So many people talk about how they would never buy a vehicle that has over 100K miles on it. While I can understand if it was 15-20 years old and not wanting to do it, since alot of older cars didnt really have the quality as newer cars have. If a car was only 6-7 years old and it had over 100K miles, I think it would be fine considering a car that young in age probably just has all highway miles. Plus the quality on cars has a really long way over the last 10 years.

Im asking because Im looking at buying another chevy truck thats a 2003 with 135K on the odometer. I checked it out, drove it, and its in good condition. I just dont see why people think that once a vehicle hits 100K, its dead and no good anymore. Cars can last way past 100K as long as they were taken care of properly.

 

cars "can" last a lot longer than 100k now a days

problem is we dont know if its 100k of WOT miles or 100k of babying it and doing its routine services, EXPECIALLY on a chevy truck like your lookin at

i sware people dont know how to read the owners manual anymore, i had more 100k plus chevy trucks with blown transmissions and leaking intake gaskets cuz they never changed the fluids pass through my old shop than i care to mention

 

If the service records are there and it passes a thorough inspection, why not?

 

i totally agree. i think 1997 was the benchmark for good cars. but i wouldn't buy one because 100k is a lot of miles to beat on. you would have to know the records, or how many owners the car has had. i bought my car with 80k but it was 5 years old at the time. some Korean guy had it. all commuter miles. i KNEW what i was buying.