Are there any new sedans capable of 300k miles?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by Silverado12
It's good way to judge what's going to last in the future, though. For example, a Dodge Charger with either the 3.6 or 5.7 Hemi will more than likely last that long because they're proven designs. Also, very comfortable to take long commutes/trips in.

While the Charger's (and 300's) reliability has improved in recent years, and one that is carefully maintained should make 300k miles, there are four reasons why I didn't include it as a recommendation...
1. The OP lives in IL (snow and ice land) and after driving a FWD car for as long as his wife has, unless he is willing to pop for AWD, she probably wouldn't appreciate driving a RWD car going forward.
2. A 2019 Charger SXT AWD V/6 is $9k higher than a similarly equipped 2019 Camry LE 4-cyl (or nearly the same price as a fully loaded Camry XLE V/6 or Avalon XLE) and even a RWD SXT V/6 is $4k higher. This is not an insignificant price difference.
3. The car gets mediocre fuel mileage relative to the Camry.
4. FCA is in bad financial shape globally and might not survive long enough for the OP to be able to obtain the parts needed to keep it on the road for 300k miles or 20 years. IMO they are only one recession away from going under.
 
Hmm, I'm still trying to figure out what vehicles I'll get in 5 or so years when my current fleet needs flipping. Maybe sooner as my Camry isn't getting newer. A couple of FWD manual trans cars and something with AWD for moving stuff. Preferably 200k on the clock so as to be cheap, then put on 100k or so, get rid of before expensive repairs (or junk at that time). Then again, maybe I should go new? My Camry is running around 19c/m, all costs considered; at 31mpg I've spent more on fuel than on the car.

300k is a nice target, but shouldn't the goal be lowest TCO? or lowest cost per mile? well, given a particular comfort level and performance level (performance or capability, you know, people vs cargo moving).

They make cars without black interiors, right?
 
As far as low total cost of ownership (TCO) is concerned, it is a fact that Toyota has led the pack for MANY years and continues to do so.
IMO the only way that buying anything new makes financial sense is if you take very good care of the vehicle and keep it until the wheels fall off. Regardless, the TCO comes WAY down if you purchase a 2 year old used vehicle.
All of the Camry models are available with ash (grey) interiors and the LE and XLE models are also available with macadamia (tan) interiors. These interior choices along with black (and maroon on some of the sporty models) are available on all of Toyota's current vehicles.
I'm sorry to say that manual transmissions are going away Supton. In fact, they are almost all gone already. I would own one if I lived in the country. They are great for rural driving, but they are a PIA for urban driving.
 
Originally Posted by wag123
As far as low total cost of ownership (TCO) is concerned, it is a fact that Toyota has led the pack for MANY years and continues to do so.
IMO the only way that buying anything new makes financial sense is if you take very good care of the vehicle and keep it until the wheels fall off. Regardless, the TCO comes WAY down if you purchase a 2 year old used vehicle.


This post is just silly on so many levels.
There are numerous makers that challenge Toyota on TCO, Honda being just one example. Toyota has also built its share of stinkers just as every other maker has.
It also rarely makes financial sense to buy a two year old Japanese make sedan since once you account for the allocable depreciation expense of the miles on the used car the apparent savings evaporate.
For that matter, when you consider the actual purchase price of something like a new NA Fusion, it's easy to see how one can beat a Camry on TCO and the 2.5 NA Fusion is a very capable car with lots of nice toys. We have four of these in the fleet at work and they are quite nice to drive.
 
Originally Posted by fdcg27
There are numerous makers that challenge Toyota on TCO, Honda being just one example. Toyota has also built its share of stinkers just as every other maker has.

I have owned several Hondas (and own one now). The Toyotas that I have owned over the years (and the two I own now) have had notably lower TCO numbers then my Hondas (or for that matter, anything else that I have owned), each and every one of them. I never owned a Toyota that was a stinker, and nobody that I know has ever gotten one. I did however own a Honda that was a stinker.

Originally Posted by fdcg27
It also rarely makes financial sense to buy a two year old Japanese make sedan since once you account for the allocable depreciation expense of the miles on the used car the apparent savings evaporate.

I disagree, and so do the experts. The real numbers don't lie once you put a calculator to them.
.
Originally Posted by fdcg27
For that matter, when you consider the actual purchase price of something like a new NA Fusion, it's easy to see how one can beat a Camry on TCO.
The 2.5 NA Fusion is a very capable car with lots of nice toys. We have four of these in the fleet at work and they are quite nice to drive.

Not a chance! NO WAY will the majority of Fusions end up having a lower TCO then the majority of Camrys when it is all-said-and-done. For that matter, NOTHING Ford makes will beat an equivalent Toyota product in terms of TCO. If Fusions were actually cheaper to purchase than Camrys it would make a difference, but they aren't. When equally equipped, the prices are very close. Also, the Toyota dealers will give away Camrys just like the Ford dealers will give away Fusions, and Toyota has rebates and financing incentives, just like Ford does.
I never said that the Fusion was not a capable and good driving car. It is also a good looking car with a lot going for it. The 2.5L would have been on my recommended list if it weren't for the fact that the OP has reservations about the reliability/durability of the automatic transmission.
One last thing for what it is worth, Fusions are manufactured in Mexico, Camrys are manufactured in the USA. So, which one is an American car?
 
If you don't have to have sedan, I would highly recommend Honda Fit. My 2012 Sport has 130k with no problems at all. All the belts, water pump, light bulbs, rear drum brake, and wiper blades are original and this area gets all 4 seasons on the extreme end of under 20 to upper 90.

This vehicle can haul 4 people under 6 feet comfortably but you'll need to give it a little gas to merge safety in traffic due to the grossly undersized engine for such a spacious vehicle. Fuel economy is typically around 35 mpg combined. If you need to haul bigger folks in the back, the HRV is a better choice but fuel economy is only 32 mpg combined.

Hatchbacks are just much better in every way except kidnapping run where you need a trunk.

As a precaution, I do change the ATF every 30-50k miles or about 2-3 years. It is not the cost but rather the lack of proper jack so crawling under is pain in the [censored] and I have to put the jack stand on the engine as I cannot find the actual spot down there. If it was easier like a truck, I would do it every 15k miles.
 
Originally Posted by wag123
Originally Posted by fdcg27
There are numerous makers that challenge Toyota on TCO, Honda being just one example. Toyota has also built its share of stinkers just as every other maker has.

I have owned several Hondas (and own one now). The Toyotas that I have owned over the years (and the two I own now) have had notably lower TCO numbers then my Hondas (or for that matter, anything else that I have owned), each and every one of them. I never owned a Toyota that was a stinker, and nobody that I know has ever gotten one. I did however own a Honda that was a stinker.

Originally Posted by fdcg27
It also rarely makes financial sense to buy a two year old Japanese make sedan since once you account for the allocable depreciation expense of the miles on the used car the apparent savings evaporate.

I disagree, and so do the experts. The real numbers don't lie once you put a calculator to them.
.
Originally Posted by fdcg27
For that matter, when you consider the actual purchase price of something like a new NA Fusion, it's easy to see how one can beat a Camry on TCO.
The 2.5 NA Fusion is a very capable car with lots of nice toys. We have four of these in the fleet at work and they are quite nice to drive.

Not a chance! NO WAY will the majority of Fusions end up having a lower TCO then the majority of Camrys when it is all-said-and-done. For that matter, NOTHING Ford makes will beat an equivalent Toyota product in terms of TCO. If Fusions were actually cheaper to purchase than Camrys it would make a difference, but they aren't. When equally equipped, the prices are very close. Also, the Toyota dealers will give away Camrys just like the Ford dealers will give away Fusions, and Toyota has rebates and financing incentives, just like Ford does.
I never said that the Fusion was not a capable and good driving car. It is also a good looking car with a lot going for it. The 2.5L would have been on my recommended list if it weren't for the fact that the OP has reservations about the reliability/durability of the automatic transmission.
One last thing for what it is worth, Fusions are manufactured in Mexico, Camrys are manufactured in the USA. So, which one is an American car?


Having owned lots of Hondas I don't see how anything could have had lower cost per mile driven. Toyota's problem children are well enough known that there is little need to cover it here. I wonder how many of certain models died because they were run out of oil due to the sort of consumption that Toyotas aren't supposed to have?

I'm not sure what "experts" there are who can give any real-world examples, but if you put a calculator to it you don't get lower cost per mile with a two year old Japanese brand sedan. There just isn't enough depreciation loss in two years to make up for the miles these cars will have.

When I last seriously shopped sedans, the Camry could be found cheaper than the Accord and the Fusions were significantly cheaper than the Camrys. These were real-world prices from dealers willing to play the game. Not all are. Ended up with an Accord Hybrid on which I got a deal reflecting both the low current price of fuel and the lack of demand for sedans.
 
Originally Posted by fdcg27
Having owned lots of Hondas I don't see how anything could have had lower cost per mile driven. Toyota's problem children are well enough known that there is little need to cover it here. I wonder how many of certain models died because they were run out of oil due to the sort of consumption that Toyotas aren't supposed to have?

What about Honda's problem children? They are also well known. I had one myself.
I have never owned a Toyota that had an oil burning problem. Nor have I had an automatic transmission, A/C compressor, steering rack, or motor mount failure (relatively common Honda problems). Neither has anyone else that I personally know. Another common problem that Hondas have is, in the Texas sun/heat, they tend to have paint problems fairly early-on. ALL vehicles end-up having paint problems in Texas, even Toyotas, but not at such an early age as I have seen on many Hondas.
And then there is the recall rate, Honda has the 3rd highest recall rate behind #1 VW and #2 Chrysler. Toyota has a 1/3 lower recall rate than Honda, and that includes the massive unintended acceleration recall in 2009.
Keep in mind, I currently own a Honda.

Originally Posted by fdcg27
I'm not sure what "experts" there are who can give any real-world examples, but if you put a calculator to it you don't get lower cost per mile with a two year old Japanese brand sedan. There just isn't enough depreciation loss in two years to make up for the miles these cars will have.

Just one of the many experts is Consumer Reports. They have flat-out stated (on many occasions) that purchasing a late model used vehicle will result is a lower TCO. Admitedly, this is not generally true with most Hondas. With most Hondas the TCO would actually be HIGHER if purchased as a late model used vehicle (as you have pointed out) because Hondas are unique in regard to their extremely high short-term resale value. Not so with Toyotas (and other makes). Their short-term resale values tend to be dramatically lower because of all the Toyota (and other makes) of rental vehicles that are regularly dumped on the used car market within 1 to 2 years. For example, teen mile used 2018 Camrys are currently selling for an average of $8k less than new. As a result, in the LONG run, purchasing a used Toyota WILL end-up having a lower TCO if they are purchased as late model used vehicles because, at the end of the day, when comparing the used values at the 15 year old mark, Toyotas and Hondas are selling for roughly the same price. As a result, my advice to most people is, if you are buying a new vehicle, buy a Honda. Hondas generally have the lowest TCO of any make when purchased new, in the short run. I have taken my own advice. I do not typically buy new vehicles, but when my wife decided that she wanted a CR-V, we bought her a new one.
As far as this thread is concerned, the OP does not want a CVT or a turbo charger, so the Accord is out.
 
I'm the OP. I appreciate all the replies to my question. After the this winter is over with (salt season) we will be buying a new Camry LE. I believe this model will give the most value over the long haul. Was not an easy decision to make. However I could not find a single confirmed Camry owner who was not overjoyed with their car. Some were newer, some had quite a few miles on them. It also it the one car that is the closest to what she's been driving for years. It has all the features she needs and none or very few of the features I don't want to deal with maintenance wise.
 
I think you've made a good choice
smile.gif
 
So Toyota is dumping masses of Camrys in rental fleets that can then be bought for cheap.
That does sound like a solid plan. OTOH, a used car is always at least somewhat a roll of the dice.
We've just bought our ninth Honda and we've put well over a million miles on them with a couple breaking 200K.
I continue to favor them since I've found them to be quite reasonably priced new and to be really cheap to own and use.
For example, our Gen 8 has needed a set of tires and a set of pads in the 98K it has covered. Not too costly to own and I don't see how you could do any better with anything. Of course, I could write the same about my old BMW, but that would be for a different thread.
And yes, you can buy an Accord without a turbo, a CVT or even DI.
I bought such a car at the end of September and it has averaged a little over 44 mpg in mixed driving since.
I would imagine that the OP might consider a hybrid to be a little too complicated to consider, although this car is less complex mechanically than the Camry Hybrid as well as faster and more economical.
 
Originally Posted by JNG
Battery replacement cost. Doesn't help that the boss at work has a Sonata hybrid that has had problems.


Battery replacement cost is quite reasonable if you look around and won't be required for a long time if ever.
The Sonata is a fake hybrid.
It has all of the hybrid bits but none of the fuel economy.
 
Originally Posted by fdcg27
We've just bought our ninth Honda and we've put well over a million miles on them with a couple breaking 200K.

Only a couple of them broke 200k? Doesn't sound all that good to me. Heck I put over 300k on a VW of all things, and TBH it wasn't that expensive until it 250k.
 
I got 312k miles out of my first Toyota. It looked pretty bad but it was still running and driving fine when I gave it to a needy friend for his new 16 year old driver child to drive. It lasted almost another year before it was totaled. Every other Toyota that I have ever owned has gone well over 200k miles before they were either totaled or I got rid of them to buy a different type of vehicle that I needed (like getting rid of a car to buy a truck). Keep in mind, it doesn't take very much damage to total a vehicle that has a lot of miles on it and the majority of totaled Toyotas were still driveable. I have never been able to wear-out a Toyota myself.
Toyota Hybrid taxis are getting 400k to 500k miles out of their original batteries, and taxi use is hard on the battery. When the battery or inverter fails, they retire it. They actually have more problems with inverters than batteries when they get a lot of miles on them, and they have very few engine or transmission problems.
 
Originally Posted by JNG
Battery replacement cost. Doesn't help that the boss at work has a Sonata hybrid that has had problems.

Originally Posted by fdcg27
Originally Posted by JNG
Battery replacement cost. Doesn't help that the boss at work has a Sonata hybrid that has had problems.


Battery replacement cost is quite reasonable if you look around and won't be required for a long time if ever.
The Sonata is a fake hybrid.
It has all of the hybrid bits but none of the fuel economy.

Battery replacement is a very real exposure if the vehicle is kept past 10 years/150K miles. The stories you hear about taxicabs are not applicable to privately owned vehicles - taxis see very different usage cycles. Some of the hybrids are using lithium packs and the cost of replacement is more than before.
 
Originally Posted by The Critic
The stories you hear about taxicabs are not applicable to privately owned vehicles - taxis see very different usage cycles.

Yes, but taxi usage cycles are much more severe than the average private owner will ever subject their Hybrid to. On Toyota Hybrids, the electric drive system and battery are used primarily and largely at speeds under 35mph. New York City taxi cabs operate their entire lives at speeds under 35mph, so their Hybrid battery utilization is much higher than that of a typical car owner's Hybrid battery utilization. The NiMh battery pack that Toyota developed in conjunction with Panasonic EV is a marvelous technical achievement and was the MOST important part of Toyota's Hybrid development process. IMO, after 20 years and hundreds upon hundreds of million miles experience, the quality of Toyota's NiMh battery pack has proven itself beyond any doubt.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

P
Reliable years of Subaru Outback?
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
6K
Al
W
Modern Turbo Engine Reliability and Durability
3 4 5
Replies
88
Views
5K
wtd
D
Oil changes for warranty
3 4 5
Replies
88
Views
5K
nicholas
AZjeff
When there are no vehicles you want to buy..
4 5 6
Replies
105
Views
8K
Thermo1223
S
The modern collector car market, and cars that are victim of said market
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
MSCH
Back
Top