Time for a new LC...14 years and 190K miles?

[TomR]

Maybe time for a fourth and likely last LC. 1991/1994 and current 2004. All have served me well and as I approach age 70 I think after 26 years nearly 500K total miles I am not sure I want to (or can) adapt to a new vehicle other than a 4th LC. Even thought they have changed they are still ergonomically the same drive attributes and feel. Even though I have held off on a new one as the price has got a bit high..to say the least...it may be time to trade.

There are still 2016 models on dealers lots but I tend to think it may be worth the premium...not sure yet what deals may be on a 2016...but I think I want the 8 speed transmission.

Not sure what the current thought is regarding the 2017 8 spd??? Any disadvantages to the new 8 speed or has it proven to be solid so far...maybe a mile or two per gallon better?

Any other differences for 2017? I would probably prefer the burgundy type color.

Any input from this site would be great.

Also, can you still take off the running boards and is there a factory trim piece that can be added behind the front tires? I like the look a lot better and we have never stepped onto the running boards anyway.

I also went up one inch in tire size (circumference I think) which nicely filled up the wheel wells with NO rubbing problems...just about a bit of speedo error. I would probably hope to change at first tire replacement.
Would the stock wheels still take about a 1" larger circumference tire?
BTW...what is reasonable market price range for a 2004 Dark Green 190K LC...always synthetic and many highway miles? Have all service records. Only off road would be when I drive out into my pasture to pull my lawn tractor out of a ditch only once or twice...and a few dirt roads. We are in CA for the winter and drove the LC without hesitation. Great road vehicle and we could bring much of what we own! Point is...we had NO hesitation on taking on a 5,000 miles round trip. Details up like new.

Thanks for any thoughts...TomR

P.S. I have seen discussion regarding the size of the LX as being somewhat "bloated" vs earlier models? How much basic size difference is there when comparing my 2004 "100" LC with a new 2017 "200" LC??? I really am not looking for something much larger than the 100 series...Thanks...TomR

Note emphasis in yellow.

 

[TomR]

Bump with Edit

 

[ikeb]

i can't answer your added edit, as i've never owned a 100-series... @Markuson and many others on here should be able to help with that though.

as for the '16 or '17, i believe all features are the same. the 8-speed was introduced for the '16 model. there were a few rumblings on the forum early on (a few months after the '16 came out in oct/nov of '15) about some issues with the 8-speed, but many of us haven't experienced that and i haven't seen anything recent posted about it. i've had mine since january of last year and never had an issue... several others have had similar experiences to mine.

there is no published (or real-world) difference in MPG between the '16+ models and previous 200-series...

my experience with the size: the truck looks big - and certainly looks bigger than the 100-series, but i find that it drives much smaller than it looks. coming from several BMWs, i won't go so far as to call it nimble... but it feels much smaller behind the wheel.

i've heard that you will be very pleased with the increased power with the 200's over the 100's, especially if you tow.

 

[TomR]

i can't answer your added edit, as i've never owned a 100-series... @Markuson and many others on here should be able to help with that though.

as for the '16 or '17, i believe all features are the same. the 8-speed was introduced for the '16 model. there were a few rumblings on the forum early on (a few months after the '16 came out in oct/nov of '15) about some issues with the 8-speed, but many of us haven't experienced that and i haven't seen anything recent posted about it. i've had mine since january of last year and never had an issue... several others have had similar experiences to mine.

there is no published (or real-world) difference in MPG between the '16+ models and previous 200-series...

my experience with the size: the truck looks big - and certainly looks bigger than the 100-series, but i find that it drives much smaller than it looks. coming from several BMWs, i won't go so far as to call it nimble... but it feels much smaller behind the wheel.

i've heard that you will be very pleased with the increased power with the 200's over the 100's, especially if you tow.

Thanks IKEB...towing is one of the reasons I can't "downsize" yet to one of the new unibody "fake" suvs that seem to be replacing body on frame models...I tow and currently am "OK" with the 2004 LC but looking to add a dual axle trailer w/trailer brakes and buy a small tractor (SCUT or CUT)...the 8100# tow rating would be nice. I agree that the LC handles "pleasantly" and have no huge complaints...even though I usually buy autos with whatever "handling" package they might offer I still enjoy driving the LC...for the last nearly 500K miles TomR

 

[NCMTNS]

I had a 2007 LC and now have a 2017. No difference in a 2016 to 2017. I had looked for a long time at the 200 series but for me personally I was not fully sold on the look of the exterior. It was not until the refresh came in 2016 that I liked what changes were done.

The dealer I was looking at also had a 2016 on the lot but the managers wife was driving it and from what I understood was she didn't want to return it, LOL. I got nearly $12,000 off sticker for the '17 so I think dealerships you are looking at with '16 models should be able to move on price. My dealer said it was more of selling it to appease Toyota as I don't think they really make much money on them anyway, especially when they are selling hundreds of other Toyota models a week.

To me there doesn't seem much size difference although dimensions may be bigger on '17. Two big changes to me were the engine/transmission and the interior. Huge improvements. My 2007 felt tired compared to the new LC. Granted it had 176k on it when sold but the 5.7L is a beast. Everything seems effortless and no issues for me on the 8 speed transmission. However, no improvement on gas mileage. Basically 13/14mpg city and 17/18 highway. I went +2 on rim size to help with the look. I also kept the original rims/tires in case I ever want to go back.

You will also see major improvements on the interior compared to your '04. From materials, ergonomics, etc. Driving the '17 vs the '07 feels much better but not much different, if that makes sense. The size is not much different and you still have a great (commanding) view out. I think what I see/feel is the 10 years of improvement that were made to better an already great vehicle.

Hope that helps you.

 

[TomR]

Thanks NCMTNS...it reminds me when I went from my 1994 with 210K miles to my then new 2004. I still enjoyed my '94 and was a little apprehensive to change. I found it "the same" only MUCH improved in nearly all aspects...but it still felt like a newer and nicer version of the same vehicle. It does point out how old and tired your old one really was! Sounds like your experience when you moved up 10 years to the '17! Now if I can find a Brandywine Mica for a reasonable price...I am guessing your discount of about $12K is near the best in the market at this point?? TomR

 

[ikeb]

there were several reports on here of around $76k - $79k when the 16's came out. i personally came in at $77.5k (sticker was $88k due to dealer "add-ons")...

i'd assume the '17's could be had for around that same ballpark. if there are still any new 16's to be found, i'd guess they could be had for $1k or $2k off of the '17's price - just to get them out of inventory. you could probably find a used '16 for a better price, but my experience is that it's harder to negotiate CPO deals than it is for a new vehicle. YMMV

 

[LBridges]

Taking off the running boards on a 2000 LC is the same as taking them off my 2000 LX - pretty much 3 sets of bolts per side inserted into the body. Haven't checked into front mud flaps.

Dimension info: Turning circle on the '17 is about the same as my 2000 (actually the 2017 has a reported smaller circle, but I've not measured). Length went up 2.4 inches and width went up 1.55 inches (so some but not a lot - "feels" the same pulling into the garage).

Due to the new hood shape I found it very easy to get used to putting the truck mid-lane - handy with a new truck rolling down narrow streets.

Gas mileage is definitely up for the '17 over the '00 - by about 4MPG with both running street tires (Michelin LTX MS2 on the 2000 and the OEM Dunlop's are still on the '17).

Still under 1K miles, so can't judge reliability of the 8 speed. So much faster acceleration, there's no real way to compare the sensations involved.

'17 LC is definitely quieter than the 2000 LX, the ride quality is sometimes better sometimes worse - guess it depends on if the surface suits the AHC damping or the "normal" spring/shock setup for the LC.

Incredibly stupid, but the Sat radio (Sirius/XM) on the '17 is worse than it was on a '14 FJ, an '08 4Runner, and even worse then a Prius. Not sure how they can screw that up so bad - all mentioned vehicles (except the '17 LC) had the upgraded JBL sound system - and stupid me, I thought the JBL sound system in the LC would be the equal or better - honestly think the FJ Cruiser may have had better sound.

In case you think I am unhappy with the '17 LC, let me set the record straight - I wouldn't go back - it is CLEARLY the nicest truck I have ever owned. I paid $78,257 for a $88,080 window sticker (dealer and port options) 2017 model. if You are interested in a Florida vacation there is a brandywine mica '17 at Mike Erdman Toyota on Merritt Island. Fly down to watch a space launch and drive back in a new '17 LC.