Low mileage vs reliability

[Si-monogram]

Ok, so I've put my car up for sale and one new member has commented that 107k miles is too high and that he wants something sub 50k. I'd be more worried buying a car with lower mileage as things like clutches etc are bound to rear their heads if not changed in its life.

So would you rather buy a below average mileage car with proof of clutch changes and belt changes over a low mileage car that maybe has very little history?

[murphyv310]

Hi.
Low mileage cars in my experience are far worse than a higher mileage car with a decent service history!

Been there and have had massively troublesome low mileage cars. A certain 75 at just over 40,000 miles comes to mind!

[Si-monogram]

Originally Posted by murphyv310

Hi.
Low mileage cars in my experience are far worse than a higher mileage car with a decent service history!

That's what I thought. I mean I suppose it's car dependant aswell as my metro has only done 20k miles but, it's not a car that was built for motorway use so I'd be concerned if it was in the upper 100k band.

The black zt has 107k miles and is 14 years old so by my calculations it's almost 30k miles below it's expected mileage for its age.

[murphyv310]

Originally Posted by MR190

That's what I thought. I mean I suppose it's car dependant aswell as my metro has only done 20k miles but, it's not a car that was built for motorway use so I'd be concerned if it was in the upper 100k band.

The black zt has 107k miles and is 14 years old so by my calculations it's almost 30k miles below it's expected mileage for its age.

Yes I agree.
The 75 I had did 4000 miles a year but the stupid first owner only had an oil change done twice in 7 years, done by mileage not annually! Result one worn engine! Even if it was done on time town running to the shops and back doesn't do a car a bit of good!

[MSS]

For me the ideal car is one that has covered around 6k to 8k miles each year.

Anything above 80k to 100k miles will have tired suspension components and in order to drive really well the car will need a mid-life change-out of some of these components. Ref my "Preemptive Maintenance" thread on all the things I have done to our 82k CDT purchase in order to get it running like new. I did exactly the same to my Omega at 85k miles.

I know diesels are said to last very high mileages but that only really applies to the core engine.

Just my 2p worth.

[Si-monogram]

And obviously it's their money etc but I do question the logic sometimes as I've always bought a car based on its story, who owns it, are they club members, how honest the car and seller is etc etc. Stamps in a book mean nothing to me as I also base my decision on the fact that it would've been maintained to get it through mot's etc.

[bobthebuilder]

I generally look for as low as mileage as possible, and am not concerned with 'low mileage for age' etc. I correlate cost with mileage however.

I may be wrong, but in your advert I can't see any reference to the model or the mileage!

[bl52krz]

I think that sometimes mileage is immaterial, depends on many unknowns. Forget the servicing, and obviously wear starts on those parts that have not been serviced. Garaging is another unknown, especially a heated garage.A car kept in a garage versus a car kept under a lean to or canopy.If two identical cars where kept as above, one in each, and had been used for the same thing, in the same weather conditions
I would know that the car under the canopy would have less underbody corrosion. The other thing to find out is how was the car used, often, rarely, long drives, short journeys.Country area, commuting, motorways, and so on.

[Si-monogram]

Originally Posted by bobthebuilder

I generally look for as low as mileage as possible, and am not concerned with 'low mileage for age' etc. I correlate cost with mileage however.

I may be wrong, but in your advert I can't see any reference to the model or the mileage!

The pictures show the mileage

[A19_Graham]

Suppose it all depends what you're selling at the time really.