Toyota Tundra Discussion Forum banner

Toyota Tundra named the Best Retained Value Truck in U.S.

8K views 50 replies 22 participants last post by  wikidoki 
#1 ·
We all have known this but now new truck buyers doing research will have this to think about when choosing a brand.

Edmunds.com Recognizes Toyota with 'Best Retained Value? Awards

"The top quality that Toyota builds into every vehicle has been recognized yet again. Edmunds.com recently named Toyota as its top non-luxury brand in the fifth annual ‘Best Retained Value’ awards. This award honors the brands and vehicles that maintain the highest projected residual value after five years of ownership. This estimate is based on the vehicle’s Edmunds.com ‘True Market Value’ (TMV) price when first sold.

The ‘Best Retained Value’ award affirms Toyota’s commitment to building reliable, long-lasting vehicles. In addition to the recognition of the brand overall, four Toyota models received awards for best resale value in their respective segments: the Toyota Tacoma, Midsize Truck; the Toyota Tundra, Large Truck (pictured); the Toyota Highlander, Midsize SUV; and the Toyota Avalon, Large Car."
 
#2 · (Edited)
I realized recently how well they do hold their value. My truck was recently repaired from an accident. I hired an appraisal company and they put my Trucks value before the accident at $42,025 (2014 SR5 TRD CM with step bars, tonneau cover) with 11k miles through NADA. Msrp was around $43K. I paid $38K for the truck. My truck is 9 months old. I was surprised! These trucks do hold value really well. :elephant:

Of course now it depreciated because of the accident but still goes to show how well they hold resale value.
 
#32 ·
dat stuff vato is funni no import-ah who ju r...... eff juan fiddy...que loco.....:D:D
dont run for prezedente....... it will haunt jur juan.....fiddy...>:D;)
 
#4 ·
it kinda sucks though, when i was shopping for a used tundra, i found some really nice older trucks with low mileage..... for $5K less than a brand new truck. lol. so i got a brand new truck instead.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Andy M
#5 ·
^^^ I found the same. The day I bought my '14, they just got a used '13 Limited or Platinum on the lot with like 8k miles on it. They wanted me to look at it bad but I was looking at SR5. They wanted like 42k for it; quite a bit more than what I paid for my new truck.
 
#7 ·
I paid 28 ish for my 2012 new. I just sold it to a buddy for 25 (I didn't factor in the 5K of misc mods, those are generally not recoverable) It booked at 26ish. but 25 was good with me and I hate haggling. He's a great guy and at 22 isn't making a lot of money yet even as a civil service engineer. I thought that was great resale for a 3.5 year old truck.

Turned it over yesterday....Miss it already.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Manoah
#8 ·
Not a bad deal for you, drove it for only 1k/year. At that rate, truck would need to last 40 years, assuming the early year/miles are worth double the later.

I would have paid no more than ~19k for that truck but that is my screwed up pricing factoring in the first few years are when it depreciates faster.
 
#15 ·
You would have gotten laughed at by any tundra owner when you threw out 19K. What you "would have paid" doesn't matter if nobody will sell it at that price.
 
#9 ·
I traded in my 2012 CM 4x4 SR5 TRD Off Road with 43k miles on it a few weeks ago. KBB showed $25-$29k trade value. Dealer gave me $26k on trade, which I felt was reasonable. Not a great deal, but reasonable (they did some other things on the deal to make up for it). Original sticker was $42k when I bought it in 2012. They had it on the lot at $34k, and I'm pretty sure it was gone in a week.



Now, I recall a few years back trying to trade in a Dodge Ram............
 
#11 · (Edited)
I also didn't pay sticker when I bought it, I think I got it for $37,500. And that truck was a 0% interest loan.



Didn't make out quite that good buying the TRD Pro.........but I love it.
 
#16 · (Edited)
You made it sound like you cut your buddy a good deal. You didn't.

I don't care what value stuff is "appraised" at. At some point the appraisal industry got away from reality.

Vehicles go down in value. They go down faster when they are newer. Used prices should be based on the expected lifetime of the vehicle and how old/many miles are on it.

Same goes for houses (structures), they SHOULD go down in value, but they don't. Everyone likes to hear their shit is worth more than it is. They are told it long enough and people start to believe it, count on it. This is what happened and is still happening with housing. Soon, we will see the same happen with these new, home priced vehicles.

Your friend could have bought a similar new truck from a dealer, one really wanting to make the sale, for the same money. You sold it to him as if you drove the last 25000 miles, not the first.

Glad you got a good price though.

I did get laughed at when looking at used Tundras, which is why I ended up buying a new one for less money..... Like I said, I will likely never purchase a used one.
 
#18 ·
Structures do go down in value. It is a fact. Realtors, banks, and appraisers may not want to agree but logically they must.

The demand is for the land. Land values can increase (relative to the dollar), which makes sense. Quantity is fixed and cities can expand/change/improve.

Why would I pay more for an old worn out HVAC, worn out roof, dirty carpet, worn paint, corroded plumbing, than when new?

Houses wear out, just like vehicles/equipment. At some point, home (structure value) should be zero. Lets say, 75 years is the practical lifespan of a house and 200K miles for a Tundra? So the first few years of use is when the structure should loose most of its value. Makes sense, I would pay more to live in a new house than a used one.....
 
#19 ·
Great logic, my house was built in 1923 and guess what its still worth over 200k
granted that i've remodeled and replaced pretty much everything.

if you're talking about a dilapidated building, then yes I agree. But a properly maintained building will hold its value.

My commercial building was built in 1955 and it was built back when they didnt give a fk about material costs. SOLID concrete walls, metal trusses and about two forests of wood in the roof. The guys who put up our sign took a week just to drill the holes and went through 4 heavy duty drills.

guarantee you this building will outlast any building made recently and hold more value.
 
#23 ·
You bought land + structure. Structure was built in 1923.

You say current value is 200K.

Lets say you purchased the land and 1923 structure for 100K. Then, tore down the 1923 structure and built a new structure for 100K.

What value did the old 1923 structure have? Did you sell it to anyone?

Sure, you can add value to stuff by adding money (not always 1 to 1). If you stacked up $100K cash inside the 1923 structure, the land + structure would be work $200K.

In general, you cannot say that a house, with just simple maintenance, increases in value. Sure, you start replacing major components with new, it can go up a corresponding amount.

The commercial building may have a longer life and may be worth more because of its construction, the cost of materials went up more than the structure decayed.

It is property tax protest season in TX so you will have to excuse my irritation on this subject.
 
  • Like
Reactions: derp
#24 ·
I bet the property tax protest people love it when you call....You're annoying the shit out of me on the internet, they are likely to put a bullet in their head with you on the phone.

I don't even know where to start with your twisted logic...I'll just leave you be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Manoah and Dragos28
#27 ·
Well, since you put 100K into it, I'll give you 120K for it....the price of it in 08, plus the upgrades, minus the last 7 years of use....Houses don't last forever you know....That's his logic.
:banghead:
:fou:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dragos28
#28 · (Edited)
Well done. The $40K increase sounds like it mostly came from paying the lower foreclosure price initially.

I meant "essentially" tore down old structure if you remodeled/replaced everything.

The exact point I am trying make is confirmed by your example. Everything makes logical sense.

You made a good move and paid 60K for a 100K property (approximate). Your mostly new structure cost 100K to build and the combined property is now worth 200K. A little bit of simple math shows that the original 1923 structure had little or no value at the ripe old age of 90 (as it should).

Of course, I am assuming bank foreclosures go for less than they would from an individual owner (in this case 40K less). If you assume the foreclosure discount was only 20K, that puts the old structure value at 20K, etc. Whatever it was, the old structure could not have been worth more than 40K.

If you did not put 100K into building a new structure, the property would only be worth 100K.

And yes, the structure value should be on its way down again. Unless you made it out of materials that don't decay, crack, get eaten by bugs, rot, get dirty, corrode, erode, or wear.

Depending on the year you did the remodel, lets say 2010, I would offer 190K :)

If structure lasts 75 years, that is ~$1300/year of decay for the structure, assuming all years are equal. 5 years of decay = ~7K. Since new years are worth more, I would round up to 10-15K in decay over 5 years. Of course, that is for structure, property could have gone up.
 
#30 ·
If used Tundra prices are what people claim, you could always drive a new Tundra for free (or very little). Buy a new Tundra at a good price (end of year, end of month, with rebate, previous model year etc etc). Drive it until you find a deal on a new one. Sell the now used truck for slightly less than what you paid for the new truck (prob needs an oil change and you did do a few burn outs). Repeat.

There might be enough suckers (or buddies) out their to make it work.
 
#36 ·
I will bite, your rationale is very interesting and could be a good rule of thumb.

The box is worth whatever someone will pay you for it OR the value it provides while it is used.

If the box is blocking toxic waste from falling on you -- it is worth more. If the box is holding old worn out dirty sex toys -- it is worth less.

When talking about monetary value of the box -- it is worth whatever someone will pay you for it. Out of 10 people, you would most likely end up with 5 of them paying the full 4 bucks, the other 5 would realize that they could also go to Home Depot and buy the box for 4 bucks brand new and only offer you a buck.

Just a guess, and I am trying to follow along; but there are always going to be the outliers. Trying to prove a formula for depreciation is difficult when looking at just a couple of example transactions. The market is determined by the baseline mean of ALL transactions and it still has severe outliers. You watched any Barret Jackson auctions?
 
#38 · (Edited)
......goes right over his head.

I bought my house in 99. I paid 86K for it. Added on 800 sq ft at a cost of 25K. During the top of the housing BOOM it appraised at 290K. At the bottom after the housing market crashed it was approx. 130K. (based on what was selling around me). Now with some recovery in the market it would likely sell for 175-180 (based on comps around me).

So even when you take out market fluctuations, with only upkeep, the value of my property as a whole is up 60,000.00+ from the total of the capital invested amounts with just normal upkeep. Of course, Unrealized gains don't count until you sell but there are countless sales in my neighborhood that show it happening. How does John Galt explain this? These buyers just aren't as smart as he is?

Of course, these kind of concepts don't apply to the vehicle market (outside of rare exotic or antique cars). But when he made the switch to the housing market, he lost all credibility with me.
 
#39 · (Edited)
True Jason, something is worth what someone is willing to pay. It works when selling things but when trying to figure out a value for something without selling it, you run into problems. Not everyone is fortunate enough to find and idiot or a buddy to take advantage of. Appraised prices should be based on a prudent buyer and logical depreciation of consumables.

Not talking about NLA or or rare items. Pricing those is surely different. Standard items that are easily replaced (like structures and vehicles) seem pretty straight forward. A Tundra is not a rare or special vehicle and should be subject to logical depreciation.

What does a ~200% fluctuation over 20 years tell you BS? Hint, at least one of those numbers was not real.....

Supply and demand is not over my head, sounds like it may be over yours though..... There is not a shortage of houses, if there was, you could just build a new one because the materials are readily available. Land may be supply limited, which makes sense, because the quantity is fixed. I am certain your house could be re-built in a matter of months (length of a longer escrow) for what you think its currently worth (I know I could build a new house for less money than what my current 25 year old house is valued at). Would you rather have a new house or an old house for the same money?

Any real increase in value to your land and structure probably came from the land. Especially if the surrounding area has developed or improved. Even if just you and your neighbors made small improvements to landscaping/structures/general look of neighborhood you could increase the value of the land. Are there any empty lots in your neighborhood?

Structures are consumable. Period. You can argue with me all you want but I will still be correct.

Just two more middle of the road examples, then I am done.

I bought a pre-fab 8'x10' shed. Had it delivered and placed on cement slab in my back yard. Total cost for shed and delivery was $3000 (4 years ago). What is the shed (structure) worth today if I were to try and sell it? Keep in mind, the shed is made of similar materials as a "house" but is ~mobile and no mechanical systems to wear. Drove by the lot where I purchased the shed, and a new one is now $3200 delivered. Just called the office and they charge $175 to move the shed locally (if its a shed purchased from them).

How about Motorhomes/RVs?

In 1999, if I bought an empty lot next door to you and parked a motorhome on it (land plus motorhome was $111K out of my pocket) would that also be worth $175K today? Why not?

As for buyers overpaying for land and structures. I have no issue with homeowners wanting top dollar. I do have a problem with realtors driving up prices for commission, banks driving up prices for increased mortgage interest and fees, governments driving price up for increase tax revenue. If you tell the lie long enough and loud enough, some people will start to believe it. If you tell it even longer, most people will start to believe it and soon it will become a "reality"/"bubble".
 
#42 · (Edited)
I'm done too...last point. Building costs are about 110/sq.ft. (I'm at 1950sq.ft) I did a quick market search in my town for empty lots...there are plenty so not a supply shortage. 5-6K sq ft lots are 50-75K (median) mine is ~11K. You do the math and try and replace my house without an extra 100K for what it would sell for.

Your shed/RV logic is a terrible example. They go down in value just like a mobile home. They aren't permanent structures.

Using your logic, why would anyone buy a house if it's a losing venture?
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top