There was a time when getting 100,000 miles out of a car was doing really well. I remember plenty of 80,000 mile cars feeling used-up and ready to die. Nowadays, it’s not uncommon at all to get a solid 200,000 out of most cars. But 300,000? You’re still in some rarefied air at that point. Both of today’s cars have odometer readings that start with a 3, making them worthy of respect.
Most of you didn’t have a lot of respect for yesterday’s Chevies, but that’s all right. I appreciate you being good sports about it and voting anyway. The Beretta took an easy win, mostly based on the correct assumption that loafing around Florida is a lot easier on a car than dealing with Alaska. The Corsica’s body damage didn’t do it any favors either; that’s probably the worst spot for a car to get hit like that.
The Beretta would be my choice too. I don’t have a problem with the 3.1 and automatic combo, and its damage is a lot easier to fix. The mismatched wheel is a bummer, but I bet I could find a set of some other factory GM wheels that would fit. Or, alternately, three more steelies and a can of white Rust-Oleum.
The highest-mileage car I’ve ever had was a 1991 Nissan Pathfinder, which served us well until electrical problems finally got the better of it at 365,000 miles. It still ran and drove all right, but man, it felt tired. These two have similar miles on them, and I would imagine they feel about the same. But they’re both still game, if you are. Let’s check them out.
1988 Subaru GL 4WD Wagon – $3,000
Engine/drivetrain: 1.8-liter OHC flat -4, five-speed manual, 4WD
Location: Tukwila, WA
Odometer reading: 364,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
I’ll just come out and say it: Subaru these days is coasting on past glories. But what did those past glories look like? Well, they looked like this. The basics are much the same as they are now: a flat-four engine driving all four wheels, and a roomy station wagon body. But instead of superfluous black plastic cladding and a bunch of electronic bullshit, this one has a dual-range transfer case and tank-like durability.
The flat-four engine in this GL (that’s it; no model name, just a trim level) is a 1.8-liter overhead cam unit, backed by a much simpler and more mechanical 4WD system than a modern Subaru. This one is front-wheel-drive in normal driving, but 4WD is just a lever-pull away. When the going gets really gnarly, you have low-range 4WD at your disposal, just like a Jeep. Try that with your Forester. This car has 364,000 miles on it, but its engine has been rebuilt. The seller drives it regularly, so expect that mileage to keep going up until it sells.
The interior is where most high-mileage cars show their age, but this one doesn’t look too bad. The steering wheel rim and shift knob are worn completely smooth, and the driver’s seat looks a little mashed down, and a couple of buttons are missing from the HVAC controls on the dash. But I’ve seen much worse interiors on cars with far fewer miles.
It looks tired outside too, but well taken care of and not abused. All the black trim is gray, and all the horizontal surfaces are devoid of clearcoat, but there is no rust, and I don’t even see much in the way of door dings. It has aftermarket roof racks, like most Subaru wagons in the Pacific Northwest. Gotta carry that kayak around somehow.
1994 Mazda MX-3 RS – $2,500
Engine/drivetrain: 1.6-liter DOHC inline-4, five-speed manual, FWD
Location: Whitehall, PA
Odometer reading: 360,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
Mazda was on a roll in the late 1980s and early ’90s. Even its “boring” cars were pretty cool. And between the RX-7, the Miata, the MX-6, and this little fella, its sporty car game was second to none. The MX-3 gets a little overshadowed by the Miata, but those who know, know. And after 360,000 miles, I think the owner of this one has a pretty good idea.
The most well-known version of the MX-3 is the GS, which features a tiny 1.8-liter V6 engine. This isn’t one of those. What it is, however, is the updated-for-1994 RS model, with a twin-cam four-cylinder, similar to what the early Miata had. It’s not as cool as the V6, but it has quite a lot more power than the older single-cam engine. This car’s engine was replaced 185,000 miles ago, but the seller doesn’t say why. It doesn’t matter, I suppose; it runs fine now.
This one is holding up remarkably well inside too; it’s nice to see cars this well cared for. I shudder to think how much Armor-All it has taken over the years to keep that dashboard that shiny, but it does look impressive. The seats even look good, though there is a little hole in the driver’s side bolster where the seat belt has rubbed across it who knows how many times.
It looks good outside, too. It’s actually kind of hard to believe this car has this many miles on it. I would be worried about rust, since it’s a Pennsylvania car, but I also know that Pennsylvania has some pretty strict inspections, so if there is any rust underneath, it can’t be too bad.
Some folks might be leery of cars with such high mileage, but if they’ve been well-maintained, I don’t think it matters much. And we probably have the big numbers on the odometers to thank for the lowish prices of these; they’re both cars that are riding the nostalgia wave, and prices are going up. Which one of them do you think wears its miles better?
The highest mileage car I’ve ever owned was a 250,000 mile E30 325i. It blew its radiator less than four hour’s worth of driving after I bought it.
As it was only £100 and I swapped it for two days worth of track time I was really happy with it. I think they used it as a spares car after that. It’d be a £10k car now. Oh well.
I have Greddy turbo kit for the MX5 1.6 in my loft. I wonder if it would fit that MX3?
Love the Subaru too. Hard choice.
I’ve owned a Subaru wagon, and while it was not as durable as this one it was a perfectly cromulent vehicle.
I have not owned a Mazda Sport Coupe, just a more modern Mazda 3, so I went with the MX-3 today. The interior looks like a much nicer place to spend my time.
My family has has owned more Subaru vehicles than I can easily count and this is some truth being laid down here.
I still voted Subaru because this is indeed a past glory.
I wanted one of those GLs in college, would’ve been a great little rig.
Now however, the sprightly little Mazda coupe wins big time. It’s a better format car for a manual.
5 door AWD thingies are everywhere now. 2 door stickshift compacts are not.
The Mazda is the better choice, but I can’t say “no” to a manual AWD wagon. Sube it up!
Always sport coupe for me. These were a blast to drive, haul way more than you’d think, and likely will never be made again. The condition of this one is impressive, as these were relatively rare even in their time.
Where’s the both button? I picked the Ru, but only because of the 4 wheel drive. In a lot of ways, I’d rather have the Mazda!
This was actually a difficult choice, first time in a while.
I went Subie just for the extra AWD/wagon utility. And no surprise, my vote made it (currently) exactly a 50/50
Subie for me. It’s hard to vote for anything other than a GL from the PNW.
If the Subaru can last two years as a winter beater it would be worth the $3K.
I would take that little Subie if it was up against almost anything. 4wd wagon with a stick? Yes. I’ve always wanted one of them but haven’t scratched that itch yet since they are now pretty rare around here, most all of them dissolved decades ago up here in the Northeast.
I’ll take the Subaru, a 4×4 wagon with low range is too quirky for me to pass up. I do think the Mazda is a better deal overall though given its condition
Why not both? Subie for the winter and Mazda for Radwood
Objectively correct answer.
I’m leaning wagon on this one. Then I’d just follow in MCM’s footsteps with their Brumby, and drop an N/A Forester or Impreza drivetrain into it.
But I don’t think either is a bad choice today.