High mileage ? Why the concern ?

Short term ownership is the way to keep cash in the car....

Over 12 months and your getting in the zone of losing substantial cash..... Also anything over the pyschological 100k barrier and you start to drop bombs..

Buying at 80k,keep for 2 years and sell at 100k+ is a sure fire way to throw cash down the turdpipe....

Pics and details of new Z when i pick it up and clean it over weekend ;)
 
Z4M-2006 said:
Short term ownership is the way to keep cash in the car....

Over 12 months and your getting in the zone of losing substantial cash..... Also anything over the pyschological 100k barrier and you start to drop bombs..

Buying at 80k,keep for 2 years and sell at 100k+ is a sure fire way to throw cash down the turdpipe....

Pics and details of new Z when i pick it up and clean it over weekend ;)

Wise words & have to agree , but been playing with short fuses lately :roll: buying late 80k's early 90k's at cheap money & putting 3/5k on then jumping out .
but :? :? each & every time i see or drive the Zc i don't want to see it go , its a terrific car that drives great & relative to the performance & BHP runs on button's . just into 92k it leaves me with a dilemma :cry:
 
I'm more than happy with high mileage cars and that's from someone whose bought 3 brand new cars in the past 10 years.

Bought the family car (VW Sharan) ex-demo 11 years ago. Now has over 200k on it and only started costing money in the last few thousand miles. Nothing major, and never had a bill over £350.

My ///M roadster was bought 2 years ago with 67k on it for a bargain price. 20k miles later it's cost me a new spring and an oil service and drives like new. When I come to sell it the mileage will be reflected in the price just as it was when I bought it. It's probably worth under £10,000 but that's fair enough....I've had a lot of fun....and like I say I got a bargain at the time.

Running cars is all about regular servicing by a good mechanic. I never get cars serviced at main dealers....heard way too many horror stories.
 
mr wilks said:
Z4M-2006 said:
Short term ownership is the way to keep cash in the car....

Over 12 months and your getting in the zone of losing substantial cash..... Also anything over the pyschological 100k barrier and you start to drop bombs..

Buying at 80k,keep for 2 years and sell at 100k+ is a sure fire way to throw cash down the turdpipe....

Pics and details of new Z when i pick it up and clean it over weekend ;)

Wise words & have to agree , but been playing with short fuses lately :roll: buying late 80k's early 90k's at cheap money & putting 3/5k on then jumping out .
but :? :? each & every time i see or drive the Zc i don't want to see it go , its a terrific car that drives great & relative to the performance & BHP runs on button's . just into 92k it leaves me with a dilemma :cry:

Why....92k or 97k will not alter value,use it for a while longer if your enjoying it....

But if you keep it another 5k and another 12 months then thats where you can start to drop out on cash return :(
 
Totally agree with some of the statements on here - higher mileage does generally mean more wear.

HOWEVER! These cars are built to do high miles - and can do.

My mate's M3 had 173,000 on the clock last check. He bought it at 83,000 and put 90k of HARD miles on it. Apart from general servicing items, the only thing to go was the clutch at 160k. It's still going strong, and would comfortably beat the zed in a sprint.

I can totally understand the "comfort" factor of buying low miles.... but really, sometimes a higher mileage car will have had any common faults fixed.

I bought my 3 series with 38k on the clock, and it didn't need any major repairs.

I bought my zed with just over 60k on the clock. Why? Because it had just had an Inspection 2 and MOT done - which cost the owner c.£650. I could have bought a 50k example, but then I would have had to fork out for the service 2 myself.

Besides - if you're doing under 5k a year and it's a second car, higher miles shouldn't be a prob :)
 
Z4M-2006 said:
Short term ownership is the way to keep cash in the car....

Over 12 months and your getting in the zone of losing substantial cash..... Also anything over the pyschological 100k barrier and you start to drop bombs..

Buying at 80k,keep for 2 years and sell at 100k+ is a sure fire way to throw cash down the turdpipe....

Pics and details of new Z when i pick it up and clean it over weekend ;)

I do agree with this sentiment that short term ownership is the best method for keeping cash in a car. Its also the best way to get the best mobile phone bill / home utilities bill / bank savings account / highest earning job / virtually everything in life .. unfortunately the cost to change is more of a mental difference than cost one..
 
TitanTim said:
I would never buy a motor that had done over 30K. Z3 is still on 24K :)

High miles = knackered.

Tim.

Utter bolliocks , possibly the silliest statement ive heard since Gordon Brown said "there'l be no return to boom & bust " :roll:
 
TitanTim said:
I would never buy a motor that had done over 30K. Z3 is still on 24K :)

High miles = knackered.

Tim.


Let's hope for you when you come to sell any potential buyers aren't as deluded :)
 
mr wilks said:
TitanTim said:
I would never buy a motor that had done over 30K. Z3 is still on 24K :)

High miles = knackered.

Tim.

Utter bolliocks , possibly the silliest statement ive heard since Gordon Brown said "there'l be no return to boom & bust " :roll:

Not silly in the least, higher miles = more wear and tear, it doesn't take Einstein to work out. Unless parts are replaced at the end of their service life I would never touch a high miler. Then again I've mostly bought new, I just don't fancy saggy seats and suspension.

Each and to their own :wink:

Tim.
 
ranski said:
TitanTim said:
I would never buy a motor that had done over 30K. Z3 is still on 24K :)

High miles = knackered.

Tim.


Let's hope for you when you come to sell any potential buyers aren't as deluded :)

When I come to sell they will be getting an as new motor, hardly deluded :wink: :roll:

Tim.
 
TitanTim said:
I would never buy a motor that had done over 30K. Z3 is still on 24K :)

High miles = knackered.

Tim.
Tim I don't know where you have been for the last 60 years,in 1953 it might have been the case build quality has come on leaps and bounds in the last few years.
 
Cars that do higher mileage have all the blood running through them. A car with low mileage sits...

Of course were talking both low and high ends of the scale I like the in between.

But with higher mileage cars parts do ware faster and you must budget. Clutch and flywheel for example can be a costly replacement say it costs £800-1200 for the parts and labour and the car is 7-8k that's a huge cost compared to the car but still cheaper than buying an immaculate car.

It's the interior and body work that concerns me. On my 46k example when I bought it it wasn't up to my standard (not that it was sub standard by any means but I like factory fresh not showing signs of use) so spent a lot of time making it pristine as it would be out of the factory but I also get a huge amount of enjoyment from it!

Depends what you want but I personally wouldn't buy high mileage cars 100k or more. Personal preference
 
maxman said:
TitanTim said:
I would never buy a motor that had done over 30K. Z3 is still on 24K :)

High miles = knackered.

Tim.
Tim I don't know where you have been for the last 60 years,in 1953 it might have been the case build quality has come on leaps and bounds in the last few years.

For me it all stems from when I was looking for a Z3, I must have looked at 10 cars, all had done over 50K, condition wise some were better than others, however being a perfectionist to me they just looked and felt sh*gged out, stone chips, baggy worn seats, worn suspension etc, all comes with higher mileage, unless your lucky. Yes build quality is better but not infallable.

Just don't buy a Vauxhall

http://www.vxronline.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?201937-Stone-chips

I'd rather have a car from 1953 :D

Tim.
 
It's interesting to read some of the comments here, personally it is a factor of both age and milage, an older car with low miles is the same as a new car with high miles, the one that I would avoid is and old high miler.

I might not agree with Tim's anal philosophy but I appreciate that it is his to choose
 
sars said:
It's interesting to read some of the comments here, personally it is a factor of both age and milage, an older car with low miles is the same as a new car with high miles, the one that I would avoid is and old high miler.

I might not agree with Tim's anal philosophy but I appreciate that it is his to choose
anal philosophy ?? :rofl:


Tapatalking...
 
I think Tims comments are slightly over the top but each to their own.

But does that mean when you sell you 10+ old Z3 at 30k the person buying it will have a nakard car? Bit of a silly explanation if you ask me.

Any car you buy will have some sort of issue in its life, nothing is bullet proof and parts wear its just how it is. But does that mean its a bad purchase? no. Many of the parts that wear like bushes, springs etc are fairly cheap to replace, respraying panels are inevitable unless you cover the car up completely which makes the car a pointless purchase... Buy it to drive and don't drive it. Don't drive it and parts start to disintegrate on their own. Catch 22. Interior trim is replaceable or restorable again minor points.

Clutches etc are wearable components and there have been instances where poor driving has lead to replacements in less than 10k miles... So well within the 30k "nakard" lifespan. Engine failures happen to cars with less than 20k on them it's the luck of the draw. Sometimes it's just a dud.

No modern car is an investment it is purely a means to an end that fills your need, if you have enough money to fill that need then great but if you don't and a higher miler makes since then I see no issue.

Just make sure you have the funds to sort it out if the inevitable does happen.
 
Back
Top Bottom