How important is mileage (Used)

Permabanned
Joined
17 Feb 2009
Posts
1,288
A generic question really; When purchasing a used car, how important is mileage on said car and is there like a 'guideline' that you should be looking at?

ie for someone reason I recall someone saying look at 10k per year of the cars life.... so have always sort of looked at that. PLUS ive also thought anything over 50k in the sort of 3-4-5 year old category is not worth touching.

Now is it easy as categorising it as above, or are different car brands better at staying lively with more mileage on?

I just wondered if ive ruled out cars because of the mileage factor, when in reality my expectations have been wrong.

Ill add some examples ive seen on autotrader that maybe i would rule out:

Range Rover Sport 4.2 V8 - 05 Reg - 69000 on the clock
Porsche 911 996 2004 - 45000 on the clock ( i know this is under what my logic states, but for a 'luxury brand sports car' it worries me even more!)
 
Mileage itself is meaningless really, tells you nothing about the expected condition of the car. I have a 180,000 mile BMW which is absolutely pristine.

However, unfortunately, mileage controls both residual values and the availability of a warranty. Buying expensive prestige cars without a warranty can be a financially painful process, therefore if you are spending big money, sadly you have to pay the low mileage premium so you can get warranty coverage.

How on earth have you been looking at either a Porsche 911 or a Range Rover though? And if you think 45k miles on a 7 year old car is too high what on earth is the right mileage?!
 
[TW]Fox;19282752 said:
Wait a sec, are you not that guy who kept banging on about Q7's?

I posed a few questions on here ... yes ;)

Then i drove one and didnt really get on with it, part of me felt a bit squashed in... sounds silly but it wasnt as roomy a driving space as id thought. Plus although its a lovely car in reality, it just didnt really do much for me. Maybe big cars are not for me, but ive got to get one... so im back to researching stuff again, as pedantic as it sounds im that sort of person who before whacking out 20-30k i need to know ecerything i can.

Anyway this is about mileage and how to gauge it when looking used.
 
[TW]Fox;19282427 said:
Mileage itself is meaningless really, tells you nothing about the expected condition of the car. I have a 180,000 mile BMW which is absolutely pristine.

However, unfortunately, mileage controls both residual values and the availability of a warranty. Buying expensive prestige cars without a warranty can be a financially painful process, therefore if you are spending big money, sadly you have to pay the low mileage premium so you can get warranty coverage.

How on earth have you been looking at either a Porsche 911 or a Range Rover though? And if you think 45k miles on a 7 year old car is too high what on earth is the right mileage?!

Missed this, apologies for posting twice.

The cars; 1 family, 1 for me to muck around in :D (Its actualy a Cayman im after, the family im still not 100% on)

So warranty can be an issue, thats a good pointer as thats a big thing for me.. id want warranties on them.
 
Dont buy a 996 no point any more.

that aside forget the miles, just buy the best car.
 
Last edited:
I've got a real problem with miles these days. I never used to care and most of my early cars had 100k miles on but gradually I've somehow bought cars with less and less miles on them and now I can't seem to bring myself to buy anything with more than about 30k on the clock.

Current Mini has 24k, my motorbike has 6k. Boxster had 29k, Elise 11k, TT 30k, even the MR2 only had 40k or something.

I'm off to give myself a good talking to.
 
ie for someone reason I recall someone saying look at 10k per year of the cars life.... so have always sort of looked at that. PLUS ive also thought anything over 50k in the sort of 3-4-5 year old category is not worth touching.


So whats the difference between say a 2001 Mondeo with 100k on the clock and a 2006 one with 100k on the clock?

Which one in all probability will be in better condition?
 
So whats the difference between say a 2001 Mondeo with 100k on the clock and a 2006 one with 100k on the clock?

Which one in all probability will be in better condition?

The 2006 one.

If we are purely talking about car condition, age trumps mileage.

Sadly as I've mentioned once the need for a warranty arises it all gets more complex and you end up having to get a low miler.

My next car will be low mileage but I am under no illusion that condition wise it will be no better than my 140,000 4 year old 5 Series was the day I bought it.
 
[TW]Fox;19283231 said:
The 2006 one.

If we are purely talking about car condition, age trumps mileage.

That's what I'd have said.

You're spot on about warranty though.

I've never been in the position of having a car that warrants a warranty though - most expensive car I've ever owned* is the wifes £3.5k 2001 Mondeo Ghia X.


*excluding the Westfield ofc but why would I need a warranty on a car I built myself?
 
[TW]Fox;19283231 said:
The 2006 one.

If we are purely talking about car condition, age trumps mileage.

Sadly as I've mentioned once the need for a warranty arises it all gets more complex and you end up having to get a low miler.

My next car will be low mileage but I am under no illusion that condition wise it will be no better than my 140,000 4 year old 5 Series was the day I bought it.

Can i ask, is this official warranty or 3rd party?

Do say Porsche for example have a limit as to what car they will give a 2nd hand warranty too? I assume service history etc comes into play, but if mileage does as well, at least I will know where to look.

Same for BMW (i know you are an expert here) as im looking at a 55 plate X5 as an option for the family.
 
I have always worked on body condition first, as that can be the most expensive to rectify.
And I never buy a woman/young lad owned car, the clutches always fail to soon :)
 
Back
Top Bottom