Trading Car In - To fix or not to fix?

Matt-J_2

Morning all,

So I am looking to get a new car as my 5 yr old car (was a couple of years in when I got it) has clocked up a fair few miles now (60k) and with a couple of years of the finance left, it does not seem economically viable to do so.

Unfortunately the car had a couple of war wounds which the dealer is bound to notice, a scuff on the bumper and wing mirror. It also has an issue with the air con.

What I want to know is, once I have got my settlement figure, are these issues likely to massively impact the trade in price I will get offered and therefore is it better to fix the issues and drive the price up?

Using webuyanycar.com as a guideline there is not a huge amount of difference between the settlement figure and their valuation of my car.

Really appreciate the advice as a bit stuck on this.:)

forgotmyname

60k is a fair few miles? I know people that do close to that in a year.

If serviced properly your car should easily do another 100,000 miles.

BeenThroughItAll

As above. I wouldn't normally consider even looking at a car to purchase until it's got a lot more than 60K on it.

forgotmyname

I buy them around 120,000 miles, Because people think they are scrap at that mileage. But i only buy if they have been well serviced and not scrimped on.

I keep them for approx 5 years and repeat.

Ive pushed more miles on this one that i would normally. But its well serviced and never let me down. over 170,000 miles now.

It will be a good car for the next owner also. I dont see why it wont last another 5 years and easily exceed 250,000 miles.

Ebe_Scrooge

Howard_jills11 wrote: »

Again, wouldn't cars of this mileage suffer greater problems with suspension, gearbox, brakes etc?

Depends on how it's been driven. If it's a typical rep-mobile, spent its life cruising up and down motorways, then the wear on engine, brakes, suspension & gearbox will be negligible. Plus most companies will keep their cars serviced well, as they can't afford to have their salesmen off the road. So knowing the car's history is everything.

Of course, 120,000 miles of driving round town and farm tracks is a different matter

JustinR1979

Howard_jills11 wrote: »

Again, wouldn't cars of this mileage suffer greater problems with suspension, gearbox, brakes etc?

To an extent you have to ignore the mileage, and see what it feels and sounds like.
Would you buy a low mileage car that sounded and drove crap, or a high mileage car that drove and sounded lovely?
I've only had one low mileage car.
I've only had one car that smoked like a train.

burlington6

Ebe_Scrooge wrote: »

Depends on how it's been driven. If it's a typical rep-mobile, spent its life cruising up and down motorways, then the wear on engine, brakes, suspension & gearbox will be negligible. Plus most companies will keep their cars serviced well, as they can't afford to have their salesmen off the road. So knowing the car's history is everything.

Of course, 120,000 miles of driving round town and farm tracks is a different matter

Yep, people are cheap. Large companies will keep spending

Ebe_Scrooge

burlington6 wrote: »

Yep, people are cheap. Large companies will keep spending

Not quite sure what you mean there. Of course I'm making generalisations - some companies will scrimp on servicing, some private sellers will have been meticulous. The bottom line, as others have mentioned, is to go by the history and condition of the car, to a far larger extent than simply the number of miles.

forgotmyname

Howard_jills11 wrote: »

Again, wouldn't cars of this mileage suffer greater problems with suspension, gearbox, brakes etc?

Brakes yes. Pads and discs wear. They will probably have been worn and replaced on a 60k mile car also.

If suspension needs replacing before 8 years old and 150,000 miles your unlucky. usually a broken spring these days. heavier cars and speedbumps taking their toll. Not expensive. I had a pair of springs supplied and fitted for £120.

Gearbox should easily last 200,000 miles+ If the oil gets changed every now and then and not abused.

The only way a 60k mile car would need work is if it was neglected.

I bought my 2004 car in 2009 for just over £2000... MOTs, repairs, servicing, tyres etc cost me £1150 since. And now the mileage is over 170,000.

I could have spent £3000 - £5000 on a car with less miles. But would you give me £1000 or £2000 more for a 11 year old car? Unlikely.

Also i buy bigger cars because people assume they cost more to run. A Mondeo was cheaper than a Focus of the same age.

JustinR1979

The Yaris won't be expensive on brakes as it only has them fitted on the front.

BeenThroughItAll

Howard_jills11 wrote: »

Could you kindly explain your logic on why you think higher mileage cars are a better purchase?

I understand that for example a car doing 25k/year is going to be motorway mileage and will most likely have at least a yearly service...so the engine would be in better condition compared to one doing 10k/year stop start.

But with higher mileage cars wouldn't you have to worry about suspension problems, gearbox/clutch etc? These repairs can be expensive too

My logic? I'm not a sheep driven by any desire to have a new number plate. I don't like losing 50% of the value of an asset in three years. I don't want to finance/PCP/lease a vehicle as I'd rather own it.


I also don't want a car ruined by constant short trips around a city. I want one that's been warmed up on a journey, one that's not sat around for weeks at a time not being used with bushes hardening up, brake discs corroding, tyres developing flat spots and fatiguing, etc. I want a car that's been used for long enough that the niggly little new-car things have been sorted and paid for by someone else.


I don't give a damn whether a car's got 50K or 150K miles on it, as long as it's got a nice thick wad of receipts and service history, it's been looked after, it's not been through a wall and been badly put back together by a monkey, it's not got four mismatched cheap !!!! Chinese tyres on, its still got all its handbooks, radio code and it's got two keys that work.


End of the day, these days I like to spend less than 2-3K on a car as I know I'll probably get bored and want to change it quite quickly. I buy on condition, not age, mileage, MPG, or any one of the many other arbitrary criteria people come up with for buying/not buying.


My only criteria are that I absolutely will not buy certain makes or models as I don't want to feel like I've given up on life by driving a Vauxhall, Honda, Nissan or Renault, for example, and I won't drive a little box. I want a big, comfortable, well equipped car that I can chuck my tools in, that can carry five people in comfort, and that I can get out of after a 500 mile day without crippling backache.


I'll do 12-15K in a car over 6-9 months or so, fix all the things wrong with it, then sell it on and buy another. Probably costs me about £50 a month to own a car for a year, including parts and accessories but not fuel. Many people would say that's a lot of money, which in strict bangernomics terms it is, but it's a hell of a lot cheaper than buying a new car on tick and then being stuck with it for three-five years.


I can buy whatever I like, whenever I want. This month I'm driving a Jeep Grand Cherokee diesel. I suspect that by

the end of the year I'll be driving a V8 Range Rover. Why? Because I fancy one.