[zaimer]

Originally Posted by Invertalon

Dealers do care, but it's not some significant factor in how much you get if it has normal levels of wear/tear. Brother worked at Toyota for many years (now at Infinity) as sales manager and talking with him you see how cut/dry most of that stuff is as far as how much you will get for a trade-in and all that. Basically, how long will it take them to sell, mileage and the vehicle itself (desirability) in a nutshell. They won't look to see if you have some minor rust on the under-carriage. It's cheap enough for them to repair/respray a bumper if need be and all that for excessive rock damage or whatever else. At the end of the day, they make their money regardless whether they give you more on trade-in or discount more off MSRP (or combination of both to make their target margins).

As far as avoiding a car because of wear/tear, there was other reasons I didn't buy those used cars. The paint itself is easy enough (I have been detailing for 15+ years as a side 'hobby', so swirls/scratches and other stuff is more of a PITA the first time around than anything). Just surprised such low mileage cars had such terrible paint care by the owner. Just an observation than anything, it wasn't a deal breaker. Most people won't look at the paint like I do, considering I do detail and take care of my cars to a higher degree than a majority of people looking to buy cars. Just saying, just because it's low mileage and not driven in the snow won't mean that the car is in better shape than one with higher mileage and driven in all conditions.

By "significant wear/tear" I am talking dents, deep scratches, etc... Those absolutely will effect the 'resale'. But as far as small rock chips, light rust and all that, not really.

I can agree with all of that. You have stated several points that improve your credibility to me (not that it matters a drip anyway ). If someone gave me a second set of wheels (winter), then I would have no issue driving the Camaro during the winter on the "nicer" days. For the expense of a second set of rims/tires, there is almost more justification in running a cheaper car..not even factoring in the additional winter issues. I've driven my sports cars throughout the winter previously, it was a blast at times and it wasn't so fun at times. In addition to those two facts, the fuel savings almost pays for the second car on it's own . Old yellar isn't the most efficient, when driven like it should be

[zaimer]

Originally Posted by JSH

This shot of the next week's local forecast says it all for me on the "do you park it?" topic

In some parts, that would be referred to as the tropics.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by zaimer

In some parts, that would be referred to as the tropics.

Yep, it's probably close to seasonal for Denver, not sure though

[ctrlz]

Originally Posted by Petrol Head

...sitting on its factory summer-only tires.

if the Camaro had a nice set of winter-only tires and just do some donuts and spray some snow around!

So what do you think: should I invest in winter tires and wheels or just let it sit in the garage?

Sounds to me like you would never get much use out of "winter only" tires.

When the time comes, I think you should replace the stock run flats with a set of premium performance A/S tires. Conti and Michelin seem to be the favorites in the tire sub-forum. The grip of the stock tires really starts to deteriorate with tread wear, particularly the wet grip. Go with all-seasons and you'll be able to take the car out on a sunny day in January when it's 30 degrees out.