The 2009 Toyota Sienna is a CE with 80k miles. very basic, has no bells or whistles, wife not too excited about that.
the 2004 is an XLE limited model, probable about 35k when new. It has 76K miles on it, and has all the bells and whistles...wife loves all the features......
so, do I go for the 09 because its newer or go with the one she likes that has less miles and not worry about the fact its older?....
many have said go with the one you like feature wise, their both Toyotas!
Originally posted by maryjane: If it turns out bad, it was her choice.
Ha, good one.
As for the topic, from a mechanical standpoint the year of the vehicle makes no difference, within reason. Obviously you can't compare say, an '88 commuter car with a '14 commuter car.
But within a 5 to 7 year period the mileage is the real "age".
With the internet, a little patience and an open mind you can find plenty of older vehicles with very low mileage.
High miles has never scared me off. Ive had several pampered cars I put over 200,000 miles on and buyers got great cars. I look at condition before buying. Lots of them, I never even looked at odometer. I also prefer an untouched engine compartment. A nice shiney, clean one can hide lots of problems. A clean interior and exterior shows me how its been taken care of. Ive also bought lots of cars and vans with over 150,000 miles and most were great.
True enough as far as the drive train goes. It's incredible how much more reliable the hardware is. In the "old days" a car with 100K on it was ready for the junk yard.
What I've found though is that the "soft bits" like radio knobs, air vents, arm rests and wheel center caps still wear out after that same 100K. In addition, no matter how well kept the exterior is, after 100K there's plenty of road rash, usually on the various bulges that stick out in the wind stream.
None of that matters if you're looking for transportation but if you want something more you need to look at mileage first.
As long as nothing major changed between those years, I'd go with the loaded model. There may have been something significant that changed between '04 and '09. Maybe they changed the hp rating on the motor or went from a 4spd to a 5spd tranny. Or maybe nothing at all. Make sure there weren't any design defects that had been fixed by '09. I assume both have the same drivetrain. That's pretty low mileage for the '04. I have 92k on my '04 Blazer and even that's low.
I guess I'm the odd man out here. I'd take the newer model. Only because I am of the mindset that 10,000 miles isn't much difference and age takes it's toll on things. Jenny only had 45,000 on her 03 (Mazda in this case) when piddly crap started breaking, just due to the aging of the parts.
Alternatively, I'd say get what the wife wants like Don said.
The mileage is negligible, as it's not uncommon for Toyota's to reach 250k+ miles.
Does either vehicle come with a maintenance history? When I purchase a vehicle, I like to see receipts and a service history on a vehicle to know that it's been cared for and looked after. Maintenance history aside, I'd go after the older model since you don't live in a snow belt and rust/corrosion isn't an issue like it is up here.
Hell the most dependable cars we have all have over 200,000 miles, go for the one that makes the wife happy. like someone said already if something goes wrong it was her choice.
Did you get that injector yet? I just sent it a couple of days ago.
Steve
------------------ Technology is great when it works, and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't
As long as nothing major changed between those years, I'd go with the loaded model. There may have been something significant that changed between '04 and '09. Maybe they changed the hp rating on the motor or went from a 4spd to a 5spd tranny. Or maybe nothing at all. Make sure there weren't any design defects that had been fixed by '09. I assume both have the same drivetrain. That's pretty low mileage for the '04. I have 92k on my '04 Blazer and even that's low.
o4 has a 3.3 l v6 and actually gets better MPG, then the 09 with a 3.5 liter v6.
The mileage is negligible, as it's not uncommon for Toyota's to reach 250k+ miles.
Does either vehicle come with a maintenance history? When I purchase a vehicle, I like to see receipts and a service history on a vehicle to know that it's been cared for and looked after. Maintenance history aside, I'd go after the older model since you don't live in a snow belt and rust/corrosion isn't an issue like it is up here.
both have one owner, regular maintenance. I believe the 04 is an AZ only car though, where as the 09 came from back east, so that may be something to consider.
I do agree though, basic is boring....thanks guys...I'm set.
Same here (after checking the intake gasket. Our 94 Transport made it to 233,000 miles before I traded it in. It was still running like new and used a quart of oil every 5,000 miles. Every time we take a long trip, or we need to haul big things in an inclosed vehicle, I miss that van! OTOH, the Toyota has more rear seat leg-room.
The 2009 Toyota Sienna is a CE with 80k miles. very basic, has no bells or whistles, wife not too excited about that.
the 2004 is an XLE limited model, probable about 35k when new. It has 76K miles on it, and has all the bells and whistles...wife loves all the features......
so, do I go for the 09 because its newer or go with the one she likes that has less miles and not worry about the fact its older?....
many have said go with the one you like feature wise, their both Toyotas!
You're really talking about a 4k mile difference... so I would always try to get the newer one in that case.
Don't take this the wrong way, but I just can't understand spending 15 grand on a car that has 80k miles on it. I think you're paying way too much simply for the brand name "Toyota" on it. At the end of the day, it's still a front wheel drive vehicle with half-shafts and an automatic transmission which has probably never been serviced.
That is actually an amazing deal... only 24,000 miles.
It probably needs new tires, and I'm sure some of the rubber is less than perfect (IE: dust boots on the ball joints and stuff), but damn, that's a great deal...
being that we're married that question really doesn't apply....at least not in my marriage. There is no such thing as "me" paying for something and vice versa... we are a team.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: You're really talking about a 4k mile difference... so I would always try to get the newer one in that case.
Don't take this the wrong way, but I just can't understand spending 15 grand on a car that has 80k miles on it. I think you're paying way too much simply for the brand name "Toyota" on it. At the end of the day, it's still a front wheel drive vehicle with half-shafts and an automatic transmission which has probably never been serviced.
no, I'm going through CarMax, these vehicles have a complete history record, all the maintenance has been done, regularly serviced and maintained by dealer and are extremely clean from top to bottom.
I'm wondering if it would be worth to purchase the bumper to bumper extended warranty. It's five years or 150,000 miles whichever comes first. having 75,000 miles, there's quite a bit of life left on warranty such as that. It may be one or two thousand I'm not sure yet on price, but it covers everything except for routine maintenance.
some people say "hey its a Toyota, chances are you'll never use it and won't need it", but it makes me wonder if it would be worth getting.
being disabled and sick as I am, its harder for me to work on cars these days. This is one reason why I'm wanting to get the wife something newer, its just too damn hard to have to go under the hood and keep up on an older cars like I used to.
there is something appealing about having the peace of mind and not having to do any major work if it comes up.
It would increase my monthly payment between 20 and 40 dollars, however it covers all major electronics, cooling system, drivetrain, engine, water pump, etc....
warranty? Depends on the price, coverage, ease of use. For a Toyota, I would look up that model and see what people have had go wrong on the car. If it is minor stuff, then no warranty. If it is engine/tranny related, get a warranty (if priced right). Usually aftermarket warranties will cover the major items, but if the car has a history of having a sound drivetrain, I would pass.
I'm wondering if it would be worth to purchase the bumper to bumper extended warranty.
being disabled and sick as I am, its harder for me to work on cars these days. This is one reason why I'm wanting to get the wife something newer, its just too damn hard to have to go under the hood and keep up on an older cars like I used to.
I dont remember the exact numbers now, but I called about an extended warranty on my 10 year old Sebring in perfect condition with just 100,000 miles. They wanted $350 down and I think $150 @ month for 5 year warranty. I could buy a new one for the price of the warranty...if it broke.
no, I'm going through CarMax, these vehicles have a complete history record, all the maintenance has been done, regularly serviced and maintained by dealer and are extremely clean from top to bottom.
I've purchased three vehicles from CarMax, what would you like to know about them?
On the first one I picked, there were two cars that were identical, one had less miles and was loaded, and one had slightly more miles and fewer options. I started the one with less miles and more options, and it stalled out within 2 minutes of running. I ended up picking the second one with the slightly more miles. It was a good car, except for the fact that I found a vial of crack cocaine in it (included in the purchase price I guess).
Not all their cars are excellent, they're generally better than what you're going to get at most other used car lots... but let's be honest, it's not like they can take a micrometer to the bearings to see what the clearance is, or take a look at the wear on the transmission clutches.
I would get the extended warranty... but find out how much it is. If you're buying a car that basically has 100,000 miles on it, you're only getting 50,000 "hassle-free" miles out of it with the extra warranty. How much is that warranty? $2,000 more dollars? Then see what you can get for $12,000....
Not trying to be a pain in the ass, but I seriously question when someone buys a car with high mileage and thinks it's ok simply because the "name" suggests that it will be reliable. Toyota has been far from what it was in the mid to late 90s.
