Age or mileage?

[clv101]

Is this yet more evidence to suggest it is time, not mileage, which is a cars worst enemy? I'm still of the school of thought that would rather have a 100k 02 plate than a 50k W plate for the same money..

I'm pulling this quote from Fox from another thread as I think it's an interesting point in itself. So what do people think about the relative importance of age vs mileage?

High mileage newer cars will probably have been serviced every few months, will have covered most of those miles on motorways under little stress and warmed up... but then some components do just wear out with high mileage.

Low mileage older cars will probably have had a harder life of short, cold journeys, or spend weeks on end unused, wouldn't have been serviced as often etc.

Also, all else being equal a 2002 car was probably better made in the first place than a 1999 car.

So what would you buy and why, the 100k 02 plate or the 50k W plate for the same money?

Maybe it depends on whether you plan to add above average or below average miles over the period of ownership?

 

[Trifid]

You forgot to mention that a lower mileage car may have had a lot of town driving which is a lot mroe stressful on a car than cruising at 70mph or so. I will look at age more than mileage when looking at a car.

 

[Glaucus]

W plate. High millage will wear out suspension, steering components ect..

W is still a new car no chance of rust or anything like that to set in.

unless your talking about pre 96ish against high millage..

 

[penski]

Both are really irrelevant for almost any car built in the last 20-odd years.

I'd look towards overall condition and evidence of regular and thorough servicing rather than merely age or mileage.

Certainly if the car is one with a 'reputation' (old Mercs, Volvos et cetera), 200k on the clock or over probably wouldn't phase me if it had been serviced correctly.

*n

 

[penski]

W is still a new car no chance of rust or anything like that to set in.

You are joking aren't you?

Most cars over three years old appear to be suffering from a bit of tinworm. Disturbingly, newer cars seem to be more prone to it.

*n

 

[Glaucus]

You are joking aren't you?

nope, what you do scratch all your paint off.

 

[[TW]Fox]

W plate. High millage will wear out suspension, steering components ect..

But try this incredibly simplistic example.

Two cars - one 2 years old with 80k, one 4 years old with 40k.

Car 1 lived did mainly long journeys, lets say it covered an average speed over its life of say 50mph. Car 2 lived in town, lets say, average speed of 25mph.

Now, despite the second car having half the mileage it also travelled most places at half the speed, so in terms of 'hours actually used' both cars have had the same use.

And which car do you think has the most wear to:

Clutch
Gearbox
Seats
Steering wheel

etc?

VERY simplistic example of course but it should illustrate my point.

 

[penski]

nope, what you do scratch all your paint off.

English speak no sense make of lack?

*n

 

[Glaucus]

But try this incredibly simplistic example.

Two cars - one 2 years old with 80k, one 4 years old with 40k.

Car 1 lived did mainly long journeys, lets say it covered an average speed over its life of say 50mph. Car 2 lived in town, lets say, average speed of 25mph.

Now, despite the second car having half the mileage it also travelled most places at half the speed, so in terms of 'hours actually used' both cars have had the same use.

I wouldn't say 80k is high milage. But it all depends on the car. But generally I would take a car with 100k on it rather than a newer car with 200k on it.

 

[[TW]Fox]

I wouldn't say 80k is high milage.

I wouldn't say 40k in 2 years is low mileage.

But it all depends on the car. But generally I would take a car with 100k on it rather than a newer car with 200k on it.

Perhaps but thats not what we are talking about and it wasnt the option clv gave in his post.

 

[Dave85]

Age doesnt phase me, I look for one that has had full service history and looked after, hence why i got an older 5 but had 1 woman owner with a full history.

Age and milage are nothing but a sequence of things u need for a decent motor.

I would take the older one.

 

[Sone]

for me high milage, mainly as they seem better vfm.

Guy at work bought a Y-reg C-Class merc, withg 37k and he is the 6th owner! seems mad to pay more for low milage as it must have something u with it

 

[triggerthat]

Its a tough question but personally I'd say it comes down actual car and how its kept. A low mileage car can mean its been ragged to death, or a high mileage can be kepted by an 80 year woman who hasn't even pressed the whole gas pedel down fully. I don't know - I think it comes down to the car. Matteh has a 130K 16v 1.8 Clio which sounds great. It probably puts my 88K 1.4 Clio to shame.

 

[Glaucus]

I wouldn't say 40k in 2 years is low mileage.



Perhaps but thats not what we are talking about and it wasnt the option clv gave in his post.

you cant get around the fact that mileage how ever it is obtained, it will wear out certain components.
Same with age, regardless of mileage, age will wear components out.

Its getting a happy balance. I would say high mileage is the worse for wearing components out rather than age.

 

[Mickey_D]

For me it also depends on the model of car.

I would FAR rather have a 1984 or older Toyota Corolla with several hundreds of thousands of miles on it than ANY of the newer ones, even if they were under 100,000 miles, only because I prefer RWD.

In the Dodge Neons, it wouldn't matter the mileage, I would prefer the newer ones simply for the body changes they did in them after 1999.

As for my pickup truck, it would depend on whether I was going to replace it with Ford, Chevy, Toyota, Dodge or whatever. Ford, I wouldn't take one as a gift. Chevy, I'd only want it in a Silverado as a replacement, not concerned about the year or mileage. Toyota, not had much experience with the newer ones, and the ones I have owned aren't comparable due to the size difference. Dodge, I'd want the lower mileage because Chrysler transmissions aren't known for being the strongest after 100K - 150K.


So I guess you could say for me it all depends on the make and model. Some I'd want the lower mileage, some I'd want the newer model. Sorry, I can't really give you a difinitive answer.

 

[[TW]Fox]

you cant get around the fact that mileage how ever it is obtained, it will wear out certain components.
Same with age, regardless of mileage, age will wear components out.

But different types of use do different types of wear.

Doing 300 miles along the M4 does not wear out the steering wheel, drives seat bolster, clutch and gearbox as much as doing the same 300 miles around town, and doing 300 miles around town doesn't shotblast the front of the car with stonechips as badly as 300 miles along the M4.

Its getting a happy balance. I would say high mileage is the worse for wearing components out rather than age.

Hmmm, but your experience is with stuff like Cinqs and old Golfs - larger, newer stuff tends to handle higher mileage better.

 

[Glaucus]

Hmmm, but your experience is with stuff like Cinqs and old Golfs - larger, newer stuff tends to handle higher mileage better.

Yep it probably will handle higher mileage better.
But thinks like this really do depend on what the car model is, year, mileage and driver.


You could get a car which does a few thousand miles in a few weeks then nothing for the rest of the year. It'll be a low mileage old car. with little wear on components. Or you could have a newish 150k sales car with mainly city driving.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Or you could have a newish 150k sales car with mainly city driving.

It's VERY hard to cover huge miles around town - and with modern cars, you can tell this based on how frequently the car has been serviced.

 

[Scania]

Mileage ,with decent servicing, every time imo.

 

[Mackass]

I was put in this exact situation when I bought my first car last month.

Car A: Ex company car, 2002 year, 105,000 miles, fsh, heavy bonnet scratches - £4700
Car B: Two previous owners, 1999 year, 55,000 miles, fsh, 6 months free warrenty - £4300

I wanted to go for Car A initially, but my parents wouldn't budge as it was a 'high mileage' car, plus it had quite bad scratches on the bonnet - bonnet respray would have costed around £200, plus it came with zero warranty, which meant the overall cost could have risen to around £5500 onwards.

In the end, I went with Car B.