Personally I'd go for a car with average mileage (8k to 12k a year): too high and your own mileage will raise it to becoming unsaleable, too low and you might get one that's been down to the shops and back and hardly ever got warmed up, causing premature wear.

I used to buy old with low mileage. I drove 150 miles to buy a 10 year old Corolla with 21k on the clock in truly immaculate condition. I did 70 odd miles to buy a 6 year old Mazda 323 with 31k up that was really clean. Both cars were superb and cost me about £300 a year in depreciation and £30 a year in parts.

16 years ago I paid £50 for a mark 1 Polo that had a siezed water pump and shed its cam belt teeth but had 30k miles up. New pump and belt for £50 and I had a car that did another year until the vavle stem oil seals needed doing and someone offered me £150 for it.

I bought a high mileage Sierra with a recon engine and the suspension fell apart. The front passenger window fell out to, but thats another story.

I am of the opinion that miles = wear and tear so things like suspension bushes, roll bars, shocks, exhausts, springs. Modern oils, even if they don't get to temperature, in a petrol engine mean things should be fine.

However, of the last 5 cars I have bought 4 have been new of nearly new while the last was a 72k miles up 6 year old Legacy. This car is a different kettle of fish altogether and I suspect I might do 720k miles before something squeaks or groans...

To be honest I dont like old and really low mileage cars. I've had a bit of experience of them and you tend to end up paying a premium for the ultra low mileage only to get other problems that are induced due to the 'stagnation' of the vehicle.

Cars degrade with age almost as much as they do with mileage a lot of the time.