Talk to me about mileage

Pondy

Pondy

Muppet
 At the summit of the picturesque fens
As many will know, I have a bit of 'mental block' about high mileage vehicles, so I would like to understand the thinking of others who don't have this issue.

I see many Z4s for sale on here with what I would consider stellar mileage for many thousand of pounds, especially E86s. I understand these cars are getting old so mileages are not going to be low; but at what mileage does a Z4 (or any car) become undesirable to all or economically unviable?

I suppose the question I am asking is what is the finite mileage of an N52, or M54, or any BMW engine before it needs scrapping?

I would like to understand the mentality of buying a car with 150k plus miles for over £6,000, no matter how well it's been looked after. If I could understand the pros it may help with my mileage phobia, cos as it stands I wouldn't buy a car (any car) with 150k plus miles for a quid, let alone thousands.
 
All depends on oil changes, if a Z4 engine has had regular changes then there’s no reason it won’t do 250+k miles. Then depending how the rest of the car has been looked after, pretty easy to tell as you know, then personally I don’t see any reason not to buy it if it’s the car you want. Of course other parts will wear, say, wheel bearings eg, but that’s taken as par the course, purely consumables as and when.

I don’t understand the stigma myself but without wanting to sound big headed or something I know a bit about engines etc, so if someone doesn’t know much about them I can see the stigma, that I’m sure makes a difference. Shame really because good cars may be being overlooked by folk that want that particular car but are put off by a supposed issue that isn’t there if it’s been looked after.
 
I guess it's not just the price or the mileage, but combination of both...plus a good history of maintenance.

I only worry about a car's mileage when there's a fault that makes the car uneconomical to repair...as I haven't got the skills to do a repair myself.
 
If buying second hand then I've always tried to go for cars with the lowest mileage as possible which really with modern cars is a nonsense as today's cars are much better built and manufactured than years ago. I too find it hard to look at any cars with 30k plus miles it's like a mental block with anything high mileage.

I'm currently looking for a nice Abarth 124 spider as wanting to get back into a Roadster as a second fun car and keep saying to myself I'm not looking at anything with over 20k miles. I think some of it is to do with the fact most people don't look after their cars anymore and the higher the mileage the chances are it will be a poor example. I'm probably completely off the ball though.

But then there can be low mileage cars that have never seen an oil change and very high mileage cars that have had religious maintenance. End of the day it's a lottery unless buying new.

Tim.
 
I wouldn’t have an issue buying an older car with high miles- even without service history per se- as you can tell an abused car versus one that’s been looked after

However that is an ever declining trend for me. Newer cars I believe will become disposable…

Take an m20 e30 car- looked after the engine will outlive the body hands down probably 3-4 times over

A newer generation car and engine like the m54 or n52 e85 I still think fits in that category

However the f and g series cars I don’t think many will get past 150k

My view on the cars/engines in question is that higher mileage cars, for me, have been the way in to ownership. I’ve seen 30-40k e85/6 cars that I wouldn’t own as they have been neglected and 200k cars that I’d own as they have been looked after

Horses for courses… and the ultimate course I think is resale/sell on values
 
When I started driving a car was needing a new engine at 40k that’s if it hadn’t already rusted away. My 21 year old Z4 with 120k on it drives like it’s brand new.
 
I think my hang up, and hence the thread, is that I know anything mechanical has a lifespan. Mechanical things wear out, it's just the way it is. In the old days (40 ish years ago) 100k miles for an engine was good going, so I can't get that out of my head either.

I have also been fortunate to have had new or nearly new cars most of my life, and got a new one every two or three years, so 50k miles was never reached for me in a car. That hasn't helped my attitude TBH.
 
That's the crook of it though, back in the day when many of us were young, most cars of the 70's and 80's made in Europe and especially the UK were crap and unreliable, tolerancing was pretty much a joke. The advent of CNC machining centres, giving superior repeatability has come along way in helping increase the life of mechanical components, as did the galvenising of the body before painting.

However, lets put 150,000 miles on the engine into perspective, say at an average speed of 30 mph, that gives a total of 5000 hours (or 208 days) use. A turbofan engine requires an overhaul at about 15,000 hrs and we don't blink an eye getting onto a plane and never give it much thought over how many miles it's flown.

As others say, how the car has been treated and it's overall condition is a better marker than purely how many miles it's done.
 
Mileage is irrelevant. Number of owners gives a far better idea of the state of a car. People treat cars the same as when they bought it, even after 10 years. But if each new owner pays less as it gets older, they'll treat it as an older car and it won't get things doing that are needed.

My old 20 year old 320d disappeared to the great carpark in the sky at 280k miles. Original turbo, injectors, clutch. Didn't drink any oil. Changed gearbox & diff fluids at 160k and the oil came out like new. Various suspension components over the years. Aircon had been regassed once tho I don't think I needed to. Everything just worked. I was the second owner at 3.5 years old and 127k.

What got it? Rust.

The other factor is age; the more time passes the more scope for dings, rust, sun damage and general degradation. And, unless a car is garaged, it'll look far more sorry for itself if it doesn't get driven.

My Z4 was the first car I'd bought in 20 years to have less than 100k on the clock when I bought it but it was still 16 years old and had, shall we say, a patina. Which I've added to in 3 years.

When I started driving (1992), a 10 year old car was a wreck. The body would be rusting and, if it was on carbs, it would have started eating the rings by 100k. Fuel injection sorted the latter overnight (when was the last time you saw blue smoke belching out the back of a car?) and better plating and painting came along. Look at the sheer number of 20 year old cars still on the roads these days. Buying a 10 year old 120k mile car is as nothing now.
 
There are a lot of variables in the equation and that is the real problem. Making absolutely sure a car has been well treated and looked after isn’t always easy. Some have had many owners. For those of us with limited mechanical skills and finite funds, fear of big bills, is at the front of our minds. If you have the knowledge, experience and expertise like John and Stuart. Then you also have the confidence to take the gamble presented by high mileage vehicles.
I think most of us, if offered two apparently well looked after cars, one with 150000 miles on the clock and one with 35000 miles, would prefer the low mileage example. Like Andy I can’t get passed the notion that the more an item is used the greater the wear will be.
 
Pondrew, it would be interesting were this thread to be placed on the Ferrarichat Forum and then wait for the fallout. Mileage is everything on Ferrari's. But the reality is that many owners are fearful of incurring mileage such that their machines are used very little,... all much like having a beautiful mistress with whom you refrain from having intercourse with such that you then experience the vicarious pleasure of saving her for her next conquest.

For myself, and in days now past, mileage was absolutely crucial because higher mileage impacted the machines longevity. Not so for modern machines which seemingly have an indefinite life,... that is until the electronics create gremlins, or perhaps the gremlins may be pre-engineered to fail at a certain mileage or/and time.

The metallurgy of new motor cars is of such great integrity and this factor conjoined to the new lubricants does create the huge potential for great longevity. It is said that the majority of wear in an engine is created when the engine is started from cold such that at this point and until the whole engine is properly warmed throughout its structure such that the myriad disparate coefficients of expansion of the extensive variety of materials is at their optimum working temperature prior to easing the engine into its higher band of revolutions. This requires judicious use of the machine for the first fifteen miles or so and not just when the engine thermometer reads 'normal'. Essentially, it is harsh and injudicious usage that holds the potential for problems in the long term.

All the herebefore written notwithstanding, a well maintained and properly cared for motor car has a 'look' to it which radiates this most important factor to any prospective purchaser that has an eye for detail. So yes, low mileage can be an extremely important factor, but it in the light of the overall purchasing equation and when examining all pertinent factors, a really nice high mileage motor car may frequently hold the potential of providing a most blissful and ongoing aspect of nirvana.
 
Last edited:
sars said:
That's the crook of it though, back in the day when many of us were young, most cars of the 70's and 80's made in Europe and especially the UK were crap and unreliable, tolerancing was pretty much a joke. The advent of CNC machining centres, giving superior repeatability has come along way in helping increase the life of mechanical components, as did the galvenising of the body before painting.

However, lets put 150,000 miles on the engine into perspective, say at an average speed of 30 mph, that gives a total of 5000 hours (or 208 days) use. A turbofan engine requires an overhaul at about 15,000 hrs and we don't blink an eye getting onto a plane and never give it much thought over how many miles it's flown.

As others say, how the car has been treated and it's overall condition is a better marker than purely how many miles it's done.
Click to expand...
Typical piston engine for aircraft have between 1,500 and 2,300 hours before overhaul…fwiw..but I agree with the logic
 
I might be corrected by someone more knowledgeable than me, but I would think the longevity of an engine is not so much dependant how many miles it has done, but the nature of the miles. I.e. how many of those miles was the engine below temperature? I would think that a well lubricated engine that spends 99.5% of it's times at full temp will not wear away for a very long time. I would think it might be useful for cars to be advertised with details of, alongside total mileage, number of cold starts and/or miles below normal operating temp. That 200k sales rep Volvo might start to become more appealing than the one with one lady owner and 60k miles.

Of course everything will wear out eventually, but I've never had the engine itself fail on a car, and this includes poorly-looked-after Vauxhalls that have done mostly short journeys approaching 150k miles. I have however scrapped many vehicles (I think I was on to my tenth car before I actually sold one) and it's generally been due to either rust (less of an issue on more modern cars, and as much about age as mileage to a certain degree) or things like gaskets or wheel bearings etc costing £500 to replace when the car was worth £400 - off to the scrapyard and then back onto ebay for the next glorious machine.

That brings you onto the idea of "uneconomical repair", and that is subjective and depends what your long term plans are for the car. If you want to sell it at some point then that's more of a problem. I think some people look at it that way when deciding whether a repair is economical or not, but what they're really working out is what is the cheapest course of action in the very short term, with a dash of subconscious "I'd quite like a new car" - e.g. £1,500 to repair it, or £2,500 to replace the whole car. That's when it gets scrapped. Unfortunately that next car will probably need something similar soon as well...

I currently have a Yeti that is on 109k miles (25k in the last year). It drives just as well as it did a year ago on 84k miles, and has now had the cambelt replaced, new upgraded discs and pads all round, upgraded front calipers, upgraded wheels, new tyres, new steering wheel, air con fixed and a good clean. On the used car market, due to the mileage, it is worth 25% less than it was when I bought it. But it should arguably be worth more, objectively, because there are fewer things that will need doing in the next year compared to the last. The question of the engine itself wearing out is probably at least 100k miles away still, so barely relevant. If the turbo goes next week and costs £1k to replace (or £2k for a bigger one!) then many people would take it to the scrapyard - you'd be crazy to spend £1k on fixing a car that's worth £3.5k, wouldn't you? But it'll cost a hell of a lot more to trade it in for a lower mileage one, on which the turbo is just as likely to go 12 months later.

I just don't see "engine death" as being a realistic worry anywhere near 100k miles in 99% of modern cars. The biggest question for me, if looking at a higher mileage car, would be what has been replaced (from the list of things that will need doing at some point). Depending on the answer, the 100k mile car could be a better prospect than one on 60k for the same price (ignoring resale value).

Bit of a ramble there, apologies...
 
In the 70s, 80s and early 90s I never bought any car with more than 70K miles recorded and the one I bought on 70K was a Rover V8 so no issue with the engine, just rust despite it being only 7 years old. :(

Then in 1995 I bought an ex-Company Cavalier SRi on 97K for a price I just couldn't ignore, and being only 3 years old it never gave me any problems. In 1997 I bought a Mercedes 190e with just over 100K and it drove great, so when I replaced it with a C280 with just below 100K I never gave mileage a 2nd thought, although I still wouldn't have bought a Ford with that sort of mileage!

In 2018 I bought an E91 BMW 325i (N52 engine) with FBMWSH on 132K and it drove really well as does it's replacement, a 330i currently on 128K.

Someone on here posted recently about his E86 that had just reached 200K, and got a reply from someone who had only just got to 193K!

Manufacturing tolerances have improved massively over the last 50 years as has the quality of oil so if a car is a decent quality product to start with and has been regularly serviced I really don't think mileage is a big deal.

And the mileage phobics mean there are more bargains to be had for the rest of us. :D
 
Another aspect of mileage, is that in days now past it was quite normal for motor cars to be running at a mere15-17 miles an hour per one thousand revolutions of the engine when in top gear

But now, however, it is not at all unusual for motor cars to be running at 30-40 miles an hour per one thousand engine revolutions of the engine when in top gear.
 
It’s an interesting topic and I’m firmly in the “I like high mileage cars and have never had a bad one”.

My 2006 E90 330d is now on 207,000 miles (108,000 with me personally). I have never done anything engine wise in 11 years other than change oil, filter and air filter every 10,000. In that time the engine hasn’t changed one bit and is as quiet and strong as ever (never had an engine management light come on either). I also had it mapped about 6 years back with zero negative consequences. Even the factory clutch and flywheel managed 165,000 and I could have put the original clutch plate back in but as I was doing the flywheel which was rattling I just did everything.

Body wise is got some battle scars but they are trivial and I still wash and polish it regularly. Drivers front wing has a very small amount of rust so I will swap it in the next couple of years for a correct colour item off a car being broken.

Everything else is wearing as expected of age and mileage. Everything works and it’s still a very quick and frugal car (650 miles to a tank is quite easy). It’s also still on the factory dpf and it has never given me any issues.

I have done loads of replacement parts over the years but nothing I wouldn’t have expected to do and because it’s never been to a garage (only for MOT’s) it has been very cheap to keep going. I have no intentions of getting rid for at least another 5 years and don’t foresee any need to because of a failure of something expensive.

I think cars changed massively around the mid 1990’s until mid 2010’s. This was peak car period for me. I don’t see anything newer that suits all my requirements and generally feel we are going backwards with cars today.
 
BmwZ4ruby, this is an absolutely magnificent post for the reason that it is a hugely compendious post presenting as it does the essential facts in a most comprehensive and indeed more than concise manner
 
I'm firmly in the "let someone else take the biggest hit financially" camp. Passed my test in 1973 and have never bought a new car. Value for money is so much greater with good quality second hand bought carefully. I always expect to have to add a bit after the purchase, but nothing near the cost to a new one. As a couple of examples, I bought a 3 or 4 year old 2006 535d touring with 60k miles on it. Paid about £17k. Original cost was north of 45k. Had to spend about £2k on it on tyres etc. initially but it was like a new car afterwards. Then just servicing and the odd bush etc onwards. I part-exed it for the Volvo XC70 and got £6k back from a Volvo dealer with with 200k+ miles on it. Much the same with a 530d touring before the 535. Currently a 2017 Audi A6 allroad. Bought at 68k miles for £18k. Again drives like new once a few teething issues sorted. Plan to keep it until either it or I wear out ! I can't see us ever having a current generation ipad on wheels. My personal pinion, but I think the current touch screen idea is a step backwards in safety as you can't operate controls without looking at them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom