Old cars vs leggy cars

[ismellburning]

Hello everyone,

My venerable shed looks to be on its last legs.

Not having learned my lesson/made a lot of money I'm looking at "new" sheds.

I've found one which is is old (13 years) but has only averaged less than 2,000 miles per year.

Hypothetically, which would people prefer: a car with low miles but getting on a bit, or a newer car with galactic mileage?

Obviously I'll "buy on condition" but interested to know what the gut reaction of the learned PH massive is.

Thanks!

[Toaster Pilot]

Younger the better for shed motoring I find (to a point - buying before they are filled with all sorts of electrical crap is key)

My 1999 Felicia at 167k miles runs a lot better than a 1996 Golf on 90k that I had, both bought for shed money. Granted both are getting on a lot!

[torres del paine]

I prefer young and leggy to old

[Vladimir]

Depends; we sold our 1986 Golf GTI at 12 years old with 180k; it hardly missed a beat.
Some idle cars are just better built than their newer versions especially Mercs.

[Snowboy]

Depends on what's been done.

My Disco had 130k on the clock and was 8 years old.
Discos have a huge list of stuff that breaks around 100k miles.
But, every one of them had been done at 100k at a local specialist

So, it was a much better bet for me than the one that was 2 years newer, has 85k on the clock and cost several K more.

[TLandCruiser]

depends if the car has full service history and has been maintained correctly...ie replacing worn parts instead of keep on going! then I would pick a younger car with higher millage.

[With these feet]

Had a couple of 12/13 yr old cars with low miles - less than 2k PA.
Long as they have been serviced and arent "barn finds"- which is a stupid term in my book, then apart from getting wheel cylinders and other rubber that perishes checked over, often they are just like new inside.

I picked up an '01 Transit bus a while back with 45k on the clock from an after-school club.
Needed a polish and a few items fixing for £300 but was still over £1500 cheaper than equivalent stuff second hand and had under half the miles of the 05 ones - 100k up,with rust, I was looking at. Now on 67k rechipped and did solid clutch conversion it should do a few more years.

High miles to me may well show that its been serviced, but every part on a car has a lifespan and when youre getting into 2-300K the chances of failure though fatigue are higher than with say an older car with 1/4 the miles.

[Engineer1]

The oldest car has more potential for things failing due to age and general conditions, the leggy car provided it has been well serviced and isn't being punted on before an expensive service is required

[vit4]

Depends if the car has been serviced on mileage or time - an older low mileage car that's been serviced annually for me. The only issue is that after a certain age parts become a bit of an issue, but even that will vary massively between brands and models (a 10 year old Daewoo may well be harder to get parts for than a 20 year old Ford, for example).

[With these feet]

Engineer1 said:

The oldest car has more potential for things failing due to age and general conditions, the leggy car provided it has been well serviced and isn't being punted on before an expensive service is required

I dont generally agree with that. A 10 year old car with annual servicing does 30k. So 10 services, 7 MOT's and 3k PA
A 3 yr old car does 10k a year. Probably only had 1 service (18k the norm?) no MOT yet due to age.

10 yr old car has had more servicing and inspections at MOT than the 3 yr old one.

Then if you say the newer car is doing 30k PA - mileage is 90k even before its first MOT, 60k more of potential pot holes and wear and tear that the 30k car has not had, but should in theory be capable of.

Add to the equation the older lower mileage cars have depreciated to a point that many dealers dont want them on their forecorts and are pretty good bargains, where as a 4 or 5 yr old car, especially if its a current model, will pretty much be as near to book price as the dealer dare.

[ManOpener]

With these feet said:

Engineer1 said:

The oldest car has more potential for things failing due to age and general conditions, the leggy car provided it has been well serviced and isn't being punted on before an expensive service is required

I dont generally agree with that. A 10 year old car with annual servicing does 30k. So 10 services, 7 MOT's and 3k PA
A 3 yr old car does 10k a year. Probably only had 1 service (18k the norm?) no MOT yet due to age.

10 yr old car has had more servicing and inspections at MOT than the 3 yr old one.

Then if you say the newer car is doing 30k PA - mileage is 90k even before its first MOT, 60k more of potential pot holes and wear and tear that the 30k car has not had, but should in theory be capable of.

Add to the equation the older lower mileage cars have depreciated to a point that many dealers dont want them on their forecorts and are pretty good bargains, where as a 4 or 5 yr old car, especially if its a current model, will pretty much be as near to book price as the dealer dare.

Problem is that lots of people service on mileage but not on age. So your 10 year old, 3k miles per year example may have only had one service too!

[ismellburning]

ManOpener said:

Problem is that lots of people service on mileage but not on age. So your 10 year old, 3k miles per year example may have only had one service too!

This is my worry.

Some really interesting responses here.

Just to throw another amateur shed question in: if the most recent MOT certificate of a car is a pass and has no advisories do you view that as a) a good thing or b) neither here nor there?

To me option a) seems correct but I may be missing something.

[Buff Mchugelarge]

ManOpener said:

With these feet said:

Engineer1 said:

The oldest car has more potential for things failing due to age and general conditions, the leggy car provided it has been well serviced and isn't being punted on before an expensive service is required

I dont generally agree with that. A 10 year old car with annual servicing does 30k. So 10 services, 7 MOT's and 3k PA
A 3 yr old car does 10k a year. Probably only had 1 service (18k the norm?) no MOT yet due to age.

10 yr old car has had more servicing and inspections at MOT than the 3 yr old one.

Then if you say the newer car is doing 30k PA - mileage is 90k even before its first MOT, 60k more of potential pot holes and wear and tear that the 30k car has not had, but should in theory be capable of.

Add to the equation the older lower mileage cars have depreciated to a point that many dealers dont want them on their forecorts and are pretty good bargains, where as a 4 or 5 yr old car, especially if its a current model, will pretty much be as near to book price as the dealer dare.

Problem is that lots of people service on mileage but not on age. So your 10 year old, 3k miles per year example may have only had one service too!

I'd made up my mind. but now I'm not so sure!

[ManOpener]

I don't mind seeing advisories for brake performance if there's a later receipt detailing new disks/pads. I don't really care about advisories for stone chips on the windscreen, but mostly because I've received advisories even when they've been repaired!. Tyres, bushes and other things I don't mind seeing advisories for either.

I find fails for blown bulbs and balding or damaged tyres and even minor (advisory) problems with or excess play in suspension components very off-putting as they tend to show a lackadaisical attitude towards preventative maintenance.

Generally I like to see as clean a sheet as possible, but if I see nothing but "no advisory" responses for 5-10 years all from the same garage I tend to get a bit suspicious. The odd minor advisory and MOTs from, say, 3 different garages over 10 years is the best balance IMO.

Edited by ManOpener on Monday 16th December 17:20

[Matt UK]

torres del paine said:

I prefer young and leggy to old

Yup, I also prefer young and leggy.

Seriously though, high-milage cars don't scare me so long as the service history is up to scratch. If the previous owner did a lot of miles it suggests the car was important to them and hence they'd notice / sort things that needed doing.

Older, low milage cars at the same price such as Doris who only goes to church in it every Sunday... no, not for me.

[fjord]

I got a shock the other day.

Bought a 320d last year, 2004 with only 45k on the clock.

Only noticed the other day when I found the service book, that due to a huge drop in miles, it once went 3 years without a serice!

This is the problem with setting a car up to be serviced on distance rather than time.

[T16OLE]

I think I`d prefer high mileage and slightly newer, within reason

[With these feet]

This is where the internet to check MOT history / advisories and a full service history is essential!
There are cars out there that have had the required service each year.

Bland 1.4 Civic 5 door I bought was doing between 800 and 1200 a year between servicing and MOT time. Had a new belt 6 months before I bought it, new dampers and oddly enough an advisory on the trailing arm bushes that repeated for 2 MOTs but then disappeared but were not replaced! Went through another while I was there and the tester said they were looking old but not worthy of an advisory. 27,000 with last 10 years at the same garage. Stacks of paperwork and interior unmarked.
Ok so it wasnt an Audi or BMW, had 14" alloys instead of 17" but was on the button, clean and you could leave it anywhere.
Guy who bought it from me put it through a test and was astounded not to have to spend anything on it.(Mainly because all the other cars he had would cost a few £100 each MOT)

Go look on Autotrader for sub £2k and 40k miles. Obviously there are some wkers advertising 0 miles or dropping the last digits off the mileage but there are some genuine low mileage daily drivers on there.


edit to add - As an example, Focus owned by old chap, FFSH. 26k and £1700.
http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2013...

Edited by With these feet on Monday 16th December 20:03

[Engineer1]

With these feet said:

Engineer1 said:

The oldest car has more potential for things failing due to age and general conditions, the leggy car provided it has been well serviced and isn't being punted on before an expensive service is required

I dont generally agree with that. A 10 year old car with annual servicing does 30k. So 10 services, 7 MOT's and 3k PA
A 3 yr old car does 10k a year. Probably only had 1 service (18k the norm?) no MOT yet due to age.

10 yr old car has had more servicing and inspections at MOT than the 3 yr old one.

Then if you say the newer car is doing 30k PA - mileage is 90k even before its first MOT, 60k more of potential pot holes and wear and tear that the 30k car has not had, but should in theory be capable of.

Add to the equation the older lower mileage cars have depreciated to a point that many dealers dont want them on their forecorts and are pretty good bargains, where as a 4 or 5 yr old car, especially if its a current model, will pretty much be as near to book price as the dealer dare.

The mileage is largely irrelevant as the components are 3 years old so shouldn't be rusty, in my experience of running older cars rubbers perish with AGE not mileage, components tend to faigue and rust to the point of failure with AGE not mileage. Also a 3 year old 90k car is likely to be dealer serviced all the way and had any major issues resolved under warranty.

[kambites]

For me it depends on the car. I'd have no problem buying a 13 year-old Elise which had done 2000 miles a year or a 5 year-old 7-series which had done 40k miles a year; however, I wouldn't pay nearly as much for a 200k mile Elise or 13 year-old 7-series.