We have one, a fully loaded one and its a Toyota. that guy in the red does look just a tad better then me.

As much as I enjoy pissing in the wind, my pants are soaked and you have selectively ignored everything I've said or twisted it to suit your agenda. Good luck selling an Explorer.

I agree that you get more used SUV for your $$ in a Ford than a Toyota, but there is no real $10k "savings". Just like when discussing diesels, you are ignoring the very resale that makes the Toyota so much more in the first place. The Explorer would probably cost more to own for three years than the Toyota, if you factor in resale. You would lose less on the Toyota than the Ford. That is the single largest expense in owning most new or late model vehicles, particularly higher-end expensive cars and trucks.

You cannot just leave that calculation out of the equation. It assumes that everyone is going to buy a car and then drive it 'till the wheels fall off. Almost no one does that. People switch vehicles every few years. And for people who actually do keep them forever, the Toyotas usually pencil-out pretty good. :cool:

I didn't say you were being goofy about Toyota, just that it was likely you'd buy another Toyota. They've served you well, you've had several, you stated RAV4 or 4Runner.....you're probably going to buy a Toyota.

You can find Highlanders in SoCal fairly easily. No need to ship cross country. Just an example. It's unibody, but so is a RAV4 and you said that was in the running.

Pathfinders are body-on-frame.....in fact it's based on the same frame as the Armada. Just another one to look at and consider. A 2010 is a nice truck, and mechanically every bit as good as a 4Runner (imho) for less money. I don't know whether it would pass Matt's hard plastic criteria. Maybe the cloth isn't as nice. You can also consider the Xterra -- same mechanicals, harder plastics on the dash, and five passengers where the Pathfinder is seven.

Why do you desire something body-on-frame?

Once you sit in a Land/Range Rover you would be hard pressed to explain why a Toyota demands similar $. I have always admired the Toyota Land Cruiser, mainly the 80 series, from the outside but hated the interior especially when accounting for the $$ they were demanding. Frankly I spend my time inside my vehicle, not admiring the outside, so that has bearing. 3 Land Rover Discoveries in the game and no regrets. No freaking way I would put up with the plastic **** interior of a 4 Runner/Land Cruiser. YMMV.

So it's justified that a 4Runner is $10,000 more than an Explorer because it's "higher quality", yet they were priced similarly when new. But a vehicle that was $10,000 more than a 4Runner when new is priced similarly now. Which makes the 4Runner a good value exactly?

Your logic can't work one way but not be applied the other.

It's pretty easy to "sell" an Explorer when they're $10,000 less than a 4Runner. Ford sold more Explorers new (60K vs 45K) when they were similarly priced. What makes someone think they're worth $10K more now is beyond me.

Pelicans argued that Apple was worth $700 a share and bought it there figuring it could only go up. It's Apple, of course it's going to go up. Now it's $450. Just because people are willing to pay stupid money for 4Runners right now doesn't mean you should "buy high".

Three years older, 40K more miles, Kelley Blue Book Private Party "Very Good":

2007 Toyota 4Runner Limited V6 4x4 with 66K miles $20,900
2007 Ford Explorer Limited V6 4x4 with 66K miles $17,700

There's a $3,200 delta. But you paid $10,000 more today.

Logic doesn't work, does it? When something is unjustifiably, illogically high in the marketplace it DOES adjust.

I am still driving my 01 Sequoia. 170k around the corner. Did not fall in love with the new 4Runner, as some of you may remember:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/715405-2013-toyota-4runner-test-drive.html

I made up my mind that - unless the stupid prices come down on the 4Runner - I will be buying a newer model Suburban (>2008) or a newer 1st Gen Sequoia (>2005) to replace the old Sequoia. Time to let it go will be 220k miles when the tires are bald again and the next timing belt will be due (I changed it at 110k). :)

G

Why? Anything I should know or look for?

Sorry look - I hit the post button by accident. I since edited the post to have the link in it. I was just a little underwhelmed by the vehicle in terms of power, quality and interior design. I was getting ready to buy a brand new one, but it was north of 40k (I was imagining under 40 out the door) and did just not feel like a $40k vehicle. Especially after getting back into my $8k, 12 year old Sequoia.

G