Buying Older, but Low Mileage Cars ... what are the Pitfalls? (2011, gasket)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah, I'm gonna have to disagree with most people on this thread.
Personally I would prefer a newer car with high miles ANY DAY over an older car with low miles. I've owned both, and I've lived the difference.
30+ years ago, cars literally 'wore out'. At 150,000 miles it was not uncommon for the engine to be burning oil, the steering to be sloppy, the door hinges to be sagging, etc... all due to WEAR. Not saying that newer vehicles don't wear- but metallurgy, design, and lubrication have improved VASTLY over the past few decades.
Having been a mechanic for 16 years in my previous career, I can tell you that MOST failures you see in modern (say, mid-90's and newer) vehicles as they age are related to degradation of materials. Hoses, belts, and tires get hard and crack- everybody knows that, and these are relatively easy and cheap to replace. Problem is that the same is true of gaskets, seals, electronics, etc...but these are not so easy or inexpensive to replace- and they WILL fail on older vehicles. Oh, and metal corrodes over time- this isn't JUST a body rust issue. Corrosion also leads to clogged cooling systems (a common cause of engine death), causes leaks (as smooth, machined sealing surfaces become pitted), blown head gaskets (as the fire ring corrodes), etc. And when you DO have to make repairs, old corroded parts can make those repairs FAR more difficult and expensive. Think seized/broken bolts, seized spark plugs, wire connectors that break when you disconnect them, parts that can't be re-sealed because the sealing surface is pitted. I've dealt with it too many times.
Time and the number of warm-up cycles has a much greater effect on both corrosion and polymer degradation than mileage. On older cars you're far more likely to deal with clogged catalytic converters, rusted-out exhaust systems, failed oxygen sensors, corroded plug wires, air conditioning leaks, clogged radiators- the list goes on, but you get the idea.
Now personally I bought a 2001 Chevy Lumina back in 2006. It was only five years old, but had 159,000 miles on it (paid $2600). I made a few hundred $$ worth of repairs (changed all the fluids and belts, replaced the intake gaskets- an inherent problem with this engine, and replaced the driver's side axle seal).. and I'm still driving it today (inherited it from the wife in 2010). The car has 242,000 on it now, and still runs fine. Since then, I've replaced the front brakes and the battery cables (routine maintenance as far as I'm concerned), and I replaced the A/C condenser because the fins were all beat up from rocks kicked up from the road. That's pretty much it- everything else has been maintenance. Yeah, the driver's seat is getting a little saggy, and the car looks pretty out-of-date. But you will not find cheaper or more reliable transportation- I expect to get several more years out of it. I MAY even make it to 300,000 miles... we'll see if the wife gets tired of her Honda before then.
Now contrast this with the 1985 Caprice that I bought back in 1998. The car was 13 years old, and only had 62,000 miles. I paid $1500 for it I think- and conventional wisdom says that I got a good deal. Problem was that the a/c system leaked- would NOT hold freon no matter what I did. It overheated due to a corroded radiator. The rear axle seals leaked. So did the seals in the rear brake cylinders. The emissions control stuff never quite worked right, and it would set oxygen sensor codes no matter what I did- even with a new sensor and no apparent problems with the engine. Finally the catalytic converter got clogged up (I THINK due to one of the smog pump valves malfunctioning). I was fed up and my brother wanted to buy it (he was just as naive as I was), so i gladly sold it to him for $1200.
So yeah, age matters FAR more than miles in my opinion.
Last edited by iskerbibel; 11-16-2012 at 10:19 AM..
So yeah, age matters FAR more than miles in my opinion.
Except that an '85 Caprice was FAR worse for durability than a '02 Honda will be. One of the very worst of the malaise-era GMs vs one of the better eras of Hondas? I sincerely dount the Honda will be as much of a money pit as youre making it out to be based on your experience with old Domestic cars.
Except that an '85 Caprice was FAR worse for durability than a '02 Honda will be. One of the very worst of the malaise-era GMs vs one of the better eras of Hondas? I sincerely dount the Honda will be as much of a money pit as youre making it out to be based on your experience with old Domestic cars.
I'm sure that's true. But this is not an apples-to-apples comparison. We are comparing older designs with low miles vs. newer designs with high miles.
The fact remains that materials degrade over time. Not only is wear less of a factor than it used to be- but the newer vehicle will also have the benefit of a more modern design (as in the cases I cited from my own personal experience). I'd much prefer that over an older design with corrosion, leaky seals, etc.
Last edited by iskerbibel; 11-16-2012 at 11:17 AM..
So isker, you seem to have sfome experience with older cars. Is 2000 in that catagory? I saw the Century from my earlier post. It looks like new. Hoses are pliable, tires seem great. Engine is very clean. Of course there's no way for me to check the seals, but if the rest of the car is any indication of their condition, I don't think I have anything to worry about. Thoughts?
Spotted a 2000 Buick Century Custom with 53000 miles. Pictures look good. I plan to take a look tomorrow. How would you advise I approach the sale?
Buick's are excellent and reliable vehicles, one with low miles means you are likely getting a car that has been driven easily. Approach the sale like you would any sale, but if the price is already low, offering less means the sellers refusal could bring another buyer in the interim.
I took that chance on this 1986 Olds one owner that it would last after he refused my offer of one thousand, it did, and after two weeks, he lowered his price from fifteen hundred. I put on tires and brakes right after buying it, and then added a few other things (like the tint) and it runs like a new car still after I've driven it for 15k miles. Just recently put in plugs, plug wires, an ignition control module and coil to keep it running like new.
How much is the seller asking for the car? The condition of the car tells you how it was cared for. If it is also very clean, and the price is right, you can rest assured a Buick is a quality make. If you like this car you should make an offer on it. Depending on how it is priced determines how low I'd start, probably around $800.00 below asking if it is less than 5K, and if over, I'd go 1k to 1.5k less. I'd try to pay at least $500.00 less than asking unless it is already a very fair price. It also helps to know how long it has been for sale, just casually ask, the longer, the better. If it has been for sale over one month, it helps your position, you can drive a harder bargain and go lower.
So isker, you seem to have sfome experience with older cars. Is 2000 in that catagory? I saw the Century from my earlier post. It looks like new. Hoses are pliable, tires seem great. Engine is very clean. Of course there's no way for me to check the seals, but if the rest of the car is any indication of their condition, I don't think I have anything to worry about. Thoughts?
Some newer cars with higher mileage may also not be as well maintained, so there's really no set answer. It depends upon the car and the previous owner. A Buick, I agree, changes things because they are primarily purchased by older people, and they tend to maintain them well, even with lower mileage. I would factor new tires, unless the set on it are within the last year or two. It could be a reasonable buy, depending upon the asking price, and an inspection is probably a good idea, just to be sure, but I would recommend that with any used car purchase. It's well worth spending $100-$150 to find out if there are any major problems, where you can negotiate the price based upon the repairs, or you can walk away.
__________________
All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players: they have their exits and their entrances; and one man in his time plays many parts, his acts being seven ages.
~William Shakespeare (As You Like It Act II, Scene VII)
The seller says he just got the vehicle last week. It's a used car place with several stores in the southeast. The first thing the salesman said when he walked up was, "you can't beat the price on that car!" Asking is $5450. After looking at it, even with my untrained eye, I think he's probably right. There is a shop on the premises and I honestly think he may have done some work on the car. As I said, the hoses look new and the engine is super clean. I do suppose that could be to hide any signs if leakage, but that would be cynical. There is something wrong with the stereo, but I could live with that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
