What do you consider "low miles" nowadays?

I'm just seeing a lot of "low miles" newer cars for sale that have anywhere between 100k and 150k on the odo.

I would say that anything under under 100k would be "low miles" to me.

I consider under 70k to be low generally, but I guess a lot depends on the car. For instance, if it were a Ferrari I might think 70k was high.

For me? Under 60k.

100k seems to be the point when stuff like battery/alternator/water pump, etc need to be replaced. If I buy a car and immediately have to think about maintenance, then to me, that isn't low miles.

Less than 8K miles per year.

So, if you have a 2012 with 15K, it's high. If you have a 2002 with 70K, it's low.

I don't think they consider 100-150k low miles.. I bet they just think you wont look at the odometer, and trust them... or at least it got your attention.

Like how people put tags of unrelated cars on craigslist ads. Because you know, When I am looking for a Corvette, if i see a Civic in the list, I will also click on that.

Cotton wrote: I consider under 70k to be low generally, but I guess a lot depends on the car. For instance, if it were a Ferrari I might think 70k was high.

Or a 1 year old car...
Obviously, like Javelin said, it depends on the age of the car.

And the manufacturer.

For a Honda, I'd feel very confident driving one with 150,000 miles on it across the country. Regardless of age.

I would not do the same with Mk 4 VW with the same mileage.

In reply to PHeller:

Guud Point.

In general, it depends on the age. Anything under 10K/yr I'd consider "low miles". 10-20K - "average". More than 20K/yr - "high miles"

I bought a 2004 Tacoma with the 3.4 V6 with 188,000. In Toyotaland, that's low. I've seen them @ 500,000 and a local dealer had one advertised with 408,000. That give's me hope I look at the history of a certain model/brand.

I tend to buy cars right after 200k although if i CAN buy something with higher mileage i will.

I think at some point mileage stops mattering to resale value. Like, on all the $1000 cars ive bought, they could have had 100k or 300k and would have still been right around $1000.

But on a newer car, the higher mileage the better!! We just bought an 07 Prius with 210k for $4500 in great condition. If i could have bought an 07 with 290k for less, i would have! On new cars, mileage has a totally disproportionate affect on price vs actual wear.

I mostly think mileage concerns are bullE36 M3. I just buy on condition and among good condition cars i will go for the one with the highest mileage because it tends to have a cheaper price for the same condition. I've never regretted a high-miles purchase. But then again, i've never bought a piece of E36 M3 that happened to have high miles either.

some would say the 73,000 miles on my land rover is high miliage for a Disco

but my 87 saab only has 90,000

PHeller wrote: And the manufacturer. For a Honda, I'd feel very confident driving one with 150,000 miles on it across the country. Regardless of age. I would not do the same with Mk 4 VW with the same mileage.

The VW would get you there - the windows might not go up, the CEL WILL be on and the stereo won't work, but you would get there.

When I was a kid, having a car last 100,000 miles was something of an amazing feat but these days it's no big deal. I recently bought an e30 with only about 85k on the odometer, I figure I'll be driving that one until I'm ready to go in the old folks home.

I'd say anything under 175k on a car more than 10 years old, although I wouldn't mention it in an add if I was selling it unless it was under 100k.

My 91 saab only hit a quarter of a million miles before the engine popped.. I was upset

a few years back, i paid $225 for a 95 Suburban 2wd that had 340,000 miles on it... it drove like brand new- it didn't even clunk when you put it in gear and started right up in the dead of winter. the only problem was a little bit of rust on the passenger fender and a decent amount of wear in the leather on the driver's seat.. sold it to my brother for $300, and he sold it to someone for $700.. that guy is still driving it 3.5 years later... i had a 97 Cavalier that rolled over 300,000 miles when i had it... sold it to my 16 year old cousin, who let her idiot boyfriend beat the crap out of it for a year or so.. that car is now a hornet racer and still has the original engine and trans in it...

right now i've got a 2000 Bonneville with 200,000 miles on it that drives great and only hasa couple of creaks and rattles and a rust spot by the filler neck. i've got $800 into it and am trying to sell it for $2500, which is a decent deal if the local Craigslists are any indicator of actual value..

Javelin wrote: Less than 8K miles per year. So, if you have a 2012 with 15K, it's high. If you have a 2002 with 70K, it's low.

I think that's a pretty good standard, keeping it keyed to the year; I'd also probably draw a cut off that anything past around 120,000 miles is always high miles.

I like to by csrs at about 80k seems to be a good balance of cost versus ware and expected servic. For instance most fords need a 100kplace service and if you have to pay for that at the dealer it is 1500 to 2000. This is a good tool to use when discussing price with a seller. On the other hand a ford at about 100k that ras had the service should be priced accordingly and can aldo be a good deal depending on condition

Vigo wrote: I think at some point mileage stops mattering to resale value. Like, on all the $1000 cars ive bought, they could have had 100k or 300k and would have still been right around $1000.

Part of the reason that if/when the motor goes in my ZX2 I'll probably just replace it and keep on going. Very little if any rust, cheap parts, and ease of repair make it very Civic-like in that regard.

Also, I bought it for $900 and could probably sell it with 250,000 miles for $900.

To me, a "newer" car shouldn't have 150k miles. I try to go by 10-15k per year for "low".

SCARR wrote: Like how people put tags of unrelated cars on craigslist ads. Because you know, When I am looking for a Corvette, if i see a Civic in the list, I will also click on that.

Good god yes. When I'm checking MR2 parts on CL the fact that you are selling a Civic manifold does not interest me. And looking at newer EVO's and WRX's should not lead me to your Corolla. No matter how ill or tight or fly it is.

Cotton wrote: 70k

I'm thinking his. My '08 Focus is just about here and that is the lowest mileage car I have. Highest being around 350k. I'll stick with 70k being the edge of "low".

Totally depends on the car 60K on a Triumph Stag is miraculous, 260K on a P71 is expected.

My 2011 manual Elantra is at 140K, it has no rattles, still has original brake pads and showing no signs of wear and tear at all.

Jerry wrote: And looking at newer EVO's and WRX's should not lead me to your Corolla. No matter how ill or tight or fly it is.

Unless somebody stuffed a 4G63 in there.

To me, you also have to factor in age of the vehicle. 70,000 might be low miles on a 1999 vehicle but is high miles for a 2009 vehicle. I usually use anything less than 10,000 a year as low, 15,000 is typical and anything above that as high.