Invincible - worth it?

[eatapeach]

For ULEZ and Euro 6 reasons I'm buying a 150.

I'm a bit confused with the spec differences and iterations. Do you think an Invincible spec is worth an extra 5k or so? And the facelifted versions (square foglights) - are they significantly better in any respect? I also think the later ones get a power increase to 200 bhp over the 170 in the first models. Is it worth hanging on for that?

I maybe made a mistake last week as I walked away from a unique Active model with leather. It had no book pack or service book but it did have invoices to prove its ultra low 14k mileage. I didn't like the lack of documentation, or the fact the rear door handle silver inserts looked like they came from a 90k mile car. And it had very recently been undersealed which made me suspicious.

I rang the supplying dealer who told me from the Toyota history that it had a dealer stamp at 17k miles. I guess that could have been a mistake, but I was spooked enough to walk away.

I'm now looking at a 65 plate 2.8 with 50k miles - nice car and has a rear and centre diff. That's an Invincible.

So what's the best iteration? Are the earlier cars just as good as the bonnet scoop/square foglight ones? Another difference I don't get is the 2018 cars seem to get cheaper road tax for some reason and I can't figure it out as that's not linked to the higher BHP engine.

Anyone got any advice?

 

[karl2000]

Wow an invincible is 35K more?

 

[GeekOKent]

Top of the range, fully loaded, I would imagine it's 35k more than the utility spec. At the shop floor.

You may want to look at the spec between the two being compared. Buy something for the condition, and the features you need. A car being used is a better option to me, than one that has been parked up for years and only used for 3 mile school runs and not maintained.

 

[Rob Cowell]

2018 cars had heavily loaded first year tax. Then anything over £40K also got loaded for the next 5 years. But after that it’s a flat “low” rate. 2018 cars no matter the size and price are now getting that low rate tax. 2017 (or maybe 2016?) will be on the old emissions based VED.

 

[Rob Cowell]

Too spec was about 60k and Active was about 45k when you could still buy 150s. So 15k difference and I’d expect that to decay with age.

 

[eatapeach]

2018 cars had heavily loaded first year tax. Then anything over £40K also got loaded for the next 5 years. But after that it’s a flat “low” rate. 2018 cars no matter the size and price are now getting that low rate tax. 2017 (or maybe 2016?) will be on the old emissions based VED.

that explains it - 2015/16/17 cars are higher tax than the 2018 onwards cars.

 

[eatapeach]

Top of the range, fully loaded, I would imagine it's 35k more than the utility spec. At the shop floor.

You may want to look at the spec between the two being compared. Buy something for the condition, and the features you need. A car being used is a better option to me, than one that has been parked up for years and only used for 3 mile school runs and not maintained.

yeah thanks - it's hard to find - there are only a few around that seem decent. I'm going to look at a 2018 car tomorrow that's one owner, full history and in the spec I want.

There is also now a clear difference in price between Euro 6 cars and Euro 5 cars. God knows what will happen when Euro 6 cars get targeted for being forced off the road

 

[karl2000]

Personally id be very weary about buying a new/fairly new diesel for a high price just to combat ULEZ. Once all the infrastructure is in place, they can flick a switch and change the rules. They dont like diesels and thats not going to change.

Whatever you pay to upgrade will probably pay a lot of £12.50s

 

[eatapeach]

Personally id be very weary about buying a new/fairly new diesel for a high price just to combat ULEZ. Once all the infrastructure is in place, they can flick a switch and change the rules. They dont like diesels and thats not going to change.

Whatever you pay to upgrade will probably pay a lot of £12.50s

Yeah - I get it but ULEZ is Euro 6 compliance. Euro 7 is intended for 2035 "In 2035, Euro 7 will lower total NOx emissions from cars and vans by 35% compared to Euro 6". So flicking that switch will be in 10 to 15 years. What you will see is ULEZ/LEZ being rolled out wider and wider across cities - in Stockport there are signs for a low emission zone but not on motorways - the statement "Quite simply, a significant reduction in the number and length of journeys made by diesel and petrol-fuelled vehicles (especially those with EURO V or older engines), within Greater Manchester is required in order to achieve the necessary reductions in emissions." is from the Greater manchester action plan. https://democracy.stockport.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=91485

In other words - I'm not buying a high priced diesel for ULEZ in the M25 - I'm buying it to keep driving a car in the UK. I've had my 100 for 12 years and there is a reason I haven't gone to a 200 series.

Show me a competitor to the 150 in a petrol engine. I looked at a Lexus RX450 hybrid but nope.

 

[Gr8Yota]

Re the dealer stamp at 17k on a car being sold with 14k on the clock I would think that could simply be that the service interval is miles/time. Can you cross reference by MoT history?

If there is a choice I’d go for a vehicle on springs not air for durability.

I was talking to a dealer friend last week, he’s now running a LC5 for which he paid £13500 trade. Looked a nice example.

 

[eatapeach]

Re the dealer stamp at 17k on a car being sold with 14k on the clock I would think that could simply be that the service interval is miles/time. Can you cross reference by MoT history?

If there is a choice I’d go for a vehicle on springs not air for durability.

I was talking to a dealer friend last week, he’s now running a LC5 for which he paid £13500 trade. Looked a nice example.

Yeah - thanks to the My T app I'm now able to get the history (assuming it's been serviced at Mr T) and there are a fair few mistakes esp when you line up MOT history and service history. And I wanted springs but a few things put me off that car so it went elsewhere.

Re durability - in 15 years Euro 6 cars will be hounded off the roads so I'm not so worried about that - my 100 has just made it to 20 years before the AHC quit. DIesels will be scrap by then

 

[eatapeach]

In conclusion - it's not worth the extra for an Invincible. I bought a 150 - 2016 model. I decided on an Icon to avoid air and off road gadgets, but got the leather, heated seats, modern lighting and found one with approx 50k miles and full history. More importantly it has been treated underneath and I'll continue with WAR or Bilt Hamber etc.

Invincibles are £5k more than Icons, and facelift post 2017 models are £10k over pre facelift versions. I also avoided DPF by going for a 2016 car - but they are ULEZ Euro 6 compliant.

The only downside is suspension - it seems slightly under-damped and seems to bounce from each corner - maybe I'll change to Iron Man shocks at some point if I can decide they will help.

 

[francis.deweck@btinternet]

Interesting about the DPF, mine failed on an 2016 Invincible D4-D during the lockdown. Toyota said take it for a long straight run at >50mph. No change, so took the vehicle to Listers at Lincoln, who replaced it with an upgraded unit on warranty.

 

[AdventureWagon]

DPF on my 2016 has been replaced too, no hassles since and it does do short trips as well as longer ones. The active regeneration is so much better than just passive regeneration and easily doable even in a suburban setting.