in general which to look for

horgan_p

low mileage or newer ( later year) ??


i.e. an older car with lower mileage ( prob been looked after)
or a newer car with higher mileage ( but not too high)

quarryman

my preference: the latter.

But a Full service history should be the priority over both.

BrandonBlock

If you are only talking about a year or 2, I'd prefer to look at mileage. For example my last car was registered on 12th December 1996. , so tehnically it was closer to being a 97. and Another car registered on 1st January 1998, would also be closer to a 97. I mean 367+ days can be the difference between a 96 and 98 , OR 731 !! So personally I rather look at mileage is what I'm trying to say

horgan_p

here are 3 examples of what i'm talking about :

1 - http://www.cbg.ie/Car_detail.asp?CBGID=659666&ID=951006&NumPics=3&Make=Nissan&Model=Terrano%20II&frmFilter=All#

2-

3- http://www.cbg.ie/Car_detail.asp?CBGID=-1&ID=1086017&NumPics=3&Make=Mitsubishi&Model=L200%20Double%20Cab&frmFilter=All#

basically 3 suvs , all under 16k ,but wildly different vehicles

peasant

interesting choice of vehicles there ...

1 is a totally overpriced tractor

2 is a jacked up estate car (and fugly IMO)

3 is an undriveable monster


What do you need the car for?

horgan_p

work , so lots of tools and a stepladder would be going in the back.
i just cant get into an estate (dont like the look of them)
and i have more than 2 friends ( so commercial is out)


oh and must be diesel.

peasant

Well ..the Hyundai would be the cheapest to run and most comfortable to drive while not getting stuck at the first pothole.

The Nissan is great off-road and reasonably tough and reliable, but that's about it and the L200 is simply a pig to drive and maneuvre and not that great off road either ...oh an it's fairly cramped inside as well ...

horgan_p

thing is i'd like it to last 5 years (hopeful i know)
i do like the land cruiser , but i'd have to go way back in years to get one for under 16k

and i do a lot (around 30k p.a.) of mileage

horgan_p

peasant wrote:

interesting choice of vehicles there ...

1 is a totally overpriced tractor

2 is a jacked up estate car (and fugly IMO)

3 is an undriveable monster


What do you need the car for?

sorry they were just examples, just started the research journey into buying.
business has outgrown my old hatchback:)

peasant

The old nissan tractor *could* be a good buy for your requirements, provided the history checks out and the low mileage wasn't done just offroading or alternatively screeching to church and back in first gear but that price is veeeeeeeeery optimistic IMO ...it's a 1998 ffs

horgan_p

peasant wrote:

The old nissan tractor *could* be a good buy for your requirements, provided the history checks out and the low mileage wasn't done just offroading or alternatively screeching to church and back in first gear but that price is veeeeeeeeery optimistic IMO ...it's a 1998 ffs

does seem like crazy optimistic mileage alright.

what else should i look at ?

and getting back to the original question ? mileage or just age?

peasant

As for the original question ...the right combination of both, really ...supported by a good history.

High mileage is not necessarily a killer, if the vehicle was meticulously maintained, neither is low mileage a sign of quality (if there was three years between oil changes for example because the mileage wasn't "up yet).

That Nissan is a Jap import ...they are all (most of them anyway) advertised at the "magical" 50-odd thousand miles. If you can get proof of that (Jap auction sheet) fine ...if not, treat with utmost suspicion.

horgan_p

peasant wrote:

That Nissan is a Jap import ...they are all (most of them anyway) advertised at the "magical" 50-odd thousand miles. If you can get proof of that (Jap auction sheet) fine ...if not, treat with utmost suspicion.

i was just after spotting it

L-M

Try a landrover freelander. A 2.0td bmw engine, and they are lovely to drive. Mightn;t be as big as the other 3 choices but the are a good candidate plus u might come up the years a bit. As for the mileage vs. years thing it's the whole quaility vs. quantity thing. As mentioned above where they offroad miles or the like. If buying privately, or some sneaky dealers make sure the aren't english imports and clocked...

Bogger77

High Millage can be a good thing sometimes, my car's got 108K miles done in 5 years, but has been serviced on the button each time.
Brake pads and disc have been replaced, long before warning lights or noises from hubs. Someone who uses a car for a daily long commute is more likely to make sure that it's working 100% and sort out things before they happen. A city driver or low millage driver often won't cos they don't rely on the car.

horgan_p

reliability seems to be a problem says honest john
"Freelander 5th least reliable car in 2005 Warranty Direct Reliability Survey with 55 repair claims per 100 cars."

i dunno , going to sleep on it, as i said tis only the start of the research before i pound the forecourts at the weekend

bazz26

I would not just judge a car by what the number plate or odometer say. You need to judge each car on it's own merits.

A high mileage company car which travels motorways and has been serviced at set intervals would be a better buy than a similar low mileage car owned by a granny who grinds the gears on the way to the shops and never had it serviced.

Current condition and service history are more important imo than the mileage on the clock.

Andrewf20

horgan_p wrote:

low mileage or newer ( later year) ??


i.e. an older car with lower mileage ( prob been looked after)
or a newer car with higher mileage ( but not too high)

Ultimetly, theres no right answer for this, however my belief it that most things on a car wear more because of mileage than time, so I prefer older cars with lower mileage.

Seth Brundle

If interested I wowuld get both cars checked over and weigh up the options based on the mechanicals rather than other factors.