Bumpyroad wrote:
soren I largely agree with you except I consider the life expectancy of my vehicles to be largely based on mileage, the wearing out of mechanical parts, so I highly value low mileage on any motorized vehicle I buy.
Now I fully realize that those with worn out hulks with 150,000 miles on them have a different view than I do.
bumpy
I wholeheartedly agree. The issue in my last post is strictly based on the fraudulent "Bump" that the guides give for "low" miles. If I'm looking to determine low retail for an eight year old coach, with 35K miles on it, the guide may add 7% to the total for low mileage. Bottom line is that the majority of units I viewed seemed to have 3-5K miles per year on them. So, IMHO, adding a few grand to the value based on the fact that it has typical mileage on it doesn't add up.
I actually laughed at a salesman from Lazy Days a few weeks ago, when he used the guide to play that game. We go into a newer gas rig with a massive amount of miles on it, and he says, "well it's not like a car, these things are meant to be used, so it's better to find one like this, than one that was just parked". A day later he calls to discuss another unit that was overpriced by $25K. So, I'm trying to get him to give me a straight answer as to why I should pay 25K more than this thing is worth? Well, $11K is a bump for the incredibly low miles. LOL, all you can really do is end the conversation politely, why try to reason with a snake?