Is Buying a car with 164,000 asking for trouble?

[Deleted User]

AlexLK wrote: »

Servicing, repairs and preventative maintenance.

Then yes, I paid about 1/2 what you are paying.

renfrew999

AlexLK wrote: »

Based on the fact that there is 164,000 miles worth of wear on every component on the car that hasn't been replaced. When I buy cars I always try to buy an example with the lowest mileage (as a trade off I'm not bothered about age).

I was always led to believe that the bodywork and interior of a car will give out long before the engine does, ie. newer car and higher mileage is a better bet than older car with lower mileage. Never really put it to the test though, hence my initial question!

AlexLK

renfrew: I suppose my logic is defined because I like old cars. So much so that for quite a long time I ran a classic car everyday, still have a '60's car today but it is not used as often. Interior and bodywork tends to stay nice if the car has not been used all that much.

jimjames

AlexLK wrote: »

Based on the fact that there is 164,000 miles worth of wear on every component on the car that hasn't been replaced. When I buy cars I always try to buy an example with the lowest mileage (as a trade off I'm not bothered about age).

That's not strictly true.

I've just added another 250 miles today to my car that has 240,000 on the clock.

For 240 of those miles I didn't use the clutch, the brakes or turn steering more than a few degrees and I'd guess the suspension had a much easier time than 25 miles in town going over potholes. I also didn't open any of the doors/windows or add wear to any of the seats other than the drivers one.

AlexLK wrote: »

I am absolutely not "ill informed". My cars are all very low mileage examples and are maintained by myself. Still, they cost in the region of £500-600 per year to keep on the road and I dread to think how much more a vehicle with over 150,000 miles on the clock would cost in maintenance.

In my experience 150k vehicle will cost much less to keep on the road that your £600 pa.

On all my high mileage cars no-one who has sat in them could believe the mileage wasn't under 100k. My previous car had 140,000 on clock when I bought it. I added 50k to it over 4 years with no costs other than routine servicing and an exhaust. That total was well under £600 per year yet I had virtually zero depreciation as well having sold the car on after 4 years. You wouldn't get that with a low mileage car that you turned into an average or high mileage car.

I do appreciate people who don't want high milers though, the more people that think like that the cheaper I can buy them for!

renfrew999 wrote: »

I was always led to believe that the bodywork and interior of a car will give out long before the engine does, ie. newer car and higher mileage is a better bet than older car with lower mileage. Never really put it to the test though, hence my initial question!

In my experience you are absolutely right. I much prefer new cars with high miles and most also have very good interior as well as bodywork & engine.

Netwizard

My 17 year old 160,000 mile current car last year had a new exhaust from the cat back (£100) and 2 tyres (£120). So basically just wear and tear items.

Thats not bad i think! (a service was also £50 odd if you want to include that)

AdrianC

AlexLK wrote: »

By bodywork, I mean rust. So far as dents and scratches go, that depends on how the previous owner has looked after the car.

The 1980s are on the phone, asking for their car maintenance tips back.

AlexLK

Adrian: Not at all, there are modern cars that rust. Just from the top of my head: Land Rover Discovery 1 and 2, Defender, Jaguar XJ6 (up to the aluminium bodied shape), X-type, BMW E36 3 Series, E46 Series, E39 5 Series, Ford KA. I'm sure there are plenty more out there.

spacey2012

I would say High Mileage VS low mileage the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
If high mileage vehicles are "better" the scrap yards would be empty.

It is a machine, the more it gets used the more it wears.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

spacey2012 wrote: »

I would say High Mileage VS low mileage the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
If high mileage vehicles are "better" the scrap yards would be empty.

It is a machine, the more it gets used the more it wears.

In simple terms yes, but the real issue is that although you can cherry pick and increase your chances of finding a potential reliable car at high mileage, you need a certain amount of skill and knowledge to move the risk in the right direction. There will also be high mileage fans who will forget the lemons that they bought but quickly resold to cover their loses.

At 150,000 my 1999 C240 Merc, single owner, it has never been thrashed because driving around a V6 in the UK is never going to get a lot of foot to the floor, and at 10k peer year it has had a good mix. However, the bodywork is shot, main panels rusting, I had the wings replaced and a partial respay 5 years ago. Merc do a 30 year bodywork warranty but when your car is with £200 good end up paying most of it for betterment.

Aside from the rust, which doesn't really show, and a couple of dings, it is still pretty much the car I bought. It has 11 months MOT and a few thousand miles to its next service. If you bought it for £200, trade value, if it lasted a couple of weeks you would be ahead of the game. The trouble for us is we spent about £400 last 6 months ago on fan belt bearings, and although it is OK, having had about 12 years trouble free, the last 3 years we had to use recovery twice, and had to do a repair under pressure as we had a long journey planned. So, we now have a car where we don't know whether it will last a 400 mile round trip, even though it drives and sounds perfect.

I also don't really like buying cars, haven't bought one for 10 years before this week!

only_mee

I bought an 07 TDI A3 last august with just under 160k on it with FASH superb car.