Age Vs Mileage, where is the sweet spot?

I'll clock in for the old low mileage camp. Shop by reputation. X car with Y engine built from 1998-2004 runs forever. Find a clean low mileage example of that car. My not be "cheap" but far less than a low mileage late model.

Carfax Carfax Carfax......

And hopefully a pile of service records.....

Very hard to find anymore , original owner , 10-15k miles a year and service records, .....

Took me a few months but finally found a Van  ........

I did this a while back and using excell and graphs and everything came up with 6 years and 80K +/-  is the sweet spot for price versus age versus millage.  Obviously adjust the price depending how far off the car you are looking at is from that delta.  This does not work on specialty cars but on your basic truck/car/suv it seems to work ok.  

In reply to dean1484 :

Awesome, what lead you to that 6 year 80K conclusion?  Is there some kind of inflection point in value or what?  Interested in you methodology?

OK, so other than Dean's (awesome) observation above.  What do people consider 'young' and 'high' mileage and what do they consider 'old' and correspondingly 'low' miles?

Let's do 'young' first.  I'd consider anything from 1-5 years old as 'young'.  That covers, in general, one full generation of a product.  There may have been a face lift and some minor changes in that time, but basically you are getting either the current generation, or a just replaced vehicle.  The advantage of that is it will have most modern features and amenities.  For high miles on a young vehicle I'm thinking anything over 20-25K a year.  I, like most people I think, have a mental block still at 100K miles.  These days I think that's a bit of a misnomer, but at the same time, I want to put another 100K miles on the vehicle.  200K miles is a lot.  If not for the basic mechanics these days, but the wear and tear on the seats, trim, headlight fogging, windshield pitting etc.  Yes, all this stuff can be changed, but it's vehicle dependent as to the cost.  For a mass produced vehicle you can go to Rock Auto, Amazon or whoever and replace pitted fogged headlights for $50 or less each.  FOr my Boxster, remanufactured headlights start at over $500 each.  Ditto repairing seats etc.  I just go lucky and had the drivers seat back leather replaced through contacts, they made a new one for me, but otherwise your talking $500 for replacement covers.  I'm thinking my absolute upper limit is say 80K miles at purchase for a newer car, that would hold true for a 2 year old of a 5 year old car.  Thoughts?

At the other end of the spectrum, if you are talking a 10 -15 year old car.  What is low miles?  IF you take the even the average miles, any of those cars is already well over 100K, but I'm thinking of the lower mile cars that were toys or 2nd-3rd even 4th cars.  Something less than 50-80K.  I'd be wary of a 15 year old car with only 20-30K miles. TO me that's so low, it's spent too much time sitting.  I'd be worried about the various systems corroding, seizing etc. from lack of use.  Plus I dread to think of, especially a high performance, engine sitting for months at a time, then getting started for a cars and coffee or ice cream run, never getting truly warmed up then shut off again.  Ugh.  So, I think I've somehow convinced myself that an old but low mileage car is honing in on that same 80K figure.

Really I'm thinking out loud here.  It's all musings right now, but I value thoughts, comments etc.  Please tell me why I'm spot on, and or totally out to lunch.

Cheers peeps.

Tom_Spangler said:

Give me the newer, higher mileage car. Less time to be exposed to the elements, newer tech, newer safety, more options available. And the stuff that wears out is generally stuff that can be replaced without too much trouble, like brakes and wheel bearings and clutches. Besides, newer vehicles just last a lot longer than they used to. 100k is nothing anymore. IMO, the older car with fewer miles is just as likely to give you problems, they will just be different problems, so you might as well have the new hotness.

Totally respect that, but I'm the opposite.  More miles means more time for the previous owner to neglect maintenance, it was constantly driven, it is that much closer to needing major repairs, and depending on the vehicle, it might just be completely spent and beat.  I'm also not a fan of some of the new tech.  ABS, power windows, and airbags... great.  Lane departure, automatic braking, and automatic windshield wipers?  Hell no.  Just more stuff to fail at astronomical prices.  Not to mention, dumbing down the driving prowess of newer generations of drivers.  Automatic braking sensor fails in your new Suby?  Congrats.  You're in limp mode until it's fixed with a $600 sensor and a reflash at the dealer for $300.

Give me an old chunk of iron with low miles.  $10 bearings, $25 alternators that can be replaced with a spanner and 15 minutes, and extensive access to common parts-swapping stuff.  I have a 94 Mazda that I bought with 88k.  Cheap to buy, cheap to run, cheap to maintain.

The really big thing for me is track record.  Buying a newer, high-mileage car means you are the guinnea pig.  You're the one who gets to find out that your car likes to blow head gaskets at 200k because few others have ventured that far into mileage with their specimen.  Older cars with low mileage means you can google it all.  Millions of cars just like them have already made it to many hundreds of thousands of miles and established what likes to fail.  My Mazda likes to develop collapsed lifters around 200k which means I have 8 years before I have to worry about it and there are already 500 Youtube videos on how to do it.

Just my personal preference.

I like the time capsules.  Older cars with lower mileage

Adrian_Thompson said:

OK, so other than Dean's (awesome) observation above.  What do people consider 'young' and 'high' mileage and what do they consider 'old' and correspondingly 'low' miles?

Let's do 'young' first.  I'd consider anything from 1-5 years old as 'young'.  That covers, in general, one full generation of a product.  There may have been a face lift and some minor changes in that time, but basically you are getting either the current generation, or a just replaced vehicle.  The advantage of that is it will have most modern features and amenities.  For high miles on a young vehicle I'm thinking anything over 20-25K a year.  I, like most people I think, have a mental block still at 100K miles.  These days I think that's a bit of a misnomer, but at the same time, I want to put another 100K miles on the vehicle.  200K miles is a lot.  If not for the basic mechanics these days, but the wear and tear on the seats, trim, headlight fogging, windshield pitting etc.  Yes, all this stuff can be changed, but it's vehicle dependent as to the cost.  For a mass produced vehicle you can go to Rock Auto, Amazon or whoever and replace pitted fogged headlights for $50 or less each.  FOr my Boxster, remanufactured headlights start at over $500 each.  Ditto repairing seats etc.  I just go lucky and had the drivers seat back leather replaced through contacts, they made a new one for me, but otherwise your talking $500 for replacement covers.  I'm thinking my absolute upper limit is say 80K miles at purchase for a newer car, that would hold true for a 2 year old of a 5 year old car.  Thoughts?

At the other end of the spectrum, if you are talking a 10 -15 year old car.  What is low miles?  IF you take the even the average miles, any of those cars is already well over 100K, but I'm thinking of the lower mile cars that were toys or 2nd-3rd even 4th cars.  Something less than 50-80K.  I'd be wary of a 15 year old car with only 20-30K miles. TO me that's so low, it's spent too much time sitting.  I'd be worried about the various systems corroding, seizing etc. from lack of use.  Plus I dread to think of, especially a high performance, engine sitting for months at a time, then getting started for a cars and coffee or ice cream run, never getting truly warmed up then shut off again.  Ugh.  So, I think I've somehow convinced myself that an old but low mileage car is honing in on that same 80K figure.

Really I'm thinking out loud here.  It's all musings right now, but I value thoughts, comments etc.  Please tell me why I'm spot on, and or totally out to lunch.

 

Cheers peeps.

I agree with you on the 100k "block."  100k with someone like me who is meticulous with maintenance and repair is nothing, but 100k with my Sister's family means a completely wasted vehicle that likely needs a new engine.  It's not that they don't maintain them, it's that they are completely ignorant of problems.  I recently shared the story about their Freestar van... it developed an oil leak.  The low oil light came on but they determined that it still ran ok.  The low oil light went off (burnt out) so they assumed the oil fairy fixed it.  They kept driving it and ignored the lifter ticks until finally one day it seized.  They were completely clueless about it.

Also depends on the vehicle.  I wouldn't hesitate to buy a W210, a Duramax, or early 4.6L F150 with good maintenance records and 250k, but I wouldn't touch an S2 Disco with 40k because I know the transmission AND engine are likely going to cost me $5000 really soon and something about the electronics will need complex diagnosis and repair.  (sorry, I know you're a Rover fan, but I ran import repair shops for too long)

I believe in the high mileage (100k+) young car (5-10 yrs) theory. These especially in Michigan have a majority of highway miles driven south to Auburn Hills, Warren, Pontiac, or Dearborn which are mush easier on the car than mileage from stop and go pot holed city streets. As a bonus these cars are also cheaper as buyers are afraid of the mileage.

Example is daughters '07 Pontiac G5 with >220K miles. Engine and trans have had no issues. Just struts and brakes over the past 3 years. Sills are rusted out but otherwise rust free underneath.

bruceman said:

I believe in the high mileage (100k+) young car (5-10 yrs) theory. These especially in Michigan have a majority of highway miles driven south to Auburn Hills, Warren, Pontiac, or Dearborn which are mush easier on the car than mileage from stop and go pot holed city streets. As a bonus these cars are also cheaper as buyers are afraid of the mileage.

You say that is if our highways aren't also full of potholes... 

bruceman said:

I believe in the high mileage (100k+) young car (5-10 yrs) theory. These especially in Michigan have a majority of highway miles driven south to Auburn Hills, Warren, Pontiac, or Dearborn which are mush easier on the car than mileage from stop and go pot holed city streets. As a bonus these cars are also cheaper as buyers are afraid of the mileage.

Example is daughters '07 Pontiac G5 with >220K miles. Engine and trans have had no issues. Just struts and brakes over the past 3 years. Sills are rusted out but otherwise rust free underneath.

That  is some rustbelt optimism right there.  Claiming that some of SW Michigan does not have crappy streets.  Further more, the optimism to use the phrase "rust free" in combination with "sills rusted out."  

Well I certainly would not consider anything that was 10 years old that had done 150K miles and lived through rust belt winters.  I could see a 15 year old sports car with 100K miles that has been garaged in the winter, but people outside of here don't understand how bad the rust can be.  It's also manufacturer dependent.  My 08 Volvo with 120K miles and 11 Michigan winters is still, truly pretty much by anyones standards rust free underneath.  But you will never see Mazda,  Subaru, Ford Escape or myriad other vehicles of that age and mileage without disintegrating rear wheel arches.  Every single one does it.

Here's another slight twist on the age Vs mileage using two different vehicles that on paper are similar(ish) 

Porsche Cayman, any age spec Vs Nissan 370Z, again any age but ignoring the base model. 

Price point $15K.  For that you can get an early 07/08 Cayman with north of 100K miles.

Alternatively you could find a 370Z 09-up with circa 50-60K miles, probably less. 

Looks aside as that is so personal, but taking into account reliability, parts etc.  what's the better bet?

My experience with older low mileage cars is that they tend to need a lot of maintenance in the first few months of ownership if subject to regular use. Whether that's due to sitting or issues just going unnoticed with only occasional use I don't know, but my Camaro and Cherokee were both solid examples of this. On the flip side, the Camaro was amazingly clean for a northeast car.

I don’t think there are blanket statements or rules that can be applied to the entire used car buying situation. You have look at each situation individually, because there are too many variables. And you can’t control them all or you may never find a vehicle. And you have already ruled out the far extremes (such as less than 5 years with over 100k and anything older with only 20k miles). I would figure out what car you want and then just search in that. 

And are you trying to find the sweet spot for what will be cheapest to own or what will be the least problematic (not require repairs?)?

Personally, I’m not afraid of high miles alone, but if it’s been abused, neglected or a design/brand with a poor reputation of reliability I avoid it. But that is probably irrespective of miles. 

Also, if you can find that 2 or 3 year old car that was driven 20k to 40k miles per year you will basically get a 2 year old design/tech for a 5 year old price, and the 5 year old car will have similar miles. 

At 6 years 60-70 percent depreciation has occurred and from there on it will not depreciate nearly as fast.   Conversely for most cars at 80K it is not un reasonable to expect them to go another 120K miles or more.  Yes you will have to deal with deferred maintenance but that can be avoided with smart shopping.  Also look at the "big" services on cars you are looking at purchasing.  This can be a huge bit of leverage on your part. Or conversuly if you get a car that has just had the big service and is prices at FMV that can be a good deal in the long run.  But I have found that the 6/80 is the sweet spot for purchasing your average used car.  The original owner has already take the huge hit on depreciation (60-70 precent) and yet with not much outlay on your part you are going to get 60-70 percent of the millage out of the car.  And even if you decide that the car is not for you and you sell it in 2-3 years the hit you take on depreciation is miniscule compared to person you got it from. 

Adrian_Thompson said:

In reply to dean1484 :

Awesome, what lead you to that 6 year 80K conclusion?  Is there some kind of inflection point in value or what?  Interested in you methodology?

 

I graphed depreciation versus time and found where it stopped dropping off as fast

Then I graphed Millage versus age and then compared that to age where the depreciation stopped dropping like a rock

Then you look at pricing where the two lines cross. You then get the FMV of the vehicle at that point and  look at what percentage that is of the new car price and compare that to what the remaining service life of the vehicle is. If the percentage of the price you are paying is less then the percentage of the remaining service life remaining it is then work looking at the specific vehicle and start haggling about things like major services being done and records of service over the vehicles life to that point and adjust the $$$$ accordingly off the base number to come up with a final value.  

A few months ago, one of my nurses bought a 99 Buick for $1000 when the elderly neighbor stopped driving. 16k miles.

I cautioned her that the rubber won't be good and she should replace hoses, belts and tires. She said it wasn't necessary, it was "like new."

First week she complained about having four blowouts. 

I stayed out of her business after that.

My cheap ass approach.  

2008 Pathfinder LE V8 top trim.  $45k new, previous owner paid $25k with 52k miles, I paid $7k @ 119k miles.

1st owner absorbed $20k for 52 thousand miles, second owner absorbed $18k for 67 thousand miles, I will absorb about $4 thousand running it for 100 thousand miles and selling it for $3k as a well maintained rusty hulk.

This is how I roll.

My old Maxima cost me $10k we ran it for 100 thousand miles, sold it for $1500.

Current 5, paid $9k 70 thousand miles later it’s maybe worth $3k.

 Basically I shoot for less than a grand depreciation per year or ten thousand miles of ownership.

This is almost always an eight year old car with about one hundred thousand miles on it for half to a third the cost of new, I just add the second hundred until it’s worthless. 

My 2000 avalon  gets at 68 mph, in cruise control. I get 34 mpg on open highway  trips, city/town..27 mpg.all tires at 36 psi. Syn. Oil,and every other oil change, I drain 3.5 quarts of tranny fluid,and replace.

Miata.

Lol, carry on.

akylekoz said:

My cheap ass approach.  

2008 Pathfinder LE V8 top trim.  $45k new, previous owner paid $25k with 52k miles, I paid $7k @ 119k miles.

1st owner absorbed $20k for 52 thousand miles, second owner absorbed $18k for 67 thousand miles, I will absorb about $4 thousand running it for 100 thousand miles and selling it for $3k as a well maintained rusty hulk.

This is how I roll.

My old Maxima cost me $10k we ran it for 100 thousand miles, sold it for $1500.

Current 5, paid $9k 70 thousand miles later it’s maybe worth $3k.

 Basically I shoot for less than a grand depreciation per year or ten thousand miles of ownership.

This is almost always an eight year old car with about one hundred thousand miles on it for half to a third the cost of new, I just add the second hundred until it’s worthless. 

 

This is exactly how I roll too.  Current Mazda is a 94 B4000 that I bought for $4k with 88k on the ticker.  It has every possible option except automatic so it was $18k originally.

My bag is finding the gems that take big depreciation hits because of the brand and researching which ones were good.  X308/350 jag.... W220 S-class.... They depreciate like crazy because of the name and the luxury, but they're actually pretty reliable rigs.  I passed on a Mercedes S65 with 100k on the clock for $16,000.  A V12 flagship that was originally $150k could be had for a tenth the price after 8 years and 100k miles.  I passed because I don't have $16k to spend on a vehicle.

I'd definitely pass on any Cayenne or Land Rover/Range Rover that's not under warranty.  I also wouldn't keep either of them outside of warranty.  Those are good cars to lease, not own as the ownership experience is quite costly.  I loved my '06 Cayenne Turbo S with ~140k miles until one day it started going through a quart of oil every 500-600 miles.  That would've been a very costly repair and I ended up trading it in for a Cayenne diesel that's under a long warranty from Porsche.  My experience with oil use is typical on the older Cayenne V8's unfortunately and the newer Turbos are just as bad on maintenance.

For an SUV, while a Land Cruiser isn't exciting to drive and it gets abysmal gas mileage, they simply just don't break.

As far as mileage/age, lower mileage is always better.  But a garage queen can take some money to press back into daily service as it's sat for so long that maintenance simply wasn't done regularly.

This is a great question, I am looking for an SUV right now and I am leaning on the higher mileage side since I am looking at Toyota/lexus vehicles. But your right how high is too high? I have been looking at suv's with 150k miles but I have been a little worried spending $10k+ dollars on such a high mileage car. Should I be looking at 110k? 

dean1484 said:

Adrian_Thompson said:

In reply to dean1484 :

Awesome, what lead you to that 6 year 80K conclusion?  Is there some kind of inflection point in value or what?  Interested in you methodology?

 

I graphed depreciation versus time and found where it stopped dropping off as fast

Then I graphed Millage versus age and then compared that to age where the depreciation stopped dropping like a rock

Then you look at pricing where the two lines cross. You then get the FMV of the vehicle at that point and  look at what percentage that is of the new car price and compare that to what the remaining service life of the vehicle is. If the percentage of the price you are paying is less then the percentage of the remaining service life remaining it is then work looking at the specific vehicle and start haggling about things like major services being done and records of service over the vehicles life to that point and adjust the $$$$ accordingly off the base number to come up with a final value.  

Very interesting! I had always thought to purchase cars older than 7 due to the lack of easy financing to push prices down, but I guess that isn't the case. 

lnlds said:

dean1484 said:

Adrian_Thompson said:

In reply to dean1484 :

Awesome, what lead you to that 6 year 80K conclusion?  Is there some kind of inflection point in value or what?  Interested in you methodology?

 

I graphed depreciation versus time and found where it stopped dropping off as fast

Then I graphed Millage versus age and then compared that to age where the depreciation stopped dropping like a rock

Then you look at pricing where the two lines cross. You then get the FMV of the vehicle at that point and  look at what percentage that is of the new car price and compare that to what the remaining service life of the vehicle is. If the percentage of the price you are paying is less then the percentage of the remaining service life remaining it is then work looking at the specific vehicle and start haggling about things like major services being done and records of service over the vehicles life to that point and adjust the $$$$ accordingly off the base number to come up with a final value.  

Very interesting! I had always thought to purchase cars older than 7 due to the lack of easy financing to push prices down, but I guess that isn't the case. 

I have never had an issue getting financing for an older car. I've financed a 13 year old car for 2.5x what I paid for it, too.

After looking around (a lot) to find the right car for the teenaged girl to take off to college in I've found what I believe to be a winner.  2000 Accord V-6 auto with 117K on the clock.   It belonged to a genuine grandma who passed last summer and her son doesn't need it.  He's asking $3,000 for it and I hope to get it for a bit over 2.  I guess the "older, but lower miles without being ridiculous" camp is where I land.

Found a 1990 Buick with just 39,000 miles on it and that seemed like a bad idea all around by comparison.