pbn85

iTrader: (2)

http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.js...000&cardist=40

http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.js...000&cardist=73

So yea...I dont want to go travel far for a 2004.5 Z and those are not that far. I cant seem to tell if they are 2004.5 shapes though...I cant get a good look at the knee pads. Also, the first one has high miles for a 2004. That wont be a problem though because I will only put around 6k-7k miles a year, so when Im ready to sell the car in a few years, it will have low miles for a 2004. Does the 2nd one seem too good to be true?

pbn85

iTrader: (2)

I can understand the price for the 1st one...it has high miles

JRinTXrog

Neither one seems like there overpriced, but both of them for 2004 models sure do have a lot of miles. they have only been out for about 16 months.

Mike Wazowski

iTrader: (113)

you need to check your math again.

If they were bought in late 2003 (when the 2004 were released) they would be about 27-28 months old.

lax91181

iTrader: (2)

they are both 04's and not 04.5's. I cannot see the pads in the pics and they would be there if it was an 04.5.

davidf

iTrader: (18)

Not much diff. in price so I'd go touring model, base does not have LSD. Better resale in the long run.

imseksy

carfax both... especially the second one...

rmesola

iTrader: (2)

don't get base... you can find a touring for a bit more...

pbn85

iTrader: (2)

thanks guys