Used Car: Age vs. Mileage - Which Matters Most?

Hi,
What is generally better: buying a younger car (e.g., manufactured in 1999) with more mileage (e.g., 120,000 km), or a slightly older car (e.g., manufactured in 1997) with less mileage?
Here's the translation:

'This is about a VW Sharan 1.9 TDI with 110 horsepower.'
The resale value doesn't matter to me, because I definitely want to drive this thing for at least 10 years (kids are just arriving ).
Were the Sharans actually fully galvanized in 1997?
Besides rust, nothing really happens just from sitting, right? I mean, if the equipment and technology are the same (were there any significant changes between 1997 and 1999?), can I assume that the main factors contributing to wear and tear, repair frequency, depreciation, and remaining useful life are primarily the kilometers driven?

Thank you in advance for your opinions!
Regards,
Roland.

Hello!

It's not always easy to answer this question directly. You can buy a car with high mileage and experience engine problems the very next day. The same applies to older cars with low mileage. What's crucial is how and where the car was driven. How was it maintained? 100,000 kilometers driven in city traffic is almost double the wear and tear of 100,000 kilometers driven on the highway. Constant starting and stopping in city traffic puts significantly more strain on the engine, transmission, brakes, and suspension than a car that is driven 100 kilometers daily on the highway. Did the previous owner regularly have the car serviced? What repairs have been carried out on this car? The type of repairs often provides clues about the previous owner's driving style. If the pedals are heavily worn, it suggests the car was more likely used for short trips, and so on.

Every car requires an individual assessment, but even that doesn't guarantee anything.


Best regards, Peter.

Hello Peter,

Of course, it's important how the kilometers are accumulated.
But no one is going to voluntarily tell me that the car has been totaled.
If you're lucky, you might also find some clues, just as you described.
Let's assume, for simplicity's sake, that the driving style was the same for both cars – normal driving (neither overly cautious like a grandpa, nor aggressive like a speed demon). One car was driven 25 km to work every day, while the other was only driven every other week due to a carpool arrangement.

I would like to know if the additional two years of age itself could cause any problems or disadvantages.

As a relative novice, I would say that timing is only important in the following cases:

1. Rust (which shouldn't be a major issue with full galvanization).
2. Loss of gloss in the coating due to UV radiation.
3. Fading of seat upholstery, etc., due to sun exposure.
4. Aging of the tire rubber, which, in any case, needs to be replaced periodically.

The rest, i.e., the moving parts, the really expensive stuff, should only depend on the kilometers driven (multiplied by the driving style) and the number of warm-up/cool-down cycles, right?

Here's what else I was thinking about: what about all the rubber hoses on the engine, turbocharger, etc.? Do they, for example, become brittle after 10-15 years?
Best regards, Roland.

Hi!

Assuming the same usage pattern, I would choose the older vehicle with the lower mileage. I once had a Lancia Thema that was 11 years old, had no rust, and low mileage. It ran perfectly, with no problems, and most importantly, it would depreciate much less in value. Whether something becomes brittle after two or three years is irrelevant in this context. Belts, timing belts, and tires are wear items that will need to be replaced anyway, with the timing belt likely being the most expensive.

Generally speaking, I personally believe that mileage is more important than age, but you're sure to hear other opinions.

It greets you.

Peter.

A two-year age difference can already make a pretty significant difference in price, right?
So, my old Golf 4, which I got with over 130,000 kilometers on the odometer, was previously a company car (driven daily by one person).

I didn't experience any technical problems with it until I sold it shortly before it reached 200,000 miles.

I think I would choose the older one (mainly because of the price), but only if I'm sure it has been well-maintained and not just used for short trips.

Hello RoBro!

A look under the hood is also very interesting. The salt solution that flows through there leaves alarming traces, even in relatively new vehicles.

Otherwise, a casual chat with the previous owner can often be very informative.

Regards,
mcgregg

Hello,

"Especially with the VW Sharan, I would prefer the 1999 model. Several details were improved during the production run. The earlier models had some issues with poor plastic parts, wobbly driver's seats, tie rods, wheel hubs, brittle cables in the door passages, leaky air conditioning, etc. The pre-facelift model, starting in 1999, was significantly more solid. I would examine the overall condition, take a test drive on a bumpy road, and then decide. The 1997 model should be considerably cheaper, even with lower mileage. The exhaust system, including the catalytic converters, is likely to need replacement soon due to corrosion in both models. You can try searching on www.sgaf.de. As far as I know, the first timing belt replacement for the 1997 TDI was due at 60,000 km, while the 1999 model was due at 90,000 km, as the improved belt was usually installed in the AFN engine."

Best regards,
Christian.

Hello Christian,

That's quite a lot of problems.
Did they change everything up to 1999?
I understand that the exhaust pipe can sometimes corrode, but does the catalytic converter also need to be replaced?

'But the engine and transmission remained the same, right?'
Best regards,
Roland
P.S.:
By the way, the one with the higher mileage is actually a Ford Galaxy, which is why the older Sharan is even more expensive.

I used to own a 1997 Galaxy with the AHU engine, which required a timing belt replacement at 90,000 km (according to the service book). The plastic parts in this car are a nightmare. They are absolutely cheap, flimsy, and break very easily. A colleague of mine now owns my former Galaxy, and he hasn't experienced any technical problems. Furthermore, the AHU engine has been running with a chip for 100,000 km (under normal driving conditions), and it has had no technical issues whatsoever.

Greetings, Peter.

Hello,

"Then go for the '99 Galaxy. We also have one just like that with 125,000 km on the clock. Considering the known weaknesses, it's held up well. As long as the engine gets good oil, and the timing belt changes, including the tensioners, are done properly, the powertrain should be quite reliable. There are definitely taxis out there that have exceeded 300,000 km."

Best regards,
Christian.

Hmmm...

I'm leaning more towards the Sharan right now. I just spoke with the dealer again, and here's what came up:

The 90,000 km service is included, as is the timing belt, if it hasn't already been replaced at 60,000 km. New inspection sticker (TÜV), 1-year used car warranty, Euro2 emissions standard (key 27), resulting in a low fuel consumption of 16.05 Euros per 100ccm.

It probably won't reach 11,000, but 11,250 or 11,500 seems achievable.

The Galaxy's interior looks quite neglected, and the exterior isn't much better either. I had it checked at ATU instead of going to the 'friendly' [mechanic/garage].

Regards,
Roland.

Hi,
Okay, the 1997 vintage is gone, and the 1999 vintage failed the 'Hoppeltest,' see:

/viewtopic.php?p=35940#35940

Could you possibly provide me with some tips on how to interpret the results or on how to proceed with the analysis?
Regards,
Roland.
P.S.:
Sorry for the double post, I just wanted to let everyone know where the discussion is continuing.

P.S.:
Sorry for the double post, I just wanted to let everyone know where the discussion is continuing.

How about including the problems with this thread?

Hi Joerg,

In the two previous threads, the discussion revolved around comparing two cars with different ages/mileages, while the new thread focuses on interpreting the results of the 'hop test.'
Since I couldn't find a thread about it, but I think the topic is worth discussing, I created a new one.
Since I didn't want to just abandon those two old threads, I posted an update where you can see what happened to one of the cars.
That's all there is to say about my reasons .

Best regards, Roland.