I'd go with the lower mileage given the price was in line with a car of it's age with lower mileage. I've owned 4 rebuilt title vehicles with low mileage over approximately the last 20 years and thus far all have been good cars. Not only did I get a low mileage car I also saved thousands over buying a comparable car with a clean title. Don't get me wrong I wouldn't buy just any rebuilt car, you have to look them over and evaluate how well the repairs were done. About a year ago I could have bought a rebuilt 2019 Mitsubishi Mirage with 3800 miles on it for $5000. I passed it up because there were many misaligned body panels, panels that should have been repainted that weren't and they'd replaced the a/c condenser and didn't even bother to recharge the a/c. If they'd done that poor of a job on the things I could see what did the hidden damage look like?
Buying a Used Car... Mileage vs. Age
- Thread starter Legal Eagles
- Start date
I don't start thinking about age affecting anything important until it's 15-20 years old, and even then I'd rather have some dried out bushings or gaskets than a worn out drivetrain.
I bought a 2002 Taurus with 96k miles on it three years ago. I've had no age related problems in 40k miles.
I bought a 2002 Taurus with 96k miles on it three years ago. I've had no age related problems in 40k miles.
The average consumer will pay more for a "newer" car. I disagree. The older lower miles one is better. All things equal except the year made, the one with SIGNIFICANTLY lower miles is better. 50,000 miles, assuming 8k annual driving habit, represents SIX YEARS of driving. That's like a free car in difference, considering many swap cars every 50k or 6 years or so.
It's not just the engine and transmission. It's the suspension, axles, ball joints, radiator, all fluids, belts, rubber parts, water pump, electronics, gauges, all lights, and so forth. All more tired with an extra 50k miles.
But, rarely do you find a situation where one is not clearly better than the other. Some records are typically available, even if you must hunt for them. For instance if you use the VIN and sign up at the auto maker/dealer website, you can track down some records. You can also track down records by calling the local auto shops with the VIN, using Carfax, etc. Sometimes receipts are in the glove box too.
Other things to look for:
* The model design/year/generation known problems, and was the car early or late in that particular generation? Later is usually better, whereas a new technology or design is a warning sign.
* Rust
* Wear on interior areas. I find most cars start falling apart on the driver seat, armrest, around 100k. This is particularly true of newer cars and "leather" which is now paper thin.
* All mechanical stuff.
* All electrical stuff.
It's not just the engine and transmission. It's the suspension, axles, ball joints, radiator, all fluids, belts, rubber parts, water pump, electronics, gauges, all lights, and so forth. All more tired with an extra 50k miles.
But, rarely do you find a situation where one is not clearly better than the other. Some records are typically available, even if you must hunt for them. For instance if you use the VIN and sign up at the auto maker/dealer website, you can track down some records. You can also track down records by calling the local auto shops with the VIN, using Carfax, etc. Sometimes receipts are in the glove box too.
Other things to look for:
* The model design/year/generation known problems, and was the car early or late in that particular generation? Later is usually better, whereas a new technology or design is a warning sign.
* Rust
* Wear on interior areas. I find most cars start falling apart on the driver seat, armrest, around 100k. This is particularly true of newer cars and "leather" which is now paper thin.
* All mechanical stuff.
* All electrical stuff.
I think old with low miles is only worth it if you live in an area without salt or you can validate it was a garaged summer car.
I would only compare the pros and cons of similarly aged vehicles, much more than a couple years and it’s apples to oranges.
Using a cobalt as an example my friend got a 2006 that he looked over extensively for rust and was clean, I have a 2010 that was clean.
His started to rust 2 years ahead of mine and I don’t wash/wax as insesently as him and I drive many more miles.
Just because you can’t find rust doesn’t mean an older car won’t start to rust sooner than a newer example.
I would only compare the pros and cons of similarly aged vehicles, much more than a couple years and it’s apples to oranges.
Using a cobalt as an example my friend got a 2006 that he looked over extensively for rust and was clean, I have a 2010 that was clean.
His started to rust 2 years ahead of mine and I don’t wash/wax as insesently as him and I drive many more miles.
Just because you can’t find rust doesn’t mean an older car won’t start to rust sooner than a newer example.
Door number one. Mileage. Make sure the car is rust free and the interior reflects the lower usage. I’ve picked up cars with less than 50,000 miles for $2400. I’ve got one now that I put 50,000 miles on it and now has 100,000 miles. It’s a 2005. I wouldn’t want to start at 100,000 miles. 
Old vs. worn-out? Why not both?
I bought my 09 Camry with 236k miles on it over the newer cars because:
1. Very, very awesome 1 owner CarFax showing 5000 mile, dealer oil changes, and lots of other regular maintenance.
2. Clean interior (more than just the detail), few scratches out of ordinary, lots of new parts, little rust
3. The other cars were beat, scratched, tore up, and turned my stomach for what they were going to cost.
In the end, I knew that car was a good car, and if I had to fix things, it would be less than the loan payment I was fearing I was going to need to step up to for a brand new car, since used cars were junk on all the lots.
3000ish miles later all I have had to do is fix a slightly torn CV Boot and clean the throttle body to reduce the vibrations at idle. I'll be dumping the dealer oil and doing my first oil change to reset the OLF mileage to a whole number.
The clean maintenance record was the big seller.
1. Very, very awesome 1 owner CarFax showing 5000 mile, dealer oil changes, and lots of other regular maintenance.
2. Clean interior (more than just the detail), few scratches out of ordinary, lots of new parts, little rust
3. The other cars were beat, scratched, tore up, and turned my stomach for what they were going to cost.
In the end, I knew that car was a good car, and if I had to fix things, it would be less than the loan payment I was fearing I was going to need to step up to for a brand new car, since used cars were junk on all the lots.
3000ish miles later all I have had to do is fix a slightly torn CV Boot and clean the throttle body to reduce the vibrations at idle. I'll be dumping the dealer oil and doing my first oil change to reset the OLF mileage to a whole number.
The clean maintenance record was the big seller.
I remember the "13" rule the manager of a very large vehicle fleet used to determine when to turn cars in for auction. For every 10 k miles a point is added, and for every year a point is added. When the total reaches 13, sell. This was a while ago, and cars are more reliable now so that total needs to be significantly higher. Especially on this forum. But turn this around for comparison purposes and you'll see both your candidate cars are equal. Coincidence? Don't know where you live, so can't talk about rust issues on the older car. That's a deal killer. For reliability, I would choose a Toyota; for driving dynamics, a Honda. Just my opinion
I've got a 2011 Silverado work truck with the old 4.3 V6 with 22,000 miles. I live in Eastern WA state so no rust issues. I've got no complaints, except maybe gas mileage, of course no car payments can buy a lot of gas. Every car is different and I don't think there is some hard rule between years and mileage. Personally, I'd role the dice with the older low mileage car it's worked out for me.
Id go with the one that has 100K. The reasons I say that is because 100K is nothing for a Honda or Toyota and because on the car that only has 50K, Id worry that the car sat too much.
Sitting around and not being driver is not good for any car. You could be looking at lots of possible seal leaks.
I purchased a low mileage old BMW and it was the worst car I have ever owned repair wise. I still own it 10 years later, drives nice when it works. Maintenance record is the deciding factor from now on.
I would buy the newer car. I believe age is more damaging to a vehicle than mileage. For example I bought a high mileage Toyota Corolla with over 200,000 miles on it however it was only about 4 years old. I put about 20,000 more miles on the car and I didn't have any problems at all. I know a lot of my friends buy low mileage Corvettes that are older and they have lots of weird problems and leaks.
Must have been a LONG time ago. This method would say a 3 year old car with 100k miles is ready for replacement. I would be fine buying a 6 year old car with 200 k miles. So the method is rather outdated.
Let me mention the best three cars and the worst three I have ever owned. Worst 3 I bought new. 2 wranglers 90 and 91 and a 93 f 150 auto v8. All were horrible junk and lemon law saved me.
Best three winner 85 porsche 944 with 100k miles. Kept it 20 years and put on over 200k more miles. Best car ever.
81 280 z. Kept 15 years. Only regular maint and tires , brakes. 95 bmw 325i bought it 5 years ago.. put on exhaust and tires and brakes and its appreciated to 250 percent of what I paid. Still love it.
It has 236 k miles now
Best three winner 85 porsche 944 with 100k miles. Kept it 20 years and put on over 200k more miles. Best car ever.
81 280 z. Kept 15 years. Only regular maint and tires , brakes. 95 bmw 325i bought it 5 years ago.. put on exhaust and tires and brakes and its appreciated to 250 percent of what I paid. Still love it.
It has 236 k miles now
Ah...isn't that what I said?
You didn't mention 2 very very important factors: What is your budget? What features are must have? You have 2 different generations Camrys. The 2016 has a stronger engine, more safety features including a back-up camera, better ride, etc. Even at 100k miles, it should be the preferred car............unless it's out of your budget.
Also are both 1 owner? I just helped my daughter and teenage son buy their first cars. Tough market for the price range we were looking but we found 2 good cars for them, 2010 Camry (134k miles) and 2005 Honda Pilot (190k miles). Both are 1 owner and were well maintained with clean Carfax.......they also didn't smell and the interiors were NICE!
Good luck.
Also are both 1 owner? I just helped my daughter and teenage son buy their first cars. Tough market for the price range we were looking but we found 2 good cars for them, 2010 Camry (134k miles) and 2005 Honda Pilot (190k miles). Both are 1 owner and were well maintained with clean Carfax.......they also didn't smell and the interiors were NICE!
Good luck.
Older low mileage cars scare me, especially if they're put into a situation where they suddenly start doing high mileage.
I also would worry that on a super low mileage car(say 2K/year) that it's a lot of short trip miles, although that's also hard to say. My dad probably does 2-3K on his car, but it's mostly because he rarely goes anywhere without my mom. Her car is the daily run around car, and his is the trip car-so even though it's not driven much, when it is driven it's 500+ miles in a week(and then maybe not touched again until it reaches a 3 month oil change since, you know, your car will die a sudden death if you don't change your oil every 3 months on the dot as those 7 quarts of Penzoil Platinum suddenly lose their ability to lubricate at all 90 days after they're poured out of the bottle..)
With that said, 5k/year is low but not the kind of low mileage where I'd be concerned. 100K is nothing for a car anymore, and as said those are likely from someone who had a long commute or traveled a lot and did a lot of highway miles.
In both cases I'd look at the car itself, as a lot of others are saying.
If the choice was a 10 year old car with 20K and a 5 year old car with 200K, it would be a tougher decision.
I also would worry that on a super low mileage car(say 2K/year) that it's a lot of short trip miles, although that's also hard to say. My dad probably does 2-3K on his car, but it's mostly because he rarely goes anywhere without my mom. Her car is the daily run around car, and his is the trip car-so even though it's not driven much, when it is driven it's 500+ miles in a week(and then maybe not touched again until it reaches a 3 month oil change since, you know, your car will die a sudden death if you don't change your oil every 3 months on the dot as those 7 quarts of Penzoil Platinum suddenly lose their ability to lubricate at all 90 days after they're poured out of the bottle..)
With that said, 5k/year is low but not the kind of low mileage where I'd be concerned. 100K is nothing for a car anymore, and as said those are likely from someone who had a long commute or traveled a lot and did a lot of highway miles.
In both cases I'd look at the car itself, as a lot of others are saying.
If the choice was a 10 year old car with 20K and a 5 year old car with 200K, it would be a tougher decision.
This is a stupid rule. IF you followed it you'd be getting rid of a 6 year old car with 70k miles, since it would equal "13." Or a 3 year old car with 100k miles, representing all highway miles (which represents about 10k in actual use, factoring hwy miles are meaninglessly simple). Or a 10 year old car with only 30k miles. That's pretty much when you should be BUYING used cars. lol.
Buying something like this would be almost the BEST possible time/miles to buy a car, lol. Maximizing profit, minimizing loss, minimizing use.
Similar threads
