between a slightly older model with lower mileage, or a newer car with higher mileage, which do you choose? Assume all things are otherwise equal. In other words, the cars in question are all FSH, and in excellent condition.

Think in terms of a 2005 with around 90k and a 2008 with 140k.

Incidentally, I could be talking about a few different models here, as I am looking at a whole bunch of different estates in the £3000 range, including Ford Mondeo and Focus, VW Passat, Audi A6, Volvo V50, Saab 9-3, Jaguar X-Type, Peugeot 407 and 308.

Newer car higher mileage.

I would recommend a VAG car for you as I have the VCDS that can read fault codes.

The one without the tow bar.

Usually I’d say newer car higher mileage… But in your example if condition etc are equal then I’d probably go the other way. In reality, they’re probably not equal, age takes a toll which is why I’d give the answer I did.

Depends 100% on how it’s been looked after, maintained and cared for. When viewing cars, I’ve seen the same model completely trashed cosmetically and mechanically by 80k miles, yet seen others still going strong and still looking/feeling showroom fresh with twice that mileage simply because it’s been given all the TLC it needs by the owner.

Depends on your milage. If you drive below average miles then get the higher mileage car – by the time you’ve finished with it, it will be a low mileage car. If you’re above average mileage then maybe got for the lower mileage car.

Though having said that not sure why mileage is so important with cars. 200k miles is nothing on modern cars. Yes you might see a big bill or two over that 200k miles, but that is still a damn sight cheaper than changing a car purely on the basis of mileage.

Depends on price.

80-90k is coming up to major service (can belt etc)and quite a few component failures ime. – suspension/bushes etc while yer average user doesn’t notice these things so long as the key turns and it starts…..I do.

At 140k ….if those things have been done then it represents a bargain imo…and should last a good time .

At 90k and they haven’t been done then me ding me would reduce offer price accordingly for near garage rates and then get on it when I got home.

I had the same choice and went for the newer 09 plate Mondeo with 88k instead of an 07 with 60k.

Is it a diesel?

If so 140k is probably not a worry? (I’ve never owned a diesel)

Otherwise, I’d be going for the lower mile car. I always tend to buy cars around the 90-95k mark. Hasn’t done me wrong so far..

Depends on the owner…

Depends on the make and model, your intended use and the previous use. Wouldn’t have an old low mileage car that has only done short trips.
Also wouldn’t have a high mile small petrol engined car.

I’d go newer. Some parts (like water hoses) degrade over time, not distance.

Have a look at both and buy based on condition/service history. The difference in mileage is not really that relevant – go for the one that’s been looked after and looks to be in good condition. It’s stating the obvious, but a car that’s done 90,000 miles in school runs and supermarket trips will be more worn than something that’s done 140,000 motorway miles.

It’s worth bearing in mind that there’s a bit of a psychological barrier at 100k miles – cars depreciate disproportionately going from 90,000 to 105,000. If you’re planning to keep it for a few years it’s not a problem, although I’d try and buy something that’s already taken the hit.

Buy with your eyes open, but look after it and be prepared to swallow the odd large bill. The reason that cars don’t make 200,000 miles is because people give up on them.

As per the OP, it’s the low mileage one all day long.. wouldn’t even be looking at 140k cars.

Ninety thousand miles? A hundred and forty THOUSAND miles?

Depends on specific vehicles imo, points made above are good ones diesel vs petrol and school runs vs motorway. When I sold my a6 diesel it had 110k and ran very nicely (mainly motorway driving) whilst wife’s micra 1.6 petrol has 60k on it but those are mostly City driving and mechanically it’s more worn. Statement of obvious but large vs small car too.

Maserati.. I keep thinking Maserati.

Yep, low mileage. Especially if its the Mondeo.

Newer probably. Even in the same ‘mark’ of car, bugs get ironed out over time.

E.g. I had an early Mk2 Focus (Sep 2008), my Dad bought the same model just before they changed to the Mk3 (2012 some time). The interior was better, it didn’t have the slight click/creak from the seatbelt mounting, the radio was better and it had some other improvements I’ve forgotten.

My last two Vauxhall diesels have died at ~145k. First one was electrics and the other was due to a £1000 bill to pass its MOT and its gearbox being on it’s last legs. My dad has a 130k Saab 93 which looks to be failing at the same rate as the Vauxhalls.

Bearing in mind the Saab 93 is a Vauxhall under the shell, I would steer clear.

£3k for an old car seems like a lot of money. Yes modern cars can go on for a long time but why are the old owners getting rid?

Yeah, 8-11yrs old, 90-140k.
Either/both stand every chance of falling apart as soon as you get them home.

Newer probably. Even in the same ‘mark’ of car, bugs get ironed out over time.

Oh that’s a good point.

2008 is when VW switched from PD engines in Passats to common rail. Certain early 2.0 PD engines had some quality/design issues (which were recalled), but they were ironed out by 2008. But then, the common rail engine is a lot nicer, but it’s newer… Owning a late PD engine I’d go for common rail due to the smoothness.

So perhaps a bit of model specific knowledge is useful here.

Condition. We’ve been looking at cars recently, viewed almost identical cars where the 40k miler was tatty and the 60k miler still nice, yet the 60k miler was a lot cheaper !

That said, something with 140k miles would have to be v. cheap to tempt me even if it’s in vgc. I’d have to be planning on running it into the ground as it’ll be very hard to sell a few years down the line.

Yeah, 8-11yrs old, 90-140k.
Either/both stand every chance of falling apart as soon as you get them home.

I don’t buy into this. I know what I’m about to say is not infallible, but if you shop smart, it is my experience that you can get a car that lasts a long time.

In 1998, I bought a 10 year-old Volvo 740 GLE estate (petrol), with 180k kms on the odometer. I maintained it myself and, in the next five years, doubled the number of kms it had done. I then sold it to a friend who proceeded to use it to drive between Saskatoon and Toronto for the next 3 years. It did over 500k kms before giving up.

And frankly, I can’t really afford anything newer. So for me, it’s doing my best to buy smart in the first place, then maintaining well, and keeping the vehicle going as long and as well as I can. If a £3000 outlay allows me to do this, then I am happy.

I’d have to be planning on running it into the ground as it’ll be very hard to sell a few years down the line.

That is my intention. I tend to be a car long-termer.

I sold a 2003 Diesel Passat last year with 200k on the clock and i wouldn’t have had an issue with driving it to the Alps/Pyrenees again, as it did 2 or 3 times a year for 5 years. It ran like a dream.

My current car is a Diesel Smax, 105k bought in April last year and it’s done 3 trips to Spain/Pyrenees already and is still running great and with regular servicing should carry on doing.

Those saying stay away from high mileage cars are talking out of their exhaust pipes. Just stay away from cars that sound like a bag of shit or give you any suspicions when test driving.

but if you shop smart, it is my experience that you can get a car that lasts a long time.

Yes – but you have to be prepared to look after it (as you clearly are). So keep an eye on those little things and don’t think ‘oh it’s an old car and is dying’. Cars aren’t one thing, they are a collection of lots of little things. Just because something is failing, doens’t mean everything’s going to fail. As long as a car isn’t smoking badly or rusty, it’s probably worth looking after.

My sister had a B5 Passat, which is from when they were still famously reliable, with the famously reliable 1.9 TDI PD engine. They did have a design flaw though which was that the under-windscreen drain hole would block, causing water to overflow into the passenger footwell and mess around with the electronics. She had this problem and complained that the central locking didn’t work. She however assumed that the whole thing was dying and ditched what was otherwise an excellent car. Even after I told her all this, she did nothing, eventually I cleared the drain hole out for her but her mind was made up.

Someone else bought it though so not all lost. Also having said that they replaced it with a 2008 (this was 3 years ago) Golf estate that had done 100k miles. It was spotless, looked and ran like a new car. But due to the mileage was a real bargain.

You don’t necessarily have to DO all the work yourself, you just have to be aware. Also – having a code reader helps. I’ve never tried taking one along to a used car viewing, but I bet it’d be useful.

As someone who recently went through a similar predicament (my other car had broken in a big way so needed something cheap and reliable whilst it was being fixed) I’ve a few ‘learning points’ to take away from the whole thing.

First off, don’t buy anything powered by the 2.0 tdi VAG engine. A3/4, Mk5 Golf, Skoda – and certainly don’t buy a 170bhp model. I’ve had both a Passat and a Mk5 Golf with said engine and both have been a nightmare. Can’t face listing all the faults but the Golf has cost me the purchase price again(4k) in getting it to a point where it actually works and the passat was due a major bill but I traded it in before I had to spend up.

Buy on condition rather than mileage. You can’t apply a blanket rule that older lower mileage cars are better, or newer high mileage ones are worse….the low mileage mileage one could have done loads of trips round towns (bad) vs the high mileage one that did a trip once a week on a motorway (less bad). I had a 330d that had done 140k on a ’10 plate and it was miles nicer than the ’07 plate 335d I had before it that had only done 60k. My current Golf has done 140k and its an absolute nail…

Personally I’d also avoid diesel – they’re a fortune to fix compared to petrol when they go wrong. That’s coming from someone who has had loads of dervs.

If I was to do it all again, I’d buy something Japanese with a decent sized petrol engine – the mileage would be fairly irrelevant if the service history is up to date. And also something that has the minimum amount of electrickery to go wrong. No power seats, flashy aircon, keyless entry and so on. Mazda 6 are meant to be half decent and there’s plenty about.

People seem to be scared of the ‘ruinous financial horrors’ of owning an older car. My girlfriend’s best friend sold her perfectly good old BMW and bought a new car simply because she’d had a bill of nearly £1,000 to replace a few things. So because she was scared and wanted to avoid future ‘unexpected’ bills, she went out and bought a nearly new car on finance which must have depreciated at least £4-5k in the first year she owned it. Crazy way of (not) saving money in my eyes!

Indeed – I noticed this when I bought my car, value seems to go off a cliff at 100k. Hence the one I bought was 4yo with 125k on the clock, which cost me half what one the same age with 80k would have. I can’t see any reason why a car with that mileage in that sort of time should be a problem, given that it’s almost certainly done most of those miles on the motorway, hence the engine has done a lot less revs than one with half the mileage driven around town, along with little wear on all the other things – of course as mentioned above you buy on condition.

People refusing to buy young high mileage cars don’t have a very good idea of how cars wear out IMHO.

First off, don’t buy anything powered by the 2.0 tdi VAG engine.

Can’t agree with that. Most early disasters (the ones all over the internet) were before the oil pump and injector recalls. I’ve spent £140 on my engine in 7 years and 90k miles, besides cambelts.

The cambelt change frequency is quite short though, this is a bit of a pita.

Can’t agree with that. Most early disasters (the ones all over the internet) were before the oil pump and injector recalls

And I can’t agree with that. The 170 version has the injector wiring loom running underneath the rocket cover – so submerged in oil which eats the wiring causing misfires. And that’s just for starters. Lifter pump fault? Yep. Overheating ECU? Yep. Fragile turbo with variable vanes that stick? Yep. DPF issues from running it over short distances? Yep. EGR faults? Yep. Master fuel pump failing leaking oil back into the diesel tank which then clogs EVERYTHING up? Yep. DMF – of course!

In fact, the rarer ones are the injector faults – I’ve checked and mine came with Bosch ones from new. That said I’m sure they’ll pack up soon.

Its a sh1t design that has numerous faults. I’m sure the newer ones are ok, but the Mk5 is nothing short of dreadful.

I’ve spent £140 on my engine in 7 years and 90k miles, besides cambelts.

Is this not the same car that had about 11 different threads on it?

Red one.

I haven’t read the whole thread so apologies if this has been said already– I know the Fords will need the cam belt done at 100k so that is a £400ish cost to take into consideration.

Is this not the same car that had about 11 different threads on it?

Yeah go and read them.

I should clarify – I spent £140 on actual engine failures that were’t caused by a dozy American driver or a bad mechanic. Did you actually follow them or just see the words ‘VW PROBLEM’ like most people seemed to?

I’m sure the newer ones are ok

Didn’t you say ‘anything’ with a 2.0 TDI?

Yeah, but lets ignore EVERYTHING else I wrote about them shall we. You’re welcome to have my Golf for a fortnight if you want, just to see how many management lights come on and how many bits drop off it. Its shit, as was the passat before it.

A 3/4k 2.0 TDI isn’t going to be a Mk7 Golf. It’s going to be a Mk5 Golf or a Passat. Which IMO you’d be mental to buy.

No it’ll be a B6 Passat probably.

No idea why you had so many issues. Cleaned and checked my EGR, only slightly grimy. Turbo vanes free and clear.

Point stands that not all cars with that engine are turkeys.

No it’ll be a B6 Passat probably.

Yeah, the one like I had – with a 2.0 tdi in it. Which was shit.

I can’t be arsed – you’re clearly the oracle on VW TDI engines.

We have a ’06 plate Passat with a 2.0 TDI, is that the engine you’re talking about ? We’ve had it just over four years and the two engine problems I’ve had are:

1) One of the glow plugs died at around 100k miles.
2) A slightly flaky earth point produced an error about the MAP sensor, this was resolved by cleaning the earth point.

The stupid electric handbrake has been far more of an issue, in the time we’ve had it I’ve needed to replace both rear calipers @ about £200 each for the parts which would not have been necessary if it was a normal mechanical system !

The stupid electric handbrake has been far more of an issue, in the time we’ve had it I’ve needed to replace both rear calipers @ about £200 each for the parts which would not have been necessary if it was a normal mechanical system !

Interestingly that was the only part of my passat that didn’t cost a billion pounds to fix.

It might not apply to yours (I’m sure not all failures are the same) but if yours does fail again, its normally (so I’m told) the housing on the servo that cracks. I took mine off, cleaned everything up and super-glued the crack and it held for another 4k miles until I sold it.

I can’t be arsed – you’re clearly the oracle on VW TDI engines.

Well I have done a lot of research on them yes 🙂 you are just as clearly embittered and one of these ‘everything’s rubbish’ types like that fast show sketch 🙂

The handbrake, that is a design flaw though. As said its the housing that cracks so if it is currently working then some glue and perhaps tape should keep it sweet. Crack is quite visible from under the car.