Miles vs Age (gaskets, salvage, brake, best)

[thecreepingwolf]

Hi all,

In the next couple of months I will begin looking for a first car. It'll be a used one and i was wondering whether age or miles matter more when buying a used car.

Also, is there any consensus on what is considered "a lot" of miles? Or does it vary with make, model age etc...? Is an old (say year 2000) car with low miles worth the buy? Thanks very much

[ferretkona]

Low miles by far will beat out age. My friend bought a 1967 Volvo 122 with only 2000 miles, car had never had it's first tune up. The Volvo was pristine.
The only time I would consider age over miles is if I was looking for financing on the automobile.

[cab591]

I would say neither. The most important thing when buying a used car is SERVICE RECORDS.

You could have a 2 year old car with 20,000 miles on it -- but if the previous owner pounded on it, and didn't fix a single thing on it, it'll show it's age early on. When I'm between two cars of similar age and mileage, I check the service records.

If I had to pick between "age" and "mileage", though: I'd go with mileage. Think of it like a pair of shoes -- they wear down, and get torn apart the more you use them and wear them. If you bought a pair of shoes, and stuck them in the back of a closet for a few years, they wouldn't be worn at all compared to the shoes you wear every day. Mileage wears on engine parts in the same way -- The more miles, the more wear. Age doesn't wear engine parts nearly as well (ok, rubber will dry rot eventually, and parts will rust or seize... but for the most part, mileage wears more).

[rbohm]

THE most important thing when looking at a used car is not age, its not mileage, its not even service records. the absolute most important thing when checking out a used car is condition. i have seen used cars with lots of miles on them that were in great condition and had a lot of miles left in them. i have also seen used cars with low miles on the that were is extremely poor condition and were ready for the salvage yard.

[ToyYot]

I put 12,000 miles/yr on my car but it's one round trip per day, work and back, with a few on the w/e. My wife puts on 6,000 miles/yr but does three round trips per day running errands etc. All else being equal, in three to five years which car is the better buy used? Should the lower mileage one really be worth more?

[thunderkat59]

My Suzuki is 11 years old at this point and has only 32k, mostly interstate. Very low miles, but the underside is all rotted away.

[vegaspilgrim]

In this current used car market, older but low mileage cars are a rip off because people think they are worth a premium, even though they are not. Depending on how old we are talking about, a lot of things can go wrong "prematurely"-- especially anything made of rubber-- resulting in unexpected repairs. Some of these prices are inflated at used cars dealers so much that the depreciation rate, once you start putting miles on the car, will be similar to that of a new car. Newer used cars that have high mileage can also be a rip off, but preferable to older but lower mileage IF there is strong evidence that the miles are mostly "highway miles" and the maintenance has been done on schedule. Also, you get more updated safety features and things like the paint job which are strictly a function of age, not mileage, will last longer. To get the best bang for your buck you have to get a car that is older AND high mileage (or average miles for the year), but still in good condition (they do exist, just have to look hard), or buy a brand new car and plan on owning it for the next 10 years.

[Praxis]

The most important thing is price For $5, I will buy any junker.

[SuperSparkle928]

Well, I got my last 1930's A (original) for $500, with only a few hundred miles on it. Granted, I went through the engine, interior and body to check it, but for a 76 year-old car, it was mint. As some of the other posters stated, (other than failing gaskets that may need to be replaced), proper maintenance is the whole enchilada.
Remember the spark advance on the steering wheel, and the pneumatic wipers that worked better when there was a lot of vacuum from the engine? I digress, but am happy.

For age, check any of the rubber/synthetic rubber tubing, but it is cheap to replace. Also check when the last time it was run, and all the fluids replaced. Check the routine stuff... brake rotors and pads, brake lines, floor rust, shocks, suspension.... the usual stuff.

I am only on my second car since college (granted the garage queens get almost no mileage each year)
and for the daily drivers I run, the Volvos last easily for 300K, with little maintenance (though once Ford bought them, a steep down-hill).

So in summary, other than wear-and-tear, I think (personal opinion), that mileage is not that important, depending on brand.

[MckinneyOwnr]

I have a couple cars that are over 20 years old that have been taken care of extremely well. When I take them to shows sometimes, people ask if I've repainted the car... nope, original paint. I put about 4k miles a year on them. Mileage hasn't done anything to diminish them, except for a couple rock chips in the paint in the front bumper, etc. As far as age goes, I've replaced most rubber hoses in the engine bay with silicone, and suspension bushings with poly ones instead of the stock rubber. They'll last another 20 years at least, no problem.

Mileage is more of a concern for me than age, but if a car is well maintained, then it may not matter much. If you are looking to buy a 2000 yr car, the same rules apply as if you were looking at a new one, has it been taken care of? If so, then go ahead and buy it.