Say you could purchase a 2013 LC with 80,000 miles for $40 thousand or a 2014 LC with 50,000 miles for $50 thousand. Adjusting for age/mileage, assuming all else equal, which presents the better relative value?
Relative Value Question (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter ESVACruiser
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
With a vehicle as well known for longevity as the 200 series, I wouldn't pay $10k for 30k less miles, especially since both are the same truck (no real changes between 2013 and 2014). I might pay more for a 2016+ due to the minor facelift made in 2016. Both of your trucks seem perhaps a bit overpriced, especially the 2014.
Nothing wrong with your math, but I don't follow your logic. I'd look at it as cost per remaining mile. If you assume both trucks depreciate to $20k at 200k miles and cost the same to maintain, You're getting 120k miles in the 2013 for $20k ($.17/mi) and 150k miles in the 2014 for $30k ($.33/mi).
I dorked up my evaluation and did a $/yr of remaining use evaluation based on miles remaining to 250k, assuming 12k miles per year. Based on my evaluation criteria, you would pay $2823 per year for the ‘13 and $2999 per year for the ‘14. For whatever that’s worth.
- Thread starter
- #6
I'm really appreciative of everyone's thoughtful responses. Thanks again!
CharlieS
GOLD Star
Yeah, I was feeling like I was missing something in what I was typing. I still don't know what it is. I was thinking it along the lines of how much money you pay for each mile of wear and tear on the vehicle. Since nobody really knows the service life (it could blow up tomorrow), it seems like we should only consider cost per unit of what we are actually purchasing. By that thinking, the wear and tear on the '13 is twice as costly as the wear and tear on the '14. I still don't even buy my own reasoning, so don't beat me up too hard.
kcjaz
SILVER Star
I’m not understanding your logic here. IMO, the current mileage on the vehicle is only relevant in the context of “life remaining”. Typical depreciation is why used cars with relative low miles are in general a “better” value than new ones. This is particularly true for a bullet proof LC. Some “disposable” car, maybe not.
I’d think about this situation this way: The 2013 with $10k of mods and baseline work would be superior to the 2014 for the same money.
just my $0.02
CharlieS
GOLD Star
I don't know. You could be right.
Looking at it another way, I'd gladly pay $10k more for a 1 year newer, 30K fewer mile car, with a potentially higher resale value (because it is a newer model year). Resale is irrelevant if you keep it forever, but I haven't done that yet, so I don't factor that into my thinking.
Looking at it another way, I'd gladly pay $10k more for a 1 year newer, 30K fewer mile car, with a potentially higher resale value (because it is a newer model year). Resale is irrelevant if you keep it forever, but I haven't done that yet, so I don't factor that into my thinking.
I would say the "assuming all else equal" part is the issue. It is seldom the case with used cars. There would certainly be a market reason for the newer, lower mileage car having a higher asking price, but maybe the color is not to your liking in the older cheaper car. Or there is a sound that's not quite right, a curiously over-worn driver's seat - you get the point. Once you are talking about used vehicles (for personal use) it is never an apples to apples comparison. (This assumes that the $10,000 is not a barrier to entry, because then the choice is already made).
ramangain
Clarksonian disciple
40k bucks/80k miles = 0.5 buck/mile
I was wondering how long it was gonna take for somebody to figure that out
You buy the one that has better documented maintenance.
Isn’t that more valuable?
Isn’t that more valuable?
If I were going to buy, either of these would be fine candidates, although I'd try to talk the price down a few thousand on both.
That said, I'd want to look at both, see what kinds of wear and tear they have (mileage does not tell everything). I tend to buy rigs that have the best service records. This tells me the owner took the time to care of the car and keep a record. I tend to find, on average, people that are anal about maintenance also take better care of their cars. Those are the rigs I want in my garage. Make sure to check the undercarriages for rust too, which can be a deal breaker.
If it were me, I'd try to to get a low mile 2016+ if you can afford it. I enjoy my 16 much more than my 2011, and with the LC being discontinued, getting a low mileage option you can take care of forever may be a better choice. When I told my wife the 200 was discontinued after 2032, she encouraged me, without asking, to get a 2021 Heritage if I can find one, but I decided to skip the upgrade. As you can tell, there aren't any comparable upgrades for my wife.
If you plan to have a Cruiser for a long time, get new with lower miles. Depending on how much you drive 30k miles can be a big difference.
That said, I'd want to look at both, see what kinds of wear and tear they have (mileage does not tell everything). I tend to buy rigs that have the best service records. This tells me the owner took the time to care of the car and keep a record. I tend to find, on average, people that are anal about maintenance also take better care of their cars. Those are the rigs I want in my garage. Make sure to check the undercarriages for rust too, which can be a deal breaker.
If it were me, I'd try to to get a low mile 2016+ if you can afford it. I enjoy my 16 much more than my 2011, and with the LC being discontinued, getting a low mileage option you can take care of forever may be a better choice. When I told my wife the 200 was discontinued after 2032, she encouraged me, without asking, to get a 2021 Heritage if I can find one, but I decided to skip the upgrade. As you can tell, there aren't any comparable upgrades for my wife.
If you plan to have a Cruiser for a long time, get new with lower miles. Depending on how much you drive 30k miles can be a big difference.
