Paying an extra grand for lower mileage?

[zooms3]

I agree, seems good money for the lower mileage one but it could have been ragged from day 1, whereas the higher mileage one could have been driven to the shops by a 60 year old and 29mph.

How many previous owners?

[daz05]

I would pay the extra, feel feel less tired in the long run.

[Dan.b]

I agree, seems good money for the lower mileage one but it could have been ragged from day 1, whereas the higher mileage one could have been driven to the shops by a 60 year old and 29mph.

How many previous owners?

Or it could be the other way around.

People that think like this.......

[garrardrj]

Very very rarely are higher mileage cars better than low mileage cars of the same era 

[RedRobin]

Very very rarely are higher mileage cars better than low mileage cars of the same era 

....Just because yours is a low miler 

I understand your generalisation but still think it depends on the individual car's history and owner.

[andygo]

Go for the low mileage one all day. No matter how well its been looked after, that engine has pushed the car along for a lot of miles. Plus the gearbox, whelbearings, driveshafts, bushes, etc etc have all taken the hits. It would need to be a £3k difference almost. Why take the risk?

[berg]

my mk 3 had 105k when i bought it and had it till 173k

where low mileage is concerned add £5 to list price for every 100 miles, so if a 40k car is worth £8k a 30k car should be £8.5k as a rough rule of thumb (so a motor engineer told me anyhow)