Age VS mileage

Which one do you care more.

Say 2 cars, same model similar conditions

Car 1: 65K 1999

Car 2: 90K 2001

Which one should cost more?


Thanks.

Depends on brand...

If its Honda or Toyota. The 2001 would cost more

Originally Posted by MameXP

Depends on brand...

If its Honda or Toyota. The 2001 would cost more

Why is that? I personally think 25K is a lot.

In our climate, age is more important than mileage IMHO. The most important factor is how well the car has been treated. As an extreme example, back in 2002, I purchased a 1988 model car with 92 000kms. My friend had a 1995 car with 110 000 kms. Both cars have been fairly reliable considering the age but the 1995 has been much more reliable. The 1988 is a Toyota. The 1995 is an Acura so the domestic vs. import comparison is invalid in this instance.

The 2001 car should be more expensive based on Red book.

You have to consider other factors as well esp. if the 2001 car is under market value.

Originally Posted by redflag

Why is that? I personally think 25K is a lot.

2001 with 90k means that lots of highway drives. Not much stress on the car itself.

FOr Toyota and Honda 90k means nothing to the engine, suspension and other major parts. It has resale value higher. Also 2 less years in snow means alot to the body frame.

Mind you, all jap cars i haven known, if you dont abuse it or mod it without knowledge, the body usually gives up b4 the engine or anything else. Thats because the harsh winter we get here in Canada.

But with low reliability cars like Kia, or GM, high mileage reduces the resale value alot. I have seen many GM cars after 100k mark, repairs are just rediculous. My workers have to give it up cause he cant afford the downtime having the car in the shop. So 1999 with 25k less mileage in this case would be the same or slightly high cost.

Mileage isnt everything everyone. Its how you drive it that matter most.

Thank you guys for your advice.