18,000 miles/year - is that high for a 2003 Camry?

Considering that they are now selling the 2006 models, soon to be selling the 2007 models, this car is closing in on 4 years old, not 2. It surpassed the 2-year mark at least a year and a half ago.

If the car is closer to 3 years old, the average mileage is 16,550, and if the car has been in service for 4 years, then the miles drop to 12,400.

This car should be okay.

No. It's a bit high, but believable. When I had three kids in soccer followed by college I was putting on between 25,000 and 30,000 miles a year.

Even if it's brutal stop-and-go traffic?

On the other hand, the OP specified that the CARFAX report stated "

So your creative math is really wasted in this thread.

How is it possible that an '03 car has only been in service for 2.5 years?

It is at least 3.5 model years old, and the car is far to popular to have sat as un-sold inventory for a year. I know what Carfax said, but I have to question Carfax because I inherently do not trust them. The data they have is only as good as the data somebody gave them.

Even if Carfax is correct though, the car should be okay, which is what I said earlier.

Well, that's about worst case, and... the traffic on 465 is blindingly fast, compared to around here, plus instead of studying the problem to death, and then maybe building something once every 10 years or so like they do around here, Indy is pretty much continuously improving the situation as they should. Every time I go thru there, the beltway or the big roads thru town are markedly better, with wider roads, more lanes, and better traffic patterns. Thew me for a loop when I was all set to do the left exit onto Shadeland from I 465 eastbound to go north, and it wasn't there - they took out the left exit and made it normal... amazing. And, around here, they even sabotage the roads they do have, such as 295 thru DC, which they rig up with a 45 mph speed limit (ridiculous) that they use to make a mint in traffic fines, even sitting out there at 3 in the morning trapping tourists that are traveling at night to avoid the legendary traffic problems of DC. Of _course_ they're not going to be going 45. I 295 thru DC is less than useless, its dangerous - do 45 and be a mobile roadblock that is likely to get hit, or do 65 and get nailed for a pile of traffic fines, or worse. But corrupt efforts to preclude the need for highway robbers of old, by substuting the police for them, are more important than public safety. Makes me wanna puke.

Dave Head

Well, the OP said. "Only thing is, the car has been in service for 2 years and

9 months". That's what I was going on.

Dave Head

Jeff Strickland wrote:

This is how:

07/07/2003 NICB Vehicle manufactured and shipped to original dealer 07/15/2003 Illinois Motor Vehicle Dept. Orland Park, IL Registered as personal vehicle 08/12/2003 Mileage: 5 Illinois Motor Vehicle Dept. Orland Park, IL Title #T3249062108 Title issued or updated First owner reported Loan or lien reported 04/29/2006 Dealer Inventory Libertyville, IL Vehicle offered for sale

.=2E.

In the above Carfax report, the only mileage entry is at 8/12/2003, and that's 5 miles. And yesterday as I test drove the car, it had 49,600.

My inquiry about whether 18K per year is "high" was mostly from a mechanical point of view. In that if 15K per year is considered average, does any mileage higher than that per year cause excessive wear on the engine, drive train, or other moving parts? Wear and tear that show up years later for example? Was just curious. From the responses in this thread, and from some others I asked, that doesn't seem to be the case. The high mileage should not be a concern at all - provided the car was serviced at regular intervals.

I took the car to two repair shops, and it got a clean bill of health; with the exception of rear brake pads and rear tires that had about 20% life left in them, and a leaky oil pan gasket.

I then took the car back to the dealer, they brought it in their service department, verified the leaky gasket, and replaced it for me. They stood firm on the tires and brakes, saying they met Toyota specifications as for not needed replacement - but at the salesman's desk I did get them to knock off $150 from the price. So I look at that $150 as compensation for the rear tires and brakes I'll have to buy sometime in the next several months.

So I ended up buying the car, and I love it. It's sharp, sporty, in great shape inside and out, extremely quiet, runs like new, and hey - it's a Camry - which means I'll enjoy it for years to come.

Thanks to all who responded!

Nonsense.

I think that the question was asked in the context of the total mileage relating to the quality of the vehicle. 50K miles on a Toyota Camry, with the 2.4L L4, is about 1/4 to 1/5 of how many miles the engine would be expected to last. 50K miles on some engines, including some recent GM engines, is maybe 1/2 to 2/3 of how many miles the engine would be expected to last.

You be sure and try that line when you turn in your leased vehicle that you put 18,000 miles per year onto. You'll be slapped with a "nonsense" excess mileage charge.

15,000 miles per year is normal. Anything above that is high by definition.

It could have been built and sold later in the model year. Don't assume that every 2003 car was built in late 2002. My car is a 2005 - built in May of 2005 and purchased by me in July.

Back to the OP - 18,000 miles is a bit high, but not unusually high. I put more than that on my cars. Mostly highway driving. How would determine if the car was mostly used in the city or on the highway? Do you have maintenance records? How often have the brakes been replaced?

Actually, anything above whatever the lease specifies is "excess".

You *can* get an 18,000 mile lease, if you're willing to pay extra. A lease is simply a contract, whatever is agreed to in a contract (as long as it's legal) is what goes.

That said, I never met a lease I liked enough to actually sign.

Your definition and the leasing companies, maybe. For those of us who know better than to lease a car, it is a non-issue. I used to do 15-20 k a year routinely, when my living and working circumstances were different. Now, I do maybe 5 or 6 k a year. (I don't drive for work anymore, just to and from, and the relatives I used to routinely visit are mostly too far away now, so I fly.)

I doubt anyone has a good set of numbers on what 'normal' is. Way too many uncontrolled variables. Best they could do is to track the miles when a car changes hands, and see where the peak in the bell curve is by time in service, type of vehicles, how many months in what zip code, ad nauseum. The 'normal' miles in the NADA guides are probably based on something like that, since is the measuring point available to dealers.

aem sends...

Naah, not anymore. I wouldn't have any qualms about buying a three-year-old car with 49K miles on it, as long as it had been well taken care of. I put 25K a year on my primary car, plus another 5-6K on my second car. And I only commute 35 miles to work.

Geoff

And what if you only cover 5,000 miles, do you claim this back?

No. 15,000 miles a year may be normal for one person but may not be for another.

By that definition. As others have pointed out, it's a combination of total miles accrued, how it has been driven and of course what has been done to it.

I'd have little issue with buying something that had covered a relatively high annual mileage because this will be largely longer trips. Conversely, if I were looking at a three year old machine with 6,000 miles on it, I'd harbour all sorts of concerns about the car.

Ultimately, you can't assume that somebody covering 18,000 miles a year is high by all standards. For something like a Honda or Toyota (actually for that matter for our Ford Ka), covering twice this is not a problem.

Not necessarily. They first hit the showrooms in the fall of the previous year, but a given year's production runs into the early summer of the model's designated model year.

(That's barring the BS that some manufacturers have pulled in recent years of giving certain landmark models model-year designations 1-2 calendar years in the future when they're first introduced, of course...)

In fact, I seem to recall that Toyota was an exception to this for a long time, actually introducing a given year's models in January of that year. Don't know whether that's still the case.

Geoff

ameijers responds:

Exactly. The definition of "normal" used by the leasing companies is self-serving; it's in their interest to define "normal annual mileage" low, since it allows them to hit people with an excess- mileage fee when (not if) they exceed it.

It's like how the car rental companies laughably classify midsized cars like the Toyota Camry and Nissan Altima as "full-size": it allows them to charge a higher rate for them.

Geoff

Bullshit.

If LEASE contracts (which are bullshit in and of themselves) say

15K/year, it's only because suckers have bought into it.

Remember, LEASES are for stupid people who think: (a) that the monthly payment is what's important, (b) who want to drive something way beyond their realistic means, and/or (c) who think that it's normal to have a $300 to $400 payment every month for the rest of their lives just to have the car sitting in their driveways.

Given that leases are for stupid people, I don't put much stock in what the average lease contract says--because it's aimed at stupid people.

And remember, many lease contracts will have 12K or 10K or even 8K per year terms, in order to get that MAGIC MONTHLY PAYMENT that gets the car out the door.

If you want to live your life by the "definitions" set forth by stupid people, go right ahead. But the rest of us know that 15K/year isn't any more "normal" than anything. It's just a random number commonly accepted by stupid people.