Auto Trader: 1995 2.5 Td Vsx

I think therein lies the distinction: that's the bloke for whom Toyota has been making cars, for decades on end, and very successfully.

And I'm tempted to think that, indeed, that is a more reliable and better built car than the XM. It's also a wee bit blander.

True, on both counts!

It's a diesel - 190k miles means it's just broken in.

And if it hasn't been maintained just about to break down I would imagine!

Which makes me think.

In our neck of the woods, people now buy an XM because they want an XM, not because they want a cheap car.
I'd been searching for three weeks to find me an XM that would fit my wishlist (berline, diesel, 1999 or 2000, mileage not over 350k, automatic, preferably silver) - and for two and a half weeks, I found nothing.
Then, two appeared. The first one disappeared on he day it turned up.
So... I didn't think and snapped up the second one.

If you look for a similarly-specced Mondeo or Passat or A6 Avensis, you can even select based on the type of radio that comes with it. So, there is much more choice. The market for decent XM's is incredibly tight here.

Doesn't that sort of figure that this will push the prices up?
I've seen it happen to all big Cits. I sold my CX for more than three times the amount I bought it for (it was still stupid of me to sell it, but that's another story... company car, strapped for cash, etc etc...)

I expect to see the same thing happening to the XM in a couple years. How's that in the UK?

peter

This post has been edited by peterh on November 17, 2008 12:17 am

It's a diesel - 190k miles means it's just broken in.

And if it hasn't been maintained just about to break down I would imagine!

But that's something you can guard yourself against.

In the Netheerlands, we have the NAP (National Auto Passport) in which everything, including maintenance and parts replacement, of a car is recorded throughout its lifetime.

On mine, the first distribution belt change was 10.000 miles late. Other than that, it was spotless.

Knowing this does give more peace of mind. It also drives the price of a good one up.

I wouldnt say i am, the Xm gets everything it needs.

Saying that its never needed much, but if the engine blow up tomorrow id have no issue getting another and fitting it even if it would cost more than the car is worth.

I think this is the only way to kep Xms on the road now, they are worth so little that even the most normal of replacement parts could cost more than the car.

Say its MOT time, you need two tyres, 4 spheres, new discs and pads and an exhaust. That little lot could be getting on for £400-£500, quite a lot of money in Xm terms.

They are well worth it though.

Our Xm is purely for pleasure, just because we like Xms. We do try to use quite a bit, for longer drives ect, but its mainly a hobby car which doesnt serve any main purpose.

I dont care that its a 13 year old car, if i want an Xm then its going to be an old car! Just because they are getting on doesnt mean they are any less of a great car. A 13 year old car will need money spent, but just because it worth little doesnt mean just ti give up on it if things get a little pricey, its still a lot of car and they were very underated in their new days.

I have always reasoned that assessing maintenance costs in terms of the cars resale value is largely irrelevant. The important factor in economic terms is the estimated annual average cost over its residual life. If it is heading towards becoming a rust bucket then fair enough. But there are many examples even now that are almost rust free through a combination of being well cared for and well protected against corrosion. The XM is superior to its peers in the above respects.

Thats my judgement in the matter anyway!

Robert.

Apart from any emotional attachment, the above makes perfect economical sense!