Guys, I’m still biding my time waiting for the ‘right’ car to come up, and would welcome your advice on something.

Take two cars, both similar price, condition, full service history etc..

Which one would you go for:

1) 2007 car with 60k miles

2) 2005 car with 30k miles

My initial thoughts are leaning towards the 2007 car, as even though it has high mileage, I’ll only be doing about 4-5k miles a year myself, so if I keep it for a couple of years, it’ll have about 70k miles on. Would this be an issue for you (if you were a potential buyer?) Downside is that the road tax will be £425 rather than £245.

Any thoughts?

 

Personally, i'd go for the lower mileage car.

 

Me too

 

Don't the 2007 cars have VSA with their associated problems (and cost)? Also Drive by Wire?
Remember, this is a sports car so those 60,000 miles could have been 'spirited'
I think I'd go for the 2005 car with less miles although for both you can get a Honda warranty.

 

there's quite a few differences between the two models, so you need to take those into account.

 

I'd go for the lower milage car too.

 

that's pretty big miles for a 2007 S2000

most cars seem to cover below average miles

to me it would suggest the car has been "used" (obviously )

a lower mileage but older car may have been better cared for

but you need to see both, both will have their faults

and choose the better car, if that makes sense

 

go see them! Both will have their faults, if high mileage doesn't bother you then I would go for the 2007!

2007 60k, thats 20k a year, more than likely a motorway car, so stone chips but constant speed driving?!

 

As the owner of a 110k mile S2000, I'd go with whichever is the nicer car and best overall value.

Neither are particularly high mileage and what you'd be adding is negligible.

 

I know which one I would go for:

2005 car with 30k miles