Y'all seem oddly preoccupied with tyres, a consumable appendage.
Not oddly, sensibly.
If the car is on a matching set (or at least a matching pair on each axle) of decent quality tyres, it is highly unlikely that any servicing will have been missed. On the other hand, the car sitting on four mismatched cheap tyres may not prove that servicing has been neglected, but it certainly points in that direction. Neither scenario is a given, but buying an older car is always going to involve a degree of luck, so, (especially) in the absence of a service history, the more proof that the previous owner was happy/willing to spend money on it the better.
Nice to have, sure. But I doubt the fact that previous owners bought tyres, at a minimum, in pairs (as most people, in fact, do by default) really says much about its service history, (and TBH I rather doubt the importance of service history itself)
Giving tyres such prominence as a buying criterion implies one would or should walk away from what seems otherwise to be a good buy because its tyres dont match.
DMS.
Its hard enough to find an honest banger without inventing peripheral"seal of good housekeeping" hoops for it to jump through.
What matters is the answer to the two questions
Is it broken?
Is it rotten?
And service history says rather little about either of those.
The Skywing, rather astonishingly, had an extensive dealer service history, (the only car I've owned that had, IIRC) right up to when I bought it, and was admittedly in OK mechanical condition generally, but its brake fluid had possibly never been changed (I dunno if this is a Daihatsu service item) and the servicing dealer had not thought to advise the previous owners that it was about to die from rust (which I stopped).
For example, despite its extensive service history, the spare wheel well was half full of water, and evidently had been for quite a long time, because there was a toolkit partly dissolved in it.
Edited by edlithgow on 27/11/2023 at 22:28
|