which would you buy, age vs miles

[tomtoc]

...been on the back of my mind

which is a "bigger factor" - age or miles.

for example, assume the same price and the same specs. if the world was perfect, same body style, same options inside and out, gas engines, etc

which would you buy
1996 w/ 55,000 miles
2003 w/ 310,000 miles

o, if you think my example cars are a bad example, i made them up - make up a new pair

 

[Lost]

body Condition . Rules I dont mind working on a older ride if body is good . Mileage does not bother me. Heck if a motor goes and has 150000 thats just to be expected.

But the newer truck (our type )will have the updates. And a older low mileage truck may have issues due to lack of use. Not always .

 

[Fellro]

I go by condition, options, that kind of thing. Miles don't scare me if it has been maintained well. But if the price is the same, and they had all the same options, I would definitely likely jump on the lower miles. If it has any issues from not being run, I can deal with them. Being the year spread, there is going to be differences, and I lean towards older myself generally... if it were a diesel, those miles aren't a big deal. On a gas, it would matter to me. Value wise, the lower miles will come in better, even though it is older.

 

[95F350XL]

I look at it this way when im car shopping. Low miles nothing has been changed, and your going to have to. High miles, chances are, everything has been changed.

 

[godblessmud]

Keep in mind that the older vehcile may not have a Odometer with 6 digits...so it has likely rolled over at least once.
That being said, mileage doesnt worry me because i can do any mechanical repairs, body work is more difficult for me

 

[polarbear]

When appraising them, I look at the whole package. Miles, condition, equipment. You can sell around any one of them if the other two are great. Two out of three strikes is trouble, three strikes means you can't get far enough back of book.

Super low miles can lead to issues on an older rig. It also could mean it spent extended perdiods of time parked in a body shop/salvage yard (ahem).

High miles- how high, and what type of usage? Example, took in a '05 Taurus with 73K miles from a sales rep. Other than a huge mile-hit on trade-in, car looked and drove as new. Wouldn't have a problem putting that in my driveway. Over 200,000 miles, you start worrying about normal component wear and tear.

 

[TheRoadVirus]

Personally when looking for a vehicle I prefer a rust-free platform to start with. A well running engine is also a plus, but I'd definitely rather buy a vehicle with a dead engine and a great body than a great engine and horrible body damage (rust/dents). I generally just look for the best of both worlds, and I don't mind paying extra for it.

 

[eco]

If this were to be driven and used in as-is condition, then thats a tough one. It's a compromise and a chance is getting taken either way. If I had to choose I would go with low miles/old assuming rust is not an issue (I am in the west, as rust is almost never an issue).

If the rigs in question are to be project rigs (all my rigs are this way), then all that would matter is that the body/frame is good and that all critical parts are in place, since it will all get rebuilt either way.

 

[andym]

What's the maintenance like on the newer truck? If all the PO did was change the oil and filter every 3k to 10k, then I'd have to look at the older one. Lower mileage can mean other problems too like Ernie says.

Because you've asked such a narrow question it's hard to answer. There are more factors than just age and mileage that you have to consider when making a smart purchase.

 

[msb71]

I like the idea of low-miles rather than high miles, parts are cheaper for the older ride.

Mike

 

[89frankenford]

hmm this is kinda hard. i think i would rather go with a low miles older vehicle as long as its been taken care off and not rotting away,....