Over 100,000 miles - what's the big deal?
Discussion
993kimbo said:
In the old days, did cars used to blow up after 100,000 miles?
I've noticed many sellers use the 'under 100,000 miles thing' as a selling point.
Not blow up generally but some (enough) required major work, at least top end rebuild if not a bottom end rebuild too at 100K miles (or often before, sometimes quite a bit before) that 100K miles is just more miles than many prospective owners do not want to bother with.I've noticed many sellers use the 'under 100,000 miles thing' as a selling point.
However, modern engines are fueled/sparked better thus run cleaner, have better heat control (through oil/water heat exchangers), have better crankcase ventilation, and with proper servicing and a bit of luck 100K miles is hardly anymore of a milestone than 10K miles.
But human nature being what it is 100K miles will likely continue to be a scary number of miles to many.
993kimbo said:
In the old days, did cars used to blow up after 100,000 miles?
I've noticed many sellers use the 'under 100,000 miles thing' as a selling point.
50 years ago I'm pretty sure that most cars struggled to make 100k. Engineering has moved on, alas human mindset has not.I've noticed many sellers use the 'under 100,000 miles thing' as a selling point.
When I bought my 993, I intentionally looked for a post 100k mileage car. I wanted to enjoy driving her, not worrying about depreciation or adding mileage.
She's just come back from a major service and the only fault they found was weak struts holding the engine lid up.
I think only a fool would discount a high mileage car that came with decent history over a far more expensive pre 100k car that had done say 20k miles less but was 5k more. Just IMO of course and basing this on the aircooled 911s.
Edited by Wozy68 on Monday 11th March 20:34
My dad is the slowest and most careful driver in the world.
I remember many years ago he had a Hillman avenger 1.6 LS. It had a new engine before it hit 60k as it was tapping its head off and smoking like a chimney! Just wear and tear.
Engines have come on a long way since then.
Mostly.
I remember many years ago he had a Hillman avenger 1.6 LS. It had a new engine before it hit 60k as it was tapping its head off and smoking like a chimney! Just wear and tear.
Engines have come on a long way since then.
Mostly.
mollytherocker said:
Agree.
I wonder if there is a psychological threshold in KMs for our European friends? 150? 200?
I can only speak here in Portugal but the threshold is more around age. As long as it is less than 30 years old then it is OK. Although our neighbour has a couple of old Renault 4´s.I wonder if there is a psychological threshold in KMs for our European friends? 150? 200?
Friends here have cars on 300,000Kms and we travelled in a Taxi this past week at 650,000Kms.
Clocking used to more prevalent, meaning people were driving round in cars with lower numbers on the clock than the car had done, so when something went wrong they presumed that was because it had done X thousand miles, whereas in reality it may have done X + 100,000 or X + 50,000 or whatever.
The same happens now with Ferraris. The more people are obsessed with mileage, the more incentive there is to keep it low, or at least to make it look that way. Drive it 6,000 miles in a year, remove half of them, then have it serviced and MOT'd, preserving your service history just before putting it up for sale. If every owner does this guess what? Everyone assumes the mileages are all correct (and can't be dis-proven) and associates certain jobs (clutch, ball joints, brakes) with the displayed mileages.
We're running 4 cars at present with mileages all over 100K and recently disposed of a 525d with 360,000 on it that we'd run since 2007 when it had done just 282,000. Nothing that you wouldn't expect on any similar aged similar car needed doing. The previous owner bought it at 60k and changed the front brakes once ( I don't think we did them since either).
The same happens now with Ferraris. The more people are obsessed with mileage, the more incentive there is to keep it low, or at least to make it look that way. Drive it 6,000 miles in a year, remove half of them, then have it serviced and MOT'd, preserving your service history just before putting it up for sale. If every owner does this guess what? Everyone assumes the mileages are all correct (and can't be dis-proven) and associates certain jobs (clutch, ball joints, brakes) with the displayed mileages.
We're running 4 cars at present with mileages all over 100K and recently disposed of a 525d with 360,000 on it that we'd run since 2007 when it had done just 282,000. Nothing that you wouldn't expect on any similar aged similar car needed doing. The previous owner bought it at 60k and changed the front brakes once ( I don't think we did them since either).
nsm3 said:
My Dads '65 Zodiac managed 150,000 miles before giving up the ghost.
Yes, but I am guessing it would have had the cylinder head removed for decoking and the valves reqround at least once. It was just considered normal maintainance in those days. Quite outstanding if no work was done to it.
pp
mrdemon said:
Shocks are past there best at 50k miles
Not sure why people only go by engine miles.
You could buy a 70k miles car with a perfect engine but shot, shocks, brakes,clutch, exhaust, bushes, etc
No one likes changing shocks and most cars with 70k on will still have org shocks on.
This is true on a sports car. On a standard shopping car and the likes, 100k miles is around the thresh-hold for clutch and suspension to be replaced, very generally.Not sure why people only go by engine miles.
You could buy a 70k miles car with a perfect engine but shot, shocks, brakes,clutch, exhaust, bushes, etc
No one likes changing shocks and most cars with 70k on will still have org shocks on.
These are seen as the biggest costs on a vehicle as engine rebuilds/work aren't even considered and servicing is relatively cheap. The fear being it goes in for an MOT around the 100k mark and needs loads spent.
When it comes to a performance vehicle then the rule book should go out the window and buy purely on the service history and parts that have been replaced.
It's just psychological fluff though but it has stuck with a lot of people.
mollytherocker said:
drmark said:
It's a threshold - albeit an artificial one - that can impact value in the eyes of buyers, but not owners. Just enjoy it.
Agree.I wonder if there is a psychological threshold in KMs for our European friends? 150? 200?
thegoose said:
Clocking used to more prevalent, meaning people were driving round in cars with lower numbers on the clock than the car had done, so when something went wrong they presumed that was because it had done X thousand miles, whereas in reality it may have done X + 100,000 or X + 50,000 or whatever.
The same happens now with Ferraris. The more people are obsessed with mileage, the more incentive there is to keep it low, or at least to make it look that way. Drive it 6,000 miles in a year, remove half of them, then have it serviced and MOT'd, preserving your service history just before putting it up for sale. If every owner does this guess what? Everyone assumes the mileages are all correct (and can't be dis-proven) and associates certain jobs (clutch, ball joints, brakes) with the displayed mileages.
We're running 4 cars at present with mileages all over 100K and recently disposed of a 525d with 360,000 on it that we'd run since 2007 when it had done just 282,000. Nothing that you wouldn't expect on any similar aged similar car needed doing. The previous owner bought it at 60k and changed the front brakes once ( I don't think we did them since either).
Good post.The same happens now with Ferraris. The more people are obsessed with mileage, the more incentive there is to keep it low, or at least to make it look that way. Drive it 6,000 miles in a year, remove half of them, then have it serviced and MOT'd, preserving your service history just before putting it up for sale. If every owner does this guess what? Everyone assumes the mileages are all correct (and can't be dis-proven) and associates certain jobs (clutch, ball joints, brakes) with the displayed mileages.
We're running 4 cars at present with mileages all over 100K and recently disposed of a 525d with 360,000 on it that we'd run since 2007 when it had done just 282,000. Nothing that you wouldn't expect on any similar aged similar car needed doing. The previous owner bought it at 60k and changed the front brakes once ( I don't think we did them since either).
Wozy68 said:
50 years ago I'm pretty sure that most cars struggled to make 100k. Engineering has moved on, alas human mindset has not.
When I bought my 993, I intentionally looked for a post 100k mileage car. I wanted to enjoy driving her, not worrying about depreciation or adding mileage.
She's just come back from a major service and the only fault they found was weak struts holding the engine lid up.
I think only a fool would discount a high mileage car that came with decent history over a far more expensive pre 100k car that had done say 20k miles less but was 5k more. Just IMO of course and basing this on the aircooled 911s.
I wholeheartedly agree with this attitude. I bought my 996 C4S with the same idea (although had 90,000 miles on the clock) and intend to just enjoy the car. Life's too short to be worrying about some number on the dash.When I bought my 993, I intentionally looked for a post 100k mileage car. I wanted to enjoy driving her, not worrying about depreciation or adding mileage.
She's just come back from a major service and the only fault they found was weak struts holding the engine lid up.
I think only a fool would discount a high mileage car that came with decent history over a far more expensive pre 100k car that had done say 20k miles less but was 5k more. Just IMO of course and basing this on the aircooled 911s.
One of my favourite carpool features was the guy with the 964 with > 200,000 miles on it - cars are made to be used.
Rockster, remind us how many miles are on your Boxster again? 260,000 or so?
mrdemon said:
Shocks are past there best at 50k miles
Not sure why people only go by engine miles.
You could buy a 70k miles car with a perfect engine but shot, shocks, brakes,clutch, exhaust, bushes, etc
No one likes changing shocks and most cars with 70k on will still have org shocks on.
Not necessarily. When I have my now with almost 265K miles Boxster in and the techs road test the car I ask about shocks or clutch (all are original) and techs to a person have reported no need to do anything.Not sure why people only go by engine miles.
You could buy a 70k miles car with a perfect engine but shot, shocks, brakes,clutch, exhaust, bushes, etc
No one likes changing shocks and most cars with 70k on will still have org shocks on.
I also get an update on brake condition and tire condition. Can't remember the last time I had to do brakes. Rear tires about every 20K miles, fronts double that.
Similarly with 996 Turbo with now over 105K miles. The SM and the tech both test drove the car the other day and neither one found nothing to fret about. Shocks, clutch, even brakes, are all original.
A few months back the SM drove my Boxster and commented on how tight it was and how good the car ran. He mentioned the shifter had a bit of play but nothing scary and the shifting action was just fine.
There is no set or fixed life for these or other items. My plan is to let the shocks or clutch tell me when it is time to do something.
Rockster said:
Not necessarily. When I have my now with almost 265K miles Boxster in and the techs road test the car I ask about shocks or clutch (all are original) and techs to a person have reported no need to do anything.
I also get an update on brake condition and tire condition. Can't remember the last time I had to do brakes. Rear tires about every 20K miles, fronts double that.
Similarly with 996 Turbo with now over 105K miles. The SM and the tech both test drove the car the other day and neither one found nothing to fret about. Shocks, clutch, even brakes, are all original.
A few months back the SM drove my Boxster and commented on how tight it was and how good the car ran. He mentioned the shifter had a bit of play but nothing scary and the shifting action was just fine.
There is no set or fixed life for these or other items. My plan is to let the shocks or clutch tell me when it is time to do something.
The roads over there must be a tad better than here! I have yet to get a Porsche past 80k without needing at least 2 dampers - the record was my GT3 (leaking fronts after just 17k).I also get an update on brake condition and tire condition. Can't remember the last time I had to do brakes. Rear tires about every 20K miles, fronts double that.
Similarly with 996 Turbo with now over 105K miles. The SM and the tech both test drove the car the other day and neither one found nothing to fret about. Shocks, clutch, even brakes, are all original.
A few months back the SM drove my Boxster and commented on how tight it was and how good the car ran. He mentioned the shifter had a bit of play but nothing scary and the shifting action was just fine.
There is no set or fixed life for these or other items. My plan is to let the shocks or clutch tell me when it is time to do something.
As for original brakes on a 106k Turbo.....well at least you drive carefully!
Respect.
Gassing Station | Porsche General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff