electivedeals

Guys, I'm looking to pick up a C63 AMG and I have around $40k budget. When looking at different cars, I have come across this scenario:

Car 1

2011 with 48k miles

Car 2

2009 with 22k miles


Which car would you choose? Assuming both have clean carfax and were well taken care of, would you take the newer with more mileage or older with less mileage? Why or why not? Thanks

Also, should I try to find a certified pre owned? And are the extended warranties worth the cash? I plan on keeping this car for at least 5+ years.

chrisridebike8

Usually mileage, but in this case, run the VIN on the 2011 and see if it's in the affected headbolt range. If it is, then I'd say mileage. But 2010+ has the newer mirrors and the 2011 might have some other updates. They are pretty much the same, excluding headbolts

AMG6.3

Lower mileage especially if you are planning on aftermarket warranty.

Diabolis

All other things being equal, I'd also recommend the lower mileage car - but the key here is "all other thigns being equal". If the 2011 is outside of the afffected VIN range for the headbolt issue, that alone might tip the scales in its favour. I'd certianly condsider options, how well it appears to have been kept, color, condition (look for wear on the drivers' side bolster), etc. Sometimes a car with 48K highway miles is a better buy than a car with 22K city miles. Does either one have a full service history? How many previous owners in each case? Ticking noises at start-up (valvetrain wear)?

CPO waranties are usually decent, at least for big-ticket items. Aftermerket - at least here in Canada - are not worth the paper they are printed on, but it could be different elsewhere. And, do keep the operating costs in mind, There are nor cheap cars and both are at the point where your're going to have to start putting money into them.

CarHopper

I'd look at service history. Could have low miles on the original oil for all you know. I'd rather have a car with 100k miles that saw regular service than 25k miles with poor service.

Otherwise, both with good history, I would go newer.

-Marlin-

If the 11 is past the headbolt change (engine serial number) forget the 2009.....and I don't care if it had 5 miles on it and the 11 had 40k.

roadtalontsi

Ill be the odd ball and disagree here. it all comes down to condition. that trumps mileage and age. Me personally id say Age is more important. A well maintained newer higher mileage car will have less probablems than a lower mileage oldy. When these cars sit parts rot on them. Everything rubber breaks down. I've seen 2yr old cars with 100k in better shape than 10yr old cars with 10k. It just depends how it was treated over those miles. Most people that can afford these cars and pack the miles on just buy everything anytime something goes wrong or when its due. The older cars with lower mileage are less likely to be well maintained unless they are regularly driven. They think hmmmm i dont really need to fix that leak, i hardly drive it. I dont need to replace maint. items even though they are due by time. why would a car with 20k need engine air filters? Ofcourse thats not always the case but usually it is.

D3-AMG

A lower mileage car can be an indication of it being a 3rd car for the person vs. primary transportation. 48k miles seems high for an '11 to me. Which would you rather have, the one not driven because it wasn't the primary work transport or the one they drove everywhere for everything, getting groceries, picking up the kids and taking them to McDonald's, etc.?

As roadtalontsi mentioned though, if the car sat because it had a problem they didn't/couldn't afford to fix then low miles will be misleading. Thus the need to know the full service history. Did they still change the oil even if it hadn't hit 5000 miles but it was past a certain amount of time since the last change?