DJ's Car Hunting Thread - Advice on some search results.
- Thread starter DJMK4
- Start date
- Status
I have to agree, £6300 is a lot to go up from a 10 year old car to a 7 year old car for a small bit more spec and lower miles to be honest.
I 100% believe that you should have looked at a few Volvo D5s, unbelievable value and a genuine upgrade.
I 100% believe that you should have looked at a few Volvo D5s, unbelievable value and a genuine upgrade.
How is a 55k milage 07 plate at around lets say £6.2k a lot to go up from? with the service history it has?
I really dont understand this age thing, its like we are saying 2007 is ancient, its 7 years old with 55k or 56k on the clock with full BMW history, the milage is a big bonus for this aswel as the car itself, along with the history.
Thats only £600 more what I paid for my golf back when I purchased it and that was pushing 80k.
I generally have never had a like for Volvo's, it seems pointless spending money on something I dont like.
Unless you're getting a BMW warranty, there's hardly any point paying the extra premium for low mileage. You've only gained a little bit of power, a couple more features on a car that isn't really much better than a MK5 Golf just because its 3 years newer and has less miles. SE spec E90s are hardly the most glamorous things to sit in.
I'm not really disputing the price you paid for the car, just the cost to upgrade.
I'm not really disputing the price you paid for the car, just the cost to upgrade.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 12 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 26,778
Was the purpose of the thread to just ignore all advice and buy something based on what badge it has? 
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
I would have had to pick something, my budget would have only stretched to maybe a 2009/maybe 2010 bland card that I don't want to drive anyway.
I would have still spent the same amount, 2007 to buying something like 2009 is hardly going to make the slightest bit of difference.
Or I could have kept looking and end up with something like 2008 plate with 80 90k on the clock,or 2010 with 110k on the clock.
Don't see the problem
I see plenty of people on the forums buying older cars, newer cars are not all that great either!iv seen various so called reliable cars be taken back multiple times due to issues, even petrols (new models!)
Me paying something like 9-10k, yeah then I would be looking, but I don't want leather, I don't want built in satnav as I have a unit, I don't want m sport alloys or runflats. The spec is fine for me
I would have still spent the same amount, 2007 to buying something like 2009 is hardly going to make the slightest bit of difference.
Or I could have kept looking and end up with something like 2008 plate with 80 90k on the clock,or 2010 with 110k on the clock.
Don't see the problem
I see plenty of people on the forums buying older cars, newer cars are not all that great either!iv seen various so called reliable cars be taken back multiple times due to issues, even petrols (new models!)
Me paying something like 9-10k, yeah then I would be looking, but I don't want leather, I don't want built in satnav as I have a unit, I don't want m sport alloys or runflats. The spec is fine for me
Must have misread that, even still i do not care, the fact that it has done that milage makes up for it.
How many more times? Less miles. Less it has been driven about, less wear and tear.
I guess you would probably have an opinion on buying a 2012 plate car with 180k on thr clock, as it's newer
I really woulnt
How many more times? Less miles. Less it has been driven about, less wear and tear.
I guess you would probably have an opinion on buying a 2012 plate car with 180k on thr clock, as it's newer
I really woulnt
You were going on about how much you wanted the m sport alloys earlier, now suddenly you didn't want them? You keep going on and on about not wanting bland yet many would argue a zero spec 320d is exactly that.
There is nothing wrong with buying older cars, but when you are so bothered about running costs It's pretty daft.
There is nothing wrong with buying older cars, but when you are so bothered about running costs It's pretty daft.
Take two cars. Car a drives for 1000 miles at 50mph. Car B drives for 500 miles at 20mph. Which car has been driven for the longest period? Your obsession with mileage to the total exclusion of age shows you don't really get it.
An 8 year old 320d with 60k is likely no more or less reliable than a 2009 with 100k.
Did you bother to look at a 2010 Exeo? The one that's an Audi A4. In fact did you test drive anything?
Everyone here wanted to help you get a good deal on a decent car. You asked for advice but just argued against anyone who suggested anything but financing an old bottom of the range 3 series. What was the point?
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 12 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 26,778
On the mileage front lower isn't always better on used cars especially when some need relatively expensive stuff doing to them at 60-70K, timing belt, water pump etc.
- Joined
- 14 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 17,747
- Location
- Newcastle U/T
[TW]Fox;27107154 said:
Don't worry fox.. we can spend a daft amount on top of the fantastic finance offer on alloys later
They don't have timing belts that need changing, they have chains, if I were buying a car with cambelt I would make sure cambeltmand water pump was chanfged, like I did on my golf before I buy which is why I generally bought mine after 70k
Don't worry fox.. we can spend a daft amount on top of the fantastic finance offer on alloys later
Im not getting any new alloys
Nothing wrong with the finance offer, unless you can come back here and find me a decent deal, not a representative, but a real figure showing that going with anyone else is really going to save me any more, not save me an extra £3 a month, as thats what one of the lowest lenders difference was to mine, a whopping 103 or what ever saving over 3 years. Woop de dooo
I mean an extra £15, £20, £25 off per month and I may agree
Mods can close this thread
No longer needed
Last edited:
- Status