Sianara2000

Hi guys,

I'm new to this forum, and I'm looking at buying an S2000. I have narrowed to two cars, one with 100K (GT) costing about £7500 and another with just 45K(Roadster) costing £10500, both are 2003 facelift and have FHSH. I haven't driven them yet; I wonder if the £3000 extra are worth it. I like the hardtop as I don't have a garage, I have to leave exposed to the weather, but the low mileage makes me think. Any advise welcome.

E4RTH WORM JIM

Low mileage for me.

If you put, let's say another 30k on the high mileage one it will be worth feck all when you come to sell. Where as the other car will still have sensible mileage.

Also the suspension should be in better condition on the lower mileage car.

Leonfocus

I would buy on condition and history rathe than just looking purely on mileage. I purchased a 100k mileage 04 with full history, lots and lots of paperwork and receipts, new hood, excellent condition for £7,000 and has no issues with the mileage.

chrispayze

Depends how much mileage you intend to put on it, how long you intend to own it and what use you intend for it. At 100k, it'll need a fair few new parts as they wear out, eg suspension, exacerbated if you intend to do more than a few k miles a year. Plus the risk of the engine going pop will increase. But if you intend to upgrade a whole host of parts, no point paying for newer ones to begin with.

If you think it'll be a keeper, get as new and least used car that you can afford.

lower

Low mileage all the way for me. At 100k that engine will be on borrowed time. It'll have more wear and tear on it and 55k miles' worth of extra risk of over rev which is the primary cause of dropped valves and lunched engines.

The interior should be less worn, the gearbox less worn etc etc unless abused. A 45k mile car on an 03 plate will have been a garage queen. There might be the odd problem as a result of lack of use, but its much lower risk in my opinion, will have a lot more life in it and greater scope for you to move it one at a decent mileage when you've finished with it.

noodels

They did not do an 03 facelift

S2Bray

I'd say judge each on their own merit. Of course, probability would support the higher the mileage, the more exposure to wear, but that doesn't recognise many other variables. To paint an extreme case - you could have a fastidious owner that has meticulously maintained the car, driving only in dry weather but long journeys up and down a motorway, at a steady 70mph. His car could have 100k on the clock and be a gem. His mates s2000 may have been ragged from cold, bouncing off the limiter down a muddy farm track, then left in barn for a year before spending a few happy months doing doughnuts in a field. His car my only have 30k on the clock.

Of course neither is likely. But I think its dangerous to make the assumption that low mileage = good car.

Sianara2000

Oops, my mistake, I mean 2004 and not 2003.

Al_G

Definitely the 45k car.

Sianara2000

Hi guys,

Thank you for the feedback. If I end up purchasing the 45K can I get a hard top to fit?