I'm interested in two cars right now:

A 2000 Honda Civic hatchback that has 300,000+ kms on the body but 150,000kms on a recently installed D16y7(same engine that the car came with). The owner says timing belt and water pump were done when the new engine was installed but has no proof of this because the previous owner installed the engine. This one already has an aftermarket deck/stereo unit which is something I always install along with new speakers so that's a plus and it's $1,600 certified. It's silver which sucks, but whatever.

The next car is a one owner black 1999 Civic hatchback that has 239,000kms on the original engine and body. Owner has receipts of timing belt/water pump replacement at 220,000kms along with fresh transmission fluid, oil change and spark plugs etc, basic general tune-up. The difference is this one is $2,000 certified and black which is a much better color.

The question is should I get the one with receipts but almost 100,000kms more on the engine and spend the extra $400 or buy the one with swapped engine and no records and have $400 more for gas for months to come.

I'd love your opinions. I'm also looking at a 1998 Acura EL which was only sold in Canada and has heated leather seats, a nicer interior and it's a sedan but I prefer the hatchback look. This car is $1,700 certified, has 206,000kms, original owner but has a little bit of rust which is only surface, not rotten through. This car also has the D16y8 instead of the y8 which has 20 more HP and vtec, but is slightly worse on gas.

I'm leaning towards spending the extra $400 on the black hatch due to the fact it has records and it's black instead of silver (EL is also silver) but I'd like opinions.

 

All of those cars are coming to the end of their useful life. 13+ year old chassis and suspension components. High mileage engines and transmissions. Still, the prices reflect that. If I were only commuting a short distance every day (< 10 miles) and I had a 2nd or 3rd car to fall back on, these might be worth the risk. But if you want a safe car, be prepared to put some additional money into shocks, ball joints, and bushings. I'd replace all the hoses and vacuum lines too. And I'd have the braking system checked from the pump to the pads. I don't like surprises. Exhaust/emission components may also be nearing failure. And don't be shocked if a CV joint or a bearing fails here and there. And of course the odd bits inside will be falling off occasionally. The good news is the Civic is a simple car and cheap to fix. Whatever happened to that concept?

Anyway, at those prices it may be worth taking a chance but just be prepared for some maintenance on a well used car. A high mileage car simply requires more maintenance than a car in the first 50,000 miles of its life. And a safe experience is about more than the engine and transmission.

 

Have to put both on a lift and take a look underneath. As SpudRacer said, both are pretty near end of their life. Newer engine is a newer engine and could be put into another car later I guess. I'd go for the less rusty of the two unless further inspection leans toward the other choice.

 

Do you guys really think 240,000kms or 150,000 miles is near the end of a 1999 Honda Civic's life? Especially a one owner with records? The one issue I'm having is the rust spot on the roof looks like crap and I didn't think it was that bad (On the black one).

 

I'd go with whichever one has the least amount of rust. And ignore their comments about vehicle longevity. With proper maintenance 300,000 miles is well within reach.