Why gas guzzlers make sense (again)
As I write this, the price of regular unleaded is hovering around $5 a gallon. Diesel is about a buck a gallon more. All of this is headline news on a daily basis. Fuel prices are affecting every industry, every business, and every consumer.
Yet as of late, buyers seem to be fighting over some immense, heavy-duty, sub–15-mpg gas-guzzling SUVs. Some are even selling for many multiples of what they did a few years ago, when fuel cost a fraction of what it does now. But the people buying these things (including yours truly) might be on to something.
Here I’ve focused on two gas-guzzlers with ever-increasing cult followings: The 2000–05 Ford Excursion and the 1998–2007 Toyota Land Cruiser.
The longest, heaviest mass-produced SUV ever, the Excursion was essentially an F-250 Super Duty wagon. With the optional V-10 gas or Power Stroke diesel engines, they tow up to 11,000 pounds. Never mind how many people, pets, and suitcases you can stuff inside an Excursion at the same time.
J100-series Land Cruisers, however, are not 3/4-ton pickup-based towing machines. Nor do they offer a variety of drivetrain choices. But they do have Toyota’s silky-smooth 4.7-liter V-8 and full-time 4WD. And they were built to last forever. Literally.
The average combined fuel economy for these trucks is about 14 mpg. But their collective inefficiency hasn’t seemed to slow down values. In the past 36 months, Excursion prices are up an average of 46 percent, while J100s are up 85 percent. More telling is the fact that both of these had heavy Gen X demand until the past 24 months, when millennial (and younger) interest came on strong.
Here’s why I think this is happening. First, they just don’t make stuff like this anymore. There were no hybrid powertrains, no kowtowing to CAFE standards, no considerations beyond just being rugged and unapologetic in their mission. Both are old enough to be “cool,” but not so old that they aren’t usable in today’s world.
Then there’s the COVID factor. These are vehicles that allow people to load up the whole family, tow the Airstream, and head out to places that help you forget about reality for a weekend or four. That’s especially attractive to millennial buyers looking to introduce their young kids to something beyond screen time. The work-from-home phenomenon also plays into this, because you can work from that camping spot.
Additionally, there’s a certain satisfaction to the analog feel of these machines—an unplugged vibe with no LCDs and no lane-keep assist or other electronic nannies constantly dinging at you.
As for that awful fuel mileage, let’s pencil that out. A new $52,000 Chevy Tahoe gets 16 mpg combined. A new $39,000 Grand Cherokee is rated at 23 mpg. Driving 10,000 miles in a year, the difference between a 14-mpg rig and a 23-mpg rig equates to about 279 gallons. At $5 a gallon, that’s an extra $1395 a year. Factor in the significant savings in the purchase price, and the additional fuel cost doesn’t seem insane.
Which is why I recently decided to replace our 2020 Ford Expedition with a “vintage” Excursion. The Expedition is a fine vehicle, but a boat or car trailer of any significance drops its comfy independent rear suspension to its knees, and towing in crosswinds was, um, more exciting than I expected. So I went on an Excursion excursion and landed on a clean, 50,000-mile 2000 Limited with the V-10. I paid $27,000 for it. Since then, I’ve done some needed maintenance and installed new tires. I’m currently in the truck for about $35K. We’ve put 2000 miles on it so far, primarily pulling a trailer to my son’s go-kart races every week, which it does as admirably as hoped. Thanks to the towing, I haven’t broken into double-digit fuel mileage yet, but the tank is big, so the refueling intervals don’t rub my nose in their thirst.
I have to say, I’m pleased with the decision to step back 22 years of refinement and technology for a rig that better fits my needs. Who says whistling past the graveyard isn’t rewarding?
Check out the Hagerty Media homepage so you don’t miss a single story, or better yet, bookmark it.
This article first appeared in Hagerty Drivers Club magazine. Click here to subscribe and join the club.
I don’t approve of these behemoths, especially in light of the crisis the planet is facing, but it was an interesting and worthwhile article.
Suddenly it’s 1973. More road hugging weight. Just print the old articles rationalizing the same thing, adjust numbers for inflation and gas prices, change the dates and voila!
I’ve seen all this before. People twisted themselves into knots to rationalize huge ’70s sedans and later why they “needed” SUVS.
Buy them if you like them. You need no excuse, no apology nor rationalization.
But don’t try and convince the world being $35,000 into a 20 year old truck is solid economic advice.
Right. Some guys’ self-image/confidence so weak it’s wrapped up in what they drive.
Um, we thought Hagerty was for those with collector cars, old cars, vintage cars, not just calling everything out of the Kelley Blue Book “classic.” Aren’t there magazines for giant pick ups and SUVs?
Quite content to stick with ’10 FJ in all its utilitarian simplicity while running a manual civic for daily and an older naturally aspirated V6 Mercedes sedan for longer trips . . . of course there’s also the Z3 M-Roadster for sunny days that start with S and even a couple of fuel sipping motos for the twisties and the trails.
I agree! The economics aren’t always about fuel economy. My 15 F150 4×4 super crew (with a non eco ecoboost) will tow my car trailer or boat just fine. It get 15mpg without towing, 10 with. Saved $38,00 vs new. Beside, if the economy gets much worse, I can live in it!
I’ll take my 06 LX 470 and a 175,000 miles worth of gasoline for $60k.For all of the “tree huggers” it also qualifies as a Ultra Low Emissions Vehicle.Sure feels good rolling down the highway or down the less traveled dirt road…
Haw, haw. Why the snarkiness directed at EVs? How are they a threat to you? If anything, EVs ensure some gas remains for those of us who drive i.c. cars or trucks.
What’s with this us/them divisiveness, where does that get us?
Don’t worry about climate change. I have lived through the end of the world at least five times (population explosion, new ice age, Ozone layer, global warming, and Y2K) and I can tell you from experience it’s not so bad, in fact you hardly notice it.
It’s not a J100 Land Cruiser. It’s a UJZ100 Land Cruiser. Still a great article.
I have a 2000 Excursion Limited. It has a V10 with a tune in it. I’m pretty sure it’ll pull a house. It surely pulls a car trailer with a 69 AMX loaded inside. I paid 5K for it about 7 years ago (the Excursion not the AMX). I made all the typical Excursion repairs and I have about 12K in it to date. It’s not a rust bucket but it DOES have a dirty title (reconstructed). The previous owner (who is a friend of mine) bounced it off a stretch of guardrail back in 2008. It was repaired correctly and hasn’t missed a beat since. It gets 9.7 MPG. It doesn’t matter if its pulling a trailer, loaded with 8 people and luggage or if I’m in it alone. A decal on the rear window reads “Fossil Fuels Are Yummy”. If I had to replace it with a new vehicle with similar options, I’d have to drop 80K or more.
Fossil Fuels are Yummy. Good one. Reminds me of bumper sticker on friends 93 250 Cummins pickup.
“Earth First! We’ll mine the other planets later”
Beware that some parts for the Excursion in particular are becoming scarce. I own a 2005 Limited 6.0 diesel and am unable to source a steering column clockspring, which is NLA and apparently unique to my particular year and model. Thus, my horn and cruise control no longer function.
Buy used stuff, that way you can have more stuff.
I have a 1996 Ford Bronco with a V8. Just rebuilt engine and what a fun ride and tons of low end pulling power. Gets 12MPG towing 24 foot boat or loaded 16 foot utility trailer. It can go anywhere and never look back. Total rebuild 6K. Compared to buying a new Bronco at 50 to 70K , easy choice, plus it is a cool looking ride.
For brevity I will go simplistic:
New EV has a high carbon cost in the making. Existing vehicle already exists. It takes a significant number of miles on the existing vehicle to overcome the “new carbon cost” of the EV. Daily use of old car will overcome this much faster, but it is still a lot of time to catch up that pollution.
Would it be better for the environment to have done the easy propane conversion to most combustion engines 40 years ago? (yes, and the impact would have been significant if that stop-gap step had been aggressively taken). I’m not saying propane is the answer now (hybrid tech has surpassed that).
Would rebates to convert older vehicles to hybrid or EV make more sense than giving them to luxury EVs? Yes (or the local infrastructure where EVs are selling for that matter…)
My wife and I purchased a used 2008 Chrysler Aspen Limited with the 5.7 Hemi V8 in 2012 for 23,000 dollars to pull our holiday trailer and my car hauler. One reason we picked it is because of its 9000lb towing capacity, which when u put my dodge Challenger in my car hauler it comes close to in weight. I have pulled it twice to North Carolina from Ontario Canada, and once to British Columbia and back. We live in Ontario salt country, so even though we get it oil sprayed every year we made a commitment to never drive it in the winter, so it has 0 rust. We only use it to pull trailers or for holidays with many adults. It gets a solid 10 mpg pulling trailers where as my sons Ford 3.8 eco boost gets only 6 mpg when pulling a trailer. When I look at what a new Jeep Grand Wagonier costs, Ill keep our 14 year old Chrysler Aspen, and, it burns regular gas to boot!!
My 99 Dakota 4×4 (3.9) pulls everything just fine, I don’t need to do 75 mph up the passes. If i’m in that big of hurry I can do 95 mph going down to make up the difference, ha ha. Bought it new for $ 16000 and now have 87000 miles on it. My 36 Ford pickup, 52 MGTD, 64 Corvette, 67 Mustang I drive to shows, don’t need to trailer!