High mileage car help?

fadetoblack

fadetoblack

fadetoblack

Associate
Joined
1 Mar 2008
Posts
2,382
Location
York
Hi,

So after my car got wrote off last week my work have offered me there ex fleet 2014 kia ceed 2 1.6 diesel for £3,000 BUT it's done 160,000 miles it's been serviced twice a year as needed and spotless inside and out.

I do 50 miles a day and only need the car to last 2 year's is it worth a punt on it??
 
We had an i30 1.6 diesel well north of 100k at work and it still drove like new. They are very similar cars underneath.

If the clutch and gearbox are good it should be a decent buy.
 
It's probably a much better option than anything else you could get for £3k, At least you know the history etc on this
 
Is it on the original clutch, DMF, turbo, injectors and DPF? If so I'd mentally budget for all of those very shortly (refurb in the case of the injectors).
 
Buy it, a ~3 year old 160k mike car will have far less general wear & tear on it than a similar car that’s covered say 60k, the majority of miles would - most likely - have been motorway use which isn’t any where near as hard on a car as lots of short ish town traffic runs.

I have a workmate with a 2012 BMW 520d that he bought in 2015 with 240k on the clock, he’s put an additional 20k on it since then and it’s required nothing bar servicing and tyres and having driven it, it’s hard to imagine it’s done 80k never mind it’s current 260k the only give away is a somewhat shot blasted look to the front end, the rest of the car is clean and straight.

High mileage in a relatively short period of time imo is the best kind of used buy, the servicing has been done properly by the first owner and the car has not been worked hard - relatively- to attain such a distance covered.
 
A 3 year old car for a few grand feels like a decent buy regardless of the mileage really.

As above keep money in the bank for clutch/turbo and see what happens.

So long as you manage to run it for long enough that it's (Zero) residual value doesn't matter it will turn out to be a decent buy
 
Usually 100k is the max they will cover for. Also the 7 year warranty is not 7 years on everything afaik, I think a lot isn't covered after the first 3.

You need to check it's manual to see when some of the bigger jobs need doing, like the timing chain.
 
Last edited:
I bought a 2012 VW Caddy with 140k on the clock and it drives like new. Mileage isn't that important if it's had an easy life and been looked after.
 
Seems like cheap motoring and should be worth at least £1000 after 2 years. I'd have a look at it and maybe a chat with the person that's been driving it.

I decided to keep a 90K Volvo for another few years and had to put £1400 into it. So far it seems as good as when I first got it.
 
Scania said:
Buy it, a ~3 year old 160k mike car will have far less general wear & tear on it than a similar car that’s covered say 60k, the majority of miles would - most likely - have been motorway use which isn’t any where near as hard on a car as lots of short ish town traffic runs.

I have a workmate with a 2012 BMW 520d that he bought in 2015 with 240k on the clock, he’s put an additional 20k on it since then and it’s required nothing bar servicing and tyres and having driven it, it’s hard to imagine it’s done 80k never mind it’s current 260k the only give away is a somewhat shot blasted look to the front end, the rest of the car is clean and straight.

High mileage in a relatively short period of time imo is the best kind of used buy, the servicing has been done properly by the first owner and the car has not been worked hard - relatively- to attain such a distance covered.
Click to expand...
I know this is the general train of thought on this and I do understand the mentality but I'm not sure I totally agree. The comparison is always a car that magically teleports itself to the motorway and never drives in town being compared to a car with the driver profile of a minicab. The reality is that even a car that clocks up big miles still has to start and end its journey somewhere, probably including a chunk of town driving. The main difference is that it also spends the day doing a motorway stint on top of that.

Where it is offset is that the car is still relatively new and I'm very much of the opinion that it is a combination of age and mileage that wears away at a car and at this price point it does seem like a bit of a no brainer as long as you go in with your eyes open.
 
fadetoblack said:
Hi,

So after my car got wrote off last week my work have offered me there ex fleet 2014 kia ceed 2 1.6 diesel for £3,000 BUT it's done 160,000 miles it's been serviced twice a year as needed and spotless inside and out.

I do 50 miles a day and only need the car to last 2 year's is it worth a punt on it??
Click to expand...

it depends entirely on how good the engine is. i know a guy with a works van with 350K miles on it. in comparison 160K miles is nothing. but he is a mechanic and knows a lot about cars. for example you should be using a higher viscosity engine oil than standard on a car with that many miles as it won't leak as much and the seals will have been worn out a bit with that mileage. so if it's 5w-30 maybe try 5w-40 instead.

so it's done 25K miles inbetween servicing? then it has been serviced quite well if done at a decent garage. however are kia engines reliable? i don't know but IMO for £3K your only other decent bet would be something like a old civic. basically £3K doesn't buy a reliable car unless you get lucky or go old and japanese.
 
The biggest thing I feel with a manual gearbox is when you have it gear move it from side to side in all the gears when stationary and feel the slack - little movement the owner took care and didn't drive it hard so probably looked after. My 2001 Focus has over 100,000 on it and it drives really well and he gearbox is nice and tight as I have looked after it for last 10 years and 70k+. Then just do a general check and check brakes etc usual things. I've been in 5yr old cars where the gearbox felt knackered and had 2" of throw whereas mine is about 1/2".
 
lordrobs said:
I know this is the general train of thought on this and I do understand the mentality but I'm not sure I totally agree. The comparison is always a car that magically teleports itself to the motorway and never drives in town being compared to a car with the driver profile of a minicab. The reality is that even a car that clocks up big miles still has to start and end its journey somewhere, probably including a chunk of town driving. The main difference is that it also spends the day doing a motorway stint on top of that.

Where it is offset is that the car is still relatively new and I'm very much of the opinion that it is a combination of age and mileage that wears away at a car and at this price point it does seem like a bit of a no brainer as long as you go in with your eyes open.
Click to expand...


The proof is in the eating as such, this particular 520d would be hard pressed to be described as a 100k miler from how it drives, as would have been the 260k e39 I had a few years back, of course a car will cover short trips to get to & from said motorway, but, ultimately, a high mileage in a short ish space of time will always be less taxing on the driveline than a similar figure over a longer period.

A car thats been used as a minicab soon stands out, it'll have all the wear points of such use, as an example, this 520d dosen't, its drivers seat shows slight (and I do mean slight) sagging, the rest of the seats are unmarked and uncreased as you'd perhaps expect from a car thats predominantly carried one guy from business meeting to business meeting day in, day out.

I have a mate who works selling used trucks, he always prices high mileage sub 3 year old examples higher than vastly lower mileage ones of equivalent age, the reason is the lower mileage useage tends to fit with a higher wear & tear useage cycle, the market reflects this, he has little issue selling the higher mileage examples where the others he tends to punt straight to auction as he knows they tend to be the ones with warranty claims further down the line...

Edit, to clarify, the truck market - unlike the car market- is far more focused on the likely life a vehicle has lead, it generally stands to reason that a lower mileage vehicle will have far more general wear and tear - on the driveline especially - than one that’s covered a higher mileage in a similar period of time, which is why the above tends to be the case.

I know it myself through the many trucks I’ve driven over the years, you can almost guarantee a truck say 3 years old with 400k KM on the clock will drive far better than one with half that mileage, predominantly because one has racked up the miles on motorways and A roads, the other has accrued it on local stop start use which takes far more from the vehicle.
 
Last edited:
Seems like a reasonable price for it. I agree with the above - high mileage in a short period of time means 70mph cruises on the motorway it's whole life. However, even if it's had an easy life, when you're getting to 160,000+ miles you're starting to get to the point where turbos, injectors, water pumps, air conditioning compressors etc may need looking it.

Have your work got any history of the car or what's been replaced by them/under warranty?
 
My Saab 9-5 Aero is stage one mapped and 135k now. Still strong as an ox. People still have the mentality 100k and in the bin. Anything medium sized plus these days will quite easily do 150k to 200k if maintained correctly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom