What would you choose? Low mileage or low age?

Curious to get the thoughts of the braintrust on this board. When looking at used cars, what's more important to you, low age or low mileage? Clearly, maintenance history is a huge variable, so let's take that out.

Imagine you were looking at two cars. They're both identical make/model (pick your car...and let's go with a basic transportation car...Civic, Camry, whatever). They were both serviced properly by the same mechanic at regular intervals.

Car 1 is a 1987 whatever that has only 80,000 miles

Car 2 is a 1997 same whatever that has 160,000 miles

If they were both the same price, which would you choose and why?

The 1997. The 1987 will have all kinds of rubber dry rot issues due to age.

Klayfish wrote: Curious to get the thoughts of the braintrust on this board. When looking at used cars, what's more important to you, low age or low mileage? Clearly, maintenance history is a huge variable, so let's take that out. Imagine you were looking at two cars. They're both identical make/model (pick your car...and let's go with a basic transportation car...Civic, Camry, whatever). They were both serviced properly by the same mechanic at regular intervals. Car 1 is a 1987 whatever that has only 80,000 miles Car 2 is a 1997 same whatever that has 160,000 miles If they were both the same price, which would you choose and why?

If we're talking Camry, i'd rather have the 87, because it's cooler.

But on a general and logical level, i'm with Iggy. On a personal "I'm insane" level, i'd want the lower mileage example, regardless of age, assuming condition is identical.

I can't think of many cars that went 10 years virtually unchanged, though... The cherokee and maybe Miata are the closest examples i can think of.

Obviously, i'm more a part of a knowledge cesspool than a braintrust.

I'd choose the '87. Cheaper parts and easier to repair. This is assuming that we're in a non road salt state. (Not using a nice older car in the winter) Older cars usually look better too.

depends on the intended usage, DD newer, safer, non-DD older, cooler...

Here in the rust best, the low mileage is a siren's song because it won't have floor pans or rocker panels. For me, I would rather change a headgasket or swap a head or even rebuild a motor than repair a rusty body. Sanding and painting? Pure Voodoo.

It would depend on the brand/model of car, since different cars age better than others, and it might be two different generations. It would also depend on the intended usage. IF IT IS RUST FREE, I'd generally go with the older, lower mile car. The reason is that the more miles that are put on a car, the better chance the previous owner has of destroying it. A lower mileage older car is more likely to have been taken care of. Finally, replacing dry rotted rubber is much easier and cheaper than replacing a major component like an engine, trans, or diff.

Lower mileage older cars have big problems beyond rubber dry rot. It's just a major annoyance that will require a bunch of time and money to fix.

My friend bought a old buick with like 30k miles. It would routinely die due to so much rust in the fuel system. He needed a new fuel lines, a new tank, new fuel filters, new fuel pump, and a new carb. (stupid computer controlled carb from the 80's died and cost $800 just in the part cost alone. The carb was only available from the dealer in good shape. I tried rebuilding it, but the solenoids inside the carb were 100% shot and noone manufactured replacements.)

On older cars the rubber in the suspension will be gone, your brake lines will be shot and every seal in the motor/trans etc will be toast. Low mileage is a pain on older cars.

Higher mileage on a newer car is OK in my book because if a car makes it to 150k, with a good history of maint, the car will generally make it to 250k.

Good point with the rust issue. Yep, definitely a concern.

I'm looking at it from a daily driver perspective. The current car I use, a '94 Geo Prizm w/185k, is in need of some attention. Before I put the money into it, I'm kicking around whether I should keep or replace. The wife wants me to replace it because it's ugly as sin. Clear coat peeling everywhere, scratches everywhere, headliner missing, etc... Also has a rusty right wheel well area (solid floors, rockers). I'm leaning towards keeping it, as I got it from the original owner who took good mechancial care of it.

But in searching around, I've seen good examples of the two situations I described above. If I replace, I'd be looking at Accord/Civic/Corolla/Camry type cars. So I'm debating if I'd prefer an '88 Accord with 80,000 miles or a '98 Accord with twice the mileage (again assuming they've both been properly cared for).

As others have said, it completely depends on the car.

For example, in a 1987 BMW M3 vs1997 M3 battle, there is no question I'd go with the 1987. That's an improbably scenario, though; odds of finding them for the same price are very long unless you stumble over someone who doesn't know what they have.

On the flip side, a 1987 Corvette is never going to sit in my driveway, regardless of miles, but a 1997 Corvette would roll in there quite nicely.

I've been buying high mileage vehicles successfully for a long time now.

My truck now has over 400,000 miles on it. I bought it when it was 5 years old with 280K. It only had one owner before me.

The way I figure, the only way to put nearly 60,000 miles per year on a car is to spend most of your time cruising the interstate on cruise control. That's a pretty easy life for a vehicle. Trans never shifting, engine rpms steady, no hard cornering, minimal wear on brakes, etc.

Owners seem to think that the minute a vehicle hits 100K the doors are going to fall off. Prices reflect this.

High mileage vehicles are dirt cheap. I buy them prepared to put some money into them, and then fix them right. So far, I've had great luck with quite a few cars.

When I bought my truck, I thought it might need a transmission because it shifts funny. I was prepared to spend $2500 on a trans. But even with that, the purchase price of $7500 was well below comparable low mileage vehicles of $18,000- $22,000. I figured I could dump $2500 into it and still come out ahead.

I never had to put in a transmission.

Older vehicles have much worse problems. Multiple owners, multiple driving patterns, repairs (some good, some bad), and the ravages of age (rust, deterioration, etc.).

I LIKE older vehicles (for design, simplicity, maintenance), but I prefer buying high mileage ones for reliability.

For reliability I would go with the newer car I think, you could keep the older one running longer, but the newer one will last longer before it work. I dont think you can really generalize saftey by older and newer too much, I think there are alot of 80s cars that are safer than 90s cars (but a lot that are the opposite as well).

Ignorant wrote: Lower mileage older cars have big problems beyond rubber dry rot. It's just a major annoyance that will require a bunch of time and money to fix. My friend bought a old buick with like 30k miles. It would routinely die due to so much rust in the fuel system. He needed a new fuel lines, a new tank, new fuel filters, new fuel pump, and a new carb. (stupid computer controlled carb from the 80's died and cost $800 just in the part cost alone. The carb was only available from the dealer in good shape. I tried rebuilding it, but the solenoids inside the carb were 100% shot and noone manufactured replacements.) On older cars the rubber in the suspension will be gone, your brake lines will be shot and every seal in the motor/trans etc will be toast. Low mileage is a pain on older cars. Higher mileage on a newer car is OK in my book because if a car makes it to 150k, with a good history of maint, the car will generally make it to 250k.

I think you are talking about a much older car in much worse condition. I was talking about a 1987 vehicle that is rust free and properly maintained. Your example, while entirely possible, doesn't really meet that criterion.

The 88 Accord is smaller, lighter, more nimble, and less costly to maintain( for example tires are likely smaller on the 88)

Also check gas mileage... the 88 might be better than the 98.

We just did this last fall, sold a pig of an IS300, and we bought a 87 Corolla(w only 115k miles). Its amazing the savings just in gas... IS300 low 20s average + premium.... AE86 mid to upper 20s average + regular. The difference is dollars per week!

bravenrace wrote:

Ignorant wrote: Lower mileage older cars have big problems beyond rubber dry rot. It's just a major annoyance that will require a bunch of time and money to fix. My friend bought a old buick with like 30k miles. It would routinely die due to so much rust in the fuel system. He needed a new fuel lines, a new tank, new fuel filters, new fuel pump, and a new carb. (stupid computer controlled carb from the 80's died and cost $800 just in the part cost alone. The carb was only available from the dealer in good shape. I tried rebuilding it, but the solenoids inside the carb were 100% shot and noone manufactured replacements.) On older cars the rubber in the suspension will be gone, your brake lines will be shot and every seal in the motor/trans etc will be toast. Low mileage is a pain on older cars. Higher mileage on a newer car is OK in my book because if a car makes it to 150k, with a good history of maint, the car will generally make it to 250k.

I think you are talking about a much older car in much worse condition. I was talking about a 1987 vehicle that is rust free and properly maintained. Your example, while entirely possible, doesn't really meet that criterion.

I have done this a couple times, and a 1987 vehicle with 80k on it hasnt been driven enough to keep things in good shape. Not that it cant be dealt with, but a newer car with twice the miles would require less work to keep on the road at least for a while.

What they said.

From a purely logical, DD perspective, the newer car is a better bet for me.

Your comparison is between a 24 year old car and a 14 year old car. Depending on the model, well, let's just say I was already finding parts obsolescence with my '96, and 80's cars, even ones that claim to be well-supported, are getting harder to shop for. Some hugely popular cars attract more aftermarket, though, but those tend to be boring (to me).

Furthermore, I tend to put low mileage on my cars. This bit me in the rear when I had a problem with wiring rot right around the 100k mark and 15 years. Yeah, there had been a silent recall, but it had expired years ago (at 8yrs/100k, whichever came first). It would have been bad enough to swallow the $2500 repair bill, but the parts to fix it were already obsolete, making the repair difficult to even fathom. For a classic weekend toy, this is not a big deal. For a daily driver...

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: I can't think of many cars that went 10 years virtually unchanged, though... The cherokee and maybe Miata are the closest examples i can think of.

Corvette, 3 generations of Mustang, NSX, Ford Focus, Chevy Cavalier, Jeep Liberty, Chevy Suburban, Anything with a Morgan badge, a couple Jags, Bentley GT, Various Rolls, Any Spyker, Ferrari 456.

There are a lot of cars that go nearly unchanged for a decade.

My '91 Integra with 340k is much more liveable and predictable than my '87 Civic with 130k. That said, the Integra is REALLY due for a new driver's seat. And while I can still get mechanical parts relatively easy for the Civic, it took months to find a piece of door trim and rear wiper cover in the yard. The Civic is a 'cooler' car IMO, but not the better DD.

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:

Klayfish wrote: Curious to get the thoughts of the braintrust on this board. When looking at used cars, what's more important to you, low age or low mileage? Clearly, maintenance history is a huge variable, so let's take that out. Imagine you were looking at two cars. They're both identical make/model (pick your car...and let's go with a basic transportation car...Civic, Camry, whatever). They were both serviced properly by the same mechanic at regular intervals. Car 1 is a 1987 whatever that has only 80,000 miles Car 2 is a 1997 same whatever that has 160,000 miles If they were both the same price, which would you choose and why?

If we're talking Camry, i'd rather have the 87, because it's cooler. But on a general and logical level, i'm with Iggy. On a personal "I'm insane" level, i'd want the lower mileage example, regardless of age, assuming condition is identical. I can't think of many cars that went 10 years virtually unchanged, though... The cherokee and maybe Miata are the closest examples i can think of. Obviously, i'm more a part of a knowledge cesspool than a braintrust.

You forgot the Cutlass Ciera and its sibling. I don't think they actually EVER changed.

It depends. Friends of ours bought a 91 Honda Accord EXR nice car - low mileage. They guy who owned it put 80,000 kms on it in one year and then put it up on blocks for 4 years before he sold it. They had nothing but problems with it. Everything had to be lubed and was seized etc.

Last year I bought a 97 Outback with 395,000 kms, but it was impeccibly maintained by the P). With that much mileage they had to take good care of it.

Maroon92 wrote:

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: I can't think of many cars that went 10 years virtually unchanged, though... The cherokee and maybe Miata are the closest examples i can think of.

Corvette, 3 generations of Mustang, NSX, Ford Focus, Chevy Cavalier, Jeep Liberty, Chevy Suburban, Anything with a Morgan badge, a couple Jags, Bentley GT, Various Rolls, Any Spyker, Ferrari 456. There are a lot of cars that go nearly unchanged for a decade.

Ford Ranger is up there with the longest run of the Mustang ~13/14 years, though I would argue the Ranger has had much less modified on it than most living that long, including the Mustang....

I'll let my track record speak for itself:

73 Hornet Wagon, 7400 miles
73 Impala Wagon, 58k miles
87 Olds Cutlass 36k miiles

But it totally depends on the situation. I bought my wife a 99 Benz with 180k because the insane quality of materials meant it was in better shape than the Hornet with only 7400 miles. It also depends on the era of car... To me, there are few things more frustrating than a Japanese import with OBD1. If I could, I would rid the world of every 1991 Acura Legend coupe. To some, the 1987 Cutlass would be a nightmare of vacuum lines and smog equipment that they think is the cause of the low power ratings. I happen to know that kind of car, know where the vacuum hoses go, know which ones can get tossed or plugged, and know how to triple the power output and still pass smog.

In general (within my choice of cars that I like) I go for the low mileage. There is nothing cooler (to me) than tooling down the road in a classic survivor.

Whichever one is in better condition.

Just my experience. I bought a two year old Windstar w/80k. My thinking at the time was it was run all the time and it had a new transmission installed. What could go wrong? I went less than 500 highway miles before the transmission went again on a trip. To make a long, aggravating story short, the transmission was replaced(3x) again, torque converter was replaced four times, and was on its way again when it went back (lemon law)to the dealer. I will NEVER buy a high mileage car again. I will gladly replace 30 year old rubber and bushings,and be relatively dependable than take a chance on constantly being stranded due to worn out parts/components.

bravenrace wrote: I think you are talking about a much older car in much worse condition. I was talking about a 1987 vehicle that is rust free and properly maintained. Your example, while entirely possible, doesn't really meet that criterion.

I think it was an 86 buick that was rust free and properly maintained. Stupid 1 year computer controlled carb on the 2.8..

The car was actually purchased from a little old lady in his hometown. It was her church and grocery car; His father knew the lady and the story was true. It had a stack of maint receipts and was garaged constantly. It fits your criteria perfectly. The car had sat with tanks of gas for long periods of time, due to the relative inactivity. If the car is not driven, the gas will sit, turn to varnish, and the ethanol in the modern gas will attract moisture... The rust in the fuel system of that car was on the INSIDE... I don't know of any "proper" maint procedure that requires you to flush out the fuel system.

It was a comfortable nice car, aside from the episode where it cost buckets of cash to fix.. It was alright..