What would you choose? Low mileage or low age?-Page 2: Grassroots Motorsports forum: Grassroots Motorsports Magazine

Subscribe get a full year for only $23.95 Sample Free Test Drive—no strings attached

1 2

March 12, 2011 7:55 a.m. Ignorant SuperDork

bravenrace wrote:

I think you are talking about a much older car in much worse condition. I was talking about a 1987 vehicle that is rust free and properly maintained. Your example, while entirely possible, doesn't really meet that criterion.

I think it was an 86 buick that was rust free and properly maintained. Stupid 1 year computer controlled carb on the 2.8..

The car was actually purchased from a little old lady in his hometown. It was her church and grocery car; His father knew the lady and the story was true. It had a stack of maint receipts and was garaged constantly. It fits your criteria perfectly. The car had sat with tanks of gas for long periods of time, due to the relative inactivity. If the car is not driven, the gas will sit, turn to varnish, and the ethanol in the modern gas will attract moisture... The rust in the fuel system of that car was on the INSIDE... I don't know of any "proper" maint procedure that requires you to flush out the fuel system.

It was a comfortable nice car, aside from the episode where it cost buckets of cash to fix.. It was alright..
March 12, 2011 7:57 a.m. Ignorant SuperDork

minimac wrote:

Just my experience. I bought a two year old Windstar w/80k.

yah.. but it's a windstar.. eeeek.
March 12, 2011 8:25 a.m. 11110000 Reader

I've never purchased a car with less than 97K miles on it. I do go for Volvos, which are known for being durable, but a lot of other manufacturers have long-lived product these days.

My current DD was 4 years old with 97K on the clock when I bought it. I got it cheap, did the 105K maintenance (timing belt, fluid flushes, etc...) and plan to enjoy it for the next 1/2 million miles.
March 12, 2011 10:36 a.m. minimac SuperDork

Ignorant wrote:

yah.. but it's a windstar.. eeeek.

I never thought I'd agree with you and say "You're Right!"
March 12, 2011 11:42 a.m. Ignorant SuperDork

minimac wrote:

Ignorant wrote:

yah.. but it's a windstar.. eeeek.

I never thought I'd agree with you and say "You're Right!"

lot of people agreeing with me these days..

HA!

The windstar was one vehicle, I'm glad my family never purchased. Now an old Aerostar would have been cool, while not very efficient that old 3.0 can go forever and 3 days.
March 14, 2011 1:07 p.m. rogerbvonceg Reader

minimac wrote:

Just my experience. I bought a two year old Windstar w/80k. My thinking at the time was it was run all the time and it had a new transmission installed. What could go wrong? I went less than 500 highway miles before the transmission went again on a trip. To make a long, aggravating story short, the transmission was replaced(3x) again, torque converter was replaced four times, and was on its way again when it went back (lemon law)to the dealer. I will NEVER buy a high mileage car again. I will gladly replace 30 year old rubber and bushings,and be relatively dependable than take a chance on constantly being stranded due to worn out parts/components.

Only on a Windstar would 80k be considered "High Mileage." That vehicle is a "survivor" of Ford's dark ages. (BTDT). Killed ours at about 77k. Transmission was OK, but we had persistent current leak ("normal," according to the tech) and replaced the alternator two or three times before they found a good one. (Not related to the leak.)
March 14, 2011 1:28 p.m. Appleseed SuperDork

Maintenance. I'd rather have a car with 150,000 well maintained miles vs. 80,000 miles of redline hoonage.