Anyone with a 200k+ miles petrol car
Discussion
greenarrow said:
stogbandard said:
My 1999 VW Passat 1.8t made it to 285,000 when I sold it on. Original turbo too. The only major issue was a gearbox refurb at 180,000 at which point I thought it would make sense to have the original clutch done.
It was using a small amount of oil about a pint every 1,000 miles which never bothered me as it always used oil.
Good solid cars those 1.8t passats. I often wished I had persevered with mine (2003 version), but a few niggling faults meant I moved it on at 130K miles. It soldiered onto 161K with its new owner but seems to have disappeared from the MOT history register now. I think I would rather have one of these older 1.8 turbos than the newer TFSI ones which are renowned for excessive oil consumption!It was using a small amount of oil about a pint every 1,000 miles which never bothered me as it always used oil.
V6todayEVmanana said:
Having a chat with a mechanic and he mentioned that if my petrol engine made it to 200K miles that would be exceptional and I am very lucky.
He expected the big end or piston seals to fail on a petrol car by then.
Here are some good examples from the US...He expected the big end or piston seals to fail on a petrol car by then.
Million mile Lexus LS400:
https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a28991860...
Half million mile Accord (in the hands of one owner)
https://tsxtravels.wordpress.com/about/
Generally, large-engined non-turbo cars are the safest bet, and regular servicing is important.
I don't know how the latest generation of small turbo engines will fare at high mileages. I know the trade has a dim view of the Ford Ecoboost.
Unless the mechanic in the OP was only talking about the latest highly stressed small capacity turbo engines, I reckon he talking rubbish.
My missus has a 1999 V70 2.5 5 pot (non turbo).
It’s on about 230K miles and is still going strong. I change the oil & filter for her every 6k miles or so (decent oil – Castol or similar - and genuine Volvo filter). I see no reason why it won’t rack up another 200k miles with no major issues.
Older engines will go on for a long time IF you take the time to look after them.
Of course, in todays the-ashtray-is-full-so-throw-it-way society not everyone wants to/can be bothered to look after a car.
The B20 lump in my 1969/70 Volvo Amazon has over 200k miles on it… and I’m not worried about that giving up the ghost anytime soon. Damn thing will probably out live me!
My missus has a 1999 V70 2.5 5 pot (non turbo).
It’s on about 230K miles and is still going strong. I change the oil & filter for her every 6k miles or so (decent oil – Castol or similar - and genuine Volvo filter). I see no reason why it won’t rack up another 200k miles with no major issues.
Older engines will go on for a long time IF you take the time to look after them.
Of course, in todays the-ashtray-is-full-so-throw-it-way society not everyone wants to/can be bothered to look after a car.
The B20 lump in my 1969/70 Volvo Amazon has over 200k miles on it… and I’m not worried about that giving up the ghost anytime soon. Damn thing will probably out live me!
Limpet said:
It’s all about proper servicing and avoiding constant short journeys.
Agreed.Engines which make short, stop-start journeys are likely to have shorter lifespans.
People are more likely to buy a petrol car for those types of journeys, so petrol cars tend to have the most unfavourable driving conditions which will make them appear to be less able to cope with big miles.
MrMoonyMan said:
This picture reminds me... So many people believe that cars lose power over the years... Possibly because of Top Gear. A mate of mine was convinced his new car with ~240ps would be more powerful than my car which left the factory 60k miles earlier with ~300ps (and had been meticulously maintained). Until you get into worn bearings/leaky rings territory then there is no reason why a well maintained car (ie consumables replaced when they should be, adjustments adjusted as required) would make significantly less power, and I'd suggest any changes would be well within the error bars of a Dyno test.
In years ago by, back in the carb days, he might have had a point. Back then when fuelling wasn’t as accurate as it today there was a chance for a small amount of bore wash and oil dilution that diesels didn’t suffer from as they basically run on oil.
Anything built with electronic injection, and properly maintained, there would be no difference between petrol or diesel.
In fact I’d argue there is more of a chance of the diesel dying first because of all the soot they are forced to ingest to pass emissions tests.
Anything built with electronic injection, and properly maintained, there would be no difference between petrol or diesel.
In fact I’d argue there is more of a chance of the diesel dying first because of all the soot they are forced to ingest to pass emissions tests.
Aiminghigh123 said:
I think the reason we don’t see as many high mileage petrol cars is not many people doing big miles with petrols in the country at least.
USA loads of petrol cars with ridiculously high mileage.
Yes. The average lifespan of a car in the UK is 14 years according to data from a few years ago (https://www.smmt.co.uk/industry-topics/sustainability/average-vehicle-age/)USA loads of petrol cars with ridiculously high mileage.
Not many people do consistently high annual mileages over the life of their car to get it up to 200k miles. Cars are more likely to expensively fail the MOT due to structural rust or bad sensors/electrics rather than a dead engine.
Megaflow said:
In years ago by, back in the carb days, he might have had a point. Back then when fuelling wasn’t as accurate as it today there was a chance for a small amount of bore wash and oil dilution that diesels didn’t suffer from as they basically run on oil.
Anything built with electronic injection, and properly maintained, there would be no difference between petrol or diesel.
In fact I’d argue there is more of a chance of the diesel dying first because of all the soot they are forced to ingest to pass emissions tests.
Ignoring individual examples where they've got inherent issues (eg ones with common cam chain/belt failures which take out engines and is just as likely with petrol engines) I'd say less likely actually _dying_ and more just running into an expensive fault where it's just not worth fixing. For example DMF's, DPF's, leaky injectors, gummed up/dead turbo's, snapped glow plugs etc. Anything built with electronic injection, and properly maintained, there would be no difference between petrol or diesel.
In fact I’d argue there is more of a chance of the diesel dying first because of all the soot they are forced to ingest to pass emissions tests.
On the subject of petrol cars my dad ran his 1989 BX19 GTI (8v) to 260k before he sold it. He did take the head off it once, re-lapped the valves and replaced the stem seals but original bottom end, original gearbox etc. The bodywork was falling apart mind but the engine still ran fine.
My old 2006 Subaru Outback 3.0 was on 280 something thousand when I left it under a tree at my house and Glis Glis got into the engine bay and ate all the wiring. I also just had my daily driver 850 T5 written off (some nutter T Boned me on the way to work the other day) and that was on 235k. Will miss that car, and still miss the outback. Loved it.
I had a 2.0 16v Passat with 293000 miles on it, if you booted it, it would smoke a little bit but still ran fine. It was just annoying little things like leaky oil seals in the distributor that would make it hard to start on cold days and brittle vacuum lines that made it a bit too flaky to run as a daily so ended up selling it. Do regret getting rid of it though.
Coming up to 210k on my Alfa Romeo Spider.
This is the benefit of buying something with a reputation for solid build quality, reliability and corrosion resistance. Built to last.
Disappointingly it broke a couple of years ago and needed a Flatbed to bring it home. Just the once though.
This is the benefit of buying something with a reputation for solid build quality, reliability and corrosion resistance. Built to last.
Disappointingly it broke a couple of years ago and needed a Flatbed to bring it home. Just the once though.
donkmeister said:
This picture reminds me... So many people believe that cars lose power over the years... Possibly because of Top Gear. A mate of mine was convinced his new car with ~240ps would be more powerful than my car which left the factory 60k miles earlier with ~300ps (and had been meticulously maintained). Until you get into worn bearings/leaky rings territory then there is no reason why a well maintained car (ie consumables replaced when they should be, adjustments adjusted as required) would make significantly less power, and I'd suggest any changes would be well within the error bars of a Dyno test.
Never done that in mine. The shells are old so until I build anew engine I'll stick to 130 and then stick it in cruise lol. ;-)Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff