Buying a Used Car... Mileage vs. Age

[Legal Eagles]

Let's say one is in the market for a used car... a simply family grocery grabber... call it a Camry or Accord.

You have two candidates... a 2011 with 50,000 miles (5k/yr), or a 2016 with 100,000 miles (20k/yr).

Both are priced fairly for this market and in good condition... assume you are going to keep this car for as long as possible so remaining lifespan is important, and assume rust is not a concern.

[Edited to add: we expect to put 8,000 miles per year on the car going forward.]

Neither car has maintenance records... we are going on appearances only... both look good and pass a basic mechanic's inspection.

In general what is more important to you provided the condition is the same... the age or the mileage?

Would you take the higher mileage but newer car, or the older lower mileage one... and why?

I appreciate your general insight and observations...

 

[jeepman3071]

Probably the lower mileage, but it depends on a lot of factors. Are documented maintenance records included? How does it drive? Was the 2011 with 50k miles stored in a garage and well taken care of or did it sit outside in the weather? While newer cars with higher mileage can be a decent buy if they see all highway, there is still wear on suspension, bearings, internal engine parts, etc.

 

[wpod]

Maintenance record.

 

[I<3oil]

but it depends on a lot of factors. Are documented maintenance records included? How does it drive? Was the 2011 with 50k miles stored in a garage and well taken care of or did it sit outside in the weather? While newer cars with higher mileage can be a decent buy if they see all highway, there is still wear on suspension, bearings, internal engine parts, etc.

This. Personally, I'd rather newer with maybe some more miles.

 

[PF52]

This is to be a second car, I assume? That being the case, I would go with either one.

 

[Chris Meutsch]

Maintenance record.

This is my vote, also.

 

[carviewsonic]

The examples you gave at 50,000 and 100,000 miles aren't that far apart in mileage, considering a 300,000 or so mile lifetime, but:
If the low mileage car shows less wear on the interior and body/paint, my vote would be for the lower mileage car. I don't mind putting a few repair dollars into a low mileage car, rather than a higher mileage car which shows more wear and tear.

This is assuming you don't live in the rust belt, and that the reliability history of the two car models is similar.

 

[Crash Bandicoot]

Tough call on this because you’re looking at two distinct generations of vehicle but I’d default to maintenance history (kind of pot calling the kettle black because I don’t really document my maintenance history)>condition>mileage>age. That’s assuming both vehicles have what you want. I like low mileage because it tells me the owner didn’t have time to blow through the service items (trans fluid, diff/transfer case fluid etc.) without doing the maintenance. Also means likely more life left in the original suspension.

 

[WylieCoyote]

Things like water pumps, alternators, steering racks, etc. are a bit more tired at 100K than they are at 50K. I'll take the older car with half the wear, all other things being equal.

 

[Rmay635703]

Rust

 

[awguy]

The OP said there are no maintenance records and no rust. Is this from original owners? Surely you can get more detail on condition.

We once bought a car from Avis rent a car. One year old but 22,000 miles. It all evened out over 33 years at roughly 8,000 a year.

 

[TmanP]

This was a dilemma I faced when car shopping in 2018. I ended up finding my '12 Camry with only 30,000 miles (and service records of 7 or 8 oil changes in that time) at its original selling dealer. It cost a bit more than the average for that year, but the low mileage increased the price relatively little compared to the age, which was the primary driver of price, it seemed (that is, a '12 with 75k wasn't more than a grand or two cheaper than my '12 which had 30k on it). I noticed that the original factory plastic was still covering the carpets, seven years later, so I figure it didn't live too hard of a life, and the service history helped to confirm that.

 

[samven]

I would tend towards the lower mileage but if you live in a large urban area the low mileage car might have done a bunch of 2 mile trips to the store while the high mileage might have lived on the highway so its a tough call. I know many cars make it to 300k but most dont get there without some expensive repairs and looking at repair record web sites it seems that most run into that big one between 115k-140k. Have you looked up both of these vehicles to see if the model and year has any particular problem like timing belts or chains that are due at 100k or weak trannys that year. Like certain Nissans had trouble with coolant leaks into trans fluid for a few years and Lexus had problems with air suspension that cost 4k to repair.

 

[The Critic]

For me it would depend on whether both model years are within the same generation. If the 11 is the first or second year of that generation, I would rather have the 16.

 

[eljefino]

Get the newer one. Miles don't wear a car out, time does. Rust, and all the dumb rubber seals and solenoids in the EVAP system. All the aging capacitors going out of spec. Plus with high mileage there's a greater likelihood that they're all highway miles.

 

[joegreen]

I like the newer one. If someone put that many miles on a car that fast it means it’s probably not a lemon and everything is working fine. Also cars love to be driven it keeps all the rubber seals and suspension components in good condition.

 

[dishdude]

I realize this question is a hypothetical question, but no 2 used cars are the same and need to be evaluated individually. I would happily buy either if they had the options I wanted and were properly cared for.

 

[thunderfog]

I'd go newer as well. Now this is certainly a more extreme case, but my parents' '09 Highlander went to my brother 2 years ago at 23k miles (short-tripped to death) and needed a water pump (along with brakes, etc).

 

[Leo99]

I'd lean towards the newer car. It probably has better safety features, more air bags. Cars can go 200k miles easy.

 

[Legal Eagles]

I realize this question is a hypothetical question, but no 2 used cars are the same and need to be evaluated individually. I would happily buy either if they had the options I wanted and were properly cared for.

True... what I was trying to get at is... "all other things being equal"... then again there is always the Indiana Jones theory...