Would you rather: AGE vs KMS

[qube 3568]

this probably can be discussed in so many different angles depending on the chassis or vehicle in topic but my question is this:

would you rather pick a 2006 with 50,000ks or a 2008 with 90,000ks?

i know there are plenty of other factors to consider when buying a car: nz new/import, service history, the type of driving whether short trips or highway etc.

but if we consider the rest of the circumstances to be relatively the same, which would you choose?

also, for this particular example, lets say that the there are no differences in terms of facelift/options or anything else so it really is just the year of registration and the kms.

[lord_jagganath 421]

I have gone with the high mileage car. depending on the wear of the interior too. butts don't lie. I have caused more wear to the leather driver's seat of my '11 VW in the past 12k kms than the previous owner did in previous 145k kms.

the newer car would be able to withstand more kms too (newer softer rubber in compression vs older harder rubber etc)

it really is a mixed bag, so you can't say that one would be definitely better than the other.

[zero 1160]

low kms.

[gjm 3194]

Anyone want to buy a 2002 E46 320d wagon? Meticulously maintained.

[KwS 2377]

If they were utterly the same car, same options, history and condition, then i would go with KM purely based on resale value. Otherwise its best history, options and condition, regardless of KM.

[m325i 705]

I do 20-25km per year, not huge, but that is 100km in 4 years.

Any premium I paid for 'low km' is melted away completely when you come to resell.

I would rather have that money for maintenance.

(Also have high KM cars in the past, I am not so scared of it. 350km e30, 250km e36, 140km e46, 110km 2010 S3)

[qube 3568]

I only do around 15k a year and i dont know if I will be keeping it for more than 1-2 years.

i am tempted to go for the newer year but the 100k's service is the worry whereas the car with 50ks i wouldnt have to worry until 3-4 years by then which i would have probably sold the car.

hmmm very hard to decide!

[aja540i 1903]

I would go higher mileage, the mileage will change but the year it was made will always be the same, and people will generally pay more for a younger car when the time comes to sell it.

[qube 3568]

^ this is very true but sometimes just a simple, personal, subjective opinion is all thats needed.

not looking for a full fledged argument or discussion. just a little 2c from everyone is fine.

[Olaf 3245]

I only do around 15k a year and i dont know if I will be keeping it for more than 1-2 years.

i am tempted to go for the newer year but the 100k's service is the worry whereas the car with 50ks i wouldnt have to worry until 3-4 years by then which i would have probably sold the car.

hmmm very hard to decide!

my $0.02 aligns pretty tidly with Nick G's, above. you'll pay the premium for the 50kms car, and although you avoid the cost of the 100kms service in 3-4 years at 15k per year, after 3-4 years your car is now approaching 100k's and everyone knows it's going to need a big service... so now your premium has vanished, you've compounded higher depreciation, and you field just as much loss as you'd have done buying the 110km car (at a lower price) that's had the big service.

there's no 'right' answer, really.

I can recommend that if you're really down to the $2-3k in worrying between case a and case b over 2-3 years, you might consider simply not buying either car. IME life's not like that (accountancy or actuarial tables), and predictions don't materialise in full benefit. eg despite your best plan, you get a girlfriend in another town and spend 2.5 years commuting on weekends, adding 10k kms to your projected use; or your car gets stolen; or suddenly you have a company car; or arrive at a family and have to sell that spiffy coupe - and subsequently take the loss.

The observation I'll make, that I would place the greatest value in: they're not investments, they're liabilities. Sure, we love cars - that's why we're here on this forum. And naturally, we plan a little and try and minimise the downsides. I'm a planner, though I temper this with the addage "if you play, you pay". The 2-4 year case may work out well for you; if it costs you an extra few grand, hopefully you get the benefits of experiences/stories for the grand kids or retirement home! #8 )

Hopefully this alternate perspective is useful. Cheers!

[qube 3568]

So far the ones im looking at are:

2006 - 50ks - $18k

2007 - 79ks - $16.8

2008 - 108ks - $17k

2009 - 80ks - $20k

so the price variation is about 2-3k between them.

the way I usually buy cars is I wont worry about kms but place more importance on service history OR price. If its cheap enough and in decent condition with no major issues, I would rather save the initial cost on the purchase price and sink the extra savings into maintenance myself.

[gjm 3194]

So far the ones im looking at are:

2006 - 50ks - $18k

2007 - 79ks - $16.8

2008 - 108ks - $17k

2009 - 80ks - $20k

so the price variation is about 2-3k between them.

the way I usually buy cars is I wont worry about kms but place more importance on service history OR price. If its cheap enough and in decent condition with no major issues, I would rather save the initial cost on the purchase price and sink the extra savings into maintenance myself.

Condition is everything. Age and mileage are relatively unimportant, unless you're expecting to sell on sooner rather than later. If that is the case, then put yourself in the position of "I have a mate who says these are good cars" and buy for yourself accordingly. That would suggest newest, lowest mileage is best, so long as it is shiny.

A service history is only worth something if you kow the work has been done correctly. Our Merc 500 is off the road at the moment while I rebuild the front calipers - one had been done for the last WoF before I bought it but had been assembled more or less dry, and a piston has seized as a result. So I've pulled the other front caliper and... Yup - it's the same. Good job I have seal kits - I just need an airline to blow the pistons out.

And I'll be checking the rears over Easter.

I've seen far too many 'nice little man at the garage did that for me' cars.

Based on that... The newer, higher mileage car is probably a better bet. It will have had to be maintained well, and if it hasn't, it will be quickly and easily spotted. Low mileage older cars just haven't had the opportunity to show how poor the maintenance may have been.

The other thing is to check individual specs. You'll almost always sell a better-specced car easier than you would one with a poverty spec, regardless of condition, hostory or mileage.

[BreakMyWindow 1870]

Nz-new and low kms wins every time. Car buyers in general have been brain washed in to thinking lower kms is better. Not always the case and there are many variables. I.e the car with 29k on the clock has virtually no suspension wear as it's probably been driven on smooth roads. On the other hand, the engine is coked up from short trips or lots of idling in traffic. The same car might have some serious rust setting in as it spent lots of time on salted roads, which may be why the kms are so low due to roads being snowed over.

If you're turning the car over in 1-2 years a lower kms example will probably sell for more.

[SmithyInWelly 212]

Assuming condition is acceptable and comparable, I'd buy the newest car possible. Unless the km differential is substantial (which your aren't), the newer car should represent better value and better return come on-sell time.

Though as noted - there is no right answer. Go with what feels the best option to you - and enjoy!

[FIAT 131R 223]

The proposition is way too simplistic to generate any meaningful responses because each respondent is making a huge number of personal and subjective assumptions to establish their position and then trying to qualify with minimal explanationDead

You are dead right. Too much subjective crap on here at times.

[MattA 162]

Would you rather: AGE vs KMS

Depends entirely on the woman..........

[Michael. 2312]

CONDITION

[_ethrty-Andy_ 2122]

Would you rather a young lady with lots of milage or an older bird with low milage?

[Contrails 316]

Would you rather a young lady with lots of milage or an older bird with low milage?

The one that requires least maintenance.

[Olaf 3245]

Would you rather a young lady with lots of milage or an older bird with low milage?

heh heh.

back in the 80's, there was a full page ad, black text on white:

ethusiasm

is no substitute

for

experience.

and down in the bottom right hand corner of the page, the Durex logo.

Applying that metric to your example, I'm conflicted. #; )

[qube 3568]

yep, im not after the right answer because i know there one.

Just seeing what peoples thoughts are and this thread clearly illustrates the different individual's opinions and thoughts.

Thanks again for the input. will be test driving a few in the coming week and go from there.

stay tuned

[Andre3000 55]

Funny thing is that a 5 year and a 100km service is the same thing, regardless these cars will be due heavy maintenance sooner rather than later.

Distance travelled is not a good representation of the life the car has had. Low hours with high kms on open road vs high hours with low kms in city traffic I know which one id rather choose.

[zero 1160]

Qube - what car are you looking at? An e90?

[qube 3568]

yes, we all know that open road kms > city driving but there is no way to determine that unless the car is nz new and seller is honest/one owner etc. unfortunately the world is not perfect and sometimes we just take things at face value. as martin pointed out, low kms is the one and only thing *most* general people want when buying a car. (and of course the million dollar question - "whats your bottom dollar?")

the reason i am leaning towards the 50k's vehicle is because after a year or two, the car is still well below 100ks whereas with the 80-100k's car its either reached or passed the scary 100 mark.

i know i would prefer a newer year otherwise if i was to keep the car for longer because then no matter what example i choose i would end up over teh 100ks mark but since thats not the case, i am a bit cautious in this case. Ive always had cars with high ish ks and its never bothered me at all but in this case its something i have to think about.

nathan - its a secret

[Ahmedsinc 414]

Anyone want to buy a 2002 E46 320d wagon? Meticulously maintained.

Actually for sale or teasing??