Re: Fusion vs Camry and Accord - the Ford Challenge
 

Jeff wrote:

>
> "mred" <mred@295.ca> wrote in message
> news:1178540899.029371.165660@n59g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com...
> <...>
>
>
>> I have had 2 Accords; one `86 with 250,000 k on it and a `92 that had
>> 315,000 k on it when it was totaled . the `86 was poor on brakes .But
>> it was a GOOD car, travelled Montana when they had a prima facie speed
>> limit 110 MPH all the way across.
>
> They had the speed limit posted at 110 MPH?

IIRC, They had NO speed limit posted. When the Feds dropped the National
55MPH limit, Montana removed all the signs, and had a 110 Soft limit. If
you were going faster, they would pull you over and give you a $5 ticket
for "Unsafe speed", payable to the officer at the time of offense.

They were forced to change it, and settled on 75, if memory serves.

Re: Fusion vs Camry and Accord - the Ford Challenge
 

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 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
 

"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: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
 

"Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in message
news:vZSdnernWaN4IaLbnZ2dnUVZ_silnZ2d@sedona.net.. .
<...>

> 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.

An old car is a gamble, too. The transmission might be about to break, there
may be new brakes in the cars near future and the bearings might be bared
soon.

Everything is a gamble, even old cars.

Jeff
> Mike
>
>

Re: Fusion vs Camry and Accord - the Ford Challenge
 

"Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in message
news:vZSdnernWaN4IaLbnZ2dnUVZ_silnZ2d@sedona.net.. .
<...>

> 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.

An old car is a gamble, too. The transmission might be about to break, there
may be new brakes in the cars near future and the bearings might be bared
soon.

Everything is a gamble, even old cars.

Jeff
> Mike
>
>

Re: Fusion vs Camry and Accord - the Ford Challenge
 

"Jeff" <news@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:j4P%h.1861$py5.23@trnddc06...
>
> "Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in message
> news:vZSdnernWaN4IaLbnZ2dnUVZ_silnZ2d@sedona.net.. .
> <...>
>
>> 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.
>
> An old car is a gamble, too. The transmission might be about to break,
> there may be new brakes in the cars near future and the bearings might be
> bared soon.
>
> Everything is a gamble, even old cars.
>
>
That isn't a problem if you do your homework and look the car over right. If
transmission problems are fairly common, like they are in Hondas, look the
unit over carefully and reduce the offer by enough it isn't a problem. I
will already have checked on the price and availability of a guaranteed
tranny from my favorite wrecking yard and figured that into the offering
price dependent on the likelihood of failure. For bulletproof transmissions
like the AW-70 I only need to look for leaks and clean fluid. If there is
going to be a common showstopper problem the car isn't on my list to start
with.

Brakes? Except cars with such pervasive ABS problems that wrecking yards
aren't likely to have good replacement parts (homework, remember?) I can
afford to put $100 into brakes. New cars will need brakes sometime, too. A
peek at the front disks tells most of the story and takes a few seconds; if
they are very worn my offer goes down by $100. Usually the seller is happy
to get off so cheap for repairs the car needs one way or another. I'm
already under there to look at the CV joint boots and the undercarriage
anyway.

For every seller there is a buyer. For good cars I can be a buyer, for junk
cars there are naive or desperate buyers and wrecking yards.

Mike

Re: Fusion vs Camry and Accord - the Ford Challenge
 

"Jeff" <news@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:j4P%h.1861$py5.23@trnddc06...
>
> "Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in message
> news:vZSdnernWaN4IaLbnZ2dnUVZ_silnZ2d@sedona.net.. .
> <...>
>
>> 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.
>
> An old car is a gamble, too. The transmission might be about to break,
> there may be new brakes in the cars near future and the bearings might be
> bared soon.
>
> Everything is a gamble, even old cars.
>
>
That isn't a problem if you do your homework and look the car over right. If
transmission problems are fairly common, like they are in Hondas, look the
unit over carefully and reduce the offer by enough it isn't a problem. I
will already have checked on the price and availability of a guaranteed
tranny from my favorite wrecking yard and figured that into the offering
price dependent on the likelihood of failure. For bulletproof transmissions
like the AW-70 I only need to look for leaks and clean fluid. If there is
going to be a common showstopper problem the car isn't on my list to start
with.

Brakes? Except cars with such pervasive ABS problems that wrecking yards
aren't likely to have good replacement parts (homework, remember?) I can
afford to put $100 into brakes. New cars will need brakes sometime, too. A
peek at the front disks tells most of the story and takes a few seconds; if
they are very worn my offer goes down by $100. Usually the seller is happy
to get off so cheap for repairs the car needs one way or another. I'm
already under there to look at the CV joint boots and the undercarriage
anyway.

For every seller there is a buyer. For good cars I can be a buyer, for junk
cars there are naive or desperate buyers and wrecking yards.

Mike

Re: Fusion vs Camry and Accord - the Ford Challenge
 

"Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in message
news:L7-dnZGwAc-iWaLbnZ2dnUVZ_umlnZ2d@sedona.net...
> "Jeff" <news@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:j4P%h.1861$py5.23@trnddc06...
>>
>> "Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in message
>> news:vZSdnernWaN4IaLbnZ2dnUVZ_silnZ2d@sedona.net.. .
>> <...>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> An old car is a gamble, too. The transmission might be about to break,
>> there may be new brakes in the cars near future and the bearings might be
>> bared soon.
>>
>> Everything is a gamble, even old cars.
>>
>>
> That isn't a problem if you do your homework and look the car over right.
> If transmission problems are fairly common, like they are in Hondas, look
> the unit over carefully and reduce the offer by enough it isn't a problem.
> I will already have checked on the price and availability of a guaranteed
> tranny from my favorite wrecking yard and figured that into the offering
> price dependent on the likelihood of failure. For bulletproof
> transmissions like the AW-70 I only need to look for leaks and clean
> fluid. If there is going to be a common showstopper problem the car isn't
> on my list to start with.
>
> Brakes? Except cars with such pervasive ABS problems that wrecking yards
> aren't likely to have good replacement parts (homework, remember?) I can
> afford to put $100 into brakes. New cars will need brakes sometime, too. A
> peek at the front disks tells most of the story and takes a few seconds;
> if they are very worn my offer goes down by $100. Usually the seller is
> happy to get off so cheap for repairs the car needs one way or another.
> I'm already under there to look at the CV joint boots and the
> undercarriage anyway.
>
> For every seller there is a buyer. For good cars I can be a buyer, for
> junk cars there are naive or desperate buyers and wrecking yards.

You're still taking a gamble.

If you buy a brand new car, you still have a warranty. And you cam buy a
certified used car which comes with a warranty, too, for a huge price. (In
the NY Times yesterday, there was a certified used car that was bought by a
buyer who later noticed that the paint on the front half and back half of
the car didn't match. The mechanic the buyer took the car to noticed the
welds in the frame - the car's halves started out in different cars. The
halves even had different VINs. The cars they started out on crashed. The
good halves were welded together.)

No matter what, you're taking a gamble. You might get the one bad AX80
transmission or an engine that is about to blow up.

With knowledge, you put the odds on your side. But they are still odds.

Jeff

> Mike
>
>

Re: Fusion vs Camry and Accord - the Ford Challenge
 

"Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in message
news:L7-dnZGwAc-iWaLbnZ2dnUVZ_umlnZ2d@sedona.net...
> "Jeff" <news@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:j4P%h.1861$py5.23@trnddc06...
>>
>> "Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in message
>> news:vZSdnernWaN4IaLbnZ2dnUVZ_silnZ2d@sedona.net.. .
>> <...>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> An old car is a gamble, too. The transmission might be about to break,
>> there may be new brakes in the cars near future and the bearings might be
>> bared soon.
>>
>> Everything is a gamble, even old cars.
>>
>>
> That isn't a problem if you do your homework and look the car over right.
> If transmission problems are fairly common, like they are in Hondas, look
> the unit over carefully and reduce the offer by enough it isn't a problem.
> I will already have checked on the price and availability of a guaranteed
> tranny from my favorite wrecking yard and figured that into the offering
> price dependent on the likelihood of failure. For bulletproof
> transmissions like the AW-70 I only need to look for leaks and clean
> fluid. If there is going to be a common showstopper problem the car isn't
> on my list to start with.
>
> Brakes? Except cars with such pervasive ABS problems that wrecking yards
> aren't likely to have good replacement parts (homework, remember?) I can
> afford to put $100 into brakes. New cars will need brakes sometime, too. A
> peek at the front disks tells most of the story and takes a few seconds;
> if they are very worn my offer goes down by $100. Usually the seller is
> happy to get off so cheap for repairs the car needs one way or another.
> I'm already under there to look at the CV joint boots and the
> undercarriage anyway.
>
> For every seller there is a buyer. For good cars I can be a buyer, for
> junk cars there are naive or desperate buyers and wrecking yards.

You're still taking a gamble.

If you buy a brand new car, you still have a warranty. And you cam buy a
certified used car which comes with a warranty, too, for a huge price. (In
the NY Times yesterday, there was a certified used car that was bought by a
buyer who later noticed that the paint on the front half and back half of
the car didn't match. The mechanic the buyer took the car to noticed the
welds in the frame - the car's halves started out in different cars. The
halves even had different VINs. The cars they started out on crashed. The
good halves were welded together.)

No matter what, you're taking a gamble. You might get the one bad AX80
transmission or an engine that is about to blow up.

With knowledge, you put the odds on your side. But they are still odds.

Jeff

> Mike
>
>

Re: Fusion vs Camry and Accord - the Ford Challenge
 

"Jeff" <news@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:sGP%h.1885$py5.1413@trnddc06...
>
>
> With knowledge, you put the odds on your side. But they are still odds.
>
> Jeff
>

Yes - but knowledge is permanent; it always improves odds. Relying on luck
always reduces the odds. With warranty, whether you pay above the table or
it is rolled into the car's price, you lose every time. Warranties only
redistribute your loss. If you don't use it, the money is simply gone. If
you do use it, you've suffered the loss you were hedging against.

Personally, I despise warranties. I have learned there are few mechanics who
can troubleshoot as well as I can, and under warranty the choice of mechanic
is pot luck. The dealer drives the bus and the customer has to ride. I've
gone through that with my new F350 SD work truck and it really bites.

Mike

Re: Fusion vs Camry and Accord - the Ford Challenge
 

"Jeff" <news@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:sGP%h.1885$py5.1413@trnddc06...
>
>
> With knowledge, you put the odds on your side. But they are still odds.
>
> Jeff
>

Yes - but knowledge is permanent; it always improves odds. Relying on luck
always reduces the odds. With warranty, whether you pay above the table or
it is rolled into the car's price, you lose every time. Warranties only
redistribute your loss. If you don't use it, the money is simply gone. If
you do use it, you've suffered the loss you were hedging against.

Personally, I despise warranties. I have learned there are few mechanics who
can troubleshoot as well as I can, and under warranty the choice of mechanic
is pot luck. The dealer drives the bus and the customer has to ride. I've
gone through that with my new F350 SD work truck and it really bites.

Mike

Re: Fusion vs Camry and Accord - the Ford Challenge
 

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


"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
 

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


"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
>>>
>>>
>>