Found 93 with low mileage but... problem

[lollolboy]

I have found 93 with 33000 miles. The owner said maintenance is up to date with timing belt has been changed. However I have ran carfax and it says that it has Inconsistent Odometer Reading.

Until March 13, 2000 the car was reading 25,400 miles but in Oct 13, 2000 at the dealer they registered as 10,390 miles but on April 3, 2003 the vehicle had 26,990 at another dealer inventory.


Anyhow, should I really be concern about this matter?
What are the chances that the dealer posted wrong miles?


Thank you

 

[nsxtasy]

should I really be concern about this matter?

No.

What are the chances that the dealer posted wrong miles?

Extremely high. Odometer rollbacks are only done when they matter - i.e. from very high miles to not so high miles, with big differences. It's highly unlikely that anyone would roll it back from 25K to 10K and then put 15K miles on it.

 

[lollolboy]

sounds good :smile:

 

[MCM]

Any way to check smog receipts? Or other receipts from service?

 

[Aero]

My car showed a odometer rollback on it once cause an inspection station inputted the miles as 133k (year before it was 31k) instead of 33k. I had to show that the car couldn't hadn't been driven 102k in a year. I got carfax to remove it and correct the mileage.
Track down the owners and see if they have receipts or anything.

 

[Bram]

Buy the car it is definitely a mistake by Carfax...33K in 13 years.

Bram

I have found 93 with 33000 miles. The owner said maintenance is up to date with timing belt has been changed. However I have ran carfax and it says that it has Inconsistent Odometer Reading.

Until March 13, 2000 the car was reading 25,400 miles but in Oct 13, 2000 at the dealer they registered as 10,390 miles but on April 3, 2003 the vehicle had 26,990 at another dealer inventory.


Anyhow, should I really be concern about this matter?
What are the chances that the dealer posted wrong miles?


Thank you

 

[comtec]

The oct 13,2000 reading by itself wouldn't bother me because it looks like a mistake. But two of the readings look a little funny to me. First you have the low miles of the oct. 13 reading but looking at the first (March 13, 2000 the car was reading 25,400) and last reading (April 3, 2003 the vehicle had 26,990) It looks like the car was only driven 1590 miles in 3 years. If the car was rolled back to 10,390 than that would mean in about 2.5 years the car was driven around 16,600 miles (reasonable). Unless the car was stored than the 1590 in three years is not likely. Of course the first reading could be wrong, but 25,000 for a 7 year old is normal so i would think it was correct.

Remember that if you buy this car and you decide to sell sometime in the future, people will be asking you to explain the mileage difference. There are alot of cars available at the moment in this year range, so i would pass and look for another one.

Good luck in your search
Mike

 

[lollolboy]

The owner did not post his VIN on the ad. Which probably means that he is aware with this problem. And I haven't spoke to the seller about this issue and I should do so to clear things up. Thanks for advises. :smile:

 

[nsxtasy]

It looks like the car was only driven 1590 miles in 3 years.

That's quite possible. It happens all the time with NSXs.

Unless the car was stored than the 1590 in three years is not likely.

I disagree.

Remember that if you buy this car and you decide to sell sometime in the future, people will be asking you to explain the mileage difference.

Only if they are absolutely clueless about the frequency of mileage errors and the circumstances in which actuall rollbacks occur.

i would pass and look for another one.

If you pass for this implausible reason, then you are likely to find reasons to pass on every other car you look at as well.

 

[comtec]

If you pass for this implausible reason, then you are likely to find reasons to pass on every other car you look at as well.

Actually, I am picking my car up friday.

Mike

 

[Ski_Banker]

Add value -- buy the car, as is with the incorrect carfax, get carfax fixed, and enjoy a little value bump come resale time. Could be a sweet deal.

 

[nsxtasy]

Add value -- buy the car, as is with the incorrect carfax, get carfax fixed, and enjoy a little value bump come resale time. Could be a sweet deal.

Only if you somehow convince the seller that the car is worth less as a result of what is obviously an entry error in the Carfax records. If the seller is so stupid that he believes that, then he is stupid enough to sell the car for less than its market value. THAT'S why you would get a "value bump", not because the car is worth less now (which it's not).

 

[Ski_Banker]

Only if you somehow convince the seller that the car is worth less as a result of what is obviously an entry error in the Carfax records. If the seller is so stupid that he believes that, then he is stupid enough to sell the car for less than its market value. THAT'S why you would get a "value bump", not because the car is worth less now (which it's not).

I'm assuming it is not a 1 owner car, so the seller can't be 100% certain it isn't true. Either way, it is a blemish "on the record" which you would use in your negotiations.

Nice meeting you at Sebring, BTW. :smile:

 

[nsxtasy]

I'm assuming it is not a 1 owner car, so the seller can't be 100% certain it isn't true. Either way, it is a blemish "on the record" which you would use in your negotiations.

Hey, any way you can try to talk a seller down on price, feel free!

Nice meeting you at Sebring, BTW. :smile:

Same here. (But I wouldn't say the same thing to those awful "love bugs"... )