Low miles? Or (slightly) lower price?

I'm always looking for my next new (to me) car, and have currently narrowed it down to 2 very similar cars. Well, sort of similar. One is a 2006 Mercury Milan, while the other is a 2007 Mercury Montego. The Milan and Montego have the same V6 engine and 6 speed automatic....for those not "up to speed" on Mercury. But here is the problem:

The Milan has VERY LOW miles (tho like the Montego, it is a one owner car) and costs more than the slightly newer Montego. The Montego has average miles for the year, and has A LOT of safety equipment not available in the Milan...not that I care a lot about that.

Basically, has someone here every bought a car with really low miles for the year on it...and the car was okay physically, but mechanically...it was a bit of a pile?

BTW, the only negative(s) to these cars, so far, is the transmission. I read online that it is not a "serviceable" unit, which I assume means: if it dies you can't re-built it. The Montego has the added negative of a sticking rear brake. (Milans have front discs, I THINK, while Montegos have 4 wheel discs.)

My daily driver is a 2002 Powerstroke F250 with 251k miles. It looks and runs like it has 50k miles on it. Condition, condition, condition over miles any day.

I can fix anything besides paint and body myself, so I picked the vehicle with the nicest interior and paint and body I could find, knowing that I was going into something that may need an engine or a trans at some point. But that beats rust repair any day.

Both of these cars look "showroom new", so condition of the body is about even for both. But to be more precise about these two choices:

the Milan has less than 20K miles on it, while the Montego has nearly 60K. The Milan is selling for about $1,500-$1,800 MORE than the Montego.

A 6 year old car with UNDER 20K miles on it may have had a lot of short trips over it's life that put more wear on it than the 60K miles on a 5 year old car has on it. Each car has something to recommend it, the Milan is just slightly better built than the Montego....according to all sources. While the one year newer Montego has safety "kit" out the wazoo, and for someone with occasional twinges of arthritis, the Montego is easier to get into and out of.

integraguy wrote: BTW, the only negative(s) to these cars, so far, is the transmission. I read online that it is not a "serviceable" unit, which I assume means: if it dies you can't re-built it.

Not sure in this case, but it usually means something like "no one wants to have to change the transmission fluid every 30K, so just dont ever change it and drive it until it dies and come back and have us replace the transmission or buy a new car".

integraguy wrote: A 6 year old car with UNDER 20K miles on it may have had a lot of short trips over it's life that put more wear on it than the 60K miles on a 5 year old car has on it. Each car has something to recommend it, the Milan is just slightly better built than the Montego....according to all sources. While the one year newer Montego has safety "kit" out the wazoo, and for someone with occasional twinges of arthritis, the Montego is easier to get into and out of.

Looks like you have your answer. Montego. In this case I would rather have the miles and know the car never really sat. Definitely a top three reason cars die.

Travis_K wrote:

integraguy wrote: BTW, the only negative(s) to these cars, so far, is the transmission. I read online that it is not a "serviceable" unit, which I assume means: if it dies you can't re-built it.

Not sure in this case, but it usually means something like "no one wants to have to change the transmission fluid every 30K, so just dont ever change it and drive it until it dies and come back and have us replace the transmission or buy a new car".

No, IF I am reading it right, it sure sounds like they have that bastard POS CVT junk providing power the wheels. You can change the fluid on those, but anything else is a complete reman unit from the dealer.

integraguy wrote: Basically, has someone here every bought a car with really low miles for the year on it...and the car was okay physically, but mechanically...it was a bit of a pile?

Yes I have. It was a 1989 Accord that we bought in 2004, with an original 47k miles on it. Every wear item and every rubber part seemed to disintegrate alarmingly quickly, and I was left replacing parts I otherwise would not have, had it been driven regularly in its life, on a weekly basis.

But of course you're talking about a car that's only a few years old. Basically you need to check them over - which ever car is cleaner and seems better maintained, get that one. If it seems likely that the Milan has not kept up with recommended fluid changes and other maintenance, pass it by.

Check to be sure that the Montego does not have the crappier CVT trans. That may have ended in '06 but check to be sure.
If important to you, my guess is the Montego will have much less resale value when you plan to get rid of it. This may not matter but it is currently a forgoten model from a orphaned brand. In 4-5 years this "forgettability" will only grow.

My father bought a 2005 Montego AWD and it was the most miserable new car that I have driven in a long time. The CVT is awful.

Miles don't scare me, provided the condition is good. My reasoning is that all else being equal, a higher mileage vehicle was relied on more than a lower mileage vehicle, and had to be maintained accordingly. A good example was my 2006 truck, which I bought in 2010 with 135K. I figured anyone who's going to put 27K on a vehicle per year is going to take care of it. On top of that, it had two mods that I would have made myself (a BFI intake and Magnaflow exhaust), and I noticed a NAPA Gold oil filter on it (also what I typically use).

Your choice sounds a little tougher, as their are equipment differences in the mix, as well. As others have echoed, I'd dig into the specifics of the transmission a little more, I always thought non-serviceable meant that it had "lifetime" fluid (and potentially no drain plug). I'm fine with a transmission not requiring fluid changes, provided there's a way to change the fluid if I don't buy into the "lifetime" fluid thing.

btw, the engine isn't the same......

the Milan being the fusion twin should have the 221hp 3.0L v6.....the montego being the 500 twin should have a 207hp 3.0L v6(I think lacking vvt)

To confuse/muddy the waters even better, do you want a car based on a Volvo S80, or a car based on a Mazda 6???

integraguy wrote: Basically, has someone here every bought a car with really low miles for the year on it...and the car was okay physically, but mechanically...it was a bit of a pile?

Yep, 2000 Accord. Turned out to be a turned in lease and not taken care of. Spent a lot of $$ doing catch up work and it was never really a reliable car after that. Maybe they're like people; they get corrupted during their formative years. :-)

I saw a nice looking 2003 e46 M3 w/ 60k miles on eBay yesterday.

The seller proudly states that it "only needs an oil change every 15,000 miles!"

W/ a 5-owner history one can only hope (and I mean literally) that it's had more sympathetic care.

Also, it has a sweet chrome skull shift knob. Seriously.

In reply to motomoron:

lol.....thats a hideous 13-14k car......

motomoron wrote: I saw a nice looking 2003 e46 M3 w/ 60k miles on eBay yesterday. The seller proudly states that it "only needs an oil change every 15,000 miles!" W/ a 5-owner history one can only hope (and I mean literally) that it's had more sympathetic care. Also, it has a sweet chrome skull shift knob. Seriously.

15k oil change interval is the factory recommendation.

In reply to m4ff3w:

I didn't know for sure on the interval....but I knew it was pretty long. It also takes more quarts IIRC. Crazy dry sump system.

My 85 911 had 50k when I bought it. My 78 Trans Am has 80k. I just bought a 72 LTD with under 60k miles. If a car has been properly cared for low miles are fine. I'd much rather buy a low mileage car personally.

For something a little newer. Our 03 Mach 1 had 48k when we bought it 2.5 years ago.