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

AdrianC

AlexLK wrote: »

Adrian: Not at all, there are modern cars that rust. Just from the top of my head: Land Rover Discovery 1 and 2

Launched 1989, discontinued 2004

Defender

Launched 1948

Jaguar XJ6 (up to the aluminium bodied shape)

X300 and X308 basic structure the same as the XJ40, launched 1986

X-type

The Ford CD132 platform, derived from the CDW27, launched as the original Mondeo in 1993.

BMW E36 3 Series, E46 Series, E39 5 Series

All '90s launches, and victims of the same German manufacturer "decontenting" as the various Mercs (especially W210 E-class and C208 CLK) with serious rot issues.

Ford KA

A reskinned Mk4 Fiesta (launched in '95), with a basic structure traceable all the way back to the 1976 Mk1 Fiesta.

Yes, all those have rot issues. All are reknowned for it, and all are considerably older structural designs. Only one - the X-type - was launched this side of the millennium. None, apart from the Defender, have been in production for at least five years.

And - most importantly for this thread - none of those rot issues are in the slightest bit mileage or usage related.

AlexLK

I would argue the rot is consummate with usage. I own a Discovery 1 with just over 60k on the clock, no rust issues, similarly we've also got an E39 530i with a few more miles but no rust issues. My '60's Triumph had no rust issues when I bought it but with use (used to by my everyday car) required restoration a few years back. My father drives a 17 year old XJ6 which he has owned from new, always garaged and very low mileage and you've guessed it ... no rust issues. Funny how all the ones with 150,000 miles on the clock have rust problems if it's nothing to do with usage.

AdrianC

AlexLK wrote: »

I would argue the rot is consummate with usage. I own a Discovery 1 with just over 60k on the clock, no rust issues, similarly we've also got an E39 530i with a few more miles but no rust issues. My '60's Triumph had no rust issues when I bought it but with use (used to by my everyday car) required restoration a few years back. My father drives a 17 year old XJ6 which he has owned from new, always garaged and very low mileage and you've guessed it ... no rust issues. Funny how all the ones with 150,000 miles on the clock have rust problems if it's nothing to do with usage.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

Unless, of course, the 40,000 mile 10 year old Citroen CX I bought for £40 with a cracked block and damn-near terminal rear subframe rot was just a figment of my imagination?

AlexLK

Adrian: I think you'll find that is called bad luck and bad maintenance on the part of the previous owner.

The fact is a well looked after (by this I mean maintaining both what you can and cannot see), low mileage example will be a better car than a newer, hammered one.

bigjl

patman99 wrote: »

Just wondering if it uses the same Mercedes 2.2 CRDi engine as the PT Cruiser.

No. Voyager uses the 2.8 version of the VM engine as fitted to London Taxis and Maxus van (2.5 version) and the old model Jeep Cherokee.

They can be reliable if properly maintained.

Do tend to be used for airport runs so are likely to have very few round town and speed bump miles.

Usually the fleets or owner drivers that have Voyagers are targetting a more upmarket clientele and are not usually used for pub and club type work.

Go and look at it and drive it.

If you buy it the first thing i would do is ensure the cambelt and water pump are replaced and the gearbox is given a proper fluid and filter change as they are not the most long lived if you don't take that precaution.

They are roomy and comfortable but dynamically and economy wise not a match for a Galaxy.

bigjl

renfrew999 wrote: »

Apparently the car was owned by a large pharmaceutical company and used for 'VIP' transportation. It also has had a full 'no expense spared' Chrysler service history. I know what Jase1 is saying about Chryslers but I'm looking for a 7 seater that still has a decent boot space when all seats are in use. The Chrysler has 756 litres compared to the Galaxy's 435, but I guess that's a discussion for another thread!

Most miles will be on the motorway taking people to the airport.

Best value high milers you can get.

Likely only had one or two drivers who would have been accountable for any damage caused by abuse or stupidity.

Sounds like a decent buy

bigjl

renfrew999 wrote: »

AlexLK, what's that based on?

Probably from reading middle class motoring press and ignorance

spacey2012

I am visualising these Nuns driving Audi's and other rep cars up and down the motorway clocking up 50,000 a year, all very carefully of course.

Just in my observations most sales rep style high milers get thrashed within an inch of their life daily by sales reps and company car drivers who could not give two figs if they brake the car.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

spacey2012 wrote: »

I am visualising these Nuns driving Audi's and other rep cars up and down the motorway clocking up 50,000 a year, all very carefully of course.

Just in my observations most sales rep style high milers get thrashed within an inch of their life daily by sales reps and company car drivers who could not give two figs if they brake the car.

Big engined older cars are safer bets, you simply can't thrash a 150bhp+ car in the UK, even if they belt down the motorway at 95 all day, the cars are well within themselves, they'll barely see full throttle. A bottom end engined car is more likely to be thrashed. I whenever being most disappointed in my 1.8 auto Cavalier discovering on the A1 that my overtaking manoeuvre wasn't going to happen as my foot was already buried in the carpet. I very, very rarely ever used kick down on the Merc, and never held it down for any length of time, even in Germany. I've never driven it faster than 120 with a supposed top speed of 132.

AdrianC

AlexLK wrote: »

The fact is a well looked after (by this I mean maintaining both what you can and cannot see), low mileage example will be a better car than a newer, hammered one.

I would agree - but, as I keep pointing out - the relevant part is the maintenance not the mileage or the age which you've now also introduced to attempt to further muddy the waters.

So - for clarity - would you agree that a 160k, well maintained, 4yo vehicle - as the OP asks about - may very well be a better purchase than the same vehicle, same age, 16k, but abused and neglected?