Buying a bike -- importance of age vs. mileage

[tractorman]

Hello. Noobie here. I am thinking about purchasing a used GZ250 -- I'm 55, took the MSF safety course 9 years ago, and rode all of 10 miles on a bike that was too powerful and heavy for me and scared me. Never got on it again. I sat on a GZ250 and it seemed comfortable and fit me ergonomically.

I searched the forums and did not find my question discussed, although I may have missed it. Sorry if I did.

My question is this: Ideally it would be nice to buy a newer bike (say 2006 and newer) with low miles (say under 5000 miles.) But if you had the chance to buy an older bike, say 2000, with low miles, or a newer bike with 12-14,000 miles, for similar money, and they both look really good, how would you decide? I'm thinking about internal stuff you cannot see. Are there certain rubber or plastic parts (seals, tubing, air intake parts, etc.) that deteriorate with age and need replacing on an older bike regardless of how few miles it might have? How about those 10-year-old tires? (I know some people that say on a car, don't use a tire that old no matter how good the tread.) Assuming the newer bike has good tires, will the higher mileage make any difference?

I know when I buy used cars from a private owner I try to get a sense of how responsible they appear to be in terms of maintenance, etc., and place some importance on that. But buying from a dealer doesn't give you any sense of previous owners.

Your thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks.

Mark

[Easy Rider]

Originally Posted by tractorman

My question is this: Ideally it would be nice to buy a newer bike (say 2006 and newer) with low miles (say under 5000 miles.) But if you had the chance to buy an older bike, say 2000, with low miles, or a newer bike with 12-14,000 miles, for similar money, and they both look really good, how would you decide?

Given your example.....or even in that ball park, I'd take the newer model with more miles every time. It is often worse overall for it to be sitting idle than to be used regularly.

Now, if the newer one had over 30,000 miles, I might have to think about it a little longer.

Also, I think one of those sellers has an unrealistic price on their bike; probably the older one with low miles.

[tractorman]

OK, thanks for the quick reply, Easy Rider. That sort of goes along with my instincts, but I wanted to hear it from someone with experience.

My dad (deceased) always said that older cars with low miles "only driven around town by a little old lady" would probably have more problems in the long run, because they were not driven enough to keep seals and things from drying out and not driven hard enough to get the engine and transmission really warmed up.

[blaine]

Originally Posted by tractorman

My dad (deceased) always said that older cars with low miles "only driven around town by a little old lady" would probably have more problems in the long run, because they were not driven enough to keep seals and things from drying out and not driven hard enough to get the engine and transmission really warmed up.

:plus1: Welcome to the madness.

[music man]

I would have to agree, because there becomes a certain point where regardless of mileage and regular maintenance precautions taken, things start going bad/drying up/seizing up on a vehicle, and those things usually only start really poking their head up when it goes from sitting around all the time to being used all the time, so you could easily go look at a bike that had been sitting for a long time and even ride it, and it may not show many (if any) signs of problems, until.... you take it for a good long ride down the highway (about 10 minutes after you buy it) and it starts leaking, sputtering all kinds of fun stuff like that.

Not only that, but unless you are talking about a really old bike, you are probably not going to save a huge amount of money either, because low mileage older bikes don't really depreciate in value all that much.

[frempath]

I am going to add my (+1) to the rest.
My oldest son gave me his gz last christmas because he had moved up to a 750 in June and couldn't sell he gz for what he wanted. It had set for 6 months outside his apartment and it is a bit rough now, rusty in a number of places, rubber parts oxidized, and it took several tanks of carb cleaner and longer near wide open rides to get it right again. So, yes the bike ridden more frequently could be in better shape.

frempath

[diffluere]

I would agree also. I bought a 2002 last year with 4200 miles on it. So far i've replaced:

choke cable
clutch cable
front brake pads
tires
bolts for the headers (twice..grrrr...)

BUT I ride every day and don't have a garage. Young GZ gets rained on, sweaty, dirty, and covered in bugs on a daily basis. If someone had a garage and only rode in the warm sunshine it might be a different story. Plus, it SAT in a garage from 2002-2006 with 400 miles on it before the 2nd owner had it (I'm the third). Also, none of these things are very expensive except the tires, and even if you buy a 2006 you might want to get new tires anyway. I'm not sure how long batteries last but you might need a new one of those too.

[Water Warrior 2]

Bikes are just like the human body, they need exercise. A bike that is ridden on a fairly regular basis is probably better than a driveway ornament.