Daily Driver???

[Toyo72]

First post here, and rather than start up a new thread I found this one via search as it is relevant to a few questions I have.

Currently considering either a 06/07 100-series or 09 200-series. We keep our cars a long time, and this would be my DD, about 24k miles per year for the time being. Making assumptions about the depreciation over time (I assumed 50% over 5 years and maybe up to 75% over 10 years, these might be high), the differences in mpg and fuel cost (91 vs 87 octane) the differences in maintenance (timing belt), even with the ~$15k difference in price it appears that the total cost out of pocket over 5-10 years might be identical. Did the math a couple of times and a couple of ways, and with the miles driven and the timing belts (assumed $1200 per change, would be half that if I did it) the overall number came up to be about the same. If the 200 holds value better, or if the 100 flattens, then that would change the equation.
So to my questions:
Am I missing something - are there any differences that would make one more costly vs the other over time in maintenance that I should consider in cost of ownership?
I drove an 06 LC, no AHC, and it really drove well, felt tight, with 115k miles. I drove a 2008 (or maybe it was a 2010) Sequoia, and quickly ruled it out as it felt like driving a barge. How does the 200 series drive compared to the 100?

 

[El Cid]

Not a question that can really be answered in concrete terms as your decision criteria is specific to you. What are the relevant costs and criteria? Would you prefer a new or older car? It sounds as if you're assuming there is some vast difference between the 200 and 100. The 200 is newer. That's really all I would add. I'm not sure I would compare the 200 vs 100 in terms of which holds their value better as you're comparing one with a big head start in age. That's an initial cost comparison rather than a resale comparison.

These vehicle are bought for a combination of reliability and functionality. Depreciation is the biggest cost, so the price at entry is the first relevant factor. After that, it's largely a matter of personal taste.

A newer vehicle should incur less maintenance costs, but hold it long enough and this becomes an incremental difference. I would speculate that the vast majority of 100 owners here would purchase a 200, but the difference in vehicle availability and price made the decision straightforward.

Hope that helps..

 

[Toyo72]

Not a question that can really be answered in concrete terms as your decision criteria is specific to you. What are the relevant costs and criteria? Would you prefer a new or older car? It sounds as if you're assuming there is some vast difference between the 200 and 100. The 200 is newer. That's really all I would add. I'm not sure I would compare the 200 vs 100 in terms of which holds their value better as you're comparing one with a big head start in age. That's an initial cost comparison rather than a resale comparison.

These vehicle are bought for a combination of reliability and functionality. Depreciation is the biggest cost, so the price at entry is the first relevant factor. After that, it's largely a matter of personal taste.

A newer vehicle should incur less maintenance costs, but hold it long enough and this becomes an incremental difference. I would speculate that the vast majority of 100 owners here would purchase a 200, but the difference in vehicle availability and price made the decision straightforward.

Hope that helps..

Thanks El Cid. Certainly the depreciation is a factor - I added that into my model. For daily drivers we typically have bought used vehicles, 3-4 years old (my sports cars are 10x older than that..). Lack of timing belt service, and lower fuel costs might point toward an early 200. But the difference is price up front is pretty big compared to 06-07 100. I forgot to factor in difference in insurance cost which I assume would be higher on 200 due to value, and also additional sales tax on the higher price. I need to drive a 200 (and a 100 w/AHC) to see which one is is really right I guess.

Oh - and coincidentally I'm in your neck of the woods as well.

 

[mcgaskins]

First post here, and rather than start up a new thread I found this one via search as it is relevant to a few questions I have.

Currently considering either a 06/07 100-series or 09 200-series. We keep our cars a long time, and this would be my DD, about 24k miles per year for the time being. Making assumptions about the depreciation over time (I assumed 50% over 5 years and maybe up to 75% over 10 years, these might be high), the differences in mpg and fuel cost (91 vs 87 octane) the differences in maintenance (timing belt), even with the ~$15k difference in price it appears that the total cost out of pocket over 5-10 years might be identical. Did the math a couple of times and a couple of ways, and with the miles driven and the timing belts (assumed $1200 per change, would be half that if I did it) the overall number came up to be about the same. If the 200 holds value better, or if the 100 flattens, then that would change the equation.
So to my questions:
Am I missing something - are there any differences that would make one more costly vs the other over time in maintenance that I should consider in cost of ownership?
I drove an 06 LC, no AHC, and it really drove well, felt tight, with 115k miles. I drove a 2008 (or maybe it was a 2010) Sequoia, and quickly ruled it out as it felt like driving a barge. How does the 200 series drive compared to the 100?

- Michael

It's incredibly difficult to predict what asset prices will be on anything in 10 years, let alone one that depreciates like an SUV, so I won't comment on the math that shows the true cost of ownership will be a wash. I think if your horizon to keep the 100 or 200 really is that long however that it would make sense to me to buy the newest and cleanest one you can afford now. There were massive improvements in the power department, an extra gear in the transmission, and some more modern features in the 200, so if you like it I'd go for it. I thought hard about getting a 200, but my experience in driving one for the first time left a bad taste in my mouth (vehicle was trashed, so probably a bad comparison - see the thread here if you're inclined: https://forum.ih8mud.com/threads/200-series-in-denver-warning.823095/). I still think they're very nice trucks, and I'll probably look again in the future. The 100 is extremely reliable and capable as well, and if you're going to do some heavy mods there is a massively broader market for 100 series options.

 

[El Cid]

I think if your horizon to keep the 100 or 200 really is that long however that it would make sense to me to buy the newest and cleanest one you can afford now. I still think they're very nice trucks, and I'll probably look again in the future. The 100 is extremely reliable and capable as well, and if you're going to do some heavy mods there is a massively broader market for 100 series options.

That decision heuristic above is a sound one and probably the best decision criteria.
The second comment re mods is very true...
There should be a significant difference in cost of ownership based on depreciation in the short run.

The pure utilitarian value of my vehicle relative to the used purchase price made it a no-brainer for me. My rationale was that if I skipped three round trips on the the airlines, I'd save enough money to justify a 3rd vehicle. That turned out to be true.

 

[Toyo72]

That decision heuristic above is a sound one and probably the best decision criteria.
The second comment re mods is very true...
There should be a significant difference in cost of ownership based on depreciation in the short run.

Yeah, the plan is for this to be a DD, no mods, and hopefully keep it at least 6 years, maybe more. Mileage really may come into play. At 10-15k miles per year, no doubt the cost of ownership tilts toward the 100 because of purchase price and less $ in depreciation. At 2k miles a month, the scale tilts a bit toward the 200, I think.

 

[El Cid]

Let's stretch the analogy a bit further. What if you can find a 100 or 80 series for 5k, and you'd like to put 100k miles on it. Either vehicle having 150 to 175k miles already. Would it be possible to go to nearly 300k in miles on these without having to make a ton of capital investment?? Probably. You'd really need the value of it being a truck or you'd be better off in a sedan, but it's very feasible and the truth is, tons of owners here would tell you they'd be more comfortable in an older land cruiser than a good list of newer 'supposedly' luxury SUV's.

If I were looking to buy a 200, my strategy would be to search for one with 50k miles, 2011 or older and hope to get in at 53k.
Driving it for ten years, means a hit of about 5k a year in depreciation. Make a 50% downpayment and that doesn't feel so bad, even if you end up carrying a note.

It's amazing how crowded the 'luxury' SUV market is, LC's drop in value just like every other product out there, the real trick is finding one..

 

[Toyo72]

Let's stretch the analogy a bit further. What if you can find a 100 or 80 series for 5k, and you'd like to put 100k miles on it. Either vehicle having 150 to 175k miles already. Would it be possible to go to nearly 300k in miles on these without having to make a ton of capital investment?? Probably. You'd really need the value of it being a truck or you'd be better off in a sedan, but it's very feasible and the truth is, tons of owners here would tell you they'd be more comfortable in an older land cruiser than a good list of newer 'supposedly' luxury SUV's.

If I were looking to buy a 200, my strategy would be to search for one with 50k miles, 2011 or older and hope to get in at 53k.
Driving it for ten years, means a hit of about 5k a year in depreciation. Make a 50% downpayment and that doesn't feel so bad, even if you end up carrying a note.

It's amazing how crowded the 'luxury' SUV market is, LC's drop in value just like every other product out there, the real trick is finding one..

I've run every scenario around in my head, for sure. The real trick is finding one, at the right price point. Since I'm more typically into older cars and loath electronic issues, the a LC 100 w/o AHC seems attractive. But being picky about a car not looking like a beater inside definitely makes the search even trickier. Its hard being me, for sure.

 

[El Cid]

If it were just finding LC's, it would be straightforward. But you've got to find an LC plus a particular character of owner..
If it makes you feel better, I searched for weeks on end looking for an LC in 2004(80 series). Couldn't find one, wanted used and 100k in miles. I got impatient and bought a BMW, since it was just getting difficult to look.

The NEXT day, a lady at work pulls up beside me with a white LC with 100k miles, wants 12k for it.

Moral of the story: Be patient. Sellers are out there.

 

[RND1]

Currently considering either a 06/07 100-series or 09 200-series. We keep our cars a long time, and this would be my DD, about 24k miles per year for the time being. Making assumptions about the depreciation over time (I assumed 50% over 5 years and maybe up to 75% over 10 years, these might be high), the differences in mpg and fuel cost (91 vs 87 octane) the differences in maintenance (timing belt), even with the ~$15k difference in price it appears that the total cost out of pocket over 5-10 years might be identical. Did the math a couple of times and a couple of ways, and with the miles driven and the timing belts (assumed $1200 per change, would be half that if I did it) the overall number came up to be about the same. If the 200 holds value better, or if the 100 flattens, then that would change the equation.
So to my questions:
Am I missing something - are there any differences that would make one more costly vs the other over time in maintenance that I should consider in cost of ownership?
I drove an 06 LC, no AHC, and it really drove well, felt tight, with 115k miles. I drove a 2008 (or maybe it was a 2010) Sequoia, and quickly ruled it out as it felt like driving a barge. How does the 200 series drive compared to the 100?

- Michael

Just doing a quick search, it looks like the 06 LC with 115K miles can be had for around $24K? If I were to add $15K to that, your budget for an 08 LC is roughly $39K which should be able to get you one with 75K miles. Sound reasonable? Fast forward 6 years and you've put 150K miles on your LC commuting. The 06 will now be at 265K miles while the 08 will be at 225K miles.

Another search yields 100 series LC's with 265K miles with values around $6K. If you buy that, then depreciation alone has cost you $18K. The big question is the value of the 08 with 225K miles on it 6 years from now? I haven't seen any 200 series with that kind of mileage yet, but the pool of buyers goes down considerably when you pass 200K miles and I'm not so sure that anyone would consider 225K miles as being much better than 265K miles. So my best guess would be the 200 series is worth $15K and I'm probably being generous. If I'm close, your depreciation alone is $24K.

I don't think any of the other factors such as fuel and mainenance costs will close that gap. Your annual mileage is the killer here. Depreciation will be your largest cost factor.

 

[Toyo72]

Just doing a quick search, it looks like the 06 LC with 115K miles can be had for around $24K? If I were to add $15K to that, your budget for an 08 LC is roughly $39K which should be able to get you one with 75K miles. Sound reasonable? Fast forward 6 years and you've put 150K miles on your LC commuting. The 06 will now be at 265K miles while the 08 will be at 225K miles.

Another search yields 100 series LC's with 265K miles with values around $6K. If you buy that, then depreciation alone has cost you $18K. The big question is the value of the 08 with 225K miles on it 6 years from now? I haven't seen any 200 series with that kind of mileage yet, but the pool of buyers goes down considerably when you pass 200K miles and I'm not so sure that anyone would consider 225K miles as being much better than 265K miles. So my best guess would be the 200 series is worth $15K and I'm probably being generous. If I'm close, your depreciation alone is $24K.

I don't think any of the other factors such as fuel and mainenance costs will close that gap. Your annual mileage is the killer here. Depreciation will be your largest cost factor.

You're using nearly exact numbers that I used, but starting at $40k and maybe a bit less on depreciation of the 200. Difference in fuel costs (more fuel at a higher price for 91 octane) is about $5500 at 2k miles a month over 5 years. Not sure what difference in insurance would be, but I hadn't factored that in. Overall it is likely that the 100 will be less costly, all things considered.

 

[Toyo72]

^^ assuming fuel goes back up to $2.70-3.00 a gallon on average within the next few years. I had to pick a number, and current prices are likely not realistic.

 

[RND1]

@Toyo72 - consider a low mileage '03 - '05 as it only requires 87 octane.

 

[Toyo72]

@Toyo72 - consider a low mileage '03 - '05 as it only requires 87 octane.

Ah, good info, I hadn't read that. Although I will be doing some towing (5-6 times per year, load of about 3200lbs, maybe 4-5k miles) and was thinking that the later 4.7 would be better.