I prefer buying cars with a minimum of 80K, preferably at least 100K miles on them. At 50K it is hard to tell how a car has been cared for; at 100K it is hard to hide. Sadly, I let my lust for the car cloud my judgement and I violated two of my absolute rules - never buy a car with traces of rust in the radiator or with signs of varnish under the oil filler cap. This Nissan had both and I paid for both with headaches, but the electrical trouble was an unpleasant surprise. A car with 100K that is still in good shape should give at least another 100K miles of service. I bought my old '70 Volvo with
190K on it, rebuilt the engine (had broken rings from detonation) and drove it to nearly 300K.
The new Toyota is the baby of the family and my wife's first new car in 20 years (it's been 35 years for me). My son's Acura has 130K, and our other two are over 200K. We aren't looking at replacing any of them anytime soon.
I confess I would consider buying another Nissan if the price was right and it was in good condition. Electrical intermittents are a quality control concern - wiring and connectors should rarely fail - but as you say, that was long ago.
really? you'd better let a friend of mine know. he's got 380,000 on his 88 camry. original owner from new. original engine & transmission. only thing that's gone wrong with it is the main seal which he had replaced a couple of years ago. my civic's losing oil in the same place and it's only got 128,000 on it.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.