Silk wrote:akirk wrote:Do you really believe this, or do you just get your kicks from posting rubbish online?!
I like to look at things from a different point of view now and again. If you prefer to believe everything you read without question, perhaps this thread isn't for you.
If that is the case there are ways of phrasing it / exploring other views which aren't bluntly condoning them - perhaps the way it is written needs to be examined?
Silk wrote:akirk wrote:If a car at 150,000 miles (well looked after) is in your view the same as a car of 30,000 miles, would that 150k car not have been in even better condition at 30k?! Your logic is flawed.
No, YOUR logic is flawed. At 30K the car was less than 9 months old.
Precisely - so it will be in better condition - how do you therefore think that makes the 150,000 car the same or better?! Even where you have a car doing 30,000 over the same timescale as one doing 150,000 it will be in better condition, however you look after the 150,000 car - unless you are replacing all the non-consumables as well...
Silk wrote:akirk wrote:There is no way that with two cars both looked after identically one at 150,000 will ever be the same or better than one at 30,000 - there will always be elements that are more worn - the brake pads might have been replaced, but the carpets / the seats / the headliner, the chassis, the engine, etc. etc. etc. will all be worse...
I've already pointed out that the consumables would have been replaced during routing servicing. With regards to the general condition of the car. Anyone, including some on this forum who have seen for themselves, will testify that my cars are always in practically mint condition, regardless of mileage. On the other hand, I know of cars that have only covered average mileage that look like the inside of a skip. So, yes, there's every possibility that my high-milers are in better condition in *every* respect than an equivalent low-miler that's been treated badly.
Ah - okay, now we see the true view - a car that is treated well will be in better condition than one that isn't...
True, and we were in agreement there early on... however that doesn't carry on to your view that two cars identically treated, one at 150,000 and one at 30,000 are the same - they won't be, we all know that is tosh
As the concept of clocking as you advocate only works in that theoretical scenario, it is flawed - a car which does 150,000 looked after well, and then clocked back to 30,000 will give the impression of being the same as a car treated well to 30,000 and not clocked - but will be more tired / in worse condition in lots of places which even the most fastidious owner will not keep as new - it is therefore deceptive / a fraud, the purchaser will not get the same condition car...
it doesn't matter how you look at it - every argument you pose, clocking is legally fraud, and mileage is never the only difference - if you can run two identical cars for 5 years (30k / 6k a year) and then put them in for concours condition having clocked the 150,000 back to 30,000 and the judges find no difference I would be amazed - it just won't happen, unless you replace the interiors / chassis / engine / the whole car!
if the thesis of your argument had been - "why are people so absorbed by mileage as a determinator of condition" then you would probably have had a lot of support - I have bought / run lots of higher mileage cars and enjoyed trouble free motoring generally - but an out and out advocation of criminality is hardly going to be supported...
Alasdair