What matters more, age or miles?

GEEZE, I don't care WHAT'S wrong with your Jeep, it's got to be better than an Explorer with 185,000 miles on it. ARE you kidding me???

Do you know that during the so called "cash for clunkers" program a few years ago, the Ford Explorer was the MOST scrapped vehicle???

Why not put a new engine in the jeep and whatever else it needs?.

You've hit on something that is obviously important when buying a used vehicle, but unfortunately, it's hard to answer without looking at a few other factors.

In general, neither age nor mileage alone are positive indicators of the remaining life of a vehicle, nor do they tell you what kinds of repairs should be expected. Nevertheless, these things do offer some clues.

What we use to guess at these things has to do with the fact that while vehicle mileage can vary over a wide range from one person to another, most Americans do drive within a certain band that means that vehicles age and accumulate mileage at a relatively predictable rate. You can see these rates when check on a vehicle using Kelly Blue Book or similar guides, and it will clearly state what an expected "average" mileage should be for a vehicle of a given age. Because vehicles often age chronologically at the same rate they rack up mileage, you can quite frequently guess about a mileage based on condition, and guess on a condition based on mileage.

But recognize that this isn't always true. Some people put on a tremendous amount of mileage per year--way more than the 12,000-14,000 that is typical I most parts of the country--and others put very little on their vehicle. As an example, I purchased a new Kia Rio not eight months ago, and I've already accumulated nearly 20,000 miles. On the opposite end of the spectrum, I recently bought a 20-year old Camaro that had 79,000 miles on the odometer. Both vehicles look like new and nothing could be assumed from the mileage or year alone. Most people are shocked at how many miles we've put on the Kia, and many people don't believe that the Camaro is twenty years old.

This brings us to the issue of what causes vehicles to fail, and what causes appearance to fade. In general, while common sense dictates that engines have a finite life and evidence points to the fact that most engines fail at or before a few hundred thousand miles, how an engine is treated is a much better indication of projected life than mileage alone. Engines that are maintained well and driven under easy conditions at highway speeds can go many hundreds of thousands of miles in most cases, while engines that are poorly maintained or driven aggressively can fail well before 100,000 miles. Consequently, how often the oil is changed, how aggressively the driver hits the accelerator pedal, and whether a vehicle is constantly driven in stop-and-go city traffic are all better indicators of engine longevity.

Some of the same can be said of the cosmetic appearance of a vehicle. I've seen relatively new vehicles--two or three years old--completely torn up with faded paint, missing trim and shredded seats. I've also seen original paint on 20-year old vehicles that looks like it just came off the assembly line. Once again, the conditions of ownership set the stage for what is likely to happen. Vehicles that are kept in a garage, not driven on salty roads and cleaned frequently can look good after many years of service, while other vehicles look much older than they really are.

Unfortunately, it's sometimes difficult to tell certain things about a vehicle based on appearance alone--how aggressive a driver has been, for example--so some of this is on faith. I often look at the cosmetic condition of a vehicle as an indicator though because in my experience, someone who doesn't wash their vehicle or change their wiper blades is also just as likely to forgo changing the oil. Is it a blanket statement that might not be true? Sure, but again, there's some guesswork involved either way.

In some cases, there are repair categories that ARE based more on time than on mileage. Electrical parts and parts containing rubber seals and gaskets will begin to deteriorate over time, whether you use them or not. As a result, you can store a vehicle for twenty years and never drive it, and still have problems when you put it on the road--oil seals, power steering units, window motors, ignition modules, transmission bands and clutches--these are all things that can fail just be sitting excessively. Therefore, it's entirely possible to have a vehicle that looks perfect and has low mileage, but if it's very old, things will start breaking.

With all of that said, I would take the newer vehicle with the higher mileage, and here's why:

- A old vehicle with lots of miles proves nothing about city/highway driving ratio, but a newer vehicle with lots of miles just about proves that there was a large number of highway miles. Given the fact that these miles are generally easier on the engine, we can presume that all other things being equal, the engine has been under less mechanical stress.

- The newer vehicle means that many of the time-sensitive components--seals and gaskets and such--should not be as much of an issue.

- The fact that even with those miles, it appears to be in good condition, at least hints at a driver who cared about the vehicle.

- If the engine did fail, it WOULD be economical to replace the engine. This is because it passes what I call the "what if I totaled the vehicle tomorrow?" test. That is, what would happen if you put a brand new engine in the vehicle, and you totaled the vehicle the next day in an accident. If you put a new engine in the older vehicle, the high level of existing depreciation on the vehicle would not be much affected by the new engine. That is to say, even with a new engine, you couldn't get much more for the vehicle because of its age. Consequently, if the day after you replace the engine, you crash it, the insurance company will not likely give you nearly what you have in the vehicle. Sure, they might bump your claim amount of slightly to recognize that the vehicle had a lot of miles left on the engine, but they're not going to cut you a check for the book value plus the cost of the replacement engine. You're simply out that much. On the newer vehicle though, even with extremely high mileage, the engine is a smaller deal. The amount your insurance company would give you as a total loss would likely be sufficient because they would have expected a vehicle of that age to have a much lower mileage anyway. As long as you can document what you have just done, you're likely to get the same check amount as that vehicle with much fewer miles. That is to say, you would recover a larger portion of your lost investment in the new engine.

In summary, all other things being equal, I'd go with the higher value vehicle, but this also assumes that you've done a thorough inspection of everything else and there are no hidden issues. A good insurance policy, especially with investments this large, is to pay a mechanic to do a pre-purchase inspection. Sure, that's your loss if you don't buy the vehicle, but you stand to lose a lot more if there's something they could have caught before you made the leap.