To me, 100,000 miles is a bit of a milestone. That's kinda high miles in my book, the impact varies by model, but still kinda high. 200,000 is like crazy high miles! For a 10 year old car, I'd call 40,000 really low.
I see cars advertised all the time as having "very low miles" and they are at 97,000 or 110,000 or 120,000 miles. Does anyone else think that is "low"? I can accept "well maintained", "highway miles" or even "only 8,000 a year" but please don't tell me that over 100,000 mile is low!
Depends on the car. For an old redblock Volvo I would consider 100-150k to be low miles. A Maserati Bi-turbo with 50k would be extremely high miles.
yup its by the car.. my XJ is low miles at just 350K
a bi turbo with 50K is like loch ness monster..
jrw1621
PowerDork
4/27/12 9:49 a.m.
You (and I) also live in the rust belt. If you live in an area where the cars do not disintegrate right around you, you can keep them running pretty darn long with regular repairs.
I will agree though that it is amazing what people will print in a CL ad weather that be statements of "low miles" or "great gas mileage." I have been amazed that just about anything with a 4cyl engine is advertised as getting 40 mpg.
I do have a 24 yr old car in my driveway with only 150k miles.
My favorite was the guy who claimed low mileage of only 6000 miles per year. Too bad I had to point out that the car was 27 years old so the total mileage was 170,000.
For me, any car build in the mid 90's and up, 100K isn't bad. 150K yes. 300K very bad.
car pre 85? 100K I would consider high mileage.
pre 70? 60K high mileage
While "low" is a relative term, I'm with the OP. 100,000 is significant mileage. Every car will have some wear getting there and ample opportunity for some not-so-obvious problem to develop.
My 78 production RX-7 has 90k miles on it. Is that high or low? I would think low.
The 2008 Mustang I just bought has 847. Of course, it also has no drivetrain, so I'm not sure if it counts.
I consider the Elantra to be "low-ish miles" at 150k. But then again it's still trouble free. The Accent is high miles at 200k. Truck is real low miles at 66k.
Just as once you're over 50 you are not young, once a car's over 100k miles it is not low miles 
In reply to Curmudgeon:
Of course it's old you old fart. 
In your case it's high mileage too.
Early '90s Ford Taurus, 80K miles is ancient.
4-cylinder Toyota from same era, 80K miles is just driven off the dealer lot.
It's definitely dependent on the car.
Just like everyone else as said, depends on the vehicle.
Avalanche has 137,8, or 9k on it. Sure has some of the "uniqueness" of being a 100k plus GM vehicle, but doesn't readily show it.
Dakota has 129k on it. It looks, sounds, and drives much worse then the indicated mileage, but hasn't let me down yet.
F250 has 213k, but has sat for the last 5 yrs. Plus it's a diesel. It's barely broken in.
Some people will claim that "low" miles is anything under 10-15k per year, but I'm with those that are thinking that anything over 100k can't really be considered "low".
1988RedT2 wrote:
Some people will claim that "low" miles is anything under 10-15k per year, but I'm with those that are thinking that anything over 100k can't really be considered "low".
yup based on that logic my 250k mile '91 volvo is a low millage mill...
I don't know where I picked it up, but I draw the line at 10k/year.
Of course, that means that my '71 Chevy with 240k is low mileage... I wouldn't advertise it as such. Ad should show me how many miles it has, to the nearest thousand. Let me decide whether its low mileage or high mileage.
Hal
Dork
4/27/12 12:20 p.m.
I would draw the line at 50K miles. Anything over that is not low miles irregardless of the age of the vehicle.
'low miles' is a buzz phrase to reel ya in, just like 'never seen rain or snow'... although the floors are rotted out
one guy back in the day said he had a rebuilt 283 engine although he only put in a new cap, rotor and points
go figger 
When I was a kid it was quite a feat to make a car last for 100,000 miles, but times have changed.
