I think a full service history, backed up with dealer records, combined with old MOT's and servicing receipts might assist in knowing the difference. If you do your research you should be ok.
In the same vein how do you know that really high mileage car is not now merely a high mileage car = Just as i describe above.
So you would rather buy a high mileage car because it is less likely to have been clocked?!
|
I don't think it's so much that the mileage is low, but that the car has gone for 3 years without so much as an oil change.
With such a low mileage though, there is the issue of the engine never havign reached operating temperature, which hardly helps.
|
Oh i agree with you there BB about 3 years and no service,
i was asking more generally about buying any car is more preferable with either low or high mileage
|
|
I suppose, assuming all other things (servicing, etc.) were equal, you'd go for the low mileage model. If the mileage was adnormally low though, perhaps have a think about it first.
|
|
|
When I was a young student, I was lucky enough to have a car bought for me by my parents. They were not mechanically minded, and to them a four year old mini clubman with 6,800 miles on the clock was a good deal - one owner known to the family, little old lady school teacher who drove less that four miles a day and up to the Lake District once or twice a year.
I had to replace all the heater control, choke and bonnet release cables because they were seized solid
I don't think the wheels had ever been off in four years, and trying to get the brake drums off was a four cuss marks job
The cylinder head had to be seriously decoked and the engine had been run over such a limited rev range that there was so much grime on the outside of the carb that it stopped some parts using the full extent of their travel, and the SU carb had to be rebuilt (*), and even after that, it was never a 'sweet' or particularly economical runner in comparison with other example of the same model
(forgotten the name, but the big needly thing had wear due to lack of use throughout the range)
--
you have to get out of the car sometime
so visit www.mikes-walks.co.uk
|
A 50,000 miler used for reasonable or longer journeys will prove a better buy, in most cases, than a 5,000 miler only used for short trips, with the engine never getting hot enough.
None of the last three cars I bought had less than 46,500 miles on the clock (all were three years old) and the highest figure was 66,500 miles on a 1.3 four-speed box Jetta C.
All have proved 99 per cent reliable and came with full service records and history.
Modern vehicles, combined with today\'s superior fuels, oils and filters stand hard use quite easily if properly serviced and maintained.
|
Separate from the technical benefits (or otherwise) of higher mileage is the question of value for money.
If a low mileage car is 90% of the new one and costs £10,000 and a higher mileage one is 70% but costs £5,000, then the higher mileage one would appear to be the better deal. I'm not suggesting anything by the percentages, just illustrating the point.
I speak as an advocate of young, but high mileage cars, so I may have been biased in choosing the figures above.
V
|
I bought a high mileage car - 110k.
It was 4 years old at the time and had a full main dealer service history. Becuase it had spent more or less its entire life on the Motorway, wear and tear to seats, steering wheeel, interior trim etc etc was mininal. It has probably done the same amount of trips as a low mileage car, but each trip would be 100-150 miles or more rather than 5 miles.
The leather steering wheel shows no signs of wear, unlike the wheel on the 50,000 mile example of the same car we sold a few years back, which spent its entire life driving around town.
I'd imagine wear on the clutch etc etc is also considerably less on cars which spend their time at 80mph in 5th than cars that do half the miles, but at 30mph crawling around town.
Oh, and there is the small matter of the £2000 I saved on the book price as a result of the high mileage.
|
>>Oh, and there is the small matter of the £2000 I saved on the book price as a result of the high mileage.
And any old fool with an electic drill (or whatever the fashionable accessory is these days) could have added the 2k back on!
|
Like many folk here, I've bought my fair share of high mileage cars as the only way to afford the car I wanted, such as a Mercedes E-class estate, or a Shogun.
However, buying it is easy - it's the selling/part exchanging of it later that's the problem...
In my experience a dealer will, fiscally speaking, knee-cap you if you p/ex a high miler, whilst the private punter will want it for next to nothing.
As long as you run your high miles bargain into the ground, or do low than average miles in it over many years you will even things out when you resell.
The trade are very keen to extol the virtues of high mileage cars but the public at large is very wary.
A few thousand pounds saved when buying the car is certainly lost when you trade it in?
|
Depends on what you are after. If it's going to be a commuter hack then I wouldn't mind something with lowish miles so I can a) pile them on myself and b) in doing so, get the engine back where it should have been.
Or should that be "buy the high miler and keep treating it the same way"?
I'm going to run the Alfa into the ground if I go ahead and buy a luxury/sports car as a plaything in the next 18 months. When it goes I'll probably head to the auctions looking for a 3-4 year old Mondeo/Focus or similar with 100k+ on the clock and just run it until the wheels fall off whilst having a nice car for weekends and holidays.
Not quite bangernomics, but heading in the right direction?
|
I was thinking something similar to ND myself.
Imagine you do a very high mileage.
When buying yourself a s/h car, should you therefore:
a) buy a very low mileage car, to even things out a bit
b) buy a high mileage car - after all, when you sell it, it'll be high mileage, so you'll lose money, so what's the point in paying extra for it being low mileage now?
Equally, what's the right decision if you do low mileage?
My yearly mileage used to be about 8,000. In that situation, I bought a car which had a slightly low mileage, knowing that when I came to sell it it would have a pretty average one. Therefore I bought it cheaper than book price, but would be able to sell it at dead on book price. Theoretically, at least.
It didn't work out brilliantly, since when I did come to sell it, book price was about £300.
|
The ideal compromise is probably "low mileage fleet," i.e., 60 - 80k of motorway miles. You just don't want that to be "high mileage town."
The most reliable used cars my father has had have been highish mileage Audis: the worst was a low mileage (18k) four year old Rover 214 Si that he put 70k on in just over three years.
Both my cars have been rather old when bought, but on the low side of average miles (76k at 12 years and 96k at 8 years, but a big diesel).
|
>>Not quite
Pretty much. Welcome!
(I believe the Sunday Times is planning to do an article on Bangernomics sometime soon. Careful, the price of second hand cars might be about to go up.) But I don't think there has ever been a better time to run an old car. The reliability & quality of German cars of the 80's spilled over into the products of virtually all other manufacturers by the early 90's. An early/mid 90's car won't rust - it's probably galvanised. Its engine is good for 200k - even a 1.0 Metro. And best of all, it has none of patently's pointless features to go wrong. It's not entirely obvious to me at the moment which of the new cars today will be the best to be buying in a decade.
I love the way that when I park next to a brand new £30k Audi A6 Avant in the car park, I know that the only thing that mine won't do that it will it depreciate.
|
Pretty much every car depreciates MM. regardless. its just a question scale.
|
I disagree, Phoenicks. An old car will tend towards its scrap value as the MOT approaches. A car with no MOT is worth what a scrapper will pay for it. The moment it gets a new MOT, it appreciates by about 200-600, depending on the car. Estate cars seem to be worth up to £40/month; large saloons £20; small hatches £15.
So a 1983 MKii Polo, no MOT - valueless. Possible negative value owing to scrapping costs, depending on location.
MKii Polo, full MOT - £200 - less any scrapping costs.
1992 Audi 100, no MOT - £300
full MOT - £800.
And it will do this year after year, with the value diminishing towards the MOT date, and revaluation coinciding with the MOT.
|
Interesting point there Mapmaker.
I'm a high mileage fan. I bought a 5-year old Volvo with 180,000 miles and FSH. It is now on 302,000 miles, increasing at 20,000 pa. It has let me down only once (dirty fuel pump fuse) and has had no major attention or repairs, just regular servicing and oil changes.
I intend keeping it until it dies, then probably just popping in a spare engine or whatever it needs.
|
It is possible to disagree with another poster without insulting them. Think before you post and leave the mud slinging to the 5 year olds......
|
|
Agreed Duchess. Go back and read some of his insults before you comment. I think you'll find i'm treating him as he treats others.
|
Woah there!
That was a bit unnecessary, wasn't it?
Shouldn't we be having discussions here rather than arguments?
I think Mapmakers point, and a true one, is that, once it reaches a certain age, a car is basically worthless.
How then will it depreciate?
When I got my Alfa, I traded in a Mitsubishi Colt Gti, which was over 10 years old, with 130,000 on the clock. The garage gave me £300 for it.
Do you think that's because that's what they could get for it?
I doubt it. The car was, to them, worth nothing. It could have been another 3 years older and they'd still have offered me £300, becuase that's what they judged as an amount to offer to get them the sale.
|
My point was genuine in its thoughts. Depreciation is different to what you get or pay for something. We\'re talking true value in respect of the vehicle. With regards to your car that was the value of the deal, not the value of the car i take it. Did you pay £300 for it - no, you paid mroe which means it depreciated. and there is then the assumption you would have still got £300 3 years later. did you know that for a fact?
|
My point was genuine in its thoughts. Depreciation is different to what you get or pay for something. We\'re talking true value in respect of the vehicle.
Are we?? I'm not. I couldn't care less what 'the true value' of my car is, if it doesn't bear any relation to the actual price I am going to pay/get for it.
And I had thought about selling the Colt a year earlier and had got much the same offer for the part/x value.
In fact, judging the value to be static, I had decided to keep it indefinetely, but changed my plan when it started giving me the feeling it wasn't going to last much longer.
|
Phoenicks. Several interesting points there - and I'm not quite sure what it was I wrote that has irritated you so much - particularly as you repeat my own point: It has depreciated to get the point of being worth £100!!! Quite! It is fully depreciated, and its residual value is £100. Well done!
Firstly, you ask if I know any car that goes up in value. The answer (save as you rightly point out for classics) is of course no. But a valueless car cannot go down in value!
Secondly, you would like some backup for my numbers.
Lets go back to the MK ii Polo, and look for some real examples on eBay - which (as has been agreed on this forum before) is probably the closest we have to a perfect market.
valueless
Here is a1990 Polo. No MOT. £11.50 2486702889
Another 2486404360 at £16 - 1990, no MOT.
£200
Now, for £180 (reserve not met) we have 12 months MOT on a 1990 Polo 2486812649
And for £205, (reserve not met - i.e. over optimistic) 2486709466 with 7 months MOT.
Yes, of course it might cost you £600 to get your £11.50 car through an MOT - more than the car is worth. You're absolutely correct. But it's still only worth £200 or so after you've done it - so you would probably not recommend that we do it!
But after you've put it through the MOT, it is worth only £200, so effectively £15ish per month of MOT.
Now to the AUDI 100 Avant (which as a scarcer car might be a bit more difficult to illustrate as convincingly). In fact, there hasn't been a non-runner on eBay for ages, as I'm quite keen to find one to keep my own one going for a few more years. I was, however, offered an MOT failure for £295, but it was in West Wales which was rather a long way to go for it! Here's one currently for sale that hasn't attracted any interest so far at £500 - though there are 2 days to go, and there's not much wrong with it 2486992355.
You could spend £6,000 on a brand new engine for it, but you would struggle to get much more than £1,000 for it.
As for it being worth about £800 with a full MOT, see 2486340378. £950 with only 5 months MOT, but with the desirable V6 engine & full service history - which increases the residual value as it has been well looked after & it'll probably pass an MOT too (yes, I know I'm making that one up, but it probably will so realistically you need to allow for the full 12 months' worth).
Finally, what is the point you are making when you write But what about the car that has a new MOT each year but is getting one year older. It isnt going to be worth more each year. I didn't say that it would be worth more each year - merely that the value of the MOT would be the same each year.
Please refrain, by the way, from using offensive words.
|
*lurk mode=off*
Well done MM.
*lurk mode=on*
|
|
I don't know if you've listed prices for finished or current auctions on Ebay but from experience most bidding goes on in the last few minutes of an auction. Therefore bids in auctions which are not near the end are not usually a good indication of the final price.
|
>I don't know if you've listed prices for finished or current auctions on Ebay but from experience most bidding goes on in the last few minutes of an auction. Therefore bids in auctions which are not near the end are not usually a good indication of the final price.
Finished auctions for exactly that very good reason, Blinky.
|
Remember the BBC Top Gear programme when Jeremy, Richard and James acquired old bangers and drove to Manchester and back?
Jeremy revealed he (or rather someone on his behalf) had paid just £1 for an old Volvo estate.
Apparently they had gone to a dealership where bangers were being virtually given away as it would otherwise cost £150 per can to have them scrapped?
|
I think some of the argument has been because of a misunderstanding about what exactly "depreciation" means. To an accounting mind, it means the fall in market value over a particular period, starting from the purchase price. It has nothing to do with how much repair or maintenance has had to be carried out over that period - that is a different kind of cost.
Whether the cost has been good value or not is a subjective thing, depending on the quality and reliability of the motoring obtained, and your judgement of the underlying value of the car to you, the owner. That may or may not accord with the market view of the car's value, and only selling it will reveal what the actual depreciation has been.
|
Chamber of Horrors (for the vendors)
Talking of depreciation I was down at Manehim Shepshed last week and there were some high milers at wacky prices sold on the fall of the hammer such as a Vectra CDX/2001Y hatch 118k £2550, Astra CD Estate 2001/Y 94k £2750, 2001Y New Mondeo Zetec Estate 128k £3100 and my own bargain buy - 2001/Y New Mondeo Ghia hatch 82k £3600.
These cars were all fully serviced and way below their usual 50k
stablemates.
|
|
Cut it out, the pair of you.
|
|
|
|
