What is high mileage for a petrol + diesel when buying a car

[Liquid Tuna]

ambuletz said:

It's strange really, I'd put more faith into buying a Honda accord/civic at 100k miles then I would a mondeo/focus.
Likewise I'd put more faith into a focus/mondeo at 100k then I would a clio or alfa.

I bought a Mk1 Petrol Mondeo 10 years ago with 60k miles on it. Last year it went past 250k miles. Nothing broke in ten years. Not even a sensor. It never let me down and never missed a beat. I changed the oil every 5k but did minimal servicing. It was the body that let it down in the end (good old Ford rusty arches). If an old Ford petrol (Zetec mind, not those awful CVH engines lol) can do 250k, pretty much anything built in the last 10 years should, no excuses really.

[renrut]

I've got a 11yr old 120K mile NA petrol jag and that engine still runs like new. The body isn't great but its more mistreatment than mileage. And I was looking at a diesel Honda CRV last week with only 20K miles and only 3 yrs old and it had all the signs of impending turbo failure (nasty whistly noise under load and cloud of black soot). So an arguably unreliable brand with petrol engine is more reliable than a reliable brand diesel engine, YMMV.

Still went for a CRV as SWMBO loved it, just not one that has had the life flogged out of it on short runs.

I've had other diesel engined cars in the past and its generally turbo/fuelling problems that give the grief which you obviously don't get on petrol NA engines. I suspect when petrol DI becomes more common they'll go the same way as the diesels. But then the manufacturers don't want you to keep your car for ever...

[Riknos]

Depends on the manufacturer - I wouldn't touch a French car over 100k, but constantly see/hear about Japanese cars going above 200k with no problems, with 300, 400, 500k all possible, so that's where my money would be



P.S. - I always said that in a few decades time, when all of the MX-5s have rusted away to dust, the engine and gearbox will still be going

[aka_kerrly]

Riknos said:

Depends on the manufacturer - I wouldn't touch a French car over 100k, but constantly see/hear about Japanese cars going above 200k with no problems, with 300, 400, 500k all possible, so that's where my money would be



P.S. - I always said that in a few decades time, when all of the MX-5s have rusted away to dust, the engine and gearbox will still be going

Silly comment.

Every car and I mean every car can be as reliable as the amount of preventative maintenance it receives especially those built within the last 20 odd years.

With the majority of cars being galvanised the only obvious reason for rusted shells is neglect and accident damage, modern engine are built with fine tolerances which would suggest lack of maintenance is most likely cause of failure and other component failures are mostly age related or in the case of suspension/steering components the poor condition of our roads!

With that in mind nearly every car ought to be capable of going to the moon (230k)

[Bombshell]

This is a really interesting forum which I discovered by accident. Thank you so much for all this information. My father would probably have answered this question for me had he been alive but reading the posts on here has helped clarify a few things.

I was always of the opinion that I should steer clear of a petrol car with more than 100k on the clock but can see that this might well be one of those outdated myths which prevent us from making sensible informed choices. I've been offered a 2001 petrol golf estate which has done 115k. It's clean and has been well maintained and regularly serviced but it's owner wants in the region of £1100 for it - which feels a bit 'top-endy'. As someone who never tinkers under the bonnet and therefore has to pay garage rates for all repairs and servicing, would I perhaps be better opting for a diesel, or for a petrol car with lower mileage?

[Art0ir]

jbi said:

So the answer is obviously...

Buy a Defender

When a bit fails and drops off.... fit a new one.

They live forever.

A bit like Trigger's broom

Bombshell said:

This is a really interesting forum which I discovered by accident. Thank you so much for all this information. My father would probably have answered this question for me had he been alive but reading the posts on here has helped clarify a few things.

I was always of the opinion that I should steer clear of a petrol car with more than 100k on the clock but can see that this might well be one of those outdated myths which prevent us from making sensible informed choices. I've been offered a 2001 petrol golf estate which has done 115k. It's clean and has been well maintained and regularly serviced but it's owner wants in the region of £1100 for it - which feels a bit 'top-endy'. As someone who never tinkers under the bonnet and therefore has to pay garage rates for all repairs and servicing, would I perhaps be better opting for a diesel, or for a petrol car with lower mileage?

Thanks to Euro IV & V, I would argue modern diesel engines are less reliable than their naturally aspirated petrol counterparts.

My V8 Jeep just clocked 140k miles and I would be very disappointed if it didn't make 200k without a catastrophic failure (if I keep it that long).

[Funkateer]

In the past I have driven 4 normally aspirated diesel Astravans over 250000 miles each, and they were still fine after all those miles, apart from one that had a sticky valve (and hence 3 cylinders) when the engine was cold.

However:

• Most journeys were on motorways and trunk roads over long distances.
• There was less maintenance to to than petrol as it was just before the time when ECUs became prevalent in diesels.
• Dual mass flywheels hadn't been invented.

Generally the petrol engined vehicles I drove needed something major doing in a fraction of the time.

These days, I'm not so sure, what with all this high pressure common rail stuff and expensive bits to go wrong...

The last 2 diesel daily drivers have made it to 140000 miles with only the flywheel needing replacing on my previous vehicle a couple of years back. Engines were both fine. Friends who have taken petrol cars up to (and over) similar mileages recently have had no major issues.

With my mileage, the money saved on fuel over the life of the vehicle outweighs the cost of a flywheel job so diesel still wins over petrol in my case.

[22rgt B Squadron]

A taxi driver friend only just sold on his one owner from new X plate Omega (2.5 BMW diesel) with 487K miles on it. Original engine (never been apart) and gearbox and still ran superbly. Just purely down to maintenance..

[bigfatnick]

When I lived in Canada, we had a 1993 ford econoline with a petrol V8, it had 370 thousand km on it, it ran fine. And with Canadas lack of a MOT, it was fine to run on forever with dropped to bits suspension bushes, impressive rust, rear brakes we didn't think worked, ruined electric windows. The MOT stops us owning cars like this

Steameh said:

What about a petrol hybrid, there are a few GS450H knocking about with 120k on for sale, would you have any issues buying one from a reliability perspective?

My old boss in Australia runs taxi's. He ran prius's. Never used to have any problems with them, had a couple at 400 thousand km but generally they would be involved in an accident before they died. I'd run a prius as a day to day car in the uk.

[Face for Radio]

My E36 M3 had 170,000miles on it when I sold it. It didn't burn any oil and it was still a fast and strong car.

Partner's aunt has a 54 plate Corsa with about 45,000miles on it, and it is absolutely shagged.

Maintenance.

[vit4]

It really does depend on not just the car, but how it's been maintained as well. As an example, my mum has a 1.4 mk1 Focus on something like 133k. She got it on 111k and the last service in the book was 36k, it had received a botched gearbox replacement but was cheap enough that it made sense to take a gamble and get the gearbox sorted. It is used almost exclusively for town work and my mum isn't the most gentle of drivers. It uses oil and water and I suspect is coming towards the end of its life (although I've expected that for well over a year now so what do I know ). Having said that the car does keep on going, it's never broken down and the rest of it is still extremely solid so I can't fault the car itself, just this particular example is a bit fubbared.

The flipside is, in Lanzarote I was in a Mercedes W124 250D with 972,000 km on it! That was still gliding along like new; it really is all due to maintenance.

[vit4]

Another thought I've just had.

Now, personally I would be wary of modern diesels (my dad has a 2005 Fabia with the PD lump, and I think that's about as late as I would go to be honest). But, as petrols increasingly head towards smaller capacities and turbocharging as well, will their longetivity suffer as well?

[Beeby]

When I passed my driving test in 1996 I bought a 1986 D registration Ford Escort 1.4. It had 144,000 miles on it when I bought it and when I sold it in 1999 it had 172,000 miles on it. It burnt a bit of oil but certainly not excessively. If a 1986 car can do 172,000 miles and still be running then a modern petrol car will easily go over 200,000.
This is it:

Edited by Beeby on Sunday 17th March 13:49

[Evo]

I'll agree it's all about the maintenance, I recently bought a runaround volvo 850 with 175'000 miles on it, it had every receipt, sales invoice, and service invoice from new including the original sales advert, I paid £400 for it, the car was immaculate and mechanically drove without a knock, rattle or anything else. If it were an estate I'd have kept it, my replacement E class isn't any near as mechanically sorted.

[Buff Mchugelarge]

My mx5 is approaching 200k miles and is fine.
I bought it at 198k miles.


Touch wood!

[Slow]

Just bought a 1983 1.5l turbo, 133k indicated miles, however looking through the old docs it had 119k in 1998.

So my guess is its at 233k and it still runs great.



Had a full rebuild though.

[Fastdruid]

I've just sold my 1998 Mk2 petrol mondeo at 173k, bought it at 96k.

Engine was sweet, only failure was a coil pack, and even then it still ran on 3 and got me home. Burnt a tiny bit of oil but well well under spec and probably mostly because I thraped it everywhere. Just checked about once a month and topped up if needed.

I've no doubt it could easily make 200k. There were only two things stopped working on the car, the left heated mirror and the service light (which could *not* get to go out). Everything else worked, even the aircon was cold. (ignoring that some ham-fisted idiot previous owner had ripped off the visor mirror covers which meant the lights in them didn't work).

[vit4]

Slow said:

Just bought a 1983 1.5l turbo, 133k indicated miles, however looking through the old docs it had 119k in 1998.

So my guess is its at 233k and it still runs great.



Had a full rebuild though.

If you check the MOT history online it might show whether it has been around the clock or just been used sparingly

[Gixer]

Have a 2.0l petrol with over 311,000 miles on the clock. Still runs well, dosent burn oil and the only non serviceable item on the engine was the accessory belt idler pulley that had to be replaced at around 190k. Always serviced at manufacturers recamended intervals and always had Castrol magnetic semi syn in it.

[JulesB]

If you buy something with a rotary engine the sky is the limit, there is no such thing as high miles with them, they never ever go wrong. Ever.

This is not sarcasm at all... Honest!