Lack of service history

Hello All,

Fordy here. Am a new member currently looking for a Jimny to buy. We are looking at 2 cars 1 a new ish 2015, 50k miles, which looks very tidy but has literally no service history. The current owner says a small garage changes the oil and that the breaks are a bit spongy but it seems fine. My alarm bells are ringing but externally the car looks good. Advice please

The 2nd car is a 2008. 33,000 miles FSH 1 lady owner. We are drawn to this too but there’s a lot of difference between a 2008 and 2015 !

Hi Fordy!
Last year I bought an '05 with 74k on the clock. I bought it with the understanding that I will have to spend £££ getting it straight.
The biggest outgoing so far has been replacing the slam panel (£500 all in)
It will now pass it's MOT next month then, it will be new suspension, then bushes and on and on.
The slam panel is IMO, the biggest rust trap on this car, you must check this area first (behind and underneath the headlights)....

No FSH on the '15 isn't necessarily a big deal, it should be worth slightly below book.
More to the point, how many owners? Can you track down the original owner? Very often lack of fsh is the result of a poor dealer/customer relationship at the beginning. Just find out more from the current owner and if you're unhappy, walk away. I personally wouldn't be comparing an '08 with a '15, they are miles apart (and surley a big price difference). I've got an '08 and I love it but I'd rather it was a newer model. Chris

Hi Fordy and welcome along.
As a general rule in the mechanical department they are very reliable vehicles, so lack of service history is not necessarily a bad thing.
Rust may starting on the 2008, so have a good look around it in the known areas. Also the 2008 may have a weak bearing in the gearbox, later upgraded by Suzuki to a sealed type bearing in 2009/10. I don't know if this is a big deal or not, plenty run the "problem" gearbox without issue, some report early failure. I potential have the issue on my 2009 Jimny, but so far 56k and no problems to report.
The 2015 should be clear of any rot, but it's still worth a good look underneath and decided which is in best condition below. Previous owners and the use it's had will impact the level of rust and or off road damage.
Spongy brakes can be caused by sticking sliders on the front calipers, a known issue if poorly maintained. So check the discs for excessive wear or lack of pad material. Could be another issue, but again if maintained brakes are Ok. Not modern VW good, but Ok for the type of vehicle it is.
Once you know which is the best body take them both for a drive. Easy to select gears, everything works including the 4x4 high / low? If yes then that's good. Check the engine idles smoothly and it is relatively quite. Check the oil filler cap for white emulsion and look for oil leaks, coolant loss and oil around the front wheels (swivels). Have a steady drive at between 45 - 52 mph and make sure the steering does not shake. Check the MOT history, it's a good indication of condition and what's been done.
If they both pass all this then it's down to price and which you like best in my opinion.
Good luck
Mike

I don't 100% subscribe to Lamberts ageist comment
The condition underneath is very much influenced by previous owners maintenance and the use its been subjected to, with a pinch of Suzuki's random body protection quality.
So yes the 2015 "should" be better, but its no guarantee. Equally the 2008 "should" have more rust, but it could equally be mint.
You do need to take the best look you cant and decide accordingly. The 2008 will be a hell of a lot cheaper, so factor in £700 for a future potential exchange gearbox and see if its a better deal, after all its done less miles. That said the 2015 is a newer vehicle and will win in car park age related top trumps. Ultimately they will be the same vehicle, Suzuki did not change them much over the years of production.
If you have a budget get the best you can within this.
Out of the two you are currently looking at the 2015 should be the better option, but look closely.

lf you are worried about the service history

Ask for the contact number for the "small garage that changes the oil" and try to verify what work they have done on the vehicle.

lf it's genuine the owner should be happy to give you the garage details.
And the garage shouldn't have a problem telling you how many times they've serviced it.

Also have a look at the state of the oil in the engine, does it look like it was changed in the not too distant past or is it black as tar? And have a quick look at the air filter, the brakes, the oil filter, does the vehicle look like it's been looked after or is it filthy inside/under the bonnet, with any stone chips/minor scratches not touched in and dirty wheels?
Are the wheel arches/underside scuffed from off road use? Not necessarily a bad thing, but all adds up.

A number of members have mentioned a "goo" that you sometimes find inside the cam cover and various hoses. This is a mixture of engine oil and condensation and is an indication that the motor has done a lot of short journeys and has not had a chance to warm up properly. In the trade it is known as "mayonnaise".

Roger

Yep it's a numbers game and I fully understand your reasoning. But age is also just a number, it's not indicative of condition. Just saying both are worth a close look, don't just assume the new one is perfect.