So I just went to look at a 2000 LC today. $7k listing. AZ for the first 16 years, Denver for the last 4. 200k miles, no rust (except one small part of the tailgate), but the clear coat is pretty much non-existent, a nice brick side swipe scratch along the side, and various other cosmetic flaws on the exterior. Timing belt was replaced at 125k so that's coming up this next year, and the power steering was just completely replaced along with the starter. Tires need to be replaced within the next few months. It was my first time ever driving a Land Cruiser after multiple 4Runners and I loved it. Like riding in a tank filled with pillows.
Now for $1k less, there is an '03 LC I'm going to look at tomorrow. 230k miles, KO2s, great condition inside and out, but the seller indicated that there is rust on the bottom. I asked him to send me pictures, and I can't really tell too much because it looks like it has been painted over. Seller said the car is originally from Georgia, and that he has had it for the past 3 years as his DD in Colorado.
Now I'm originally from the semi-southeast, so rust was always a HUGE no no when buying a car, but now that I'm in Denver I know it's much more common. My plan for the car is to just have a reliable DD and weekend overlander - nothing more strenuous than getting to the campsite with minor rocks. I've done a lot of thread browsing about rust, and people from different regions seem to have different viewpoints, and also the "always get the lowest miles with no rust because that's the only thing that kills a 100", but with the cosmetic repairs I'm going to have to do on the AZ Cruiser, along with new tires and a timing belt and $1k higher price tag, I'm wondering which is the better deal.
Thank you guys for any insight, both the sincere and inevitably sarcastic.
Now for $1k less, there is an '03 LC I'm going to look at tomorrow. 230k miles, KO2s, great condition inside and out, but the seller indicated that there is rust on the bottom. I asked him to send me pictures, and I can't really tell too much because it looks like it has been painted over. Seller said the car is originally from Georgia, and that he has had it for the past 3 years as his DD in Colorado.
Now I'm originally from the semi-southeast, so rust was always a HUGE no no when buying a car, but now that I'm in Denver I know it's much more common. My plan for the car is to just have a reliable DD and weekend overlander - nothing more strenuous than getting to the campsite with minor rocks. I've done a lot of thread browsing about rust, and people from different regions seem to have different viewpoints, and also the "always get the lowest miles with no rust because that's the only thing that kills a 100", but with the cosmetic repairs I'm going to have to do on the AZ Cruiser, along with new tires and a timing belt and $1k higher price tag, I'm wondering which is the better deal.
Thank you guys for any insight, both the sincere and inevitably sarcastic.