From the Ford GT conversation of people not wanting to put miles on theirs.
The general perception is more miles = bad when comparing the same car of the same age. But I’ve often been a bit skeptical of the hysteria around this.
Say for instance, you’re comparing a 2011 vehicle with 100,000 miles, to a 2008 of the same make/model with 70,000 miles, which probably would line up pricing wise, would the older car with older parts be more reliable due to having run less miles?
Would there be any statistically significant difference between buying a well serviced car with 80,000 miles and one with 50,000 miles in the cost of ownership over the next 5 years?
I find people as a whole have a big bug bear about selling cars with a certain milage just for the sake of it. For instance I had this discussion with family members a year ago and they were all certain to get rid of their car at 100,000kms because thats when they start to get older and have issues. Which to me is just madness, as if the car is reliable there is no indication it won’t go for another 100,000kms and the cost of upgrade is drastically more than the small amount of spend to keep it on the road.