The mechanics on this car pale in comparison to body rust. Just switch the scenereo. If the car motor needed replacement but the body was absolutely perfect, it would be worth much more then it is now when you compare poor body condition to ANY single needed mechanical repair. Ask any automobile dealer. Obviously, a 1988 has little value to them now, but mechanics are much less labor intensive to repair then the body.
Rebuilding a motor that had few oil changes is preferred over a rusted out body. The conversation is often upside down when determining a cars true value.
In states when mandatory state inspections are required, the cars life could end at the next one, regardless of the number of oil changes the motor had. You could be breathing exhaust fumes, easily, once rust holes start to appear. In this case, no hard copies for oil change intervals are necessary. The car is a junker NOW regardless of the motor maintenance. Selling it for parts is it’s primary value and OP should not consider this car under any circumstances as transportation for the next three years, even if the car were FREE and records were provided to show the motor oil was changed every 6 months. Key comments by OP are; “the body is rusted out” , "should this be a deal breaker ? " YES !
Besides the rust, miles this low on a car this old would scare me. While theoretically it should have less wear on the mechanicals, in reality it probably has had maybe 3 oil changes in its life, the coolant may never have been changed, belts, hoses, tires, exhaust are all probably pretty well rotted out too. It probably hasn’t been driven enough to keep rust off the brake rotors, the rings in the engine sealed (it will probably burn oil), and good luck the first time you need to take a wheel off–if it’s been sitting outside at all, I’ll bet the lug nuts are all pretty well rusted on.
I fully agree with dagosa about the rust compared to mechanical scenario. There’s hope for a car with mechanical problems. There is none for a rusted out heap.
Nothing is harder on a car than time and low mileage/use. Learned this first hand when my Dad got older. His cars were driven a few thousand miles per year and rusted out totally in record time. It’s not just the body; entire brake lines, gas lines…anything under the car will rust to beat the band. Even had an oil pan rust out on a 5 year old car with 8k miles on it from new. To me, unless we’re talking about the SW dry states, extremely low mileage means big trouble, not a benefit…
I agree @twinturbo. Rust needs oxygen and a tank sitting there empty or a body left without a coating of some kind, uses moisture and oxygen from the air to rust regardless of where it is left unused. I feel cars and their components are allowed to rust with designed in life times. The one dependable factor in car replacement is body and component decay. It’s really discouraging when you see how much engineering goes into motors and transmissions and how little goes into body longevity.
A well " engineered" car decays and fails mechanically at about the same time. It has little to do with making it last longer but has much to do with making cars commodities in need of replcement. The consumer can beat the odds and one way is to use the car as was intended…10 to 15 k miles per year for 10 to 15 years. Another way is to take extraordinary efforts to preserve the body and replace the mechanics as needed until the manufacturer decides your car is too old to make parts readily available. Either way, come replacement time, you at least have a car with some value, not because it runs well, but because it is decay free.