Porsche 911UK Forum

Welcome to the @Porsche911UK website. Register a free account today to become a member! Sign up is quick and easy, then you can view, participate in topics and posts across the site that covers all things Porsche.

Already registered and looking to recovery your account, select 'login in' and then the 'forget your password' option.

Here's a thought.

alfazagato

Well-known member
Joined
3 Jul 2017
Messages
103
Here's a New Year's thought......The term 'low mileage" is used as being a plus factor in evaluating a car but surely there is mileage and mileage! Lots of small trips, frequent starts, cold running, heavy breaking, point and squirt driving all contribute unequally compared to the engine/mechanical wear caused by continuous running. So, just for the sake of argument say there is double the mechanical wear on a London commuting 996 to one used in, say, Lincolnshire or Scotland with their wide open spaces. The 35k mile commute London car could, in mechanical wear terms, be the same as the 70k Lincolnshire car. I have no firm data on this but it would be interesting to hear what others have to say. Lots of engines are evaluated by hours used only.
 
Its an interesting thought and I have a view based on reading many comments that low milage garage queens have more issues than daily driven 911s. .I still dont know why in the Porsche world 7k pa is considered ava when its 12k pa for most other cars. but for me if buying a car I would be looking for an ave or slightly below ave mileage car over a very low mileage car and I certainly wouldnt be paying a premium for a low mileage car, as I intend to put miles on my cars . maybe if I was looking for an investment or occational use car I might, but in all honesty I would probably buy a high mileage car cheaper knowing that in my ownership it would become an ave mileage car and have a positive effect financially.
I know guys that dont drive their cars as much as they could as they are paranoid about putting too many miles on it. Sod that lifes too short I want to drive and enjoy the cars I buy, you cant take them with you :floor: as I understand its all electric and no polution where I am hopefully heading . :grin: :grin: :thumb:
 
Phil, Couldn't agree more and if 7k is the average usage then towards the magic 100k mark is where most of the 996s should be today and indeed the early ones quite a bit more......however, from what I read, many have done around 3-4k pa. Could it be that these are the cars which don't go out in the winter or rain and not the ones I used to see stationary on the Kings Road in the traffic each morning?
 
alfazagato said:
Here's a New Year's thought......The term 'low mileage" is used as being a plus factor in evaluating a car but surely there is mileage and mileage! Lots of small trips, frequent starts, cold running, heavy breaking, point and squirt driving all contribute unequally compared to the engine/mechanical wear caused by continuous running. So, just for the sake of argument say there is double the mechanical wear on a London commuting 996 to one used in, say, Lincolnshire or Scotland with their wide open spaces. The 35k mile commute London car could, in mechanical wear terms, be the same as the 70k Lincolnshire car. I have no firm data on this but it would be interesting to hear what others have to say. Lots of engines are evaluated by hours used only.

Although what you say is quite right, unless you're buying a 1-owner car (and the owner hasn't moved house/relocated!) how do you know where it's been driven and on what sort of journeys?

Fact is 99% of the time you have nothing like that to go on, most 10-15 year old cars have had a few owners, especially Porsches and you can guarantee that some of them will have driven them hard occasionally (what do most people buy a Porsche for..)

All things being equal (mixture of usage etc) the lower mileage car should be better but there are of course exceptions to the rule - I've seen some fantastic cars in immaculate condition with high mileage and like wise some right dogs with low and high mileage...

But as a rule of thumb when you have little else to go on mileage is a starting point. If you're parting with big bucks - get it inspected either way.
 
So, you could have a 100k mile car that has been driven in london, not warmed up, poorly maintained etc. The same could be said for a 30k mile car. You could also have a 100k car that has been nannied, driven long distances across Southern Europe and maintained very well. Same could be said for a 30k car..... it's a bit of a moot point in my eyes. Just find the best one you can afford.
 
:agree:

Unfortunatly there is no way to tell how a car has lived its life .

I prefer higher millage cars as apposed to the 30k ones but thats just a rule of thumb im afraid .

At the end of the day you get an inspection done on any car you are thinking of buying .. thats the way to prove its life .
 
I"ve always said mileage is baloney and has little bearing on wear and condition. You could also argue cars that have never been screwed and spent most their lives labouring between 1 & 2k rpm will be much worse condition and have more wear than the ones that spend most their lives between 3 & 6k rpm.
 
It's a valid thought. 'City" cars in general are a turn off for me. They tend to be tattier, having been (or been the victim of) 'bump parking" and having doors opened into them in car parks etc, and more risk of being kerbed. In other words general condition counts for a lot - perhaps more than just first impressions.
But I disagree that low mileage cars can be problematic in themselves. 'Garage queens" are likely to have been used sparingly and when the occasion suits, not to pop to the shops or the station. In my experience low mileage good condition trumps high mileage every time.
 
Low mileage cars can usually be short journey cars which mean they spend a higher % of their running life in the warm-up zone where the majority of wear happens.
I currently work just a few miles down the road and my car doesn't even get anywhere near up to temp both to and from work, so effectively spends 100% of it's running life in the danger zone if I only use it for work. Hence why I'm reluctant to shift from mobil 1 0w-40 as the oil is thinner when colder.
 
Griffter said:
In my experience low mileage good condition trumps high mileage every time.

The answer's in there.
 
alfazagato said:
..... Couldn't agree more and if 7k is the average usage then towards the magic 100k mark is where most of the 996s should be today and indeed the early ones quite a bit more......however, from what I read, many have done around 3-4k pa.

I believe I'm correct in saying that the '7k average' referred to is based on analysis that I have conducted and reported several times since 2013.

In 2013 I first made the point that my stats showed that the average miles per year reduces the older a 911 gets.

i.e The "7k per annum average" still holds true for all water-cooled cars but it will be higher for 5 year old 991 and lower for a 19 year old 996.

The data was produced to back up my advice to prospective buyers that 'average mileage' for a typical first purchase 911 (a 7 year old car) should be c50k and not the 70k+ that many might think.
 
My car is a 1998, had 60,000 miles when I bought it (67k now) and took a fairly significant amount of cash to bring up to standard.

I inherited the result of a lot of people buying the car, driving in one case 500 miles and then selling it with the bare minimum done in terms of maintenance.

The entire history of the car prior to my ownership fills one binder, since I bought it I've filled another binder completely and am at the start of a second.

It's now the car I wanted it to be when I bought it- but it's also a cautionary tale as it's a 996 that has cost me over £30k in just over a year.
 
MOT history checker is the best tool for checking the car's yearly mileage. You see some that have done around d 4k per year then one year covered 30k. Don't even have to view the car to see the info.
 
In my opinion you really have to make a judgement call based on condition and original (not photo copied) documentation, maybe with a wary eye on mileage but that would be the least of my own concerns.

If a car looks right, drives right and has all the right paperwork (not just stamps in a service book) then for me it is worthy of serious consideration, obviously there are never any real guarantees in life, especially where private sales are concerned :sad:

Many moons ago I used to work for British School of Motoring and was closely involved with their fleet operations. It struck me then that there were several (usually long term) instructors whose cars were, despite stellar mileages in the hands of novice drivers, in astonishingly good condition. These same individuals consistently returned cars that belied their mileage and use. I formed the opinion that if you really care and look after your car then it will definitely show in a positive light in it's later life.

That has strongly influenced me when buying used cars. I trust my own first instincts when setting eyes on the car and the present owner and then always ask to see the maintenance history and have a good read through that before taking a drive, if I am still interested. By then the mileage is usually not such a big deal if the car has proved itself.

Most maintenance issues are cyclical and predictable, affected by not just miles but also time, and if it can't be proved that they have ben addressed over the life of a car, I would be way, way more concerned about that than the miles covered.
 

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
124,354
Messages
1,439,459
Members
48,711
Latest member
Silage
Back
Top