|
Re: "Original Miles"
CRWLR wrote:
> "twaldron" <thomas@OBVIOUSrubicons.com> wrote in message > news:ahyrc.1363$W_1.331@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com ... > >>Right. I'll agree with that. You just made a broad stroke comment that I >>didn't agree with. Age _can_ be a factor regardless of mileage. >> > > > Right, age _can_ be a factor regardless of mileage. That is why one should > not be concerned with the indicated mileage on a vehicle that old. I guess that's where we differ a little. I look for clean, low mileage, low owner, used vehicles and am always concerned with verifying mileage. In my opinion, it's better to find one like that, than its high mileage counterpart. This is all hinged upon being able to verify mileage. If something doesn't smell right, I walk away. -- __________________________________________________ _________ tw 03 TJ Rubicon - Rubicon Express 4.5" 01 XJ Sport There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness." -- Dave Barry Pronunciation: 'jEp Function: noun Date: 1940 Etymology: from g. p. (G= 'Government' P= '80 inch wheelbase') A small general-purpose motor vehicle with 80-inch wheelbase, 1/4-ton capacity, and four-wheel drive used by the U.S. army in World War II. (Please remove the OBVIOUS to reply by email) __________________________________________________ _________ |
Re: "Original Miles"
"twaldron" <thomas@OBVIOUSrubicons.com> wrote in message news:Imusc.278$Xt2.62@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com.. . > CRWLR wrote: > > "twaldron" <thomas@OBVIOUSrubicons.com> wrote in message > > news:ahyrc.1363$W_1.331@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com ... > > > >>Right. I'll agree with that. You just made a broad stroke comment that I > >>didn't agree with. Age _can_ be a factor regardless of mileage. > >> > > > > > > Right, age _can_ be a factor regardless of mileage. That is why one should > > not be concerned with the indicated mileage on a vehicle that old. > > I guess that's where we differ a little. I look for clean, low mileage, > low owner, used vehicles and am always concerned with verifying mileage. > In my opinion, it's better to find one like that, than its high mileage > counterpart. This is all hinged upon being able to verify mileage. If > something doesn't smell right, I walk away. > > I spent three weeks looking for my Jeep. I found several that were pure nightmares. "Ugly" would be too kind. When I found my CJ5, it was clean and well cared for, the mileage was not important because there are only 5 digits, and it is impossible to know how many times the left-most one had spun around. The Jeep passed all of the inspections I could dream up to throw at it, the mileage was not important, and should not be important on a unit that is that old. High mileage is relative, and the most relative part is the time it took to get high. If the mileage is high, and the unit is young, then be very leery. If the unit is old, then it is reasonable to expect the mileage to be high because miles are a function of age. A hundred and fifty thousand miles in 15 years is only 10,000 per year. The odometer might not be able to tell you if that 50,000 that is displayed is really 150,000 or 250,000. And the guy you are buying from is the second or third or fourth owner, then the reliability of the display becomes less and less trustworthy. The guy that started this thread came in with something to the effect that he was annoyed with the term "actual miles" or "low miles" or whatever. He also indicated that the object of his affection was one that might only have the 5-digit odometer. I still maintain that the actual miles might not be known, and are not really all that important. There are many indicators of the vehicle having been abused, and it can have been abused with low mileage, and been treated with tender loving care with high mileage. Given the context of the statement, the mileage is not important. Perhaps in another context, the mielage would be important, but not in the one the OP brought to the table. It is true that age can be a factor regardless of mileage, but mileage is usually a factor only when the age isn't there. |
Re: "Original Miles"
"twaldron" <thomas@OBVIOUSrubicons.com> wrote in message news:Imusc.278$Xt2.62@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com.. . > CRWLR wrote: > > "twaldron" <thomas@OBVIOUSrubicons.com> wrote in message > > news:ahyrc.1363$W_1.331@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com ... > > > >>Right. I'll agree with that. You just made a broad stroke comment that I > >>didn't agree with. Age _can_ be a factor regardless of mileage. > >> > > > > > > Right, age _can_ be a factor regardless of mileage. That is why one should > > not be concerned with the indicated mileage on a vehicle that old. > > I guess that's where we differ a little. I look for clean, low mileage, > low owner, used vehicles and am always concerned with verifying mileage. > In my opinion, it's better to find one like that, than its high mileage > counterpart. This is all hinged upon being able to verify mileage. If > something doesn't smell right, I walk away. > > I spent three weeks looking for my Jeep. I found several that were pure nightmares. "Ugly" would be too kind. When I found my CJ5, it was clean and well cared for, the mileage was not important because there are only 5 digits, and it is impossible to know how many times the left-most one had spun around. The Jeep passed all of the inspections I could dream up to throw at it, the mileage was not important, and should not be important on a unit that is that old. High mileage is relative, and the most relative part is the time it took to get high. If the mileage is high, and the unit is young, then be very leery. If the unit is old, then it is reasonable to expect the mileage to be high because miles are a function of age. A hundred and fifty thousand miles in 15 years is only 10,000 per year. The odometer might not be able to tell you if that 50,000 that is displayed is really 150,000 or 250,000. And the guy you are buying from is the second or third or fourth owner, then the reliability of the display becomes less and less trustworthy. The guy that started this thread came in with something to the effect that he was annoyed with the term "actual miles" or "low miles" or whatever. He also indicated that the object of his affection was one that might only have the 5-digit odometer. I still maintain that the actual miles might not be known, and are not really all that important. There are many indicators of the vehicle having been abused, and it can have been abused with low mileage, and been treated with tender loving care with high mileage. Given the context of the statement, the mileage is not important. Perhaps in another context, the mielage would be important, but not in the one the OP brought to the table. It is true that age can be a factor regardless of mileage, but mileage is usually a factor only when the age isn't there. |
Re: "Original Miles"
"twaldron" <thomas@OBVIOUSrubicons.com> wrote in message news:Imusc.278$Xt2.62@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com.. . > CRWLR wrote: > > "twaldron" <thomas@OBVIOUSrubicons.com> wrote in message > > news:ahyrc.1363$W_1.331@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com ... > > > >>Right. I'll agree with that. You just made a broad stroke comment that I > >>didn't agree with. Age _can_ be a factor regardless of mileage. > >> > > > > > > Right, age _can_ be a factor regardless of mileage. That is why one should > > not be concerned with the indicated mileage on a vehicle that old. > > I guess that's where we differ a little. I look for clean, low mileage, > low owner, used vehicles and am always concerned with verifying mileage. > In my opinion, it's better to find one like that, than its high mileage > counterpart. This is all hinged upon being able to verify mileage. If > something doesn't smell right, I walk away. > > I spent three weeks looking for my Jeep. I found several that were pure nightmares. "Ugly" would be too kind. When I found my CJ5, it was clean and well cared for, the mileage was not important because there are only 5 digits, and it is impossible to know how many times the left-most one had spun around. The Jeep passed all of the inspections I could dream up to throw at it, the mileage was not important, and should not be important on a unit that is that old. High mileage is relative, and the most relative part is the time it took to get high. If the mileage is high, and the unit is young, then be very leery. If the unit is old, then it is reasonable to expect the mileage to be high because miles are a function of age. A hundred and fifty thousand miles in 15 years is only 10,000 per year. The odometer might not be able to tell you if that 50,000 that is displayed is really 150,000 or 250,000. And the guy you are buying from is the second or third or fourth owner, then the reliability of the display becomes less and less trustworthy. The guy that started this thread came in with something to the effect that he was annoyed with the term "actual miles" or "low miles" or whatever. He also indicated that the object of his affection was one that might only have the 5-digit odometer. I still maintain that the actual miles might not be known, and are not really all that important. There are many indicators of the vehicle having been abused, and it can have been abused with low mileage, and been treated with tender loving care with high mileage. Given the context of the statement, the mileage is not important. Perhaps in another context, the mielage would be important, but not in the one the OP brought to the table. It is true that age can be a factor regardless of mileage, but mileage is usually a factor only when the age isn't there. |
Re: "Original Miles"
"twaldron" <thomas@OBVIOUSrubicons.com> wrote in message news:Imusc.278$Xt2.62@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com.. . > CRWLR wrote: > > "twaldron" <thomas@OBVIOUSrubicons.com> wrote in message > > news:ahyrc.1363$W_1.331@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com ... > > > >>Right. I'll agree with that. You just made a broad stroke comment that I > >>didn't agree with. Age _can_ be a factor regardless of mileage. > >> > > > > > > Right, age _can_ be a factor regardless of mileage. That is why one should > > not be concerned with the indicated mileage on a vehicle that old. > > I guess that's where we differ a little. I look for clean, low mileage, > low owner, used vehicles and am always concerned with verifying mileage. > In my opinion, it's better to find one like that, than its high mileage > counterpart. This is all hinged upon being able to verify mileage. If > something doesn't smell right, I walk away. > > I spent three weeks looking for my Jeep. I found several that were pure nightmares. "Ugly" would be too kind. When I found my CJ5, it was clean and well cared for, the mileage was not important because there are only 5 digits, and it is impossible to know how many times the left-most one had spun around. The Jeep passed all of the inspections I could dream up to throw at it, the mileage was not important, and should not be important on a unit that is that old. High mileage is relative, and the most relative part is the time it took to get high. If the mileage is high, and the unit is young, then be very leery. If the unit is old, then it is reasonable to expect the mileage to be high because miles are a function of age. A hundred and fifty thousand miles in 15 years is only 10,000 per year. The odometer might not be able to tell you if that 50,000 that is displayed is really 150,000 or 250,000. And the guy you are buying from is the second or third or fourth owner, then the reliability of the display becomes less and less trustworthy. The guy that started this thread came in with something to the effect that he was annoyed with the term "actual miles" or "low miles" or whatever. He also indicated that the object of his affection was one that might only have the 5-digit odometer. I still maintain that the actual miles might not be known, and are not really all that important. There are many indicators of the vehicle having been abused, and it can have been abused with low mileage, and been treated with tender loving care with high mileage. Given the context of the statement, the mileage is not important. Perhaps in another context, the mielage would be important, but not in the one the OP brought to the table. It is true that age can be a factor regardless of mileage, but mileage is usually a factor only when the age isn't there. |
Re: "Original Miles"
"CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:10b7t4hmtgn7udd@corp.supernews.com... > > "twaldron" <thomas@OBVIOUSrubicons.com> wrote in message > news:Imusc.278$Xt2.62@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com.. . > > CRWLR wrote: > > > "twaldron" <thomas@OBVIOUSrubicons.com> wrote in message > > > news:ahyrc.1363$W_1.331@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com ... > > > > > >>Right. I'll agree with that. You just made a broad stroke comment that I > > >>didn't agree with. Age _can_ be a factor regardless of mileage. > > >> > > > > > > > > > Right, age _can_ be a factor regardless of mileage. That is why one > should > > > not be concerned with the indicated mileage on a vehicle that old. > > > > I guess that's where we differ a little. I look for clean, low mileage, > > low owner, used vehicles and am always concerned with verifying mileage. > > In my opinion, it's better to find one like that, than its high mileage > > counterpart. This is all hinged upon being able to verify mileage. If > > something doesn't smell right, I walk away. > > > > > > I spent three weeks looking for my Jeep. I found several that were pure > nightmares. "Ugly" would be too kind. When I found my CJ5, it was clean and > well cared for, the mileage was not important because there are only 5 > digits, and it is impossible to know how many times the left-most one had > spun around. The Jeep passed all of the inspections I could dream up to > throw at it, the mileage was not important, and should not be important on a > unit that is that old. > > High mileage is relative, and the most relative part is the time it took to > get high. If the mileage is high, and the unit is young, then be very leery. > If the unit is old, then it is reasonable to expect the mileage to be high > because miles are a function of age. A hundred and fifty thousand miles in > 15 years is only 10,000 per year. The odometer might not be able to tell you > if that 50,000 that is displayed is really 150,000 or 250,000. And the guy > you are buying from is the second or third or fourth owner, then the > reliability of the display becomes less and less trustworthy. > > The guy that started this thread came in with something to the effect that > he was annoyed with the term "actual miles" or "low miles" or whatever. He > also indicated that the object of his affection was one that might only have > the 5-digit odometer. I still maintain that the actual miles might not be > known, and are not really all that important. There are many indicators of > the vehicle having been abused, and it can have been abused with low > mileage, and been treated with tender loving care with high mileage. Given > the context of the statement, the mileage is not important. Perhaps in > another context, the mielage would be important, but not in the one the OP > brought to the table. > > It is true that age can be a factor regardless of mileage, but mileage is > usually a factor only when the age isn't there. With any vehicle that old it simply becomes a matter of "condition, condition, condition." |
Re: "Original Miles"
"CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:10b7t4hmtgn7udd@corp.supernews.com... > > "twaldron" <thomas@OBVIOUSrubicons.com> wrote in message > news:Imusc.278$Xt2.62@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com.. . > > CRWLR wrote: > > > "twaldron" <thomas@OBVIOUSrubicons.com> wrote in message > > > news:ahyrc.1363$W_1.331@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com ... > > > > > >>Right. I'll agree with that. You just made a broad stroke comment that I > > >>didn't agree with. Age _can_ be a factor regardless of mileage. > > >> > > > > > > > > > Right, age _can_ be a factor regardless of mileage. That is why one > should > > > not be concerned with the indicated mileage on a vehicle that old. > > > > I guess that's where we differ a little. I look for clean, low mileage, > > low owner, used vehicles and am always concerned with verifying mileage. > > In my opinion, it's better to find one like that, than its high mileage > > counterpart. This is all hinged upon being able to verify mileage. If > > something doesn't smell right, I walk away. > > > > > > I spent three weeks looking for my Jeep. I found several that were pure > nightmares. "Ugly" would be too kind. When I found my CJ5, it was clean and > well cared for, the mileage was not important because there are only 5 > digits, and it is impossible to know how many times the left-most one had > spun around. The Jeep passed all of the inspections I could dream up to > throw at it, the mileage was not important, and should not be important on a > unit that is that old. > > High mileage is relative, and the most relative part is the time it took to > get high. If the mileage is high, and the unit is young, then be very leery. > If the unit is old, then it is reasonable to expect the mileage to be high > because miles are a function of age. A hundred and fifty thousand miles in > 15 years is only 10,000 per year. The odometer might not be able to tell you > if that 50,000 that is displayed is really 150,000 or 250,000. And the guy > you are buying from is the second or third or fourth owner, then the > reliability of the display becomes less and less trustworthy. > > The guy that started this thread came in with something to the effect that > he was annoyed with the term "actual miles" or "low miles" or whatever. He > also indicated that the object of his affection was one that might only have > the 5-digit odometer. I still maintain that the actual miles might not be > known, and are not really all that important. There are many indicators of > the vehicle having been abused, and it can have been abused with low > mileage, and been treated with tender loving care with high mileage. Given > the context of the statement, the mileage is not important. Perhaps in > another context, the mielage would be important, but not in the one the OP > brought to the table. > > It is true that age can be a factor regardless of mileage, but mileage is > usually a factor only when the age isn't there. With any vehicle that old it simply becomes a matter of "condition, condition, condition." |
Re: "Original Miles"
"CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:10b7t4hmtgn7udd@corp.supernews.com... > > "twaldron" <thomas@OBVIOUSrubicons.com> wrote in message > news:Imusc.278$Xt2.62@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com.. . > > CRWLR wrote: > > > "twaldron" <thomas@OBVIOUSrubicons.com> wrote in message > > > news:ahyrc.1363$W_1.331@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com ... > > > > > >>Right. I'll agree with that. You just made a broad stroke comment that I > > >>didn't agree with. Age _can_ be a factor regardless of mileage. > > >> > > > > > > > > > Right, age _can_ be a factor regardless of mileage. That is why one > should > > > not be concerned with the indicated mileage on a vehicle that old. > > > > I guess that's where we differ a little. I look for clean, low mileage, > > low owner, used vehicles and am always concerned with verifying mileage. > > In my opinion, it's better to find one like that, than its high mileage > > counterpart. This is all hinged upon being able to verify mileage. If > > something doesn't smell right, I walk away. > > > > > > I spent three weeks looking for my Jeep. I found several that were pure > nightmares. "Ugly" would be too kind. When I found my CJ5, it was clean and > well cared for, the mileage was not important because there are only 5 > digits, and it is impossible to know how many times the left-most one had > spun around. The Jeep passed all of the inspections I could dream up to > throw at it, the mileage was not important, and should not be important on a > unit that is that old. > > High mileage is relative, and the most relative part is the time it took to > get high. If the mileage is high, and the unit is young, then be very leery. > If the unit is old, then it is reasonable to expect the mileage to be high > because miles are a function of age. A hundred and fifty thousand miles in > 15 years is only 10,000 per year. The odometer might not be able to tell you > if that 50,000 that is displayed is really 150,000 or 250,000. And the guy > you are buying from is the second or third or fourth owner, then the > reliability of the display becomes less and less trustworthy. > > The guy that started this thread came in with something to the effect that > he was annoyed with the term "actual miles" or "low miles" or whatever. He > also indicated that the object of his affection was one that might only have > the 5-digit odometer. I still maintain that the actual miles might not be > known, and are not really all that important. There are many indicators of > the vehicle having been abused, and it can have been abused with low > mileage, and been treated with tender loving care with high mileage. Given > the context of the statement, the mileage is not important. Perhaps in > another context, the mielage would be important, but not in the one the OP > brought to the table. > > It is true that age can be a factor regardless of mileage, but mileage is > usually a factor only when the age isn't there. With any vehicle that old it simply becomes a matter of "condition, condition, condition." |
Re: "Original Miles"
"CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:10b7t4hmtgn7udd@corp.supernews.com... > > "twaldron" <thomas@OBVIOUSrubicons.com> wrote in message > news:Imusc.278$Xt2.62@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com.. . > > CRWLR wrote: > > > "twaldron" <thomas@OBVIOUSrubicons.com> wrote in message > > > news:ahyrc.1363$W_1.331@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com ... > > > > > >>Right. I'll agree with that. You just made a broad stroke comment that I > > >>didn't agree with. Age _can_ be a factor regardless of mileage. > > >> > > > > > > > > > Right, age _can_ be a factor regardless of mileage. That is why one > should > > > not be concerned with the indicated mileage on a vehicle that old. > > > > I guess that's where we differ a little. I look for clean, low mileage, > > low owner, used vehicles and am always concerned with verifying mileage. > > In my opinion, it's better to find one like that, than its high mileage > > counterpart. This is all hinged upon being able to verify mileage. If > > something doesn't smell right, I walk away. > > > > > > I spent three weeks looking for my Jeep. I found several that were pure > nightmares. "Ugly" would be too kind. When I found my CJ5, it was clean and > well cared for, the mileage was not important because there are only 5 > digits, and it is impossible to know how many times the left-most one had > spun around. The Jeep passed all of the inspections I could dream up to > throw at it, the mileage was not important, and should not be important on a > unit that is that old. > > High mileage is relative, and the most relative part is the time it took to > get high. If the mileage is high, and the unit is young, then be very leery. > If the unit is old, then it is reasonable to expect the mileage to be high > because miles are a function of age. A hundred and fifty thousand miles in > 15 years is only 10,000 per year. The odometer might not be able to tell you > if that 50,000 that is displayed is really 150,000 or 250,000. And the guy > you are buying from is the second or third or fourth owner, then the > reliability of the display becomes less and less trustworthy. > > The guy that started this thread came in with something to the effect that > he was annoyed with the term "actual miles" or "low miles" or whatever. He > also indicated that the object of his affection was one that might only have > the 5-digit odometer. I still maintain that the actual miles might not be > known, and are not really all that important. There are many indicators of > the vehicle having been abused, and it can have been abused with low > mileage, and been treated with tender loving care with high mileage. Given > the context of the statement, the mileage is not important. Perhaps in > another context, the mielage would be important, but not in the one the OP > brought to the table. > > It is true that age can be a factor regardless of mileage, but mileage is > usually a factor only when the age isn't there. With any vehicle that old it simply becomes a matter of "condition, condition, condition." |
Re: "Original Miles"
CRWLR wrote:
> "twaldron" <thomas@OBVIOUSrubicons.com> wrote in message > news:Imusc.278$Xt2.62@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com.. . > >>CRWLR wrote: >> >>>"twaldron" <thomas@OBVIOUSrubicons.com> wrote in message >>>news:ahyrc.1363$W_1.331@newssvr22.news.prodigy. com... >>> >>> >>>>Right. I'll agree with that. You just made a broad stroke comment that I >>>>didn't agree with. Age _can_ be a factor regardless of mileage. >>>> >>> >>> >>>Right, age _can_ be a factor regardless of mileage. That is why one > > should > >>>not be concerned with the indicated mileage on a vehicle that old. >> >>I guess that's where we differ a little. I look for clean, low mileage, >>low owner, used vehicles and am always concerned with verifying mileage. >>In my opinion, it's better to find one like that, than its high mileage >>counterpart. This is all hinged upon being able to verify mileage. If >>something doesn't smell right, I walk away. >> >> > > > I spent three weeks looking for my Jeep. I found several that were pure > nightmares. "Ugly" would be too kind. When I found my CJ5, it was clean and > well cared for, the mileage was not important because there are only 5 > digits, and it is impossible to know how many times the left-most one had > spun around. The Jeep passed all of the inspections I could dream up to > throw at it, the mileage was not important, and should not be important on a > unit that is that old. > > High mileage is relative, and the most relative part is the time it took to > get high. If the mileage is high, and the unit is young, then be very leery. > If the unit is old, then it is reasonable to expect the mileage to be high > because miles are a function of age. A hundred and fifty thousand miles in > 15 years is only 10,000 per year. The odometer might not be able to tell you > if that 50,000 that is displayed is really 150,000 or 250,000. And the guy > you are buying from is the second or third or fourth owner, then the > reliability of the display becomes less and less trustworthy. > > The guy that started this thread came in with something to the effect that > he was annoyed with the term "actual miles" or "low miles" or whatever. He > also indicated that the object of his affection was one that might only have > the 5-digit odometer. I still maintain that the actual miles might not be > known, and are not really all that important. There are many indicators of > the vehicle having been abused, and it can have been abused with low > mileage, and been treated with tender loving care with high mileage. Given > the context of the statement, the mileage is not important. Perhaps in > another context, the mielage would be important, but not in the one the OP > brought to the table. > > It is true that age can be a factor regardless of mileage, but mileage is > usually a factor only when the age isn't there. > > Which would you buy? Exibit A: 1986 CJ7, 4 spd, 258k miles (not sure, odo broke in 1992), garaged, all service records. $5800. Exibit B: 1986 CJ7, 4 spd, one owner, 26k verifiable miles, garaged since new, all service records. $5800. -- __________________________________________________ _________ tw 03 TJ Rubicon - Rubicon Express 4.5" 01 XJ Sport There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness." -- Dave Barry Pronunciation: 'jEp Function: noun Date: 1940 Etymology: from g. p. (G= 'Government' P= '80 inch wheelbase') A small general-purpose motor vehicle with 80-inch wheelbase, 1/4-ton capacity, and four-wheel drive used by the U.S. army in World War II. (Please remove the OBVIOUS to reply by email) __________________________________________________ _________ |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:38 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands