Re: Fusion vs Camry and Accord - the Ford Challenge
 

Sound to me like your saying a high mileage car that you know needs lots of
work in better than a newer lower mileage car that may need work someday,
but the former is a better buy because it' 'cheaper.' Me thinks you would
like to eat prime cut beef, but can only afford baloney LOL

mike


"Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in message
news:vZSdnernWaN4IaLbnZ2dnUVZ_silnZ2d@sedona.net.. .
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> news:4eudnS3T4MMSxqLbnZ2dnUVZ_hmtnZ2d@ptd.net...
>> You are kidding, right? I'll bet you were never in the used car
>> business, if that is what you believe. Go to a use car lot or dealership
>> and look at some of the cars, as they are traded, then go back a week or
>> so later and look at the same car when it is for sale on the used car
>> lot.
>>
>> When one is looking at the high mileage cars you seem to prefer, what
>> differance can it make? Any average annual mileage car in ten years is
>> going to have at least 150K to 175K, on the clock. Any car that will last
>> the best part of a year is worth the selling price of any car ten years
>> old with over 150K on the clock. If one is deciding which 150K car to
>> buy the one with the set of new tires would likely be the best choice.
>> Why would anybody repair a vehicle with 150K or more on the clock when
>> the cost of the repair will pay half the cost of another 150K vehicle?.
>> LOL
>>
>> mike
>>
>
> What difference can it make?? No wonder you shy away from older and high
> mileage cars. If you are facing repairs that cost half the value of the
> car you chose the car poorly indeed!
>
> A badly treated car, or even a well treated car that has serious problems,
> is easy to root out by the time it has 100K on the clock. The asking price
> for a winner and for a loser is usually about the same, while the actual
> value as a personal vehicle can be thousands of dollars difference. (And
> never ever buy from a used car lot; they always want more than any car
> they have is worth.) I do my own maintenance and repairs, so older cars
> are a big bargain for me. That's why I would repair a good 150K vehicle
> for a tiny fraction of the price of another 150K mile vehicle; it still
> has at least 100K miles left in it. When I am spending more than about
> $500 per year for maintenance and repair on a regular basis it's time to
> move on. By that time I usually have more than ten years in the car, I
> have spent less than I would have on a new car, lost less in depreciation
> and paid less for insurance and license fees.
>
> A new car is always a gamble - nobody on Earth has reliability data on a
> 2007 anything, and there is no way to tell if you are getting a lemon - it
> just happens. The first owner takes the biggest risks. Buy what you wish,
> as long as I can buy pre-proven cars. I don't care how badly naive
> purchasers have done. It has worked *very* well for me.
>
> Mike
>
>

Re: Fusion vs Camry and Accord - the Ford Challenge
 

Sound to me like your saying a high mileage car that you know needs lots of
work in better than a newer lower mileage car that may need work someday,
but the former is a better buy because it' 'cheaper.' Me thinks you would
like to eat prime cut beef, but can only afford baloney LOL

mike


"Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in message
news:vZSdnernWaN4IaLbnZ2dnUVZ_silnZ2d@sedona.net.. .
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> news:4eudnS3T4MMSxqLbnZ2dnUVZ_hmtnZ2d@ptd.net...
>> You are kidding, right? I'll bet you were never in the used car
>> business, if that is what you believe. Go to a use car lot or dealership
>> and look at some of the cars, as they are traded, then go back a week or
>> so later and look at the same car when it is for sale on the used car
>> lot.
>>
>> When one is looking at the high mileage cars you seem to prefer, what
>> differance can it make? Any average annual mileage car in ten years is
>> going to have at least 150K to 175K, on the clock. Any car that will last
>> the best part of a year is worth the selling price of any car ten years
>> old with over 150K on the clock. If one is deciding which 150K car to
>> buy the one with the set of new tires would likely be the best choice.
>> Why would anybody repair a vehicle with 150K or more on the clock when
>> the cost of the repair will pay half the cost of another 150K vehicle?.
>> LOL
>>
>> mike
>>
>
> What difference can it make?? No wonder you shy away from older and high
> mileage cars. If you are facing repairs that cost half the value of the
> car you chose the car poorly indeed!
>
> A badly treated car, or even a well treated car that has serious problems,
> is easy to root out by the time it has 100K on the clock. The asking price
> for a winner and for a loser is usually about the same, while the actual
> value as a personal vehicle can be thousands of dollars difference. (And
> never ever buy from a used car lot; they always want more than any car
> they have is worth.) I do my own maintenance and repairs, so older cars
> are a big bargain for me. That's why I would repair a good 150K vehicle
> for a tiny fraction of the price of another 150K mile vehicle; it still
> has at least 100K miles left in it. When I am spending more than about
> $500 per year for maintenance and repair on a regular basis it's time to
> move on. By that time I usually have more than ten years in the car, I
> have spent less than I would have on a new car, lost less in depreciation
> and paid less for insurance and license fees.
>
> A new car is always a gamble - nobody on Earth has reliability data on a
> 2007 anything, and there is no way to tell if you are getting a lemon - it
> just happens. The first owner takes the biggest risks. Buy what you wish,
> as long as I can buy pre-proven cars. I don't care how badly naive
> purchasers have done. It has worked *very* well for me.
>
> Mike
>
>

Re: Fusion vs Camry and Accord - the Ford Challenge
 

On Tue, 8 May 2007 11:32:41 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
<mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:

>Why would anybody buy anything with that much mileage, if they could afford
>to buy something with less mileage, just to put even more money into a high
>mileage car?
>
>
>mike

You are assuming that they bought it with that much mileage. I bought
my 1994 GS-R with 45K; it has 157K now. I could certainly afford to
go out and buy a new car. I like the GS-R a lot and choose to spend
the money on other things (and save it for the future.) Does it cost
more to maintain than a 2007? You bet. But if you think the total
cost of ownership for my 1994 is higher than for a comparable 2007,
you are even more nuts than we thought.


>"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:tnbv339efl3rca8d7gdlsq6jonv6jbmk2k@4ax.com.. .
>> On Mon, 7 May 2007 13:01:49 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
>> <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
>>
>>>You are kidding, right? I'll bet you were never in the used car business,
>>>if that is what you believe. Go to a use car lot or dealership and look
>>>at
>>>some of the cars, as they are traded, then go back a week or so later and
>>>look at the same car when it is for sale on the used car lot.
>>>
>>>When one is looking at the high mileage cars you seem to prefer, what
>>>differance can it make? Any average annual mileage car in ten years is
>>>going to have at least 150K to 175K, on the clock. Any car that will last
>>>the best part of a year is worth the selling price of any car ten years
>>>old
>>>with over 150K on the clock. If one is deciding which 150K car to buy the
>>>one with the set of new tires would likely be the best choice. Why would
>>>anybody repair a vehicle with 150K or more on the clock when the cost of
>>>the
>>>repair will pay half the cost of another 150K vehicle?. LOL
>>>
>>>mike
>>
>> Because the "new" 150K vehicle is likely to need just as much in
>> repairs when you buy it or soon thereafter.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in message
>>>news:0-SdnWO8L4Qnf6DbnZ2dnUVZ_syunZ2d@sedona.net...
>>>> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:gtadnbJJwOxGR6DbnZ2dnUVZ_sSmnZ2d@ptd.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> When one buys a used car they have no idea how that car was used or
>>>>> abused, or whether it was properly maintained, or not. It make no
>>>>> difference what brand name is on the hood,
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On that we differ - not about the brand, but the inability to determine
>>>> how the car has been maintained or treated. I avoid buying used cars
>>>> under
>>>> 80K miles because at 50K miles it *is* hard to tell how it has lived,
>>>> but
>>>> at 100K it is hard to hide. If there are no known "killer" issues with
>>>> that m/m/y and it passes five minutes of examination the chances of
>>>> getting at least 100K miles more service out of a 100K mile car are
>>>> better
>>>> than getting 100K miles more out of a 50K car - at least, that's my
>>>> experience. The only 100K+ car I've ever bought that didn't make it
>>>> another 100K in good style was a Nissan 300ZX that I lusted after so
>>>> much
>>>> I ignored the warning of traces of rust in the radiator, which is a
>>>> deal-breaker.
>>>>
>>>> The make, model and year (and power train or other options within that
>>>> model and year) are huge factors in what a buyer can expect out of a
>>>> car.
>>>> Realistically, make is no more important than model or year in that
>>>> formula.
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>

Re: Fusion vs Camry and Accord - the Ford Challenge
 

On Tue, 8 May 2007 11:32:41 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
<mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:

>Why would anybody buy anything with that much mileage, if they could afford
>to buy something with less mileage, just to put even more money into a high
>mileage car?
>
>
>mike

You are assuming that they bought it with that much mileage. I bought
my 1994 GS-R with 45K; it has 157K now. I could certainly afford to
go out and buy a new car. I like the GS-R a lot and choose to spend
the money on other things (and save it for the future.) Does it cost
more to maintain than a 2007? You bet. But if you think the total
cost of ownership for my 1994 is higher than for a comparable 2007,
you are even more nuts than we thought.


>"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:tnbv339efl3rca8d7gdlsq6jonv6jbmk2k@4ax.com.. .
>> On Mon, 7 May 2007 13:01:49 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
>> <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
>>
>>>You are kidding, right? I'll bet you were never in the used car business,
>>>if that is what you believe. Go to a use car lot or dealership and look
>>>at
>>>some of the cars, as they are traded, then go back a week or so later and
>>>look at the same car when it is for sale on the used car lot.
>>>
>>>When one is looking at the high mileage cars you seem to prefer, what
>>>differance can it make? Any average annual mileage car in ten years is
>>>going to have at least 150K to 175K, on the clock. Any car that will last
>>>the best part of a year is worth the selling price of any car ten years
>>>old
>>>with over 150K on the clock. If one is deciding which 150K car to buy the
>>>one with the set of new tires would likely be the best choice. Why would
>>>anybody repair a vehicle with 150K or more on the clock when the cost of
>>>the
>>>repair will pay half the cost of another 150K vehicle?. LOL
>>>
>>>mike
>>
>> Because the "new" 150K vehicle is likely to need just as much in
>> repairs when you buy it or soon thereafter.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in message
>>>news:0-SdnWO8L4Qnf6DbnZ2dnUVZ_syunZ2d@sedona.net...
>>>> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:gtadnbJJwOxGR6DbnZ2dnUVZ_sSmnZ2d@ptd.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> When one buys a used car they have no idea how that car was used or
>>>>> abused, or whether it was properly maintained, or not. It make no
>>>>> difference what brand name is on the hood,
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On that we differ - not about the brand, but the inability to determine
>>>> how the car has been maintained or treated. I avoid buying used cars
>>>> under
>>>> 80K miles because at 50K miles it *is* hard to tell how it has lived,
>>>> but
>>>> at 100K it is hard to hide. If there are no known "killer" issues with
>>>> that m/m/y and it passes five minutes of examination the chances of
>>>> getting at least 100K miles more service out of a 100K mile car are
>>>> better
>>>> than getting 100K miles more out of a 50K car - at least, that's my
>>>> experience. The only 100K+ car I've ever bought that didn't make it
>>>> another 100K in good style was a Nissan 300ZX that I lusted after so
>>>> much
>>>> I ignored the warning of traces of rust in the radiator, which is a
>>>> deal-breaker.
>>>>
>>>> The make, model and year (and power train or other options within that
>>>> model and year) are huge factors in what a buyer can expect out of a
>>>> car.
>>>> Realistically, make is no more important than model or year in that
>>>> formula.
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>

Re: Fusion vs Camry and Accord - the Ford Challenge
 

On Tue, 8 May 2007 11:40:44 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
<mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:

>Sound to me like your saying a high mileage car that you know needs lots of
>work in better than a newer lower mileage car that may need work someday,
>but the former is a better buy because it' 'cheaper.' Me thinks you would
>like to eat prime cut beef, but can only afford baloney LOL
>
>mike

No, he is saying that if your are knowledgeable and careful you can
buy a good 150K car for very little money. You may be able to drive
it for several years before it needs a "half the price" repair. Even
if you are wrong and you only get six months out of it, you haven't
lost much because you don't have that much invested.

Like you said, Mike, for the cost of a typical 150K car, you only have
to drive it a year to get your money's worth.

>"Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in message
>news:vZSdnernWaN4IaLbnZ2dnUVZ_silnZ2d@sedona.net. ..
>> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>> news:4eudnS3T4MMSxqLbnZ2dnUVZ_hmtnZ2d@ptd.net...
>>> You are kidding, right? I'll bet you were never in the used car
>>> business, if that is what you believe. Go to a use car lot or dealership
>>> and look at some of the cars, as they are traded, then go back a week or
>>> so later and look at the same car when it is for sale on the used car
>>> lot.
>>>
>>> When one is looking at the high mileage cars you seem to prefer, what
>>> differance can it make? Any average annual mileage car in ten years is
>>> going to have at least 150K to 175K, on the clock. Any car that will last
>>> the best part of a year is worth the selling price of any car ten years
>>> old with over 150K on the clock. If one is deciding which 150K car to
>>> buy the one with the set of new tires would likely be the best choice.
>>> Why would anybody repair a vehicle with 150K or more on the clock when
>>> the cost of the repair will pay half the cost of another 150K vehicle?.
>>> LOL
>>>
>>> mike
>>>
>>
>> What difference can it make?? No wonder you shy away from older and high
>> mileage cars. If you are facing repairs that cost half the value of the
>> car you chose the car poorly indeed!
>>
>> A badly treated car, or even a well treated car that has serious problems,
>> is easy to root out by the time it has 100K on the clock. The asking price
>> for a winner and for a loser is usually about the same, while the actual
>> value as a personal vehicle can be thousands of dollars difference. (And
>> never ever buy from a used car lot; they always want more than any car
>> they have is worth.) I do my own maintenance and repairs, so older cars
>> are a big bargain for me. That's why I would repair a good 150K vehicle
>> for a tiny fraction of the price of another 150K mile vehicle; it still
>> has at least 100K miles left in it. When I am spending more than about
>> $500 per year for maintenance and repair on a regular basis it's time to
>> move on. By that time I usually have more than ten years in the car, I
>> have spent less than I would have on a new car, lost less in depreciation
>> and paid less for insurance and license fees.
>>
>> A new car is always a gamble - nobody on Earth has reliability data on a
>> 2007 anything, and there is no way to tell if you are getting a lemon - it
>> just happens. The first owner takes the biggest risks. Buy what you wish,
>> as long as I can buy pre-proven cars. I don't care how badly naive
>> purchasers have done. It has worked *very* well for me.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>

Re: Fusion vs Camry and Accord - the Ford Challenge
 

On Tue, 8 May 2007 11:40:44 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
<mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:

>Sound to me like your saying a high mileage car that you know needs lots of
>work in better than a newer lower mileage car that may need work someday,
>but the former is a better buy because it' 'cheaper.' Me thinks you would
>like to eat prime cut beef, but can only afford baloney LOL
>
>mike

No, he is saying that if your are knowledgeable and careful you can
buy a good 150K car for very little money. You may be able to drive
it for several years before it needs a "half the price" repair. Even
if you are wrong and you only get six months out of it, you haven't
lost much because you don't have that much invested.

Like you said, Mike, for the cost of a typical 150K car, you only have
to drive it a year to get your money's worth.

>"Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in message
>news:vZSdnernWaN4IaLbnZ2dnUVZ_silnZ2d@sedona.net. ..
>> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>> news:4eudnS3T4MMSxqLbnZ2dnUVZ_hmtnZ2d@ptd.net...
>>> You are kidding, right? I'll bet you were never in the used car
>>> business, if that is what you believe. Go to a use car lot or dealership
>>> and look at some of the cars, as they are traded, then go back a week or
>>> so later and look at the same car when it is for sale on the used car
>>> lot.
>>>
>>> When one is looking at the high mileage cars you seem to prefer, what
>>> differance can it make? Any average annual mileage car in ten years is
>>> going to have at least 150K to 175K, on the clock. Any car that will last
>>> the best part of a year is worth the selling price of any car ten years
>>> old with over 150K on the clock. If one is deciding which 150K car to
>>> buy the one with the set of new tires would likely be the best choice.
>>> Why would anybody repair a vehicle with 150K or more on the clock when
>>> the cost of the repair will pay half the cost of another 150K vehicle?.
>>> LOL
>>>
>>> mike
>>>
>>
>> What difference can it make?? No wonder you shy away from older and high
>> mileage cars. If you are facing repairs that cost half the value of the
>> car you chose the car poorly indeed!
>>
>> A badly treated car, or even a well treated car that has serious problems,
>> is easy to root out by the time it has 100K on the clock. The asking price
>> for a winner and for a loser is usually about the same, while the actual
>> value as a personal vehicle can be thousands of dollars difference. (And
>> never ever buy from a used car lot; they always want more than any car
>> they have is worth.) I do my own maintenance and repairs, so older cars
>> are a big bargain for me. That's why I would repair a good 150K vehicle
>> for a tiny fraction of the price of another 150K mile vehicle; it still
>> has at least 100K miles left in it. When I am spending more than about
>> $500 per year for maintenance and repair on a regular basis it's time to
>> move on. By that time I usually have more than ten years in the car, I
>> have spent less than I would have on a new car, lost less in depreciation
>> and paid less for insurance and license fees.
>>
>> A new car is always a gamble - nobody on Earth has reliability data on a
>> 2007 anything, and there is no way to tell if you are getting a lemon - it
>> just happens. The first owner takes the biggest risks. Buy what you wish,
>> as long as I can buy pre-proven cars. I don't care how badly naive
>> purchasers have done. It has worked *very* well for me.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>

Re: Fusion vs Camry and Accord - the Ford Challenge
 

"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:jJidnYfOAOq2Bd3bnZ2dnUVZ_qupnZ2d@ptd.net...
> Why would anybody buy anything with that much mileage, if they could
> afford to buy something with less mileage, just to put even more money
> into a high mileage car?
>

That would be dumb; the purpose is to put *less* money into it. It's like
the stock market; if you don't know how to win, don't play.

The reasons to buy a high mileage car are to get one with a proven record on
the road (after all those miles it is still going strong, or it is passed up
as somebody else's loss) and for lower ownership costs. It doesn't pay if
you are going to have a shop do the work, but for the DIYer it offers much
lower operating costs and less to lose in the extreme than a new or
mid-mileage car does.

On the new car side, consider the experience of a family friend who bought a
new Escort last decade. The warranty had run out but the payments had not
when the water pump seized, destroying the timing belt and the engine. She
could have bought an "extended warranty" (repair insurance) but that means
even more money, win or lose.

Mike

Re: Fusion vs Camry and Accord - the Ford Challenge
 

"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:jJidnYfOAOq2Bd3bnZ2dnUVZ_qupnZ2d@ptd.net...
> Why would anybody buy anything with that much mileage, if they could
> afford to buy something with less mileage, just to put even more money
> into a high mileage car?
>

That would be dumb; the purpose is to put *less* money into it. It's like
the stock market; if you don't know how to win, don't play.

The reasons to buy a high mileage car are to get one with a proven record on
the road (after all those miles it is still going strong, or it is passed up
as somebody else's loss) and for lower ownership costs. It doesn't pay if
you are going to have a shop do the work, but for the DIYer it offers much
lower operating costs and less to lose in the extreme than a new or
mid-mileage car does.

On the new car side, consider the experience of a family friend who bought a
new Escort last decade. The warranty had run out but the payments had not
when the water pump seized, destroying the timing belt and the engine. She
could have bought an "extended warranty" (repair insurance) but that means
even more money, win or lose.

Mike

Re: Fusion vs Camry and Accord - the Ford Challenge
 

"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:lPWdnUYNG7-TB93bnZ2dnUVZ_riknZ2d@ptd.net...
> Sound to me like your saying a high mileage car that you know needs lots
> of work in better than a newer lower mileage car that may need work
> someday, but the former is a better buy because it' 'cheaper.' Me thinks
> you would like to eat prime cut beef, but can only afford baloney LOL
>
> mike
>
You're not paying attention at all. I'm saying a used car that needs
specific work and costs that much less for it is better than a low mileage
car that is an unknown. You have not the vaguest idea how to evaluate a used
car. That's okay as long as you stick with new cars, but is even worse if
you are gambling on mid-mileage cars. They hide their secrets well and you
don't know how to look for them.

I have had three new cars in 37 years. In 1984 I bought a new Dodge 600ES
(same as a LeBaron) and found out how expensive a new car can be. It was
worth less than $2000 six years later, having depreciated more than $11000;
nearly $2000 per year. That was on top of the continuous work it needed. At
six years and 100K the timing chain wore out on schedule and needed
replacement. Okay, step one: remove engine to gain access to timing chain
cover! With conscientious care it had become a car I would not buy, although
at 50K miles it seemed okay - a textbook illustration of the 100K principle,
but that time I was the loser. I have never in my life had a used car that
cost even half that much per year, and only had one (not counting the Lotus)
that needed as much work.

Good judgement comes from experience; experience comes from bad judgement.
The trick is to leave the bad judgement to those who buy new.

Mike

Re: Fusion vs Camry and Accord - the Ford Challenge
 

"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:lPWdnUYNG7-TB93bnZ2dnUVZ_riknZ2d@ptd.net...
> Sound to me like your saying a high mileage car that you know needs lots
> of work in better than a newer lower mileage car that may need work
> someday, but the former is a better buy because it' 'cheaper.' Me thinks
> you would like to eat prime cut beef, but can only afford baloney LOL
>
> mike
>
You're not paying attention at all. I'm saying a used car that needs
specific work and costs that much less for it is better than a low mileage
car that is an unknown. You have not the vaguest idea how to evaluate a used
car. That's okay as long as you stick with new cars, but is even worse if
you are gambling on mid-mileage cars. They hide their secrets well and you
don't know how to look for them.

I have had three new cars in 37 years. In 1984 I bought a new Dodge 600ES
(same as a LeBaron) and found out how expensive a new car can be. It was
worth less than $2000 six years later, having depreciated more than $11000;
nearly $2000 per year. That was on top of the continuous work it needed. At
six years and 100K the timing chain wore out on schedule and needed
replacement. Okay, step one: remove engine to gain access to timing chain
cover! With conscientious care it had become a car I would not buy, although
at 50K miles it seemed okay - a textbook illustration of the 100K principle,
but that time I was the loser. I have never in my life had a used car that
cost even half that much per year, and only had one (not counting the Lotus)
that needed as much work.

Good judgement comes from experience; experience comes from bad judgement.
The trick is to leave the bad judgement to those who buy new.

Mike

Re: Fusion vs Camry and Accord - the Ford Challenge
 

Any time you buy a used car you are buying a vehicle that the previous owned
no longer wanted. Why would anybody want to buy somebody else's problems?
LOL

mike

"Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in message
news:ibOdnSJ35IxikdzbnZ2dnUVZ_qupnZ2d@sedona.net.. .
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> news:jJidnYfOAOq2Bd3bnZ2dnUVZ_qupnZ2d@ptd.net...

>> Why would anybody choose to buy anything with that much mileage, if they
>> could afford to buy something with less mileage, just to put even more
>> money into a high mileage car?
>>
>
> That would be dumb; the purpose is to put *less* money into it. It's like
> the stock market; if you don't know how to win, don't play.
>
> The reasons to buy a high mileage car are to get one with a proven record

>
> Mike
>
>

Re: Fusion vs Camry and Accord - the Ford Challenge
 

Any time you buy a used car you are buying a vehicle that the previous owned
no longer wanted. Why would anybody want to buy somebody else's problems?
LOL

mike

"Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in message
news:ibOdnSJ35IxikdzbnZ2dnUVZ_qupnZ2d@sedona.net.. .
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> news:jJidnYfOAOq2Bd3bnZ2dnUVZ_qupnZ2d@ptd.net...

>> Why would anybody choose to buy anything with that much mileage, if they
>> could afford to buy something with less mileage, just to put even more
>> money into a high mileage car?
>>
>
> That would be dumb; the purpose is to put *less* money into it. It's like
> the stock market; if you don't know how to win, don't play.
>
> The reasons to buy a high mileage car are to get one with a proven record

>
> Mike
>
>

Re: Fusion vs Camry and Accord - the Ford Challenge
 

Actually I know more about used cars than you will ever know. I was Group
Sales Manager for one of the largest mega dealerships groups on the east
cost for ten years.

Get real, the only reason anybody buys a used car is they can not afford to
by a new car. The only reason anybody buys a high mileage used cars is they
can not afford a later model used car, with less mileage. LOL

Take the advice I gave you and go look at cars as they are traded, then
again when the are on the lot for resale, and you will see what I mean by
the statement one can never know for sure how a vehicles was used or abused
or if it was maintained properly or not buy its previous owner(s)


mike


"Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in message
news:Q7SdnbhET8PbiNzbnZ2dnUVZ_sCinZ2d@sedona.net.. .
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> news:lPWdnUYNG7-TB93bnZ2dnUVZ_riknZ2d@ptd.net...
>> Sound to me like your saying a high mileage car that you know needs lots
>> of work in better than a newer lower mileage car that may need work
>> someday, but the former is a better buy because it' 'cheaper.' Me thinks
>> you would like to eat prime cut beef, but can only afford baloney LOL
>>
>> mike
>>
> You're not paying attention at all. I'm saying a used car that needs
> specific work and costs that much less for it is better than a low mileage
> car that is an unknown. You have not the vaguest idea how to evaluate a
> used car.

> Mike
>
>

Re: Fusion vs Camry and Accord - the Ford Challenge
 

Actually I know more about used cars than you will ever know. I was Group
Sales Manager for one of the largest mega dealerships groups on the east
cost for ten years.

Get real, the only reason anybody buys a used car is they can not afford to
by a new car. The only reason anybody buys a high mileage used cars is they
can not afford a later model used car, with less mileage. LOL

Take the advice I gave you and go look at cars as they are traded, then
again when the are on the lot for resale, and you will see what I mean by
the statement one can never know for sure how a vehicles was used or abused
or if it was maintained properly or not buy its previous owner(s)


mike


"Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in message
news:Q7SdnbhET8PbiNzbnZ2dnUVZ_sCinZ2d@sedona.net.. .
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> news:lPWdnUYNG7-TB93bnZ2dnUVZ_riknZ2d@ptd.net...
>> Sound to me like your saying a high mileage car that you know needs lots
>> of work in better than a newer lower mileage car that may need work
>> someday, but the former is a better buy because it' 'cheaper.' Me thinks
>> you would like to eat prime cut beef, but can only afford baloney LOL
>>
>> mike
>>
> You're not paying attention at all. I'm saying a used car that needs
> specific work and costs that much less for it is better than a low mileage
> car that is an unknown. You have not the vaguest idea how to evaluate a
> used car.

> Mike
>
>

Re: Fusion vs Camry and Accord - the Ford Challenge
 

Mike Hunter wrote:

> Any time you buy a used car you are buying a vehicle that the previous
> owned
> no longer wanted. Why would anybody want to buy somebody else's problems?
> LOL

Not all used cars are "someone else's problems"...

Many people lease for 2 or 3 years, and then trade in. Many buy a new car
every 5 years, and trade in the old one. That doesn't mean there is any
problem with the old car...