Age or Mileage

[Deleted]

Which is the most important when it comes to cars?

Mutt thread got me thinking about it.

I have a 2008 Kia Sportage with 119,000 miles on it.

It is the car we drive around for all family visits, long trips, vacations etc.

The car runs fine, no issues besides regular needed maintenance but the high mileage in such a short time got me thinking we might have to replace it sooner than later.

I am hoping it last another 5 years or so.

[Rocky Mtn Saver]

It ain't the years, honey, it's the miles. 

[movingforward]

Yep, mileage is the key factor.  Luckily, I have a 2007 (bought new) and it still only has 58K miles on it.  According to YM I should probably drive it for another 10 yrs but I plan to get something new in about 3-4 yrs.  Screw YM

[Taxman10]

I tend to believe that cars will give you good service for 12-15 years. After that it's a bit a crapshoot.

So the cars only 5 years old. In theory with proper maintenance you should get another 7-10 years out of it. It might hit 250-300k miles, and you might have to replace a few pieces as you get higher, but I wouldn't be scared to drive it 5 more years.

[Bob Ross]

Mileage is more important IMHO.

 

My car is a 1997.  When I bought it a few years ago, it had 65k miles on it.  I'm almost at 90k now.  Other than routine maintenance stuff, it hasn't given me a problem.

 

Some things like hoses, seals, tires (which can crack and/or dry rot) can deteriorate with age, and a car that has sat idle for years can have a myriad of problems, but for the most part, mileage affects a car much more than age does.

[Deleted]

I agree it is more mileage than age, but at 20 years or so a car starts to get old no matter how much mileage is on it.

[Deleted]

Apr 24, 2013 12:25:00 GMT -5 Rocky Mtn Saver said:

It ain't the years, honey, it's the miles. 

[giramomma]

Well, I think it depends.  I had to give up my Toyota when it was 17 years old. I didn't actually make it much over 100K.

[Sum Dum Gai]

It's both.  Mileage causes the most wear and tear, but time will wear out a vehicle too, even if it isn't driven much.

[thyme4change]

Mostly mileage.

Luckily, I have a 2007 (bought new) and it still only has 58K miles on it.

Mine is a 2002 with 70k miles on it.  I said I would keep it 10 year or 100k miles.  But, now I added "whichever comes last."  

[midjd]

I'm surprised by the responses. Going solely by KBB value, mileage means almost nothing. An 02 with 50K miles is going to be worth much less than an 06 with 200K miles. (This doesn't seem to take into account the fact that it's harder to sell a car that has super-high mileage).

DH says that mileage is a factor, up to a point - but he'd rather have a newer car with higher miles than an older car with fewer miles. The longer a car has been around, the more the seals, belts, and other rubbery parts start to shrink/crack/leak, rust forms, etc.  Your engine and transmission may be in great shape, but all the other repairs will nickel and dime you to death. His grandma has an 89 Plymouth Sunbird with about 50,000 miles (she bought it new) - it is still in pretty good shape, but there is no way she'll get 100K miles out of it at this point, whereas she could have if she'd put those miles on in the first 5-10 years.

I think a late model, high mileage car with one or two owners is a good bet. I wouldn't worry about mileage too much, unless you're driving entirely in stop-and-go traffic or drag racing in your spare time.

[Deleted]

Guess I will have to replace my car sooner than I want.

I brought it brand new 5 years ago. Think it will last to 200k?

I hope 5 years at least

[Deleted]

Apr 24, 2013 13:11:53 GMT -5 midjd said:

I'm surprised by the responses. Going solely by KBB value, mileage means almost nothing. An 02 with 50K miles is going to be worth much less than an 06 with 200K miles. (This doesn't seem to take into account the fact that it's harder to sell a car that has super-high mileage).

DH says that mileage is a factor, up to a point - but he'd rather have a newer car with higher miles than an older car with fewer miles. The longer a car has been around, the more the seals, belts, and other rubbery parts start to shrink/crack/leak, rust forms, etc.  Your engine and transmission may be in great shape, but all the other repairs will nickel and dime you to death. His grandma has an 89 Plymouth Sunbird with about 50,000 miles (she bought it new) - it is still in pretty good shape, but there is no way she'll get 100K miles out of it at this point, whereas she could have if she'd put those miles on in the first 5-10 years.

I think a late model, high mileage car with one or two owners is a good bet. I wouldn't worry about mileage too much, unless you're driving entirely in stop-and-go traffic or drag racing in your spare time.

Guess we posted at the same time.

I sure hope you are right. If I can drive it another 5-10 years I will be happy.

But I won't complain if it goes sooner; it had been good to me those past 5 years.

[Deleted]

Misleading thread title, very misleading......I'm disappointed in you carl

[midjd]

I sure hope you are right. If I can drive it another 5-10 years I will be happy.

But I won't complain if it goes sooner; it had been good to me those past 5 years.

I hope I'm right too... I have almost 9K miles on the car I bought at the beginning of January

Both of our Hondas went to the 200K mile point with no major repairs, so it's definitely doable. The Civic crapped out at 230K and the Del Sol made it to 280Kish (although the clutch had to be replaced twice). I'm hoping to get 200K out of the current car, even though it's a Ford.

[wvugurl26]

I bought a 2009 Subaru Impreza in late October 2008. Less than 100 miles on it. I was at 137,000 even when I got gas this morning. I figure anything over 200k is a bonus. At that point, timing belt would need redone. Basically my mindset is I need to be prepared and thinking about replacement by 200k.

I think age comes into play when you have 15-20 year old car. Hoses and stuff just start to rot.

[Sum Dum Gai]

I'm surprised by the responses. Going solely by KBB value, mileage means almost nothing. An 02 with 50K miles is going to be worth much less than an 06 with 200K miles. (This doesn't seem to take into account the fact that it's harder to sell a car that has super-high mileage).

Clearly Kelley is an idiot.  Most new cars are going to die somewhere around 200k miles on average.  Whether you put all those miles on in 1 year or 15 doesn't really matter.  Somewhere around 200k or a quarter million miles your engine and transmission will be shot.  At the same time, any car that's about 12 years old starts having things break as well.  Whether you drive it all the time or almost never.  If you had one car that was only 3 years old but it already had 200k miles on it, and another car that was 15 years old but only had 15k miles on it, I wouldn't trust either.

The one exception are diesel engines.  Those things will run well over half a million miles.

[thyme4change]

Apr 24, 2013 13:11:53 GMT -5 midjd said:

I'm surprised by the responses. Going solely by KBB value, mileage means almost nothing. An 02 with 50K miles is going to be worth much less than an 06 with 200K miles. (This doesn't seem to take into account the fact that it's harder to sell a car that has super-high mileage).

I put in my car with 70k miles and 170k miles and the value got cut in half.  But a 02 with 70k miles, and an '06 with 170k miles are worth the same - within a hundred bucks.  So, I disagree that mileage means "almost nothing."  It just isn't the only thing that is taken into account.

[wvugurl26]

Apr 24, 2013 13:34:12 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

I'm surprised by the responses. Going solely by KBB value, mileage means almost nothing. An 02 with 50K miles is going to be worth much less than an 06 with 200K miles. (This doesn't seem to take into account the fact that it's harder to sell a car that has super-high mileage).

Clearly Kelley is an idiot.  Most new cars are going to die somewhere around 200k miles on average.  Whether you put all those miles on in 1 year or 15 doesn't really matter.  Somewhere around 200k or a quarter million miles your engine and transmission will be shot.  At the same time, any car that's about 12 years old starts having things break as well.  Whether you drive it all the time or almost never.  If you had one car that was only 3 years old but it already had 200k miles on it, and another car that was 15 years old but only had 15k miles on it, I wouldn't trust either.

The one exception are diesel engines.  Those things will run well over half a million miles.

You still run into issues with the body. There's an actual mod kit to strap a Cummins diesel into a newer Ford body. That Dodge body will kick the bucket long before the Cummins engine.

My brother just bought a 2007 Dodge diesel with 100k miles on it, one owner, truck came from San Antonio. It's engine is barely broke in.

[midjd]

What I meant was that mileage above the "normal" range isn't going to make much difference. 70K is much less than average for an 11yo vehicle. If you plugged in your car with 130K miles vs. 200K miles, I'm guessing the values wouldn't change much. I did it for a 2002 version of my vehicle and there was a $400 difference. I changed it to 250K miles and it dropped by $50. So it may be a matter of "bottoming out" in value?

It may also be regional... cars up here tend to rust more quickly because of the exposure to the rain/snow/salt, so I'm wondering if the KBB for a pre-2000 vehicle in this area would be less than one in the southwest.

[alabamagal]

I think mileage is most important and you should hopefully be able to get to 200k.

But age can also be a factor on a low mileage car. My Mom just gave up her 1992 Honda with just about 100k miles on it. She had quite a few repairs done on the car in the last 5 or so years that you would not expect on a car under 100k miles on it. The previous owner was her mom, so we can trust the odometer She recently replaced all shocks, radiator, starter and a few other things. The car also required a paint job, S. Fla sun is tough on paint. Even though it is a Honda, the age was getting to it. My Honda of the same era made it to 170k before there were ever any repairs, but that was over 10 years.

[thyme4change]

Apr 24, 2013 13:49:06 GMT -5 midjd said:

It may also be regional... cars up here tend to rust more quickly because of the exposure to the rain/snow/salt, so I'm wondering if the KBB for a pre-2000 vehicle in this area would be less than one in the southwest.

It absolutely is.  Used cars in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, etc. are more expensive and KBB recognizes that.  But, they last a lot longer, too.  

It is a great place to own a classic car.  When we sold our 66 mustang in the 90's, people would travel from around the country to look at it (and others.)  We had a few people that were pissed off when they realized that just because we were the original owner it didn't mean that it had always lived in Arizona.  

[thyme4change]

What I meant was that mileage above the "normal" range isn't going to make much difference. 70K is much less than average for an 11yo vehicle. If you plugged in your car with 130K miles vs. 200K miles, I'm guessing the values wouldn't change much. I did it for a 2002 version of my vehicle and there was a $400 difference. I changed it to 250K miles and it dropped by $50. So it may be a matter of "bottoming out" in value?

So, basically, you want to take back everything you said that KBB said last time and put in all new parameters?

[midjd]

Fine Thyme, you win. Happy?

[thyme4change]

LOL - just messin' with you.  

[midjd]

<<jots "hypersensitive hormonal angst" in pregnancy journal>>

Good to know, I suppose... neither of our vehicles decreased in value between 150K and 250K miles, but I'm guessing that was because they had reached the bottom of their possible value, not because the miles didn't matter. Or maybe something else.

DH has hinted that I should trade my car in when the warranty runs out (100K) because I'll get more for it then than I will when it's 6yo with 150K, but the idea of trading in a 4yo car gives me heartburn.

[thyme4change]

Apr 24, 2013 14:47:15 GMT -5 midjd said:

<<jots "hypersensitive hormonal angst" in pregnancy journal>>

LOL  

[Peace Of Mind]

Based on my experience I would say mileage.  My car is old but has low mileage and it keeps running.  But it's also Japanese so maybe it's more that than anything.

[kent]

I'll say mileage is more important.  "My" car is 37 years old with about 108,000 on it.  It still runs like a watch BUT I wouldn't want my wife driving it anywhere because it "might" have a part fail and leave he stranded.  To that end, she drives a 2011 vehicle with all the neat safety stuff that isn't on the 1976.

[doxieluvr]

Apr 24, 2013 12:30:22 GMT -5 Bob Ross said:

Mileage is more important IMHO.

 

My car is a 1997.  When I bought it a few years ago, it had 65k miles on it.  I'm almost at 90k now.  Other than routine maintenance stuff, it hasn't given me a problem.

 

Some things like hoses, seals, tires (which can crack and/or dry rot) can deteriorate with age, and a car that has sat idle for years can have a myriad of problems, but for the most part, mileage affects a car much more than age does.

I disagree. 

I have a low mileage, 18 year old car. It is not the miles that have wore so many parts out. It is just plain old age. Once you replace one part, everything else in the same system follows suit.

It has maybe 60,000 miles on it. Probably less. 25,000 of those were put on it in the last eighteen months.