Originally Posted by Johnny Rad
Yeah, that '07 GX with 97k mi for $6k more doesn't have navi and certainly doesn't look any better condition-wise than the '06 for $15k.
Sure the mileage is high(er), but come on. Sometimes high line cars get the mileage hit doubled, but come on.
Either the '07 is over-priced or the '06 that the OP is looking at is under-priced. I personally think it's a great deal on the '06.
Unless I'm looking at something incorrectly, the 2007 has 76,000 miles on it, and, thus, the 2006 has about 60,000 more miles on it than the 2007. That is quite a significant difference, and, combined with the 2007 being a year newer, the price difference doesn't really seem out of line.
Plus, without being able to inspect and compare the two vehicles in person, there is no way to know how they compare to each other with regard to body wear and tear, interior condition, etc. I know that my 2005 ES only has a little over 40,000 miles on it. The body shows no wear and tear whatever. It has no dings, paint chips, scratches, etc., and the interior is equally nice. While I have no plans to sell it in the near future, if I were going to sell it, I would certainly expect to get more for it than what one could get for a GX that is a couple of years newer, has 130,000 miles on it, and that shows more typical body and interior wear and tear. The bottom line is that, once a vehicle starts to get to be 4 or 5 years old, miles driven and vehicle condition become increasingly important and more important than whether a vehicle is a model year or two older or newer.