mileage vs. age in used cars

[zippy753]

I'm looking for a good used car in the $14k to $18k range. Currently, I like the non-turbo Volvo V70 for decent reliability, utility, and comfort.

All things being equal, a 2002-2003 with 30k-45k miles can cost about the same as a 2004-2005 with 50k-70k.

Anyone think it matters? Or do they cancel each other out?

 

[Jett Rink]

the wife drives a 2003 volvo xc90. it has 72,000 miles on it. despite all the wailing and gnashing of teeth out there about "volvo not building them like they use to", we have had no problems at all with it.

at 60,000 miles i had the volvo dealer flush out the transmission fluid. it has one of these fancy synethetic transmission fluids that is supposed to last a long time, but under the advice of the dealer and common sense, i had that done. otherwise, just the scheduled maintenance.

it has been a great vehicle. i have no reason to think the wagon, if a 2002 or 2003 range and reasonably well maintained, would not be the same.

i'd just have your trusted indy mechanic, or local volvo dealer inspect it, and if it looks okay, i'd be fine with the older one.

 

[rpn453]

All else being equal, I'd rather have a newer car with higher miles.

 

[miked2]

Last September I purchased a 2004 Mercury Sable with 97,000 miles on it. I am the 3rd owner. The original owner put 90,000 miles on it in 18 months (5k a month-whooo).

The first night I had it I changed the oil, of course... I left it in (MC 5w-20 & Wix) for 2000 miles. It was full & clean when I drained it. Why did I drain it? To put ARX in if, of course. Did the clean/rinse with ARX & I just put PP in(103,000 miles)since it priced 2 for 1.

The car runs perfectly, the interior looks new. If you didn't look at the odometer you would think it had 30 to 40k on it.

In buying this car I moved up 8 years (it replaced a 96 Sable with 95k) for about $4000 after selling my car.

Most cars today, if taken reasonable care of will last a couple hundred thousand miles. With excellent care, a lot more.

My theory is many parts on a car wear out in a certain amount of time as well as miles. Rubber-like bushings/grommets, etc tend to dry rot & crack after a certain amount of time causing squeaks/squeals, more so than miles if a car has been driven mostly on the highway.

It's like gambling, if you are willing to take a chance you can save some money. Some people are not comfortable & would rather pay a little more for a car with less miles.

Good luck to you & "WELCOME" to BITOG.

 

[miked2]

QUOTE-My theory is many parts on a car wear out in a certain amount of time as well as miles. Rubber-like bushings/grommets, etc tend to dry rot & crack after a certain amount of time causing squeaks/squeals, more so than miles if a car has been driven mostly on the highway.

Sorry, I don't know how to edit.....I meant to say: LESS so than miles if a car has been driven mostly on the highway.

 

[onion]

I've bought old cars with low miles and relatively new cars with high miles. I've had better luck with the latter.

My '01 Lumina has 163k miles and it's like a new car.

 

[onion]

A year or two and 20k miles isn't really going to make any difference one way or the other.

 

[i30krab]

Quote:

---

A year or two and 20k miles isn't really going to make any difference one way or the other.

---

I think you are right on!
Maybe a more important factor is newer cars generally have better safety features.
So, what is more important?

 

[zippy753]

Seems like most people think it doesn't really matter.

Does anyone think this is a true statement: A newer car with higher miles is HWY driven and an older car with lower miles is city driven. Since HWY miles are better than city miles, therefore a newer higher mile car is better than an older lower mile car.

Or should I just get the one that looks the coolest?

 

[VeeDubb]

I would definitely take the newer car with the more miles. In fact, when I buy a used car, I look for evidence that a car has been driven at least 15,000 miles a year. Why?

1.I would highway miles and if its over 15k per year, it's got to be.

2. When a car is driven that much, it probably wasn't a lemon a spent a lot of time in the shop.

3. You get a large price discount with a lot of miles, but if those miles are "easy" miles (highway), then its not a problem.

Of course, all this assumes that there is some evidence of regular maintenance, either service records or shop records.

 

[i30krab]

What about taking used cars to some of the mechanics that claim they can inspect a car and help you decide?
I know $ is tight with most people but maybe a few hundred $ spent with a qualiified mechanic could save you thousands somewhere down the line.

It's probably a throw of the dice when it's all said and done.

 

[widman]

I'd take the newer one with high miles, as several have said. In my previous life I worked for a company where policy was change cars every 45000 miles or 4 years. In my territory covered 800 to 1200 miles a week, so ordered a new car every 10 to 14 months. I bought about every second or third company car for my wife. My miles were frequently 1 traffic light to the highway, cruise control at 55 mph for 90 minutes, spend 4 hours 1/2 mile from the highway, and then go on to the next place 60 miles away. Easy miles.

 

[Jeremiah]

If you're only going to take the car to the low 100k's... who cares. Even Kia's will go that long. Pre-Ford-Owned Volvo's are awesome. All others are #@$%! for longevity past 100k miles.

 

[eliminator]

My first concern would be how it was maintained. How "clean" is it, and does it have records?

Second concern would be price. Gotta get a good deal, of course.

Which one do you like better?

Age and mileage are not that big of a deal if it's properly cared for, IMHO.