When buying a used car is it better to have a car with few miles or with few years? I think a car with few miles matters more then a newer car. I have reasons to believe that , but I'd like to know what you guys think.
Yes, I always look at the clock first. A two year old car with 150,000 miles under its belt is never going to be a better deal than a five year old car with 30,000 miles on the clock and a full service history. We bought a four year old Ford Fiesta in 2008 which had done 23,000 miles. It's given us no trouble whatsoever, and at its last service, the mechanic said it would be good for many more years. Our neighbour bought a new Ford Focus at the same time, and he's spent more money in the garage than we have.
Yes you can look at the clock first but in my experience many dealers often tamper with the clock and reduce the mileage shown. I go for the age of the vehicle and how the car looks. The older the car the mileage I expect it to have done. I will even take along my mechanic for good measure.
Log In Sometimes old age can be as bad as a lot of mileage. For instance, some parts don't work well unless they are worked and other times an old age car that just sits around might not have had any maintenance. Anyhow, though, regarding cars that have worked hard, mileage is obviously more important.
