Which car would you go for. Diesel with turbo or straight petrol without turbo.

[Fazda]

Don't talk about Trolls!

 

[PostmanPot]

You must be trolling, seriously.

No, I am most definitely not trolling.

They most definitely could do that, but it would be counter intuitive as dealers especially abuse the 'low mileage' fallacy. Low mileage with no plan is bad.

They also do not want to have potential buyers informed. Informed, remember the reason we're here, to help other people? They would love the buyer coming back for maintenance, so they can milk them more than they already have with the 'low mileage' mistruth.

 

[SauRoNZA]

If it's a petrol that sounds like a diesel...then it's got FSI.

 

[PostmanPot]

If it's a petrol that sounds like a diesel...then it's got FSI.

 

[Rouxenator]

They most definitely could do that, but it would be counter intuitive as dealers especially abuse the 'low mileage' fallacy. Low mileage with no plan is bad.

I am sorry, brands aside, that is the worst argument I have ever heard. The cars being sold as new were tested to destruction prior to being put into production. Every aspect of these vehicles were tested to ensure they are produced with no or little defects. You honestly cannot argue that a car with close to 100,000km on the clock is better than a brand new car.

Regardless of what car you are buying it remains a complex machine with various components that have wear on them relating to usage. In short, the higher the mileage, the more the wear. The more the wear the sooner you need to replace items. So it is only logical to buy a car with as low mileage as possible. Obviously taking into account budget, size and other prerequisites.

So again I have to put it to you fanbois, why must the OP buy cars with 150,000km on the clock as opposes to 50,000km or 60,000km for the same money?

 

[PostmanPot]

I am sorry, brands aside, that is the worst argument I have ever heard. The cars being sold as new were tested to destruction prior to being put into production. Every aspect of these vehicles were tested to ensure they are produced with no or little defects. You honestly cannot argue that a car with close to 100,000km on the clock is better than a brand new car.

Regardless of what car you are buying it remains a complex machine with various components that have wear on them relating to usage. In short, the higher the mileage, the more the wear. The more the wear the sooner you need to replace items. So it is only logical to buy a car with as low mileage as possible. Obviously taking into account budget, size and other prerequisites.

So again I have to put it to you fanbois, why must the OP buy cars with 150,000km on the clock as opposes to 50,000km or 60,000km for the same money?

Come on Roux, you're really being silly. A car with 0km has a service plan. A car approaching 100,000km likely does not. Nor does a 70,000km car whose plan has expired due to age. 30,000km is a lot of mileage, and potential claims from plan, that were not done. 90/100,000km is major service time.

Come on.

I'm not sure who is advocating a 150,000km car? Who said the OP must do this? What I've seen is merely assuring the OP that a 150,000km is fine, despite what most people (who are uneducated on the matter) would say.

 

[Rickster]

I would get a turbo diesel, but not a VAG.

 

[FiestaST]

Nonsense as usual.

But mileage is an extremely subjective thing. People who don't know a lot about cars, or have good mechanics whom they trust, get scared by the '100,000km barrier'.

In your case, Roux, it's just your childish opinion about VW cars. Why are you even here? You are not helping the OP, merely expressing your obsession for your own good.

Complete twaddle...

a decently maintained car will happily do over 200000kms, especially a German one.

Agreed with both bruvs wrt to "high" mileage...

 

[ahoudet]

I'd go for the lower mileage car if it was the same price. As much as teething issues may not be resolved, the additional value when selling will also be a plus. Just bought a 2000 car with 86000 km on the clock and she runs like a dream. Just has an exhaust leak

 

[PostmanPot]

...the additional value when selling will also be a plus.

A fractional saving though considering the cost of near-future maintenance, which would have already been done on a ±100,000km car.

Also, assuming the owner will keep the car for a good while, once both cars are well over the 100,000/150,000km mark, there will be barely any additional value.

 

[pjjdp]

Just to re-iterate what Toxic said. I had an 2004 Audi A3 2.0Tdi with 270k on the clock. It went like a dream. It had a few minor issues, which I sorted myself. So saved the labour costs. Only replaced with genuine VAG parts.
I miss the car some days.

I had an itch and now own a new Golf 7.

 

[Rouxenator]

Agreed with both bruvs wrt to "high" mileage...

So the higher the mileage the better the car?

 

[PostmanPot]

So the higher the mileage the better the car?

Could you please stop being a nincompoop...?

 

[FiestaST]

So the higher the mileage the better the car?

Eish no words brother... put your "prejudice" aside & realize that VW; along with the entire VAG Group; makes competent quality cars.

One *cannot* dismiss a well-looked after German car purely based on "high mileage".

Of course common sense & investigation is needed when treading down this path.

 

[Rouxenator]

I did not dispute that in any of my posts here, but I am astounded that some think higher mileage is better as the cars would have been cured of "teething problems". Honestly, this is modern cars we are talking about here, not prototype model-T Fords.

 

[PostmanPot]

I did not dispute that in any of my posts here, but I am astounded that some think higher mileage is better as the cars would have been cured of "teething problems". Honestly, this is modern cars we are talking about here, not prototype model-T Fords.

I'm astounded that you're astounded by it.

The whole point is entirely in line with your saying that high mileage cars are worse off (maintenance, things breaking, higher risk). Anything major, as well as major parts that tend to get replaced at the VAG 90,000km service in the worst cases (cam, clutch) would have been replaced. There is a higher likelihood of things breaking at up to 100,000km, than at 70,000km or less.

Car ownership for 5 years, and having done around 100,000km driving, allows one to maximise the maintenance plan. Much to the benefit of the second hand buyer who scores in paying less maintenance, for a longer period of time.

Again, this is actually all in line with your thinking, but you just don't realise it.

And newer meaning more reliable is bollocks, at least in the past 10 years or so.

One assumes just as much risk buying low mileage out of plan, they just don't tend to know it.