LC 250 pricing

[Jetboy]

So this is a way you can dodge sales tax on a new car purchase? Do you have anything I can read about this practice, any term or what not I can google? I'm in Texas btw, do you know if this works there as well?

I don't know how it works in every state. But in Utah, yes. If you're selling one and buying another the broker can set it up as a single transaction with tax only due on the difference.

If you're buying one without selling, Montana LLC is the way to go. I currently have 3 vehicles titled in Montana. No sales tax. But you typically must take possession out of state if it's from a dealership. The beauty of the LLC is that you can sell it without tax as many times as you want - because you sell the LLC that owns the car, not ever selling the car. And there's no sales tax on business sales. And you could record a loss for income tax purposes. That's why you'll frequently see Montana plates on $$cars, RVs, boats, and aircraft.

Utah law is actually designed around this and has special rules for RVs so you can do it. Rich people get laws changed to skip taxes. Poor people pay taxes. Nice.

Dowwnside is that you can't finance the car with this structure with normal loans. I only buy cars in cash, so I've never tried financing but that's what I've been told.

Usually you can transfer to your personal registration after one year and you don't usually pay sales tax transferring a title between states. So you can usually also do the Montana title for a year and transfer and save the tax that way but end up titled in your desired state.

Just a few options. But it's all a bit dependent on your end goal and the laws in your state.

 

[manofthewoods]

Reminds me of when the tread seemed to have been to a move towards no haggle pricing, only to find out that people actually preferred trying to get a better deal. Maybe with the rise of internet ordering, like Amazon, this mindset is changing.

To add to the above.
Studies show (and dealers know this) that buyer satisfaction increases when people go through the "grinding" process; because they feel like they worked for a good deal and got the better of the dealership. Reality is that the dealership has many angles to get a profit, from trade ins, to "lost key" replacement.
Even if you do as I did with my daughter last August (new stripped down Corolla) and say up front "save your time, I'm not buying any add ons." The finance manager (completely unnecessary since I paid cash) said "I'm required to go through this checklist" complete bull excrement.

 

[Zill]

I don't know how it works in every state. But in Utah, yes. If you're selling one and buying another the broker can set it up as a single transaction with tax only due on the difference.

If you're buying one without selling, Montana LLC is the way to go. I currently have 3 vehicles titled in Montana. No sales tax. But you typically must take possession out of state if it's from a dealership. The beauty of the LLC is that you can sell it without tax as many times as you want - because you sell the LLC that owns the car, not ever selling the car. And there's no sales tax on business sales. And you could record a loss for income tax purposes. That's why you'll frequently see Montana plates on $$cars, RVs, boats, and aircraft.

Utah law is actually designed around this and has special rules for RVs so you can do it. Rich people get laws changed to skip taxes. Poor people pay taxes. Nice.

Dowwnside is that you can't finance the car with this structure with normal loans. I only buy cars in cash, so I've never tried financing but that's what I've been told.

Usually you can transfer to your personal registration after one year and you don't usually pay sales tax transferring a title between states. So you can usually also do the Montana title for a year and transfer and save the tax that way but end up titled in your desired state.

Just a few options. But it's all a bit dependent on your end goal and the laws in your state.

The problem is, most States have closed the Montana LLC loophole and still require a use tax to be paid if you are mainly operating the vehicle in a State outside of Montana.

 

[Jetboy]

The problem is, most States have closed the Montana LLC loophole and still require a use tax to be paid if you are mainly operating the vehicle in a State outside of Montana.

I'm not sure how they'd actually enforce it. But they probably do have laws against it. I'm not terribly worried about the real world risk of enforcement. I put it at basically zero.

 

[MeWantLC]

M

So this is a way you can dodge sales tax on a new car purchase? Do you have anything I can read about this practice, any term or what not I can google? I'm in Texas btw, do you know if this works there as well?

Not sure I fully understand your question... But ...

I will share what I learned with the last car I got from a "dealership; like you, I am in Texas too. It was in fact a car I was going to buy as a private party purchase. The seller and I agreed on a price and we were going to do the transaction private to private, however the seller liked a car he saw in a dealer lot. He contacted such dealer and ask them if they will work with him to be a "broker", and the did. They charged him $500 for that, basically doing the paperwork, and he will save on tax because remember here we pay the tax on the difference between the car we are buying and the car we are selling as a trade in. So, he "sold" the car to them as a trade in for the car he was buying from them and in that way that allowed him to save in taxes. Up to that point, the benefits for him were,
1. He saved in taxes, that's the biggest one.
2. He didn't have to deal with me as a buyer and my payment, because I didn't pay to him, I paid to the dealer. This is a good one too if you don't trust your buyer.
3. He got to buy a car he wanted from the dealership.

Now, my benefits as a buyer weren't that great other than,
1. I did not have to deal with the DMV office and the paperwork to get it tittle on my name.
2. I was paying cash, so no difference to me, however I can see this as a potential benefit to the buyer because if she needs financing, the "dealer" could offer that. Now, you will need to have to deal with the dealership financial person whom I don't like at all but that is a potential benefit.

Now, the added benefit to me was that I was thinking about selling one of my other cars and I asked the dealership contact person, a sales guy, for a trade in evaluation. It was not too bad, it wasn't great but it wasn't that bad to be honest as I knew the market for my car (it was an AMG coupé) , but it would have helped me with taxes too because now I was going to "trade in" and I wouldn't have to deal with the sale privately. So, I also got taxes benefits at the end because I trade in my other car. So,
3. Trade in tax benefit to the buyer is she is trade in a car to the "sale dealership", aka in this case, broker.

Now, the drawback for me was that these bozos at the stealership wanted to play a quicky on me and added a bunch of s*** to the sales "contract" , even though I was buying cash. It took at least 3 or 4 back and forth with them and the seller, for them to "correct" what they have put down and I think eventually the seller ended up paying more than the $500 they told him it will cost for "broker" services. I was really furious because on paper all this should have been clear and easy, but I couldn't believe the disgrace of seeing this dealership trying to take me for a ride on something so simple.

Sorry for the long post, but hopefully this helps you, here in Texas.

 

[Jetboy]

Back to pricing:

I think the pricing is out of line now that the specs are out and it's the smaller drive train and very low payload figures. It's not what I thought it was. How does it compete with a 4Runner that will be at least its equal and possibly better for $10k less?

I suspect it will have the same headwinds as the LC200 for different reasons. The LC200 was killed by the 4Runner that offered a better value. The LC200 was an HD vehicle but priced so high and only sold in $$$ trims that very few people want. The LC250 is in many ways the opposite - it's not an HD model and is sold in a base configuration. But it's not priced like a base model. It's still $10k more than a base model LC300. And it doesn't have the HD powertrain to justify the price bump. So, now it's a less expensive vehicle, but in my view it didn't make any headway in terms of the value for money balance. It's cheaper, but Toyota also took the value out. It's no more competitive with the 4R now than it was before. Just different in how it still loses to the 4Runner.

When the dealer association told Toyota that they wanted the Land Cruiser, but not the LC200 - I don't think this is what they were asking for.

I also don't understand Toyota's logic on this. They already have the right stuff to use. Just use the GX powertrain in the LC250 at LC pricing with a more base level interior. That's what I think most buyers actually want. And it's ready to go engineering and production wise. The cost difference would likely be zero or very close to zero. It doesn't cost more to build a 9.5 axle vs an 8.2. Toyota for whatever reason chose to kneecap the LC250. And Toyota could have even offered a base model with base powertrain and a HD version. They're doing it with the Tacoma and 4Runner. Why not just offer a LC250 with the HD powertrain and non-hybrid turbo 4? That's the sweet spot in value. It's the volume seller all over the world in the LC300 lineup (with the 1GR) and presumably would have production costs well below the hybrid with the light duty powertrain. The highest selling configuration of the global flagship SUV and it's the one product that Toyota refuses to build for the north america market.

 

[APIOQM]

What you get with your LC250 for $10k over the 4Runner Off-Road is full-time 4WD with a locking diff, the hybrid powertrain, the nameplate, and possibly larger dimensions. Curious to see what wheelbase they go with on the 4Runner.

 

[TWILLY]

Back to pricing:

I think the pricing is out of line now that the specs are out and it's the smaller drive train and very low payload figures. It's not what I thought it was. How does it compete with a 4Runner that will be at least its equal and possibly better for $10k less?

I suspect it will have the same headwinds as the LC200 for different reasons. The LC200 was killed by the 4Runner that offered a better value. The LC200 was an HD vehicle but priced so high and only sold in $$$ trims that very few people want. The LC250 is in many ways the opposite - it's not an HD model and is sold in a base configuration. But it's not priced like a base model. It's still $10k more than a base model LC300. And it doesn't have the HD powertrain to justify the price bump. So, now it's a less expensive vehicle, but in my view it didn't make any headway in terms of the value for money balance. It's cheaper, but Toyota also took the value out. It's no more competitive with the 4R now than it was before. Just different in how it still loses to the 4Runner.

When the dealer association told Toyota that they wanted the Land Cruiser, but not the LC200 - I don't think this is what they were asking for.

I also don't understand Toyota's logic on this. They already have the right stuff to use. Just use the GX powertrain in the LC250 at LC pricing with a more base level interior. That's what I think most buyers actually want. And it's ready to go engineering and production wise. The cost difference would likely be zero or very close to zero. It doesn't cost more to build a 9.5 axle vs an 8.2. Toyota for whatever reason chose to kneecap the LC250. And Toyota could have even offered a base model with base powertrain and a HD version. They're doing it with the Tacoma and 4Runner. Why not just offer a LC250 with the HD powertrain and non-hybrid turbo 4? That's the sweet spot in value. It's the volume seller all over the world in the LC300 lineup (with the 1GR) and presumably would have production costs well below the hybrid with the light duty powertrain. The highest selling configuration of the global flagship SUV and it's the one product that Toyota refuses to build for the north america market.

Well said.

Give us HD base spec. That was my hope for the 1958.

Toyota can solve this problem with a HD package that pairs the hybrid (and/or non-hybrids) with GX's axles, running gear, and larger fuel tank.

 

[Zill]

What you get with your LC250 for $10k over the 4Runner Off-Road is full-time 4WD with a locking diff, the hybrid powertrain, the nameplate, and possibly larger dimensions. Curious to see what wheelbase they go with on the 4Runner.

I expect the 4Runner to mimic the Land Cruiser for its underside. That has historically been the case with the Prado/4Runner relationship. I don’t see Toyota dropping the R&D money to change them too drastically between each other.

You will most likely still be able to get the full time 4WD transfer case in the limited trim as well. Which will probably be priced somewhere between the 1958 and Land Cruiser trim pricing.

From the spy pictures taken, it’s looking like the 4Runner will still retain the roll down rear window option. While they stripped the tailgate from the Cruiser.

People are just paying for a nameplate at this point with the 250 when the new 4Runner is launched.

 

[jerryb]

8 injectors ,2 or 3 cooling systems, smaller tank, less range, intercooler.
the more videos of tundras and sequoias I watch the more sad and angry I get.
realizing the push for 4bangers is 100% complete in less than a year.
disgusting.

 

[AndrewTK]

What you get with your LC250 for $10k over the 4Runner Off-Road is full-time 4WD with a locking diff, the hybrid powertrain, the nameplate, and possibly larger dimensions. Curious to see what wheelbase they go with on the 4Runner.

The real ques

I expect the 4Runner to mimic the Land Cruiser for its underside. That has historically been the case with the Prado/4Runner relationship. I don’t see Toyota dropping the R&D money to change them too drastically between each other.

You will most likely still be able to get the full time 4WD transfer case in the limited trim as well. Which will probably be priced somewhere between the 1958 and Land Cruiser trim pricing.

From the spy pictures taken, it’s looking like the 4Runner will still retain the roll down rear window option. While they stripped the tailgate from the Cruiser.

People are just paying for a nameplate at this point with this new cruiser.

The value proposition gets even worse if Toyota adds the hybrid to the high spec 4Runner models (as they are doing in the Tacoma). That opens the possibility of a top trim 4Runner with the same powertrain and likely similar size priced in the ballpark of the 1958 LC250 - going to be really tough to justify the two models if this scenario pans out

 

[Zill]

8 injectors ,2 or 3 cooling systems, smaller tank, less range, intercooler.
the more videos of tundras and sequoias I watch the more sad and angry I get.
realizing the push for 4bangers is 100% complete in less than a year.
disgusting.

I’m happy they are at least are doing dual injection (port and direct) so we don’t have too much carbon build up on the valves from the EGR vapors.

Everything else though seems like a complete mess to deal with 10 years down the road. Cars are sadly becoming more and more disposable.

 

[Zill]

The real ques

The value proposition gets even worse if Toyota adds the hybrid to the high spec 4Runner models (as they are doing in the Tacoma). That opens the possibility of a top trim 4Runner with the same powertrain and likely similar size priced in the ballpark of the 1958 LC250 - going to be really tough to justify the two models if this scenario pans out

Very good point. They absolutely will be dropping the hybrid powertrain in the TRD Pro models, as evidenced by the Tacoma launch.

 

[Jetboy]

What you get with your LC250 for $10k over the 4Runner Off-Road is full-time 4WD with a locking diff, the hybrid powertrain, the nameplate, and possibly larger dimensions. Curious to see what wheelbase they go with on the 4Runner.

The 4Runner has full time 4wd in some trims. Tacoma now has that as well. I'm not sure the 4R allows you to combine AWD with the rear locker, but the rear locker should be on about half of the 4Runner options. The cargo volume on the LC250 is about 15% smaller than the current 4Runner. Presumably the next gen 4Runner will offer more cargo volume or the option of the 3rd row seating with similar cargo volume or the hybrid that will be roughly the same cargo volume. All highly dependent on what the next 4Runner ends up as. But the current 4Runner has more cargo volume.

Let's say - hypothetically - new 4Runner has a Trailhunter model with all of the same features as the Tacoma;

• HD powertrain (or at least 9.5" axle),
• hybrid,
• rear locker,
• SDM,
• premium interior with heated and cooled seats,
• 2.5" bypass shocks,
• external jack points,
• rock rails,
• steel skid plate package,
• 14" screen,
• upfitter factory switch panel,
• snorkel.

That's a lot of stuff that the LC250 doesn't have. My guess is the TH version will end up around $60k. Right at the same pricing as a mid range LC250. But it's just so much better value on the same platform. Assuming the hypothetical is reality - why would anyone look at the two side by side and buy the LC250?

If you really want the awd - the higher trim 4Runners will have that around $53k with a loaded interior. Possibly better than the highest trim LC250 interior if it's consistent with the current lineup.


Maybe the nameplate is worth the $10k and less content? It's not to me. But it might be to some buyers. Maybe the LC250 is just nicer in terms of seat position and outward visibility? There's non-measurable attributes that might make it better. We won't know until we see the 4Runner.

 

[M1911]

8 injectors ,2 or 3 cooling systems, smaller tank, less range, intercooler.
the more videos of tundras and sequoias I watch the more sad and angry I get.
realizing the push for 4bangers is 100% complete in less than a year.
disgusting.

My wife drives Mercedes C300s. When she traded in her last, 10-year-old C300, that one had a V6 and the new one has a turbo-4. I was a bit skeptical about it, as I really liked that old V6. It was quite smooth and had a lovely sound. Since then, I've driven her turbo-4 on a number of occasions and I have to say that the turbo-4 is a better engine all around. It gets a bit better fuel economy, it is quieter, it has more power (particularly more low-end torque), and it accelerates quicker.

Obviously, I haven't driven Toyota's new turbo-4. I have driven the 5th gen 4Runner with 4.0 V6 on three test drives and I have to say that I hated that drivetrain. That V6 is loud, has little low-end torque, has a coarse sound, and gets poor fuel economy (worse than may fullsize pickups). The only thing going for that V6 is its reliability.

While I like the 5.7 V8 in my 200, the fuel economy is simply horrifically bad. It's unacceptable in today's marketplace (let alone the CAFE implications). So I'm keeping an open mind.

 

[Zill]

My wife drives Mercedes C300s. When she traded in her last, 10-year-old C300, that one had a V6 and the new one has a turbo-4. I was a bit skeptical about it, as I really liked that old V6. It was quite smooth and had a lovely sound. Since then, I've driven her turbo-4 on a number of occasions and I have to say that the turbo-4 is a better engine all around. It gets a bit better fuel economy, it is quieter, it has more power (particularly more low-end torque), and it accelerates quicker.

Obviously, I haven't driven Toyota's new turbo-4. I have driven the 5th gen 4Runner with 4.0 V6 on three test drives and I have to say that I hated that drivetrain. That V6 is loud, has little low-end torque, has a coarse sound, and gets poor fuel economy (worse than may fullsize pickups). The only thing going for that V6 is its reliability.

While I like the 5.7 V8 in my 200, the fuel economy is simply horrifically bad. It's unacceptable in today's marketplace (let alone the CAFE implications). So I'm keeping an open mind.

Have you heard the new 2.4 in other Toyotas? It ranks up there with one of the worst sounding engines out there. It’s extremely rattly under load and sounds like it has a tick from the factory. Not at all what I imagine should be coming from a SUV.

 

[Fort9378]

The 4Runner has full time 4wd in some trims. Tacoma now has that as well. I'm not sure the 4R allows you to combine AWD with the rear locker, but the rear locker should be on about half of the 4Runner options. The cargo volume on the LC250 is about 15% smaller than the current 4Runner. Presumably the next gen 4Runner will offer more cargo volume or the option of the 3rd row seating with similar cargo volume or the hybrid that will be roughly the same cargo volume. All highly dependent on what the next 4Runner ends up as. But the current 4Runner has more cargo volume.

Let's say - hypothetically - new 4Runner has a Trailhunter model with all of the same features as the Tacoma;

• HD powertrain (or at least 9.5" axle),
• hybrid,
• rear locker,
• SDM,
• premium interior with heated and cooled seats,
• 2.5" bypass shocks,
• external jack points,
• rock rails,
• steel skid plate package,
• 14" screen,
• upfitter factory switch panel,
• snorkel.

That's a lot of stuff that the LC250 doesn't have. My guess is the TH version will end up around $60k. Right at the same pricing as a mid range LC250. But it's just so much better value on the same platform. Assuming the hypothetical is reality - why would anyone look at the two side by side and buy the LC250?

If you really want the awd - the higher trim 4Runners will have that around $53k with a loaded interior. Possibly better than the highest trim LC250 interior if it's consistent with the current lineup.


Maybe the nameplate is worth the $10k and less content? It's not to me. But it might be to some buyers. Maybe the LC250 is just nicer in terms of seat position and outward visibility? There's non-measurable attributes that might make it better. We won't know until we see the 4Runner.

My problem with most of this analysis is that it relies on a LOT of what-ifs that we don't know will be true. I brought this up previously as well. I think your price estimates on the 4runner are much lower than what we'll get based off of Tacoma pricing. TRD OR Tacos are already the same price as a 1958 edition. Expecting a new gen 4R Trailhunter to be 60k is extremely wishful thinking in my eyes.

That aside, there are valid complaints with the LC. My biggest being the lack of a roll down rear window funny enough. I think the LC will be well positioned for people who want a nicely optioned Toyota with decent 4wd roots.

I've seen this a lot as well on ih8mud, but AWD =/= Full time 4wd. It isn't the same system.

 

[jerryb]

I think I just consider it an insult to the brand. (LC)
I was slightly offended at MBs move a few years ago. Swapped TTcls for ls460- Fine with DI and MPI.
The shear amount of parts and intricacies of toyota's new 4cyl isn't a place I want to be.
I would admittedly be jazzed about the 6cyl twin without a 48volt sea anchor in the LC. Not jazzed about buying a new lexus, never have been.

oh did you guys see the turbo is part of the manifold? oil and coolant lines everywhere, no hard wastegate, BOV. We'll see I guess.

 

[M1911]

Have you heard the new 2.4 in other Toyotas? It ranks up there with one of the worst sounding engines out there. It’s extremely rattly under load and sounds like it has a tick from the factory. Not at all what I imagine should be coming from a SUV.

No, I haven't driven the 2.4 turbo. Also, note that the 2.4 in the trucks has 50% different parts (including the block) from the 2.4 turbo in cars and crossovers. Maybe it will be objectionable in the Taco and 250; maybe it won't. So I will reserve judgment on it until I've driven it.

 

[M1911]

That aside, there are valid complaints with the LC. My biggest being the lack of a roll down rear window funny enough.

Huh? The 200 didn't have a rolldown rear window either. My 4th Gen 4Runner had a rolldown rear window and I have to say that I've never missed it. I never drove with the rear window rolled down and don't understand why anyone would.