|
I'll butt in there with a Yes. Haven't looked at prices, but if you had reckoned on paying, say, £7000 for a three-year-old Mondeo and found one for £4000, you could put the difference in the building society (note that I didn't say bank!) against any extra wear-and-tear bits it might want, and expect to run it for three more years at minimal expense. Bangernomics principles. really - but starting with a much newer, more comfortable car.
|
Absolutely, WdB. I'm pro-VAG and drive one partly because they hold their value - but for that very reason I wouldn't buy one used. Likewise I wouldn't buy a new Ford or Vauxhall but a used one looks a good bet - particularly a Mondeo.
There are lots of people (e.g. Humph B and DP) who have had high mileages out of Mondeos and very little trouble. They sound like people who care for their cars and look after them, and that's the secret: of course buying any used car is a gamble made in the hope that the previous owners were people of like mind.
Skodas are also a good bet - there are plenty of taxi-drivers who will vouch for that - and probably also Toyota Carina / Avensis.
|
|
The other thing with Fords and Vauxhalls is that there are so many about that you can afford to be really choosy. Some 90k three-year-olds will feel like wrecks, but there are enough that will have been assigned to drivers who knew how to use a sponge and a vacuum cleaner - and knew the difference between a speed bump and a ski ramp - to let you walk past the horrors. And yes, a three-year-old Avensis might be better still, judging by the five-year-old one one friend uses.
|
I think Fords and Vauxhalls also suffer as a result of their low value, particularly at high mileages. The lower the cost of a car, the more "disposable", and therefore the less likely the owner is to maintain it properly. The lower "desirability" of the badge compared with, say the German brands also has an impact in how owners treat them.
In practice this can mean anything from small faults being ignored until they become big ones, or even no servicing at all until the car stops. This really struck home when we were looking for a mk4 Fiesta a few years ago. It was almost impossible to find one with any form of service history, and the majority were shabby, tired and rattly. Perseverance paid off, and we found a one owner 70,000 miler with a full Ford history. Despite being 8 yrs old, it was immaculate and drove like new. We sold that car last year (for the asking price and to the first viewer) with coming up to 100k on it, and it was still a gem. Never let us down, the interior was unmarked, the engine sweet as new, and the chassis taut and chuckable. All I did to that car was service it to the schedule and replace the front wishbones, anti rollbar bushes, and the heater control valve. All common Fiesta problems, and not £100 worth of parts or 4 hours labour for the lot.
My dad had an early (M plate) 2.0 petrol Mondeo which he bought at 3 yrs old, and sold (well, pretty much gave away) 2 yrs ago with nearly 200,000 miles on the clock to a neighbour who is still using it, and has added 20,000 to the total. It's cosmetically ropy nowadays, but runs and drives beautifully, is still on its original clutch (this is what will probably kill it!) and the engine or gearbox have never been apart. I also know lots of people who've had 200+k out of Cavaliers and Astras.
Having run several Fords well into six figure mileages, I think they're tough as old boots if looked after. The interiors are not up to VAG / Volvo standards, but the mechanicals are dependable and well engineered. The problem is, a lot of people don't look after them.
Edited by DP on 12/10/2008 at 00:31
|
My '99 Astra 1.8 16V petrol (120k miles) is running very nicely on a regime of annual service and 6 month oil change. Nothing has stopped working - yet! Bought at 83k 4 years ago for 2400 quid.
It still feels nice and tight, returns 36-42mpg and will hit (true) 127mph on the A5 towards Darmstadt without blowing up - yet!
The supplementary oil change was recommended on this forum, and seems good advice. The car uses negligible oil between changes.
With regards to the OP's question, obviously some high-milers have been thrashed, not serviced, unloved and are unlikely to go much beyond 100k. Many, many others have been driven and serviced with mechanical sympathy and will be good for 200k+.
Examine service books, contact the previous owner(s), judge a prospective purchase with a cool and calculating eye, don't be afraid to walk as there will always be another car available.
I can't see why *anyone* would buy a new car with their own money. Who's got that much money to lose these days?
(ducks for cover)
Edited by barchettaman on 12/10/2008 at 02:54
|
1993 Volvo 240 on 404,000 miles.
Annual mileage 25,000.
I know of one local example just scrapped at over 800,000 miles (rust) and another in daily use on 745,000 miles.
|
2002 Mondeo Ghia X TDCi 130 5dr
130k miles
Original clutch
One injector needed recalibrating at around 70k
Rear subframe bushes replaced at 100k
New front discs at 60k and 105k
I have had since new and it still drives 100%, refined and punchy, but for a very slight movement in top engine mount which I might replace, parts cost around £80.
|
|
|
|
I can't see why *anyone* would buy a new car with their own money. Who's got that much money to lose these days?
For some people, the warranty, absolute choice over colour and spec, and the complete lack of hassle are worth the money.
I've been lucky enough to "have" new cars as a company car driver for 8 years, and that lovely new feeling, new car smell, and the complete absence of dust or dirt from the depths of the air vents or trim recesses is very nice. The problem is, it lasts a matter of weeks. To me, that's not worth thousands of pounds in depreciation.
But each to their own. If people didn't buy new, I wouldn't be able to profit from their losses by buying their cast offs cheap! :-)
|
|
|
|
|
