[rhudeboye]

<!--sizeo:3--><!--/sizeo-->Heres a good Friday discussion. I finally have a slow day where I can chat a bit [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif[/img]

Lets say you set off to buy a German auto. You come across 2 that you love and in your price range. There’s actually only a $500 difference between the 2 so please don’t base your decision on the asking price.

<i><b>Car A-
A 1997 with 67,000 on the odo. The car is loaded, as far as options went in 97. CD cassette combo [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif[/img]

Car B
A 2003 with 200,000 miles on the clock. This one is also loaded but it being a 2003 model you now get things like. climate control, NAV, Bluetooth, steering wheel radio controls, memory seats, actually- better seats, self adjusting side mirrors, HID headlamps, alarm switch built into the key, side curtain airbags and perhaps a few other options. </b></i>

Both cars look and run great. Neither show signs of abuse. Good paint and everything works on each car. Neither owner has a full list of the maintenance history but carfax gives both a high rating (Over 90)

So how do you reason? <!--sizec--><!--/sizec-->

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[biotechee]

I'd never buy such a newer car with that many miles. That's nearly 30 thousand miles per year. That's a lot of wear and tear on a car in such a short period of time (relatively speaking).

The 97, on the other hand, averages just over 5K miles per year. That to me seems like a decent number of miles to show the car was driven on a fairly regular basis. Of course, all of those miles could have been in a span of 3-4 years....

To be honest, I would only consider a higher mileage car if it were a special car- it would have to be unique, a classic, desireable, etc. Such as a 1970 Boss 429 Mustang. A 2003 isn't anywhere near that status yet!!! [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif[/img]

Last but not least, 200K miles with very limited records- you really are playing roulette....

The 97 all the way for me. And I could rock my college mix tapes in the cassette player! Giddyup!

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Sears]

I completely agree with biotechee, I wouldn't ever buy a newer car with that many miles, or any gasoline powered car with that many miles. Just make sure the older car is up to date (or more) on maintenance. Do your research on the front end to make sure you know the weak areas of the car and confirm they have been addressed and if they have not, negotiate downwards so as to make room in your budget to take care of them yourself.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[rhudeboye]

Good points. Miles do wear every moving part. But age is often the culprit of what deteriorates every rubber part, the fluids which keeps moving parts lubricated and functioning as well as the body and intr (sun damage, rust etc).

Do we put too much emphasis on miles? There was a member here trying to sell a 68 with about 200K not to long ago and no one would touch it. The price was a steal and the car was in good running order w upgrades.

A comparison -It's not apples to apples but youll get the point. If you were to purchase a used push mower, something that had no odo, would you be more comfortable getting a 5 year old mower or a 10 year old one? I would reason that no matter how many lawns each cut, that I would get a longer life out of the device with the newer parts. Cutting lawns dulls the blades but so does sitting in the garage and only cutting here and there.

Point is I'm not so afraid of miles anymore. I own a 1996 Land cruiser with 240,000 miles. NEVER has this thing broken down on us. My mechanic checked on it recently and it continues to get a clean bill of health. Miles are not breaking these parts down. But then again neither is age???

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[968Syncro]

I also favor the '97, and here is why. Let's take a quantitative view on the tradeoff:.

The 97 is 86% older than the 2003: (2003-1997=6). 6/7=86%
The 2003 has 199% higher miles than the 97: (200,000-67,000=133,000). 133,000/67,000=199%

So if the basic question is to evaluate if miles or years do more degradation, then the question (I think) assumes that both attributes are roughly equivalent. Of course this basic assumption discounts all the value of the addition accessories in the newer car. But in this example the years are clearly more advantageous than the miles, since viewing the advantage of each model by years and miles shows the 97 with a big advantage. I think many of us did this rough calculation intuitively in our heads as we were making a selection. Even adding a fudge factor for the accessories in the 2003 (discounting the 199% by some fudge factor) the '97 still comes out ahead.

I wonder how we would pick if the comparative percentages were more closely matched, for example a 2003 with 125,000 miles?

Roland

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Sears]

Overall condition is very important, yes. I tend to often assume that low mileage older cars have lived nice quiet garage-queen lifestyles which certainly isn't the case. So I hereby amend my above opinion. If the '97 has sat in the arizona sun since new, all bets are off.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Kim]

So I have 2 968s, both 1992s. One has about 39,000 miles on it and is in very good shape, almost new looking. No cuts, no tears, rubber looks new, underhood looks new, exhaust looks new, etc. The other has about 220,000 miles and has had just about every moving part replaced. A/C has failed in both (probably an age thing) but otherwise the stuff that has failed in the coupe with the miles is likely due to use (or abuse). Now, I have fixed all of that stuff that was wrong so, now, both work equally well. Some stuff on the coupe is now in better shape than the cab. But, when age isn't a comparison factor, then use dictates wear. And the coupe shows it age overtly whereas the coupe shows its age covertly.

BUT, I also have a 2006 Cayenne that now has about 150,000 miles, bought new. It drives like new, has no obvious wear anywhere, uses no oil and, for all intents and purposes, only differs from another 2006 in terms of miles. It has been serviced at a dealer every 10,000 miles as per the service book and whatever required fixing was fixed.

So, what is the answer?

1. What is broken can be fixed
2. what is abused may break sooner
3. what is older won't get younger
4. what is older is likely less common and may need to be bought with its blemishes if you want it.

I have no more answers, I actually forgot the question.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Monstrous4Banger]

I say ultimately it comes down to the owners, and how they treat cars. Do you know what type, and weight of oil has been used? It is pretty amazing how long modern internals last(resist wear), with the friction modifiers they are putting in oils these days. It also depends heavily on make and model. Different cars are made from different parts, and materials. All cars age differently. Some will be similar, when they are built from the same parts bins. 200k in 7 years is some use for sure. I guess it depends on condition and use of the 97. Low miles isnt necessarily good. But, just over 5100 miles a year isnt exactly low. I say investigate teh 97 more. I think it comes down to how the 97 was used, and kept up, and regularly driven. An old car could have sat for 10 years, then had 60k put on in a year. Never know unless it has records.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[rhudeboye]

'Kim'
I have no more answers, I actually forgot the question.
[img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif[/img] [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif[/img]

OK. I appreciate everyone's input

I'm looking at about 5 BMWs. All local. The 2 best looking ones are the examples above.

I'm going to pull the trigger on the 02 I just found out that the tranny has been replaced and is still under warranty. The car is still with the orig owner and has all service records. Non smoker, all gizmos work. Engine is very robust, makes the 1.8 feel like a bicycle.

There are 2 bad areas - the hood is damaged from sitting under a gum tree. The sap has completely ate through the clear in about 6 areas and had damaged the paint. Also the diverter that directs the heat to and from the front windshield to defrost it is broken. So even though the air works there is a stream of hot air going up the windshield and over your head once the engine gets warmed up.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.