The term "low Km" is used very loosely...

[RAPID_BA]

What do we consider as low km?

It seems that every yard these days wants to use the term "low km" on their cars. But when you check the km its high. Years back a low km car was a low km car but these days the term is used very loosely.

Just on the weekend, I walked into a car yard and saw a BOSS 260 ute that looked ok. It had the obligatory "low km" sticker on the windscreen. When I asked the salesman how many km it had, he says "only 166,000"...

Only 166000???

What do you consider the rule to be when using the term "low Km"

[flappist]

If that was a 2002 BA ute then it has only done 16,000km per year which is quite low, far less than the average for that type of vehicle.

[FALCONXTV8]

I'd consider low k's to be less than 10,000KM per year since the vehicle was made. That makes all my cars low k's

[RASER]

I think you should buy the car based on the condition, not just the milage

Any more than 15,000km/pa for a private vehicle is a lot, our family [her] car is like 8500km/pa

<15,000km a year it would be cheaper to get taxi/bus/train etc by the time you calculate fuel, maintance, insurance, rego, depreciation etc

[Cheese3]

10,000km or less per a year since it was made, is what i would consider low km's . . .

[Kryton]

Depends of the age of the vehicle.
If its 1 year old and done 80000km, its high Km's.
If its 10 years old and done 80000km, its low Km's.

[flappist]

I love the less than 100,000km comment.

My BA GT-P had 85,000km on it when I sold it in January 2005 (bought new 7/5/2003) so by your logic it was low km car despite being only 20 months old......

[Kryton]

Originally Posted by flappist

I love the less than 100,000km comment.

My BA GT-P had 85,000km on it when I sold it in January 2005 (bought new 7/5/2003) so by your logic it was low km car despite being only 20 months old......

What less than 100000km comment and whose logic are you referring to.

EDIT: nevermind - seen your referring to the Poll.

[RedHotGT]

Low KM is a greatly overused term - bit like the word 'Original' (way more overused in the old cars).

So - and XE Falcon with 400,000km on it - is a Low KM car?
(1982 - 2012 is 30 years, only 14,000km a year driven in it?)

Its gotta be relative to the year and the usage. 10 year old car with less than 100,000km I would think would be considered 'Low KM' but then, I have a friend with a 2005 Monaro that has 1500km on it... So what do we call that?

Its simply a buzz word - bit like real estate advertising. 'Has Potential' = this crappy house needs a lot of work, 'Cozy' = so small your couch won't even fit. That sort of rubbish...

[nstg8a]

Originally Posted by loftie

I have a friend with a 2005 Monaro that has 1500km on it... So what do we call that?

A waste of a good car.

[Murph-51]

2000 AU XR8 with 94K on it, I consider that not even run in lol

[RAPID_BA]

I think the under 100,000km full stop option has plenty of credence.

Its a measurement of use, after 100,000km the car is past its best and cannot be referred to as low km, as new etc etc, despite the age. The age would make it worse as it has age wear and tear also even with no use.

Just because years pass doesnt make the 100,000km less of a number. So whether done over two years as opposed to over 10 years, its still 100,000km...same

With regard to the ute in the opening post, 166,000km is a hell of a lot of km despite the age of the car. Should never be called low km.

[Smoke Pursuit]

5,000 km per year is "low" km from my book....

4 year old with 20,000 kms is low km!

10 year old with 50,000 km is low km....

[GasoLane]

Sooo, I guess my company vehicle that is 5 years old and has 1.8 million k's up so far wouldn't scrape in ?

[XARATE]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

Sooo, I guess my company vehicle that is 5 years old and has 1.8 million k's up so far wouldn't scrape in ?

That would sit high in the reliable catagory

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by HULK_BA

I think the under 100,000km full stop option has plenty of credence.

Its a measurement of use, after 100,000km the car is past its best and cannot be referred to as low km, as new etc etc, despite the age. The age would make it worse as it has age wear and tear also even with no use.

Just because years pass doesnt make the 100,000km less of a number. So whether done over two years as opposed to over 10 years, its still 100,000km...same

With regard to the ute in the opening post, 166,000km is a hell of a lot of km despite the age of the car. Should never be called low km.

I will just have to say a few things on that post (and thread) which really is just so wrong in SO many ways ..... and it is not an opinion but fact. It is a measure of how many times the wheels rotated!!!! It measures nothing else!!!!!!! Can you grasp this concept please?

There is no reason that once a car hits that magic 100,000 is suddenly old. How old is this car that hit 100,000? An XB or a 2 month old FG11?

Where was it serviced and how often? Was it garaged? 5 small kids driven to the school and back never getting warm? Old couple who take the country road to town once a week? Used the correct oil and driven appropriat;y? Dragged at Calder everyweek and stored in the garage the rest of the time?

I am sorry but you have dragged this topic up so many times and really is beyond comprehesion to most why you think like this (Bit like why I bother responding! )

I would love a 300,000k XA RPO Coupe in the garage. I would love a 2 million km XA RPO Coupe in the garage!!!

You are missing out on some great cars ...... just go by condition as no one else can get it through to you but ...... MILEAGE MEANS NOTHING!!!!! GO BY CONDITION!!!!!

That BA you quoted ..... if in good nic, serviced and been looked after is a MUCH MUCH MUCH better buy that the same car with 50k;s on the clock that has been used down at the local timber yard during the week and Heathcote every other weekend.

Continue to ignore those well looked after cars PLEASE ........ leaves good pickings to the rest of us.

[Cambo351]

100'000km is really just a psychological barrier these days. Modern cars can handle much more kms than those of 30 years ago.

I'd consider less than 10'000kms per year as low, up to the 100K limit.

Example; I have two cars, both built in late 2004, X-Type has 67'000kms (8'375km per year = low) the XJR 149'000kms (18'625km per year = high) but there is a joker in the pack.

The XJR has only done 7000kms in the last three years. So in it's first five years it actually did 28'400km per year. That's "very high".

Not exactly on topic but high-mileage doesn't put me off, those 28'400km per year were 90% highway miles. No problem for a modern car to eat up.

Less than 10K per year up to 100K = low

More than 100K can never be called low unless the car is more than 20 years old (less than 5K per year).

My two cents...

[Ben73]

I'd say less then 10,000kms a year, For 10 years. Anything more that maybe be lower then average, but I wouldn't call it low kms

[BENT_8]

When used by car yards the term 'Low K's' is in relation to the vehicles age.

If an 02 AU3 has less than 120k's it would be considered to have 'low k's' for its age.

I never buy a car simply because it has low k's alone, it must be considered as part of the bigger picture.
Many country cars can do high k's but the vehicle has done much less work than a suburban vehicle with half the k's.

I recently went looking for a seven seater 4x4.
Prado's for under 10k had 300+k's and many presented as tidy despite the k's.
Ideally i wanted a steroid model 99 Pajero V6, however for that money they were pretty banged up and with 250+k's.
During my searches i stumbled across a 99 Jackaroo 3.5l V6 Auto with T.O.D 4x4, ARB front bar, cargo barrier, JVC headunit with reverse camera, new road tyres and 200.000k's.
Now without seeing the vehicle you proberbly think, yep 12 year old 4x with 200k's, cant be too flash.

I ended up buying it on the spot as it turned out to be 1 owner, full service history, never been offroad and in immaculate condition for a little over $7k
.
Despite the k's it has only done 15,500/yr which would be considered 'low k's' for a 4wd.

Its all relevant to the vehicle in question.

[FPVGT500]

I would be less worried about the dealer saying only 166,000Km, at least he didn't wind it back to 80,000Km and you fell for it. My 2 Cents

[XARATE]

I just bought myself a second car, looked good, drove well and i bought it. I forgor to look at the kms before i payed for it and as it turns out the odmeter stopped working 12 months ago at 240,000km. Buy you know what? Im happy with it because reguardles of the kms its in the condition i want and the car i want

[302 XC]

Its really irrelevant is the big scheme
Unless the car has done more than the average of 20K a year,its classed as high,regardless of its age
Ive a 97 import here with 160 genuine fully serviced Ks, and a 97 nissan patrol with 230 K genuine fully serviced
Id safely trust the patrol all day every day
Ive a 84 patrol here showing 160 K since new, its overall condition is certainly not showing in its Ks, but hey its low Ks
My AU ute has done over 30K a year ( since new till now),mite not go as well as one less Ks, but the rapid rate they depreciate nowadays its really irrelevant , unless its some rare,numbered build cotton wool covered car

[2002au]

Dads ba xr8 devil R has 22,000kms on it and it's 7 years old. If I were him I'd be driving it constantly ;) gotta enjoy it!

My 02 au xr6 has almost 144,000 Kms and I still think that's not too bad. Certainly not low but

Kms don't really worrie me, just keep it maintained

[XAGSV8]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

Sooo, I guess my company vehicle that is 5 years old and has 1.8 million k's up so far wouldn't scrape in ?

It would if you wind the odometer back. No one would notice the difference.

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by XAGSV8

It would if you wind the odometer back. No one would notice the difference.

......... then you could sell it to Hulk for a right royal profit!

[AU Mont]

somebody forgot to tell my 167,000km AU Ghia its not supposed to drive better than the 100,000km AU Ghia it replaced

[TheInterceptor]

Bought my wagon with 132,878kms, after being a bit over a decade old and going by other AUII wagons on the market at that time, its what i classed as low kms. And i still do at the 137,650ish that it is at the moment.

[Rodge]

Originally Posted by DASH GT

5,000 km per year is "low" km from my book....

4 year old with 20,000 kms is low km!

10 year old with 50,000 km is low km....

I'm with Dash on this one but would probably stretch to about 7,000 km's per year, (apparently that's half the average annual use of private motorists). Anything less than half the average is genuine low km's by my reckoning e.g. 5 year old vehicle done 35,000 km's...is something I think almost everyone would agree is genuinely low km's...and I tend to agree that the term is being heavily over-used these days and more often than not in a disingenious way. My 2 cents.

[pottery beige]

Originally Posted by RASER

I think you should buy the car based on the condition, not just the milage

Any more than 15,000km/pa for a private vehicle is a lot, our family [her] car is like 8500km/pa

<15,000km a year it would be cheaper to get taxi/bus/train etc by the time you calculate fuel, maintance, insurance, rego, depreciation etc

where do you pluck your figures from.. out of your ..

$5-600+ a week in taxis.. no thanks.. ill keep daily driving the GT..

btw DOT AU 100k boogey man.. my BA shows 46k.. avg 5k year..

very hard kilometres that 46k.. i have no doubt there are some 150k plus in much better condition..

[tranquilized]

Originally Posted by Auslandau

I will just have to say a few things on that post (and thread) which really is just so wrong in SO many ways ..... and it is not an opinion but fact. It is a measure of how many times the wheels rotated!!!! It measures nothing else!!!!!!! Can you grasp this concept please?


You are missing out on some great cars ...... just go by condition as no one else can get it through to you but ...... MILEAGE MEANS NOTHING!!!!! GO BY CONDITION!!!!!

That BA you quoted ..... if in good nic, serviced and been looked after is a MUCH MUCH MUCH better buy that the same car with 50k;s on the clock that has been used down at the local timber yard during the week and Heathcote every other weekend.

Continue to ignore those well looked after cars PLEASE ........ leaves good pickings to the rest of us.

I get what you’re saying, and your half right - but only half.

How exactly are you able to determine, without any doubt, that the high mileage car your looking at buying has been meticulously maintained? And, how can you tell if the low mileage example hasn't been? Sure, there are tell tail signs and you can make an educated decision. But at the end of the day, when buying a second hand car I'll always look for the one with the most transparent history, best looked after etc etc, but crucially - with the lowest km's possible.

Of two cars with ballpark mileage, I would take the higher km car if it was clearly in better condition, but after a certain age/mileage ratio, I wouldn't even look at it - even if it’s just to protect my resale value down the track. Obviously this wouldn't apply if you’re talking about a classic car that has been, or is going to be rebuilt.


From my own experience, I have a 1999 XH van that’s done 180,000km, which I consider quite low given that you'll struggle to find any under 200,000. I bought it when it had done 125,000 in early 2007 - at the time I couldn't find one under 300,000km. They're pretty much all city km's too, but mechanically the old girl is still healthier than most other 10 year old Fords I see getting around.