Long story short, my 2009 Civic (80k miles) was recently totaled by a distracted driver. That car was running smoothly and had been in 2 previous accidents because of my work commute. I'm changing my commute, but now I'm scrambling to buy a new car. So I want to stick with civic between the 2009 to 2011 model years. That car never gave me any problems and, believe me, the safety checked out. Engine was great. So I want something comparable. I've narrowed it down to two options so far:
Car 1:
2009 Honda Civic LX
Price: $12,750
Miles: 22,482
Car 2:
2011 Honda Civic LX
Price: $12,900
Miles: 34,306
Both CarFax reports check out, but I will be doing additional research.
So which one sounds like the smarter buy? Or are they the same?
I've heard some people say actually to go with the newer higher-mileage car because that may be an indication of proper break-in, compared to an older low-mileage car. And of course, I'm hearing a lot of opposite opinions. Obviously, I rack up a lot of miles on my commutes to work, which is unavoidable, so normal wear and tear will happen. Any help or suggestions is greatly appreciated. Not looking to get a civic with more than 40k miles, even though for the above model years a lot of Honda gurus consider that a baby.