When is too old/too high mileage?

With the continuing issues with Miata, my wife has brought back her weary argument that, "You buy cars that are too old or have too many miles on them". I've tried to explain that most modern cars are capable of doing 200,000 miles when taken care of. And that a 10 or even 15 year old car is not, in fact, old. However she does have some ammo on me. The two sports cars I've owned (1988 Porsche 944, 2001 Mazda Miata) have been headaches, prone to problems.

So I'm working on selling the current Miata, and looking for another one. But I'm going to be a lot more careful about buying this time. I've found several good ones. However I have to ask o-GRM guru's. How old is too old? And how many miles are too many?

(Links to the ones I'm considering just in case anyone cares)

http://tinyurl.com/1991-145K

http://tinyurl.com/1997-80k

http://tinyurl.com/1994-157K

I've had old cars with high miles that were reliable and I've had newer cars with FAR fewer miles that were piles of garbage. It really is a case of buying the nicest one you can.

The lowest mileage car i own is also the one in the WORST shape, so that shoots that theory to E36 M3 and back.

As a matter of fact, it's the MX3. With 80k miles, it's being cannibalized to give new life to the 283k mile Escort GT that has been reliable as hell.

The MX6 has 173k miles.
The Celica has 253k miles.

I won't get rid of them.

Meh. Depends on a few things. First and foremost, purchase price. If you buy cars for a little more than scrap value (laugh all you want, I do it all the time,) you can't lose.

Second, how much is it going to cost you if things go WAY south (think ventilated block.) I'm guessing the Miata is relatively cheap and easy. The Porsche? Probably not so much.

Last, how much of the work are you doing yourself? If the answer is "all of it," no problem. Labor is free, and you're just in for parts.

All that said, if you've got the dough, keep mamma happy and buy her something decent with lower miles. I wish I could afford to!

I try to avoid cars that have low mileage. Low mileage tends to mean low maintenance, even the things that wear out over time.

My daily driver shows 323k on it. Aside from burning a quart of oil every 400-500 miles, it's in fine shape mechanically.

There is no age or mileage when a car is too old. IMO on a modern (as in EFI, plastic dash, etc) its worn out when the wiring harness starts to fall apart, and the interior and trim gets too nasty and replacements arent available, as far as individual cars go. For a particular model of car, engine, etc, it would be when parts like starters, alternators, cv joints and similar are only available as autozone rebuilds, which IMO arent reliable enough for a driver.

Low miles doesn't necessarily mean low maintenance, but as someone on here has said in the past, cars that don't get used get sad. And you end up with stuff that gets damaged/seizes from standing around.

My 911 is very low mileage but has reoccurring brake problems because it stood around that much and isn't used much either with me being 6000 miles away from the car.

This is probably the worst crowd to answer this question. Or maybe the best. Depends on whether or not you're into enabling.

Yet somehow, this argument is eerily familiar in my own household . . .

I still have to remind my wife that my $2700 MR2 with $3000 worth of repairs/mods (over 5 years) is STILL CHEAPER than anything she would have us buy.

I got a van from 1987 with 135K. My dad baught it new in 1986. No problems. Ever. It even starts in -30 degree weather. I never did buy that argument about how cars get too old and increasingly expensive to keep repairing. This one has only taken standard maintainance to keep going. spark plugs, tires, brake pads, all stuff that new cars need. The only difference is that a set of spark plugs or brake pads for a ford van seem to be cheaper than alot of new cars.

Ok so honestly it did need a U joint once and an aftermarket exhaust got a bit rusty and 'dislodged' after a high speed incident involving a very large (and surprizingly dense) raccoon, so i needed a new one of those too. All togethor for parts and labor (including an oil change and greasing) was like $200. Pretty cheap if you ask me.

never too old, never too many miles.

Everything is price dependent. A high mileage car that has been taken care of is in better shape than the average "low mileage" car that is for sale these days. I have seen 150 thousand mile 944s that look like they rolled off the assembly line yesterday. Absolutely mint!

Never too old, never too many miles.

I've got a work van that just turned over 400K. It's twelve years old. It is on the road every day all over the state. I have no plans to replace it...ever. I paid $1000 for it. I have put about $7000 in it in repairs, engine, transmission, brakes, tires, A/C work, and a radiator. Most of that work done by the Ford dealership because I don't have the time or the inclination. That $8000 is still substantially cheaper than buying a new one for $30K. As long as the body looks good and isn't rusted we'll keep fixing it and sending it back out on the road.

Drewsifer wrote: I've tried to explain that most modern cars are capable of doing 200,000 miles when taken care of. And that a 10 or even 15 year old car is not, in fact, old.

When taken care of
This is the key. All my cars except my wifes new car has over 100k on them and my truck has >203k. When taken care of with regular maintenance modern (heck anything) will last a lo-o-ong time.

I have my doubts about how much "care" has to do with it. All of my company vans (4) are ex fleet vehicles and are back in a fleet of sorts. Yeah, they probably, maybe got regular oil changes, but you know the drivers flogged the crap out of them. I have never asked for maintenance records on any of them. I don't really care if they were taken care of as long as the engines sound good and the transmissions shift and the bodies are in great shape. I would rather buy a cheap thousand dollar van and put another four thousand in it than buy a five thousand dollar van. At least then I know what is fixed right.

It's also different when you don't particularly care about the vehicle in question. If a van blows up it's just another broken tool. You either fix it or replace it. I have a spare just for that reason.

Half a million miles does tend to slow me down a bit. Below that, and it's all fair game. I'm much more interested in the condition of the car than the miles that are on it.

Any miata under 100k miles is just broken in. I cant tell you how many 200000+ mile motors I have split open to find etching still in the cylinder barrels. I can only remember one engine that had any damage.
I gave up on one miata that had wiring issues(more than likely due to the aftermarket alarm that was "patched" into the harness). The entire dash would just die as you were driving down the highway. We chased the issue for months and never found it. I sold the car cheap AS IS but still see the car periodically on the road.
Both of our current street miata have less than 130k on the clock.

Travis_K wrote: There is no age or mileage when a car is too old. IMO on a modern (as in EFI, plastic dash, etc) its worn out when the wiring harness starts to fall apart, and the interior and trim gets too nasty and replacements arent available, as far as individual cars go.

Yep - once you start replacing major components, the vehicle's "mileage" is irrelevant. If you have to go through the trans every 150k, the engine every 200k, replace brake hydraulics every 100k or so, etc - after that first time, what's the difference?

Of course, this is where "well maintained" meets "poorly maintained". A lot of cars where everything seems to fall apart all at once are really a case of the owner not keeping up with repairs, until finally it turns into, well, it needs an (x) now, but it still needs (y) and (z) and (w) like it has for the past 30,000 miles, better to just dump it.

Or, as you say, the wiring harness is getting flaky (connectors do have a lifespan - on newer cars it's typically FOUR reconnects!) or the body is terminal (dammit Ohio, it's a road, not a margarita) or the interior is trashed. That's the part of the job I really hate, having to tell people that they probably have another six months to a year left in the car before they need to start looking for another one, due to the rust. The worse part is when people don't listen No sense in putting, say, a transmission in a car that has no rockers anymore.

For a particular model of car, engine, etc, it would be when parts like starters, alternators, cv joints and similar are only available as autozone rebuilds, which IMO arent reliable enough for a driver.

NAPA, man. Costs a bit more, but that's because it's worth it.

NAPA still shows top-mount starters for rotaries! I'm probably going to be needing one when I try to do my bellhousing adaptation work.

Matt B wrote: I still have to remind my wife that my $2700 MR2 with $3000 worth of repairs/mods (over 5 years) is STILL CHEAPER than anything she would have us buy.

Wait, what? Do you know me?

I bought my '91 MR2 for $2700. Yup, about two years later I had to get the engine rebuilt. I tell my wife the same thing. Still less than half what we paid for her 4Runner and now it's in pretty awesome shape! I'm one of those stereotypical cheapskates. Just can't bring myself to spend more than $3000 on a car - er, all at once.

That's what it comes down to. If the body is in good condition and the paint is serviceable, anything else can be fixed. Just depends on how handy you are and how willing to do a job from time to time.

Of course, there are plenty of folks who buy a new car and just a couple of years later discover that the transmission is junk and drop more than I pay for a car to get a new one. So in the long run I think you come out way ahead on the old car if you do the work, or a lot of it, yourself. Plus you can get those neat cars you couldn't afford when you were a kid.

Take care,

Ed

Knurled wrote: (dammit Ohio, it's a road, not a margarita)

Ak, I forget these things. I grew up in Ohio. I'm still shocked when I go home and see rusty cars. California was great for clean old cars, but I'm amazed how good Colorado is.

I once had a car that was 5 years old with 12,000 miles on it and looked brand new. I sold it to a dealer for $400 and he later accused me of ripping him off.

That LeCar was too old with too many miles before it was even broken in properly!

BoxheadTim wrote: Low miles doesn't necessarily mean low maintenance, but as someone on here has said in the past, cars that don't get used get sad. And you end up with stuff that gets damaged/seizes from standing around.

+1.

I have a friend who bought a 26-year-old car with ~60k on it that had serious issues from the get-go, mostly brake and clutch, lots of rotten rubber, etc. Total PITA; he sold it a couple years later because it was never unreliable.

Conversely, I have a friend with a 16-year-old car that was very well taken care of prior to him purchasing it, and it's got +300k on the clock. If I could bet 10 people $10 to guess the mileage by looking at it, 10 more $10 by driving it, and 10 more $10 by doing a compression test, I'd walk away with $300. The car looks awesome inside and out and hauls ass.

Knurled wrote: (dammit Ohio, it's a road, not a margarita)

Magazine-worthy. I ask the same thing of Mass. and NH every winter.

I have a 14 year old Civic that I use as my DD and as my work car (I deliver pizzas 20-25 hours a week). When I got it, it had 150k on it and it now has nearly 184K. EVERYTHING, including the A/C still works as new. As others have already pointed out, age and/or mileage isn't what makes a car "too old" but rather how well it was cared for and for that matter, how well it was designed.

Right now, one of the MANY cars I'm leaning towards buying is a 15 year old Lexus. It has low miles for the year and was obviously VERY well cared for by it's 2 previous owners. Certainly a much better car to own than my 8 year old 914 was....even with only 10-12K more miles on the odometer.

the saab I just bought was one of those cars that was taken care of most of it's life. On the way home I watched the Odo click over to 223,344 miles... (now at 223,5XX) it is running VERY strong and with less than $200 in repairs/maintance.. is smooth and powerful for a non-turbo 2.1.

not bad for a car that will 20 years old in a few months

Another vote for looking at the big picture (condition/maintenence), but also gotta add..

Recall the various quirks of the design! My first VW Corrado (it was a `92, 1st year of the VR6), I was stoked to find one with less than 100K on the clock. Eventually learned that early VR6s have timing chain guide problems. Shoulda bought one with 150K..by then, one without bent valves has had that job done. At least the OO (non-enthusiast lady doctor in Panama City, FL) was scared enough to do have the dangerous part of the recall work (fuel rail) done, but not the PITA one (heater core). I actually paid my favorite shop to do that one..I've made the mistake of helping a Corrado buddy take a dashboard out of one once, and I'll trade gold for blood eight days a week never to do it again.

My buddies with 1st gen Miatas all seem to have some sort of crank pulley story, and every other car guy I know who drives older cars has similar stories about the particular things that make us say, "they all do that".

Drew, one last comment, OK?
I consider myself very lucky that my own SWMBO (dammit, the girl still won't say yes!, but she ain't exactly left the house yet! ) grew up poor, and considers "high mileage" used vehicles as a normal part of modern life. Some of the problems she's had with her 150K 1992 Olds Bravada, she's noticed I don't have them with my 230K 1992 VW Golf. Now that she's shopping around a little, she's asking questions a lot like my own about a car. "Do you have mainentence records?", and "Is there a website for people who own these things?"

Ironically enough (especially considering my irrational hatred for all things related to Stupid Useless Vehicles.. ), I'm trying to convince her to keep it. She's spent so much money getting it "sorted out" (lightly used transfer case/bunch of U-joints, and I replaced the leaky remote oil filter hoses) that it will probably run pretty good for another two or three years. Only problem now is that the electrics are getting weird. All that fancy interior lighting switched on, and wouldn't switch off a couple of weeks ago..we spent about an hour taking all of the light bulbs out so that she wouldn't have to worry about a dead battery. The damn thing hasn't burned to the ground from a short yet, so IMO we're still "ahead of the curve".

I don't think it's got to do with miles or years near as much as maintenance. I've got 300,000+ miles on my Vic with well over 170,000 miles on the engine and it's never let me down. I drive it hard as hell, but I do regular maintenance, which includes replacing parts that wear out BEFORE they fail. When you test drive a car, bring some one that is really good at diagnosing potential problems (a veteran mechanic would be best). With older cars you have an advantage, all the critical parts wear out, and usually give you signs that they are. With newer cars a lot of critical parts are electronic and fail without warning.

My Father purchased a 69 Torino for $3000, not sure on mileage but it looks to be the original engine. He tuned the carb properly, changed fluids, greased suspension, and has been 100% reliable as his daily driver for over a year now.