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

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

AdrianC wrote: »

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?

Not enough information. Certain cars simply could not survive that mileage, and if you took a low spec version of a car vs its high spec version, the low spec will have done many more revs and spent more time at higher revs.

In simple terms the formula for choosing a high mileage safe bet is:

- track record of manufacturer and model.
- larger engined versions with mechanics working well within their capacity.
- proven duty cycle of car.
- lower age the better, as some components perish over time.
- maintained to manufacturer's spec. at garage with a reputation for competence!

Meet all those, you should be OK. FWIW Chrysler fail on reputation, poor aging of both the Voyager and Jeeps, and old fashioned American engineering - most American designed cars seem to be fur coat and no knickers.

[Deleted User]

AlexLK wrote: »

Funny how all the ones with 150,000 miles on the clock have rust problems if it's nothing to do with usage.

My 180k to 250k Focus Estate had no rust issues.

I't had a couple of small dents, but no rust to speak of.

bigjl

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.

It is extremely difficult to drive any modern car within an inch of its life.

Particularly a diesel mpv with an automatic gearbox.

Every time i read one of your posts it seems you know an awful lot less about things than i thought previously.

Good job.

timbotambo

+1 for the high mileage club. I've always done it this way as a way to save money and, touch wood, never had a serious problem. I had a 3yr old Volvo XC60 with 100k on the clock which was a saving of around £6-7kk based on a car with average mileage. Never missed a beat and IF something big had of gone kaput then at worst it may be a £1k bill. Plodding up and down the motorway puts very little strain on cars, town driving is deadly.

forgotmyname

120,000 - 130,000 is normally where i look. Most of the people that still think over 100,000 have stopped looking at these cars by then and the price reflects that.

It helps if you do a fairly low mileage. Previously i only used to do 4000 - 6000 miles. Past couple of years i have done more and pushed this car over 170,000 now.

Still all good though. My old car petrol Mondeo sold in 2009 with 150,000 miles is still taxed and insured. I wonder what the mileage is now?
That purred like something with less than half the miles.

Wish i had kept it now. But i needed an estate.

ian103

OH's last company car (Audi) was swapped at 3 years old with under 50k miles - it looked in fairly good nick. Would I have brought it - not a chance as it was used properly for the first 18 months or so when 40k miles were put on the clock, the next 18 months the car was rarely used for long runs, it was mainly used for short runs, the paintwork was dulled by the coastal atmosphere etc - somebody would have snapped it thinking it was a low mileage bargin.

My last car 2.5 years old totally unreliable Seat Ibiza 4.5k miles - wouldn't have touched it with a bargepole. It was carp due to lack of use.

A car needs to be used regulary and maintained properly, a high mileage wouldn't put me off but a very low mileage would from my own experience.

System

I would buy a car with that kind of mileage on it (although I never actually have). But I would never spend £8.5k on it though.

Smi1er

Would I buy a car with 164K miles? Yes of course if it were in decent nick


Would I spend £8.5K on a car with 164K miles. No. Not a chance.


With 164K miles I would only be paying shed money.

londonTiger

JonathanA wrote: »

It certainly wouldn't put me off. I bought a 4 yr old Galaxy last August with 143k on the clock. I've added another 12 k miles since then. It has a full Ford history and is immaculate but was a fraction of the price of a lower mileage car. I just couldn't justify the expense of a lower mileage car. I haven't regretted it so far and hope it'll last me to well over 200k miles.

If it is in good condition I don't see why you shouldn't buy it. I'd haggle on price a bit though!

That was an addison lee fleet vehicle then.

bigjl

Smi1er wrote: »

Would I buy a car with 164K miles? Yes of course if it were in decent nick


Would I spend £8.5K on a car with 164K miles. No. Not a chance.


With 164K miles I would only be paying shed money.

It is always nice to get some money off.

But the Voyager holds value better then a Galaxy or similar and was also rather expensive new.

Haven't seen a facelift one for under £14k to be honest. Though they are fairly rare in the UK.

If it drives right and has no signs of abuse on the interior then it is a decent enough buy.