Which year should I get? Base or ls?

[zachzchw]

I know the LS has a superior engine.....Out of these choices, which would be the best buy?
2002 LS 60k
2003 LS 72k
2004 LS 91k
2004 base 59k

All of them are around the same price.

[crazy Jim]

I believe by '03 the factory had some of the issues straightend out so since the '03 LS has fewer miles then the '04 LS I'd take a look at it.

[zachzchw]

Originally Posted by crazy Jim

I believe by '03 the factory had some of the issues straightend out so since the '03 LS has fewer miles then the '04 LS I'd take a look at it.

I was offered a good deal on a fully loaded 02 ls, with a warrant. Any big things to watch with the 02s?

[crazy Jim]

I have the '02 LS and have 60K miles on it. The BCM failed when new, the fuel pressur regulator failed just recently and I had to replace the drivers side seat heater element(prossibly from my kids kicking the back of the seat). Other then that no issues.

Depending on you cars Vin it may have the EGR problem that eventualy deteriorates a spot in the intake manifold. (3.8L) The intermediate steering shaft is prone to become sloppy and clunk but I do not yet have this prob. The cheap/weak front brake rotors are have issues, replace the rotors with aftemarket and buy the pads from the dealer and they should be ok. Some owners have complained about the Passlock system failing, mine is still working fine but my Grand Am failed at appx 70K miles.

Taken well care of it is a very good vehicle

[phewop118]

I would also say the 03, as the 03's did fix several issues known to the previous years. Still, check for steering wheel clunking and brake pulsations. What are the prices on each of them?

[zachzchw]

http://cars.com/go/search/detail.jsp...5&aff=national
3 month, 3000 mile warranty.
http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.js...000&cardist=11
Not sure of warranty.
http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.js...000&cardist=29
30 day, 1000 mile warranty.

[97PearlCat]

I would buy the 03 LS, most of the problems were solved by that year and the milage is not that bad.

[zachzchw]

Is 02 a bad year?

[57chevyragtop]

I don't think the 02 is a bad year. however there may have been some changes in 03 which were mostly cosmetic. With any used car the issue is the care it received from previous owner ie: garage kept, preventative maintenence + the overall condition such as paint and interior (smoker?). The ones you are looking at above are 59K and up so brakes need a good inspection as well as plugs and wires (my 02 plugs were well worn at 61K) 100K is what they are supposed to last according to (GM). I have the base but would have preferred the LS 3.8 but the price determined that for me.
Good luck on your choice the 02 at 60K is pretty good miles. 03 at 72 is more towards the norm. 04 at 91 is high (could be highway miles) which can make a difference. Same with the 04 base at 59k.

[zachzchw]

Now Im leaning towards either the 04 with 91k, or the 02 with 89k.

Not sure if I should get the 04, just because its newer, or the 02, because it has less miles per year.

[adamace1]

I would go with a newer car rather than an older one with less miles. I belive age cause alot of problems rather than wear. Like if you bought two cars, drove one 5,000 miles a month, and the other one 1,000 miles a month, the one you drove more would end up getting more miles out of it with less problems.

[57chevyragtop]

In your original post you don't mention an 02 at 89k just 60k & 59k. Just think you would like the LS a little better especially if it has the leather interior + you get the full gage cluster set up.

[zachzchw]

Originally Posted by 57chevyragtop

In your original post you don't mention an 02 at 89k just 60k & 59k. Just think you would like the LS a little better especially if it has the leather interior + you get the full gage cluster set up.

I hadnt came across the 02 at the time of my first post.
The 02 has a three month, 3000 mile warranty. Price is $8995, couple grand under kelley blue book value. It has leather, moonroof, dual power seats. Out of all the ones Ive test drove, it drove the best.
Im thinking of going with that one at this point. The thing I dont like is the higher miles, but it drives great, all the fluids look fine, brakes are good, and it doesnt have the common steering problem.
I also like the warranty, and would look into getting an extended warranty.

Kelley blue book has its value as $10,600, which is about what NADA prices it at. Edmunds, however, has its "true market value" at $8,915. Whats the difference in these? Which one is most accurate?

[crazy Jim]

The used car books are just guesstimates, for a more accurate assesment go to traderonline or cars.com and see what the asking price is for vehicles in your area. Next call on some and if they have sold ask if they would mind telling you what it sold for. This will give you the best idea and a little ammo to take to the dealer. One thing to remember, cars with 100K miles drop off dramitically in what the dealer gives for the car. So, keep this in mind when negotiating for a 90K mile vehicle.

[zachzchw]

Originally Posted by crazy Jim

The used car books are just guesstimates, for a more accurate assesment go to traderonline or cars.com and see what the asking price is for vehicles in your area. Next call on some and if they have sold ask if they would mind telling you what it sold for. This will give you the best idea and a little ammo to take to the dealer. One thing to remember, cars with 100K miles drop off dramitically in what the dealer gives for the car. So, keep this in mind when negotiating for a 90K mile vehicle.

I got the price down to $7900....... At $8995, it was already the lowest Ive found anywhere around here, and one of the few that had a warranty.

Im VERY close to getting it, just wondering if theres any reason I shouldnt.