I personally would take the BMW. No, I wouldn't. Not that one anyway. If it was a E36, and only cost 2k, I'd take it. Frankly, for my 10g's, that car better not have 100k on it already.
Face it, there are actually very few cars that have been treated nicely enough to be worth buying after 100k miles. People say that Hondas last forever, so do Toyotas, etc... they're not really accurate in saying that... they don't last forever if they're not properly maintained... and they're not efficient after 100k miles, at least not without work. (as efficient as they could be)
I say, for my preferences, I'd still rather buy the new car, with the warranty and dealer service, rather than spend a bunch of money on a car I'll only have for 3 years before it HAS to be replaced. (I drive alot.. up to 30-40k a year, never less than 20k)
Between my father and I, we put a little under 100k on a car in just less than a year.. I think the verdict was 92k miles in 11 months. The last month was spent tearing the engine down to inspect and rebuild it, then deciding to part out the car, since so many people needed parts off it, and it wouldn't have passed inspection another year without some work.
That's obviously a worst case scenario, but even the average driver put 10k at least on their cars... another 60k on a 100k BMW would basically invalidate it.
Versus putting an initial 60K on a new car... and it's still in the dealer's warranty.
And you say WE'RE nuts. Use some rationale when attempting to insult the intelligence of others, so we don't all think you're
.