Age Vs Mileage - Thoughts please
 

Hey guys.
Was just offered a very good deal on a 2000 Monte Carlo SS. Belongs to a guy a know who has owned it since new. Very good regular maintenance. Even running synthetic in since new. Still working on the details, so I should know more soon.
I do know that it has about 40000km (24,000 miles) more on it than my Olds does.It is bone stock, whereas my Olds has a fair number of mods. Only issue he has mentioned of any consequence is an oil leak somewhere around the pan. Don't know the details yet. Good body.
My Olds has about 114,000 miles on it and runs well. His SS has about 135,000 miles on it. I do know it has not been abused and he has about a 120 mile highway commute every day.
I always figured that mileage is more important than age, but I sure could be wrong here.
The Olds would have to go of course. No space for 3 cars.
Of course, being a 2000 would give a lot more scope for mods.... :D
Any thoughts?
Thanks!

Well there's sort of a middle ground. Too little mileage for a car can be a serious problem. I know because of the seemingly constant issues that I'm dealing with in my truck due to dry rot and a seemingly untraceable electrical problem that is killing it. :roll: Sitting around is bad for a car.

On the other hand, too many, even highway miles, means that things are going to start wearing out from use. Given the choice, I'd almost prefer an excessively high mileage car that was well maintained to one that has sat for extended periods of time with low mileage, even with regular service. Much more predictable.

Having said that, 135,000 miles is nothing for a 3800. It's just getting broken in. ;)
.
.
.