i had the same problem... 15800 for 43k miles or 16.9k + tax (from a dealer) for 30k.

i ultimately bought the 43k mile one because it was a better deal overall (had more extras like alarm, warranty, etc.)

 

I have owned 17 cars in the past 7 years so I have a lot of experience of selling and buying cars. It always seemed to me that the super low miles I would put on my cars wouldn't add much value if anything to the car. One thing that I always heard though from the buyer was they were looking for a low mileage vehicle. I think having a car with low miles opens up the amount of people who will look at your car to buy, but it won't necessarily add more value to the car.

 

I was thinking of this the other day. I'm keeping an eye on the prices of used S2000s for whenever I'm financially ready to get back into one. Considering similar cars that differ only in the mileage, I would not spend extra money on a car with extra low miles. On the other hand, I would not save a few bucks to get one with exceptionally high mileage.

Just my thoughts.

 

this depends on so many factors (area, availability,colour combination,etc) only you can decide whats its worth.

 

I would be willing to raise the price a bit for low mileage but only after inspection (and by little id say no more than $1000). A car could have 10k miles, but if all that 10k was on a track, then Id rather have the 50k mile car

 

I bought my AP1 (2002) in March. It had 11.7k miles on it and was in mint condition other than a slightly worn seat bolster. It had been driven only 1000 miles in the year prior to my purchasing it.

I paid about $2k more than I would have if the car had 50k miles based on the mileage and, more importantly, that it was exactly the color combination I was looking for.

Point is, some buyers will pay for lower mileage.

 

For me I was willing to pay more for a mint car. I found a 04, 12k miles, the exact suspension I wanted, as with the wheels. That combo, along with all paperwork, maintenance records, etc. eased my worries.