Help: 2017 lx570 or Lc?

[04UZJ100]

Lots of salt in this thread. Bottom line - you cant go wrong with either an LX or LC.

You also can’t go wrong with regular, premium, or E85, End of story.

 

[SharpeCat]

How is my opinion invalid? It’s very valid to me as to why it’s my “opinion”. Premium fuel cost vs regular doesn’t sway me. All my other cars take Premium. Also, I live in TN and gas here is pretty cheap compared to most other states

"The argument that I am trying to cut insignificant costs for no good reason" is invalid. It wasn't personally directed at you, just directed at the reasoning/logic. It was a response to the guy you were responding to, as well as clarification on it being about more than "just principle". Looks like it only quoted your post and not the post you were responding to so i can see why it looks like it is directed at you, but it isn't. You are reading what i said backwards because you think i am talking to you, when i am really talking to the guy you were talking to.

It is invalid because $10k in fuel cost differences over 300k (lifespan) is 10% of the vehicles total cost, and more if the vehicle goes past 300k (very likely), which is not a "insignificant" amount. For my case my difference equals to 33% of vehicle cost since i bought it used.

 

[slipkid13]

It is definitely also the cost. When looking at the bigger picture and over 300k miles, you are looking at a 10k difference in cost. The difference grows as the vehicle goes past 300k.

That is 10% of vehicle price when buying new. For someone like me who paid 18k for one with 180k, then the difference for me over next 180k is another $6k, aka 33% of my vehicle cost.

The argument that you are trying to cut insignificant costs for no good reason is invalid. It should be argued that you are spending significant amounts more over the long run for reasons not good enough.

I run my LX on solely regular and will let you guys know if I have any regrets.

As far as LX vs LC, there is only 1 choice for me. I set out a budget of 20k for base vehicle, and with that it isn’t possible to get an LC with the same capabilities as the LX stock.

A stock LC requires least 5k more just to fit 33s/34s properly and match the clearance that my LX has stock. A used LC also costs more than a used LX.

When you consider that a used LC in similar condition costs 5k-10k more used, and that it needs suspension mods in addition after that to match the stock LX, then you’d realize how quickly it runs out of my budget. That is just to match a portion of the AHC capabilities.

If I had all the money in the world, I’d go LC and put King suspension and portal axles on it and call it a day. But then again, if money wasn’t a factor then everything done to the LC can also be done to the LX.

The LC wins when you have Money for a really nice suspension upgrade capable of surpassing AHC, but not unlimited money and the LX wins the “best bang/most capable for your buck” when buying used, And by a long shot. Even then, the heavily nodded LC only wins the off road portion of your ownership experience, which is likely 1% of the time you drive it even for us enthusiasts.

"It is definitely also the cost. When looking at the bigger picture and over 300k miles, you are looking at a 10k difference in cost. The difference grows as the vehicle goes past 300k. "

If fuel economy and costs are so important then why are you buying a 15 MPG vehicle?

Taking it out to 300K is a silly argument. Like anyone is going to notice the $6 or $10 a fill up over 10-15 years. Most folks probably spend more than that in the convergence store at the gas station or Starbucks

 

[slipkid13]

It’s not the cost but the principal of being required to use Premium for the same engine in the LC that only needs Regular.

I guess I am less principled, I don't have any issues putting premium in my LX.

 

[SharpeCat]

"It is definitely also the cost. When looking at the bigger picture and over 300k miles, you are looking at a 10k difference in cost. The difference grows as the vehicle goes past 300k. "

If fuel economy and costs are so important then why are you buying a 15 MPG vehicle?

Taking it out to 300K is a silly argument. Like anyone is going to notice the $6 or $10 a fill up over 10-15 years. Most folks probably spend more than that in the convergence store at the gas station or Starbucks

Are you really on a Land Cruiser forum asking me why i would buy something like an LX?

The mpg i have no control over, but how much i spend on gas over the length of my ownership, i do. And taking it out to 300k is not a silly argument when the point is to look at the bigger picture to get a more accurate grasp on cost.

"Like anyone is going to notice the $6 or $10 a fill up over 10-15 years"

You're kidding me... right? How do you go from "silly to consider 300k span" then go use "10-15 years" as an example? And yes... unless you are not paying attention you will definitely notice $6-10 per fill over 10-15 years difference... For someone like me who drives 3k miles a month, that is 36k a year so 360k per 10 years which equals $12k difference in gas cost at .50 cents difference per gallon. At 15 years it is $18k difference in cost. $18k is what i paid in total for my 2008 LX.

 

[SharpeCat]

I guess I am less principled, I don't have any issues putting premium in my LX.

It's not an issue with you putting premium in yours, trust me... no one cares... just as you shouldn't care about people using regular. The regular gas folks, usually, are not the ones to bring this topic up.

We are only here to say that it should not be a factor for consideration when deciding between an LC or an LX, and if the Premium folks keep insisting on bringing up the old "why buy a 100k car then cheap out on gas for no good reason" argument, then sure... i will share my experience of having the same car for $18k and using regular for a very good reason (33% of vehicle cost in gas difference over next 5 years).

 

[99Cruiser]

I wonder how close the handling between the two becomes when the LX ditches the 21" wheels and both run 17" or 18" wheels with AT tires.

 

[SharpeCat]

I wonder how close the handling between the two becomes when the LX ditches the 21" wheels and both run 17" or 18" wheels with AT tires.

I would think that the LX would still win around corners because of the AHC auto-leveling/adjusting the car's lean, or is that the Adaptive Variable Suspension at work? Does the LC have AVS?

Edit: I looked and it seems like the KDSS system does the same thing for the LC that AVS does for LX. Seems comparable.

 

[slipkid13]

It's not an issue with you putting premium in yours, trust me... no one cares... just as you shouldn't care about people using regular. The regular gas folks, usually, are not the ones to bring this topic up.

We are only here to say that it should not be a factor for consideration when deciding between an LC or an LX, and if the Premium folks keep insisting on bringing up the old "why buy a 100k car then cheap out on gas for no good reason" argument, then sure... i will share my experience of having the same car for $18k and using regular for a very good reason (33% of vehicle cost in gas difference over next 5 years).

It's always the LC folks who balk at buying an LX cause Premium fuel.

Whatever, but again if you drive that much and are so concerened about fuel costs why are you driving a 15 MPG vehicle? If oil spike and gas goes up $1.00 gallon are you going to stop driving?

 

[04UZJ100]

I run premium in all my Toyota V8s. Noticeable MPG improvement and seat of the pants improvement.

 

[slipkid13]

Are you really on a Land Cruiser forum asking me why i would buy something like an LX?

The mpg i have no control over, but how much i spend on gas over the length of my ownership, i do. And taking it out to 300k is not a silly argument when the point is to look at the bigger picture to get a more accurate grasp on cost.

"Like anyone is going to notice the $6 or $10 a fill up over 10-15 years"

You're kidding me... right? How do you go from "silly to consider 300k span" then go use "10-15 years" as an example? And yes... unless you are not paying attention you will definitely notice $6-10 per fill over 10-15 years difference... For someone like me who drives 3k miles a month, that is 36k a year so 360k per 10 years which equals $12k difference in gas cost at .50 cents difference per gallon. At 15 years it is $18k difference in cost. $18k is what i paid in total for my 2008 LX.

Again, if you drive 3K mile a month and gas prices are a huge concern, why are driving a 15MPG vehicle? Sounds like a Civic or Corolloa would be a better fit for a DD, you would recoup that 18K pretty quick......

 

[SharpeCat]

"It's always the LC folks who balk at buying an LX cause Premium fuel. "

Point is, they shouldn't worry about type of gas when considering between the two because both will run just fine.



"Whatever, but again if you drive that much and are so concerened about fuel costs why are you driving a 15 MPG vehicle?"

As i stated:
"Are you really on a Land Cruiser forum asking me why i would buy something like an LX? "

"The mpg i have no control over, but how much i spend on gas over the length of my ownership, i do."



"If oil spike and gas goes up $1.00 gallon are you going to stop driving?"

No, because that falls under things i have no control over. Literally everything you just asked i already answered. You said we cheap out on gas for no good reason, and i gave you a good reason. Let it go brother.

 

[SharpeCat]

Again, if you drive 3K mile a month and gas prices are a huge concern, why are driving a 15MPG vehicle? Sounds like a Civic or Corolloa would be a better fit for a DD, you would recoup that 18K pretty quick......

And is a civic and corolla going to take me on my camping trips to remote, off-road locations and get me home safely? Unlike you i consider more than just the mpg when choosing a vehicle, and unlike you i don't give other people crap for using a different type of gas, especially when i have no proof that they are worse off by doing so. Let it go brother.

 

[mike552]

I think that a lot of us drive these vehicles because:

1. They’re made in Japan
2. They're reliable
3. They are impressively capable at off roading (even if some of never leave the tarmac, just knowing that it is possible to do so makes us satisfied)
4. They are comfortable vehicles
5. They appeal to out style

I think that goes for the LC or the LX. The rest of it is just nitpicking.

 

[slipkid13]

And is a civic and corolla going to take me on my camping trips to remote, off-road locations and get me home safely? Unlike you i consider more than just the mpg when choosing a vehicle, and unlike you i don't give other people crap for using a different type of gas, especially when i have no proof that they are worse off by doing so. Let it go brother.

So you drive 3K a month off roading and camping?

I am not giving you crap for using a different kind of gas, I am giving you crap for buying a 15 MPG, expensive vehicle that requires premium fuel then "saving money" by using regular gas.

Sounds like you use your LX for daily driving which is why I don't understand 3K miles a month driving at 15 MPG vehicle then doing math out to 300K for the .30 - .50 cents a gallon premium costs. I am sure if you continue your math exercise, a small, economical car for the 95% of your driving that doesn't take place off road would save you a ton of money and use the LX for actual camping/off roading. But hey, you be you, save that .30 cents a gallon in a lock box.

I don't care what gas you use in your LX, put diesel in it for all I care.

 

[SharpeCat]

So you drive 3K a month off roading and camping?

I am not giving you crap for using a different kind of gas, I am giving you crap for buying a 15 MPG, expensive vehicle that requires premium fuel then "saving money" by using regular gas.

Sounds like you use your LX for daily driving which is why I don't understand 3K miles a month driving at 15 MPG vehicle then doing math out to 300K for the .30 - .50 cents a gallon premium costs. I am sure if you continue your math exercise, a small, economical car for the 95% of your driving that doesn't take place off road would save you a ton of money and use the LX for actual camping/off roading. But hey, you be you, save that .30 cents a gallon in a lock box.

I don't care what gas you use in your LX, put diesel in it for all I care.

You say you don’t care but you keep injecting yourself into these conversations every time the topic comes up.

There are a lot of reasons why I chose an LX over a corolla, and someone on a Land Cruiser forum should know. No, I’m not going to dig up the old “does it really require premium” debate, as that horse has been beat And no, a second car is not more economical if you consider my insurance and interlock costs and etc...

Again, how many times do I have to break it down for you? 18k is not the 70k you are talking, which makes the difference gas costs more significant. You keep assuming I paid a lot then cheap out on gas when I have already said what I paid multiple times. You keep assuming the difference in gas cost is insignificant when I have already proven it isn’t. Also, when I checked 30 mins ago it was 60 cents per gallon difference, not .30, which makes the cost difference even more than what I said earlier.

Your problem is you think you have the right to give me crap over things you obviously have put very little thought into. Even when I spell it out for you, you choose to ignorantly ignore the facts and keep going in circles.

I have an LX that I didn’t pay a fortune for, and I put regular gas in it. I’m also not getting a second car or trading it in for a corolla. I am fine with this and you should be too.

 

[1world1love]

Wow. This thread devolved pretty quickly. Lots of confirmation bias going on.

Honestly though, what exactly is the big deal? An LC was always my dream vehicle, but I found a 2013 LX and fell in love with it. I love it. I love the interior, the audio, and the AHC. There really isn’t anything I dislike about it other than the fuel efficiency and range, but life is full of trade offs.

On the other hand, if I had found the right LC at the time, I would be here saying similar things.

Frankly, as others have said, if you find a vehicle you like, drive it, and if it fits your needs, buy it. It’s not that complicated. Then, once you own it, you get to look forward to coming on here and telling others why your decision was the greatest and they would be crazy for not doing the same

 

[427Monster]

You can do whatever you want, and I'm fine with it as long as your actions don't impact me. But conceptually I don't agree with your main point - you bought your car for $18k.

You could have bought it for $8k, $28k, $38k whatever, but at end of day it's an $85k+ msrp car. And if you can't afford the running costs on an $85k+ car (regardless of your purchase cost) then you can't afford it. I'll take backlash for saying this. Hopefully no one gets offended. Move on because I'm just a fool with his thoughts.

Realistically I bet there are no significant operating issues with using "regular" gas. I believe it's marketing because Lexus doesn't want to dilute their perception/branding by allowing "regular" gas on their flagship suv.

You say you don’t care but you keep injecting yourself into these conversations every time the topic comes up.

There are a lot of reasons why I chose an LX over a corolla, and someone on a Land Cruiser forum should know. No, I’m not going to dig up the old “does it really require premium” debate, as that horse has been beat And no, a second car is not more economical if you consider my insurance and interlock costs and etc...

Again, how many times do I have to break it down for you? 18k is not the 70k you are talking, which makes the difference gas costs more significant. You keep assuming I paid a lot then cheap out on gas when I have already said what I paid multiple times. You keep assuming the difference in gas cost is insignificant when I have already proven it isn’t. Also, when I checked 30 mins ago it was 60 cents per gallon difference, not .30, which makes the cost difference even more than what I said earlier.

Your problem is you think you have the right to give me crap over things you obviously have put very little thought into. Even when I spell it out for you, you choose to ignorantly ignore the facts and keep going in circles.

I have an LX that I didn’t pay a fortune for, and I put regular gas in it. I’m also not getting a second car or trading it in for a corolla. I am fine with this and you should be too.

 

[SharpeCat]

You can do whatever you want, and I'm fine with it as long as your actions don't impact me. But conceptually I don't agree with your main point - you bought your car for $18k.

You could have bought it for $8k, $28k, $38k whatever, but at end of day it's an $85k+ msrp car. And if you can't afford the running costs on an $85k+ car (regardless of your purchase cost) then you can't afford it. I'll take backlash for saying this. Hopefully no one gets offended. Move on because I'm just a fool with his thoughts.

Realistically I bet there are no significant operating issues with using "regular" gas. I believe it's marketing because Lexus doesn't want to dilute their perception/branding by allowing "regular" gas on their flagship suv.

I didn’t feel the need to expand my point to include that it does not matter what I bought it for and what the car is worth... the fact of the matter is there is no proof that using regular gas will lead to significant damage, enough to justify the $10k in difference in cost.

The cheaper the vehicle the less sense it makes, but even on a 100k vehicle like a new LX, it is still 10% or more of the vehicles total price which is not an insignificant number. Even If I paid more it does not change my point that the difference in cost over 300k is significant. Even with him ignorantly ignoring the price I paid, it still doesn’t change my point. $10k+ over 300k is true for all vehicles that “requires” premium.

With that said, it is all about risk vs rewards for me. The risk is virtually nonexistent, yet the reward is I save thousands of dollars. If you can prove the risk for not using premium can result in expenses totaling more than the savings from not using premium, then I would reconsider.

It does not matter if the cost difference was set for a vehicle at 18k or 100k, because even 10% instead of 33% of vehicles value is still significant.

There are plenty of people on this forum alone who uses regular gas, and that has nothing to do with whether or not they can afford premium. They just simply don’t see the cost being worth it is all, and neither do I.

I could save $5k plus over next 5 years, or I could be out 5k so I can get “1-2 more mpg and hp”. I can live without the extra little benefit much easier than I can live without the extra 5k+.

Just because I chose saving cash over a 2 extra hp and mpg, does not mean I can’t afford this car. I choose not to pay for what you call “running costs” because my car has been running just fine without it

 

[mike552]

I’d rather put in gas without ethanol if I could find it in my area. I think that’s more significant that choosing between 87 or 93.