Bigpower

How do people feel on mileages I still can't get it into my head buying a car with over 100,000, I know it's daft. Looking at a new car for willow but still fetching 6k with 145k on the clock?

Is anyone still hung up on the 100 thousand mile hump?

Gave up on that years ago. I've owned Volvo's, BMW's, Merc's, Nissan's, Toyota's, SEATs, a Subaru and countless others with more than 100k on them and to date, I've never had any issues (ironically the Merc I bought that had less than 100k did have a gearbox fault!)
Not bought one with over 200k on the clock yet, but if the paperwork and condition was good enough it wouldn't put me off.

6k with 145k is interesting though

yeah hate cars with over 100k on them. They are cheaper but I'd still rather have a low millage car and happy to pay more for them. Don't get me wrong the car still has to have good history etc etc I couldn't spend 6k and 145k on the clock!

Like Stuart, I've had loads of cars with 100k plus, and several with 150k plus. I think it's about budget. Not being rude Lee, but looking at the toys you own, you can clearly afford decent cars that perhaps I can't. My cheaper cars generally always have lots of miles and they are quite serviceable and reasonably reliable. If you have a few grand more, your natural budget sits higher and probably does nt drop down into the area where leggy cars sit. As as been said there is a stigma with high mileage, but as the gent in Evo writes regularly, it's us Brits who cling to this doggedly, the Europeans apparently are nt as fussed. (And knowing most engine damage is done on cold starts etc, I'd also say thats something to think about)

Stuart wrote:Gave up on that years ago. I've owned Volvo's, BMW's, Merc's, Nissan's, Toyota's, SEATs, a Subaru and countless others with more than 100k on them and to date, I've never had any issues (ironically the Merc I bought that had less than 100k did have a gearbox fault!)
Not bought one with over 200k on the clock yet, but if the paperwork and condition was good enough it wouldn't put me off.

6k with 145k is interesting though

I know what your saying I always buy on condition/history but when its a car for me I normally ignore anything with over 100k I just feel if that's how I think others will to limiting the market when I get board!

Rob S wrote:Like Stuart, I've had loads of cars with 100k plus, and several with 150k plus. I think it's about budget. Not being rude Lee, but looking at the toys you own, you can clearly afford decent cars that perhaps I can't. My cheaper cars generally always have lots of miles and they are quite serviceable and reasonably reliable. If you have a few grand more, your natural budget sits higher and probably does nt drop down into the area where leggy cars sit. As as been said there is a stigma with high mileage, but as the gent in Evo writes regularly, it's us Brits who cling to this doggedly, the Europeans apparently are nt as fussed. (And knowing most engine damage is done on cold starts etc, I'd also say thats something to think about)

No offence taken. I just wish I could get my head around it as at 50k onto certain cars is a decent difference, you can soon jump up the scale.

Landrover has 166k and falls apart every time it starts!

Another consideration is what you want for any hypothetical budget. 5k can buy a Porsche or a Ford KA, an Evo or a Fiat. I've spend 25k+ on cars in the past and

I'm the same Lee, couldn't bring myself to buy anthing over 100k or approaching it. Only car I've had with big miles has been the Citroen Xantia I had from my parents when my Subaru engine expired the first time!!

It had 125k on it and I took it to 167k and it cost me washers to keep going. I have no real backing for this thinking though....just similar to you, re-sale and worn bushes/suspension etc.

I think at that mileage I'd be thinking how long and how many miles you'll put on it. If its like your normal car/time ratio I'd get something easier to sell on personally.

Ian200sx wrote:yeah hate cars with over 100k on them. They are cheaper but I'd still rather have a low millage car and happy to pay more for them. Don't get me wrong the car still has to have good history etc etc I couldn't spend 6k and 145k on the clock!

Not the only one in the dark ages then.

Heres an example:

Started looking at this.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/BMW-320-2-0TD ... 337e0f610a
75k

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/261146275683? ... 1423.l2649
155k

3k difference

Maybe a few differences between the two but just a quick example.

Sorry to waffle!

Another thing to consider how many big service parts are due @ 70k, and considering how durability gets stretched at the demand of fleet managers, I d rather buy a car that's had it done, and let someone else pay for it. Thank god as buyers we are all different, else we d all be chasing the same cars!

One thing I have got got stung by in the past is buying a car which had done 69k miles...in the following years I had to do the cambelt (I should have spotted this to be fair), clutch, bushes, alternator and tie rod ends. I might have been unlucky, but I know when I sold the car with just a smidge over 100k on it it needed nothing. My point is that the millage might tick the box but all the little bits might be coming to the end of their life.

Personally I would only now buy a car with less than 50k miles or go for one cheaper but with 100k+ miles on. Even more so if it was a diesel. Just my 2p tho