drive it in these conditions. I don't drive mine in the snow because I don't have to.