Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Newark, DE, USA
better used than neglected
It's not the miles. It's the distribution of the miles, and it's what you want the bike for.
I recently bought a 1990 K75C with about 40k on the clock. Half what you are looking at. Those forty thou were all achieved in the first ten years of life. The last ten years, she sat. Consequently, I had to replace every rubber tube, clean the injectors, replace the fuel pump, replace tires, drain and fill every fluid, replace battery, and debug some electrical connections. That's what a syncopated mile distribution does to a machine. On the other hand, I specifically bought the thing because I was looking for a project. All those items above are no big task for a guy who likes a project bike. But they do reduce the price you pay.
On the other hand, what if I had wanted a bike just to jump on and ride? Or what if I was one of these wrenchophobes who thought he had to tote every little problem to the BMW dealer, bend over, and get reamed? In either case, Then I would have been looking for a ride which had 40k added in the first ten years and another 40k added in the last ten.
Bottom line: Look beyond the mileage. The bike you're looking at is 25 years old. 3,000 miles a year is pretty minimum mileage. Has it been run consistently all that while? If not, is the price real low, and are you willing to wrench?
Unmitigated risk aversion is the new Puritanism, complete with witch hunts, funny outfits, and solemn preachers thundering doom. The name of God is changed to Safety; the name of Satan is changed to Lawyer; but the object remains the same: to suck all the life out of life and make you live on the husk.