What is worse: Years or mileage?

[jphughan]

Originally Posted by cposk

I think the idea is that a weekend car is driven a lot harder than a commuter. I put 10k miles on my M in 8 months doing about 79hwy/1city everyday. They were nothing but cruising (low drive train stress). Now I have my beater up and running, so the M is driven once every couple weeks for about 50 miles. And those 50 miles aren't cruising miles.

I still agree that lower miles is better. More because the paint/leather condition is almost always directly related to miles.

I guess, but people who have a weekend car don't necessarily beat on it, especially relative to what an M car is built to handle. If it was a dedicated TRACK car, that would be another story -- but then it probably would have far fewer miles per year and likely wouldn't be anywhere near stock. I was thinking more along the lines of people who want a beater to avoid accelerated depreciation from a high-mileage commute and then want something fun for their weekend cruising. Sure they'll have some 0-60 blasts, and maybe the tail will get kicked out at a few intersections, but I suspect very few weekend cars experience truly high-speed cornering, sustained revs above 5K, consistent heavy braking, etc.

[AshyLarryMP]

Originally Posted by jphughan

Sure they'll have some 0-60 blasts

Who stops at 60?

[Mr. ///M3 RD]

Milage I say .... it's a no brainer ... I have my eye on a SL500 from 2002 with only 23,000 KM (14.3K Miles) ... lady driven a garage queen if ever I saw one.

Might just get her as an investment and weekend top down toy

[jeff4598]

Agree with post # 12- hey I drive 2.5 miles to work- car never warms up most winter days- low mileage but ...

[swartzentruber]

Mileage. Cars get up to operating temps fairly quick these days, due to emissions (the 2.5 mile commute might be the exception). I might be a little reluctant if it's a weekend only car that also sat through winters.

[Z K]

While mileage is usually a good indicator of cosmetic wear like leather/paint condition. Higher mileage cars that are well maintained are usually better in terms of mechanical condition.

Cars are made to be driven. The longer a car sits around, the worse condition it is in. Tires go bad when they aren't driven on, the engine and transmission need oil to lubricate them and keep them in good condition - oil doesn't pump when the car is not on, batteries die when a car is not driven regularly etc.

So I'd say lower mileage is better but too low mileage is bad. I'd like to see a car driven at least 5000 miles a year but no more than 10,000 miles a year. If it is a regular car like a Camry or Civic, I'd say up to 15k miles a year is acceptable.

[Chriskm3]

On case of a sports car I agree with the rest of you. But lets say its a Honda civic whoh will last over 300000 with out issues I think a newer year would sell quickest

[bga23]

I'd go with the newer car with the higher mileage.


OK, not really, just thought we need at least one different opinion here though.

[lenzm3edan]

what they said. MILEAGE

[Z K]

Originally Posted by Chriskm3

On case of a sports car I agree with the rest of you. But lets say its a Honda civic whoh will last over 300000 with out issues I think a newer year would sell quickest

I agree with this. For my toy car, definitely by mileage. For a Honda Civic, the difference in miles is minimal, I'd go with the newer year.

[PrimoM3]

Mileage - also applies to women.

[MY13E92M3]

Originally Posted by catherinelam

mileage is worse. more wear and tear on the car

+1

[M3vertguy]

Originally Posted by PrimoM3

Mileage - also applies to women.

Epic! True.

[jordanE92]

Originally Posted by Z K

While mileage is usually a good indicator of cosmetic wear like leather/paint condition. Higher mileage cars that are well maintained are usually better in terms of mechanical condition.

Cars are made to be driven. The longer a car sits around, the worse condition it is in. Tires go bad when they aren't driven on, the engine and transmission need oil to lubricate them and keep them in good condition - oil doesn't pump when the car is not on, batteries die when a car is not driven regularly etc.

So I'd say lower mileage is better but too low mileage is bad. I'd like to see a car driven at least 5000 miles a year but no more than 10,000 miles a year. If it is a regular car like a Camry or Civic, I'd say up to 15k miles a year is acceptable.

I put 20k miles on my M this year. I feel guilty about that, but no more than 10? I drive another car and still couldn't dream of putting on anything less than 14 a year.

[Goat Rodeo]

Years.

I love abnormally high mileage cars; I seek out well-maintained cars with tons of highway miles.

Latest example:

I bought my E46 M3 with original suspension and 145K miles on the clock; we went over the car very carefully and nothing needed to be replaced. Yes, original suspension on an E46 M3 with 145K miles on it in perfect condition.

Car was driven in a straight line to and from work 100 miles round trip daily on a smooth highway. I paid 1/2 the cost of a low mileage example and I think I got a better car than most of them.

[AshyLarryMP]

Originally Posted by Goat Rodeo

Years.

I love abnormally high mileage cars; I seek out well-maintained cars with tons of highway miles.

Latest example:

I bought my E46 M3 with original suspension and 145K miles on the clock; we went over the car very carefully and nothing needed to be replaced. Yes, original suspension on an E46 M3 with 145K miles on it in perfect condition.

Car was driven in a straight line to and from work 100 miles round trip daily on a smooth highway. I paid 1/2 the cost of a low mileage example and I think I got a better car than most of them.

Finally someone to say that highway miles are not that bad.

[ScreaM]

Originally Posted by AshyLarryMP

Who stops at 60?

Not me

[US///M3]

Originally Posted by M3takesNYC

I know conventional thought by most is to go based on the mileage primarly in determining the health of a car but I personally am in a situation where I have put 45k miles in 2 years and car still feels like new. Early oil changes, first owner, 10k mile air filters and spark plugs (excessive I know) and driven with a nice combination of cruising and aggression. Definetly have not babbied it.

Would a car treated the same hypothetically but 4 years old with even less miles be a better or healthier car from people's eyes or which would you choose if you take the warranty out of the picture

2 year old 50k miles
4 year old 25k miles

?

50k miles, the engine is just broken in and most likely all the bugs have been worked out.

[CON G]

I made this decision recently I bought a 2010 E90 with 55,000 kms on it rather than 2008 & 2009 models that had less kms for the same price. My reasoning is that I only do low ks each year and the high kms at the moment would average out over the 5 years lease. So when I go to sell the vehicle the kms will be about average and I can get a reasonable sale price.

[valeram]

Mileage but the warranty will play against it. Unless you get an extended warranty.

[denebj]

Low mileage is for me the way to go

You just will not have the latest gimmick

[Z K]

Originally Posted by jordanE92

I put 20k miles on my M this year. I feel guilty about that, but no more than 10? I drive another car and still couldn't dream of putting on anything less than 14 a year.

I'm saying if I was looking for a car to buy. That doesn't mean I wouldn't drive it more and rack up mileage.

I racked up 20k miles in my first year of ownership as well... evens out the low mileage the previous owner drove. Yet my car runs and looks better than cars with 10k miles. The miracles of proper maintenance and clear bra.