Low miles or low years the best bet?

[Grindle]

A lad in our street is buying his first hot hatch having passed 25 years old and thus insurance getting towards sensible proportions.
He fancies a Golf GTI or Leon Cupra. We found 2 of the latter for sale both at £6,000. One is a 2007 with 32,000 miles covered. The other is a 2012 with 106,000 miles covered.
Which would you go for? Both have FSH.
Resale value? Would the high miles put you off, plain as that?

[Benten]

If it was me I would take the low milage.

[longblackcoat]

Depends on condition. If the higher mileage one has just plodded up and down the motorway, it may well be in better condition than the one that’s done under 3k per annum and may well have done those on urban streets.

Then again, I can’t remember the time I last bought a car with under 100k on the clocks........

[InitialDave]

Trouble is, it depends how it's done the miles. Plugging away at motorway journeys racks up the mileage, but it's very easy on cars, so I'd go and look at both and get a feel for the overall condition etc.

[mat205125]

Of that choice of a pair of cars, it will depend on what mileage he's going to add.

The premium he'll pay for the low mileage car could be wiped out in a couple years, whereas the newer car has taken a much larger hit in depreciation already.

[Grindle]

mat205125 said:

Of that choice of a pair of cars, it will depend on what mileage he's going to add.

The premium he'll pay for the low mileage car could be wiped out in a couple years, whereas the newer car has taken a much larger hit in depreciation already.

Good point.

[ninjag]

Motorway miles can be hard on the suspension but perhaps easier and cheaper to maintain and fix than engine problems.

In my view high miles can mean wear but age can mean rust etc. Tricky. But old with low miles can also introduce a higher risk of clocking.

[Whitean3]

Before reading the OP detailed post- I'd always say buy on condition.
In this specific case, I'd go with the lower miles option.

BUT- I suspect you'll find that the 6K budget is finding the extremes- i.e. newer with v high mileage (hence low price) and old, very low mileage, priced high). In other words, there is more likely a sweet spot somewhere in between in terms of age and mileage, say a 2010 model with 65000 miles.

We're not talking about a very rare car here, so a little patience will turn up some other options.

[Lukas239]

From a resale point of view, I think people care far more about miles than age.

Again though, buy in condition and consider how many miles will be added.

[Ian Geary]

To what extent did the 2012 model improve on the 2007 model?

There was an era where basic dot matrix sat navs got gradually replaced by colour screens, and the tech offer really ramped up. But I doubt a 2012 vag product would be much further ahead than a 2007 offering.

[Wooda80]

It does depend on the actual condition of the two specific cars.

The lower mileage car could have been treated like someone's pet and look and drive like a 2 year old car. Or it could have been serviced on mileage rather than time ( i.e. infrequently ) have all the corners rubbed off in parking bumps and be just about to need tyres, discs & pads, suspension, cam belt etc. Or it could be the latter painted and polished within an inch of its life to look like the former. Either way £6000 feels wrong for a 12 year old SEAT?

The 2012 car isn't really high mileage. Cars that have sat on the motorway for 20-30000 miles a year generally ( but not always ) have an easy life and tend to be well maintained. The 2012 car doesn't necessarily fall into that category, you would need to go and see it and see what its had done and what needs doing soon.

Assuming that both cars are in similar acceptable condition then look at the differences in spec / technology / appearance that the newer car may offer. If you value these go for the newer car, if you don't value the differences then go for the low miler if you honestly believe that it's priced right.

[ZX10R NIN]

In this case scenario I'd go for the lower mileage car.

[osdecar]

Just a thought to add more confusion:

People who do long commuting tend to be more aware of keeping the car in good condition, as they will be in a big trouble if the thing breaks down.

On the other hand, old age, low mileage might be a leisure/weekend car, and the owner might put better products on it.


I'd buy on condition, but if both cars look equal, I'd go for the newer one.

[TheDrownedApe]

Yeah it's subjective. I would always go for the high mileage one, assuming FSH. no tow bar, no wear and tear on the gearknob, seat sides etc.

[redguy]

I bought my Cooper SD about 6 months back, a 63 plate. Spec was far and above any other I could find.

Mileage was a little above average, but as I commute on foot, a couple of years with me, and it'll be below average!

Also meant that the car had been used - and really well maintained.

Don't think there's a one-size-fits-all answer to this - all depends on the variables.

[Mr Tidy]

Whitean3 said:

Before reading the OP detailed post- I'd always say buy on condition.
In this specific case, I'd go with the lower miles option.

BUT- I suspect you'll find that the 6K budget is finding the extremes- i.e. newer with v high mileage (hence low price) and old, very low mileage, priced high). In other words, there is more likely a sweet spot somewhere in between in terms of age and mileage, say a 2010 model with 65000 miles.

We're not talking about a very rare car here, so a little patience will turn up some other options.

I think that is what I'd be trying to do - high mileage cars can be hard to sell, and ones barely used often seem to suffer from issues simply due to lack of use.

But at the end of the day condition and history are the key bits - and if buying privately the impression you get from the seller!

[Wagonwheel555]

Too many variables to make a straight forward decision purely on miles.