I am not very familiar with the newer Bonnevilles, how is a 1993 SE different from my 1990 LE? I only have about 75,000 miles right now, and the SE has about twice as many. I am considering "upgrading" to the 1993 to gain leather interior, sunroof, and working AC, but I can't afford to replace a transmission if it may need it soon, or any other major problems. Are there any other advantages to the 1993 that may make the switch a good one, or is the dependability of the 1990 worth keeping?

Thanks for any input!!

Tom

ps- I have had the 1990 since it has had 50,000 EASY miles, so I know everything about it already.

i could understand upgrading to newer but not downgrading mileage. i have always bee touchy about buying a car with 70K + on it. you should shop around a bit in my opinion...

NOTE: I may have a biased opinion

If your car runs great, with low miles then why are you shopping for a new car? Personally, I would keep the LN3-equipped car [90]. Since you have low miles, you will be set for a very long time with that car [powertrain-wise]. I say keep it, no reason to change cars if you are happy with your current one. Especially since you know the car'* history and whatnot [always great to know].

SSuperchargedEi: Unfortunately, not all of us can afford cars with < 70k. And you will be hard pressed to find a '93 with < 70k. If you do, you may run into problems if it was not driven much and all that great stuff. Higher miles doesn't always mean less reliability. However, I would stray from a new[er] car with > 70k [02+].. IMO that is much too high, even if it was well taken care of.


-justin

70k? Sheesh, these things arent even broken in until 50k... I wouldn't hesitate to buy one with 140k on it.

That said, I'd still stick with the old one. If you really want leather and working air, those things can be upgraded and/or fixed, probably for cheaper than upgrading. The sunroof is a bit different, but you can go aftermarket flip-up on that if you really need to. Personally, I don't like sunroofs - just one more thing to go wrong.

74, 000 miles on your '90 is amazing, and I would definatly keep it if it is running well. I have over 130,000 on my '89 and nothing is even showing signs of breaking. Sure the A/C doesn't work, but I like driving with my windows down to listen to the exhaust anyway.

you would take the risk of it being constantly beat for 140k? how would you know what the previous owner(*) did to the vehicle? they can tell you what ever they want about the car, because for the most part all they care about is getting your money. as soon as you leave that messenger service, their old car'* future problems are now your car'* future problems, and you don't know a thing about it.

Eh, get 'em both.

*somebody* speaks from experience!

Mine has got 204k on it and it still feels like a brand new car. Not looks of course, but feels. But if i was in your position, i'd keep the lower miles.

That'* all true enough, but it doesn't take 140k miles to beat a car. A car with 50k could be terribly abused too. Besides, you can generally tell how well a car has been taken care of, if you know what to look for. If you want to be sure that a car hasn't been abused, you'll have to buy new. But that'* just my opinion, as requested by the original post. No offense intended...