low mileage car is it too good to be true

Joined
6 Apr 2017
Messages
785
Reaction score
52
Country
United Kingdom
Hi guys,
Spotted a car for sale, brief facts:
mileage 17,000, £1000
2005 model, therefore 12 years old
between 2009 and 2017 it has done 3000 miles.
No mention of tyre side wall degradation
Up to this point I'm thinking could be a bargain. But then find at last MOT advisory issued because front tyre close to legal limit.
How the hell can a front tyre be that worn after only 17,000 miles.

It is front wheel drive, but I had a brand new front wheel drive company car and the front tyres where replaced at 70,000 miles.

Do I walk away or dive in?
 
Last edited:
Sponsored Links
You don't tell us what car it is but many FWD cars get through front tyres in 17000 miles. Have a look at the car and decide if it looks low mileage. It may be low mileage but badly/hard driven. For £1000 you can't expect too much.
 
At that age I'd definitely look for cracks on the tyre walls and in the treads.
Look for kerbing on the wheels which could indicate a tracking issue. 17k is low for tyre replacement unless it's some oriental make - I've never had a FWD tyre that got anywhere near 70k !
Check for clutch problems if you can and peek at the pedal rubber too.
John :)
 
hmmm... I have a RWD car, that's gets through a full set in about 10k !
 
Sponsored Links
I've only seen photos, but the mileage does seem genuine and the car looks like brand new. I just find the tyre wear situation suspicious.
 
There are a lot of sites that you can use to check the cars history, Mots etc. But even if it's genuine, then you get issues with the engine seldom having got up to temperature etc. Loads of short journey can be as harmful as long ones.

It's very unlikely that the cars only done 17k from new, and more than likely that it's either gone round the clock, of had a new speedo fitted.
 
Link above is to DVSA MOT database, if it's been clocked it would have to have been before first in 2008 if they all tally up..
 
May have had a new engine? The reason I say that is I checked my old car out that I know had a new engine and the stated mileage had indeed gone down between MOTs
 
A quick scan of the rest of the car will reveal the mileage claims, the interior and general condition should be excellent, it’s not hard to tell. But the tyre theory is baloney. Same as the owners history, for that mileage say two owners would be expected, half a dozen suggests non genuine, these are pretty basic car buying checks.
 
May have had a new engine? The reason I say that is I checked my old car out that I know had a new engine and the stated mileage had indeed gone down between MOTs

But the mileage is that of the car, not just the engine, so it almost sounds as they took the opportunity to pull a fast one.
 
Despite the general scepticism it is perfectly possible for a 12 year-old car to have only covered 17k. My current steed had only done 40k in 21years & browsing it's history there were years when it had only been to the MOT station & I only now cover around 1.5k per year as I have the use of another car.
Check the AGE of the tyres, code is on the side-wall (explanation on-line) mine looked in excellent condition but were 22 years old & needless to say I had them changed. As for FWD tyre mileage we have a Mondeo that is never trashed & the fronts (mid £ range) last about 20k before they are down to my self-imposed change depth of 3mm.
 
But the mileage is that of the car, not just the engine, so it almost sounds as they took the opportunity to pull a fast one.

but as they are digitally held how can that happen surely when logging the mileage the DVLA would not accept a lower than previous MOT mileage ? Hence my assumption its not based on the whole car.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top