Miles vs Years

"Poor_Sh" (ar4x)
02/08/2018 at 18:00 • Filed to: None

I’m sure this question has been asked, answered, and beaten to death. But, I haven’t found it with (very little) searching :p So:

Assuming same car model, and pretty much all other things equal, would you buy the 2014 with ~10,000mi or the 2017 with ~30,000 mi? Why?

Also assume you’re buying from a dealership so you don’t really know what type of owner came before you...

Red buffer Cayman

Now, to my mind, it would seem that the newer car was driven as a commuter which would be relatively safe for 30,000 miles. However, I would want to make sure the 30,000 mi checkup was done prior to purchase. I like low miles, and I bought my current car a year old with 9K, but my car before that started at 40k so I’m not opposed to some patina.

On the other hand, the older car with low miles was probably garaged, maybe tracked, and maybe sat for winters. I feel like the track/winter stuff could be bad... but it was still likely taken care of to a high degree. I’m leaning towards the newer car with higher miles.

Thoughts?

DISCUSSION (21)

HammerheadFistpunch > Poor_Sh
02/08/2018 at 18:16

Too few miles and years to make a difference. If we are talking about a 2008 with 200,000 miles or a 1995 with 100,000 miles then we can talk. In which case the 2008 (assuming they are both well taken care of respectively)

AM3R, lost another burner > Poor_Sh
02/08/2018 at 18:20

If there have been significant changes between those model years, I’d take whichever one I preferred the most. If you offered me a brand new F80 M3 or a 10k mile CPO E90 M3, you can bet I’d take the one with a V8.

The Crazy Kanuck; RIP Oppositelock > Poor_Sh
02/08/2018 at 18:21

2017/30,000. It has been driven (& I also assume it be hwy miles). The 2014/10,000 I would guess be city driving so more wear & tear on the drivetrain.

Chariotoflove > Poor_Sh
02/08/2018 at 18:22

2014 is too new to be really meaningful in this comparison, IMO. I was shopping 2007 MY cars with low miles, though, and finding that the years took their toll more than the odometer would indicate. Given a ten year old car with low miles and a 10 years newer car with double the miles, I’d take the newer car, even if it cost more. In fact, that’s what I did.

B_dol > Poor_Sh
02/08/2018 at 18:31

LOL at 40K “PATINA”

In this situation it is increasingly rare for all things to be equal. That being said years and miles age and wear the car in different ways.

At <3 years old it is essentially a wash and price would be my determinant, if not maintenance coverage. AT=t >10 years old items simply wear out due to age not necessarily use and that “refresh” budget is needed.

Poor_Sh > Chariotoflove
02/08/2018 at 18:36

The given assumptions state that everything else is basically equal, so how are the only differences left not meaningful enough to answer?

I certainly understand your position, and I agree with you in that situation, but that seems outside the scope of the question.

Poor_Sh > The Crazy Kanuck; RIP Oppositelock
02/08/2018 at 18:37

I hadn’t thought of the low miles = city driving. That certainly makes sense too. I guess that could even add the owners location as a variable to choosing a car, not just for the distance from me, but for what type of driving they’re likely to do most.

Poor_Sh > AM3R, lost another burner
02/08/2018 at 18:38

Well I stated everything else was basically equal, but you’re right I have been prioritizing the aspects of each model I desire most.

Poor_Sh > B_dol
02/08/2018 at 18:41

Haha I figured some of you would chuckle at that. I did bring that car up to 100k though, that’s somewhat better!

You and a few others have mentioned the age difference is basically negligible as far as worrying about simple wear, guess that solidifies my leaning towards the newer car.

B_dol > Poor_Sh
02/08/2018 at 18:47

Yep. It is hard to do a true apples to apples comparison.

If the newer car brought some models updates and tech that might outweigh the extra commuter miles a car did. Highway is always better than city and if you have insight into the previous owner(s) that helps too. Not all miles are equal...

The Crazy Kanuck; RIP Oppositelock > Poor_Sh
02/08/2018 at 18:49

That why I try to avoid older low km cars for sale in Toronto. My old manager bought a 2004 Mitsubishi Endeavor, 60,000kms in Toronto. 2 weeks into ownership the transmission took a shit, & it lit up like a Christmas tree. Good thing all used cars sold in Ontario have 36 day bumper to bumper (dougdumuro. gif) warranty by law.

ranwhenparked > Poor_Sh
02/08/2018 at 18:51

I think its a tossup, they’re both pretty new cars, one has about a year’s worth of my typical mileage, one has about three months’ worth, neither is old enough or high enough to really matter much.

BrianGriffin thinks “reliable” is just a state of mind > Poor_Sh
02/08/2018 at 19:00

Like others have said, this is actually tough as they are both close in years/miles but the difference can be telling.

I like to see ~10k/yr. I personally drive about 20k per year and take great care of my car because I CANNOT afford to break down anywhere. Anything less than 10k/yr means city or soccer-mom use, anything more than 30ish makes me question if the owner cared or had time for maintenance.

Also depends on the car. Since you mentioned “tracked”, I’m guessing you’re not talking about a Kia Rio...

So in your example...probably the 2017, unless there’s a major cost benefit to the 2014.

Chariotoflove > Poor_Sh
02/08/2018 at 19:00

So, to directly answer your question, I would take the 2017 car. Reasons: 1) the newer car is more likely to have more and newer features, including updated nav maps and things like Apple CarPlay, 2) the newer car is going to have significant warranty left on it while the 2014 car’s just expired, 3) the extra 20k miles on the 2017 car aren’t enough wear to negate the advantages of 1 and 2, assuming the mechanical state of both cars is identical.

HFV has no HFV. But somehow has 2 motorcycles > Poor_Sh
02/08/2018 at 19:04

Ally things being equal, Newer car with higher miles.

ToyotaFamily > Poor_Sh
02/08/2018 at 19:22

Speaking from personal experience here having bought two low mileage cars that were older. I’d rather get the ‘17 with 30k.

Poor_Sh > Chariotoflove
02/08/2018 at 19:23

Great thanks! Exactly what I’m looking for, sorry if I was vague.

Chariotoflove > Poor_Sh
02/08/2018 at 19:44

You weren’t vague. I just had changed the question I was answering.

Wrong Wheel Drive (41%) > Poor_Sh
02/08/2018 at 19:45

Anything under 100k with a positive PPI is a new car, regardless of age lol. But in any case, I don’t find age to be relevant for any car really. I’d prefer the one with fewer miles unless the newer one had features that I just had to have or something drastic had changed.

AMGtech - now with more recalls! > Poor_Sh
02/09/2018 at 00:14

Neither carries more weight than the other for me. They’re both just more information to think about with each specific car.

duurtlang > Poor_Sh
02/09/2018 at 02:58

20k miles difference is nothing. 30k miles is barely broken in.

I’d take the 2014 because it’ll have depreciated far more. If they’re priced the same than certainly the 2017 because it’ll be worth more after a number of years.