Hi all,

One of the positives (for me) for looking at a skoda was I believe they're meant to be fairly reliable, which is good since I'm not really a car guy.

Due to the recent measures my purchase has been put on hold, so I thought I'd use this time to check a couple of things.

Assuming similar age (6-8 years), both having a service history, and both having had the cambelt changed appropriately, do you consider there to be much value in going for a car with 50k vs 90k (and everything in between) miles on the clock? (this is for a petrol car)

My parents have always gone for lower mileage (<50k) cars and have always had a good time with them, avoiding any pricey repairs etc, however I wondered if that's really needed/how much that might be worth.

 

For example:

https://www.motors.co.uk/car-56418504/?i=1&m=sr

vs

https://www.motors.co.uk/car-56134052/?i=3&m=srm

 

Are there certain mileage 'milestones' that should be taken in considering when various other 'big' bits start going wonky?

 

Thanks,

George

Edited 26 March, 20206 yr by GeorgeStorm

It is difficult to answer. It really depends on a lot of things really. The use of the car before and how it was treated. Did that person drive the car hard from cold or allow it to warm up. Were they heavy on the clutch and brakes etc. You could buy a car that is high mileage and have zero issues. Equally you can buy a new car and have nothing but issues. It is pot luck really. My Octy had 59000 on the clock when I picked it up

Re both having a Service History.

You want to look at what that shows. A history of minimum servicing like a fleet car might get or more done and annually.

Was it just oil and filter changes and a look see, report and free wash and vacuum.

Or was anything done over an above, brake fluid changed as manufacturers recommendations, what tyres are the cars wearing, what are the brake discs looking like etc.

Depends on so many variables. I bought my car on around 60k just over 2 years ago. It now has 127k on it and all it’s needed in that time is regular on time servicing and a DPF pressure sensor to replace the one that, erm, caught fire. 90k of motorway miles in 6th will in theory be less stress than 50k of town driving but who can say how the car has been used?

Sadly that's what I was leaning towards as well, and so not valuing fewer miles that much over something cheaper with higher mileage.

 

Hopefully the end of the tax year push may result in some price drops and I can haggle a slightly better deal due to the delays caused by coronavirus!

Ignore the mileage.

 

Condition, condition, condition.

^^^ and then just hope it happens to be the lower mileage one, Lol.

54 minutes ago, silver1011 said:

Ignore the mileage.

 

Condition, condition, condition.

 

Also applies to age. 

Yeah, age has been decided due to preferring the mk3 both inside and out compared to the mk2 so that's been an easier decision to make.

 

 

Most options have been a way away, and so seeing in person hasn't been viable yet, and a lot of the photos look very similar between adverts, difficult to tell which is in better nick! So way hoping there might be a nice number to aim for/under to help differentiate

Edited 26 March, 20206 yr by GeorgeStorm

1 hour ago, silver1011 said:

Ignore the mileage.

 

Condition, condition, condition.

 

 I read it that the OP was asking, all things being equal, does it matter if a 1.4tsi has covered 60k or 90k?

 

I'd give a different answer if the OP were lookng at a 1.4 with DSG gearbox, but given that it's a manual then I haven't heard of anything that would cause alarm bells for the higher mileage car. 

 

I guess it depends on how long you're going to keep the car. If properly maintained, diesels can rack up huge mileages but it's far less common for 1.4tsi's to have huge mileages. That's not to say the 1.4 will develop faults, it's just we're in to untested waters when it comes to reliability if you're going to pile on the miles.  For that reason alone, I'd tend to go with the 60k car.  

 

 

If all things are equal, other than the mileage, then buy the cheapest.

 

In the more likely event that they're not, condition is the best way to determine which is the best one to buy.

 

It's easy to get hung up on mileage, number of owners, service history etc.

 

High mileage often has an unwarranted stigma. Give me a high mileage car that has been driven by someone who cares for their cars over a low mileage car that isn't loved any day of the week.

 

The best way to determine this on a 6-8 year old 50,000-90,000 mile car is its condition.

Also consider how many miles will you be doing per year yourself?  if 15k miles a year then a nearly 94k miles is a hight start point, if 4k miles a year then it matters less. Many moons ago I secured an 18 month old Volvo 740 estate for a hell of a good price becasue it had already done 88k miles - he did low miles/year so lasted him over a decade with no issues.

 

However in the advert of the higher mileage car they have no photos of the reg no so it's hard to check previous MOT's - rings an alarm bell to me of something to hide.

 

As mentioned above condition is all and make sure you check out the previous MOT histories (the lower mileage one looks OK here - it must have done a higher mileage earlier on in life as it's done little recently - not taxed since 13th Jan so it's been in the dealer network since then - possible negotiation?).

I also ALWAYS hpi a car myself even if from a dealer!

 

Ensure cam belt has been done - due at 5 years, check service history and ensure brake fluid has been changed (3 years first the every 2)

 

Gut feel the lower mileage one but remember these are nearly 7 year old cars!

 

 

 

Edited 26 March, 20206 yr by bigjohn

Last couple of years have been 6-8k a year, intention was to b aiming to keep the car for 5+ years, so 30-40k added at least, hence why the higher mileage cars I was slightly concerned about as would be getting decently above 100k.

 

Yeah cambelt is something I've made sur to check on anything I'v been interested in.

The higher mileage car was just a comparison point, the current front runner is a 76k 14 plate for 6.2k, having just had the cambelt done, but I noticed the lower mileage (black) model yesterday and it got me thinking, how much lower would I have to get it for me to genuinely consider.

High mileage = wear, wear = failed components.

I've got to ride in some high end cars over the years being taxied to the airport. Mercedes, Audi. I get to know the drivers well.  I comment how their cars are immaculate inside and out and how well they go. A bargain they say, high mileage but motorway mileage.

The next time I see them the tales of wow, Failed turbo, prop shaft , clutch, wheel bearings, alternators, steering racks etc. Its brought them to their knees in some cases.

The second hand car market........ tread carefully.

11 hours ago, Scot5 said:

 

 I read it that the OP was asking, all things being equal, does it matter if a 1.4tsi has covered 60k or 90k?

 

I'd give a different answer if the OP were lookng at a 1.4 with DSG gearbox, but given that it's a manual then I haven't heard of anything that would cause alarm bells for the higher mileage car. 

 

I guess it depends on how long you're going to keep the car. If properly maintained, diesels can rack up huge mileages but it's far less common for 1.4tsi's to have huge mileages. That's not to say the 1.4 will develop faults, it's just we're in to untested waters when it comes to reliability if you're going to pile on the miles.  For that reason alone, I'd tend to go with the 60k car.  

 

 

+1 to this from Scot5, except I’d go for the 76k car.

 

After many years of running cars, and previously working in the trade including fleet management and maintenance, my theory on the lifespan of a car is 10 years/150,000 miles.
You can do more than 150k in less than 10 years or less than 150k in more than 10 years and usually get away with it, but those time and distance maximums will mean heavy maintenance/repairs are going to be required.

My own plan is buy at 3 years old and sell at 10 years or 150k miles whichever comes first and it hasn’t let me down (yet !🤞).
On my annual mileage buying a 3 year old car with 30k miles on the clock will mean it hits 150k miles at 10 years old, then its “goodbye”. Assuming my car is worth nothing at that point it will have cost less than £250/month including all depreciation, maintenance, tyres and repairs (I budget £250/year every year for unforeseen problems). 

 
Based on your choices above, that 76k 14 plate for £6.2k would be my front runner as well, cambelt change is a £400 job for a start and it’s already had that done.

I highly recommend the 1.4 tsi engine, it’s a good engine and well suited to the Octavia.

 

 

Edited 27 March, 20206 yr by classic

Also take into account the way that the motor vehicle industry is going.........IMO combustion engine'd cars of any kind are not going to be worth much at all in 5 years or so, moving forward, so maybe future values not too much of an issue. Guess some may disagree though.

 

Personally, assuming both cars in very similar good / excellent condition, with similar one owner (for instance) then I would pay a little extra for less mileage say 60k vs 90k, however this is still no guarantee of no worries or lower running costs.

 

Otherwise, pick the one that you like most, and forget the mileage. Probably not the one from Arnold Shark though, Lol. (I do not think folk on here like them).

Trying to see if I can get access to the service history as I believe they're online now?

Can see when it was serviced but not sure how to see notes/what was done etc from each service?

Yeah, the guy said 6k if the cambelt had already been done, or 6.2k if it hadn't as he was already going to be doing a service so wasn't that much extra labour type thing.

 

The one from Arnold Clark definitely won't be the one as it's the same price/more money than the one with 20k fewer miles, and that's with it having dropped £700 since I viewed it a couple of weeks ago.

Also I did originally like the idea of a hybrid, just none that really ticked all the boxes for me, but I imagine the next car I buy will be electric/hybrid

I'd usually go with cheaper higher mileage one. Look at it this way, if you are keeping the car long term: 

- buy low mileage and hope the investment means parts (like suspension) don't wear out? Unlikely if you will keep the car long term. 

- buy high mileage and use money saved as self insurance in preparation for parts replacement. The money saved are enough to cover eventual consumable repairs. 

 

Also as pointed out, what would happen in 5-8 years time? When more and more cars are zero/low tailpipe emission electric/hybrid, more and more cities impose emission based fees, old style pure ICE driven cars may become a hard sell. Might as well save money now so your car depreciates less over time. 

Yeah and working out that difference is the important bit.

Saving £200 for 35k miles I wouldn't be surprised if the numbers didn't add up, but maybe they would once you get to saving £1k etc.

 

If the black 50 miles model went down into the 6s then I'd seriously be thinking about it, but at the moment the difference is too great.

 

 

Edited 27 March, 20206 yr by GeorgeStorm

7 hours ago, benterrier said:

High mileage = wear, wear = failed components.

 

In this example both cars are the same age (7 years old), so whilst I agree the higher mileage car has potentially more wear, it shouldn't be assumed that it's going to be the most reliable.

 

Cars don't like being stood, and/or short journeys, which a car of the same age but with lower mileage will likely have experienced.

 

If condition was equal, I'd always take the cheaper option, which invariably will probably be the one with the higher mileage. A car sat at 70mph for hours on end will likely be in much better condition mechanically, than one popping to the shops and back each day.