SF Bay Area's Most Durable Vehicles


Vehicles the most likely to reach 200,000 miles for Bay Area drivers according to ISeeCars.com

  • Toyota 4Runner
  • GMC Yukon XL
  • Chevy Suburban
  • GMC Yukon
  • Toyota Avalon was the highest rank sedan

“The reason why SUVs like the top-ranked Toyota 4Runner are so durable is that they are built on truck-based platforms and have the durability of a pickup truck”


4 of the 5 vehicles listed would be shunned by residents of SF, wouldn’t they? :wink:


Yes. they would be “politically incorrect”!

Not sure if anyone would do a life cycle cost analysis taking into account fuel and insurance as well as repair and maintenance. The Avalon would certainly come out on top.


Let me guess that all of those are automatics.


Not sure that description contains the proper sentiment…

Maybe “environmental destructionists” ?


I’d hate to try and find a parking spot for any of them, but especially the Yukon XL/Suburban twins. More than anything else, I think that’s why San Franciscans would not drive these trucks.


This is one of those articles I would not even bother to read. Lets say the Suburban goes 200000 miles at a purchase price of 60000.00 ( most of them are more expensive ) at 15 MPG city.

An easy to get around and park Toyota Yaris that can be bought 18000.00 ( many times less than that ) and is rated at 32 MPG city .

Even if the Yaris only goes 100000.00 miles ( I would expect more ) you could have 3 of these and spend a lot less of fuel and have money left over to rent a nice vehicle for those vacation trips.


Plus you’d actually be able to find a parking spot in SF!


Those particular large SUV’s are used for commercial “limo” service quite often in SF, and put on miles without spending much time parked on city streets. Airport shuttles and wine country tours use them, too. And they fix them, rather than trade them in.


Not sure about San Francisco proper, but all of those vehicles are a fairly common sight on the roads in the San Jose area. But the 4runner, Avalon, and the various versions of the Toyota pickups are more common than the GMC’s & Suburbans.


Agree that most pickup owners don’t really need them and waste resources. I spent 3 weeks in England on a holiday and only saw just 2 pickup trucks and one of them was a company truck actually used as a truck.

I also know California environmental purists who drive Prius models and brag about all their extensive foreign travels where they burned up large amounts of energy jetting across the globe.

I grew up on a farm and we had a car and a pickup truck as well as a tractor, but no power lawn mower.


That wasn’t the point I was making. I believe that is the prevailing attitude of the SF Bay area folks towards SUV’s and trucks. In other words, they shun those who are perceived as environmental destructionists or worse terms. Those people are ignorant folks making a judgement without all the facts.

I’ll use myself as an example here. I own an SUV/truck as a 3rd vehicle. I bought it originally to tow my racecar and carry my crew to races but it was also my daily driver. It towed 6 to 8 weekends a year but generally carried me to work and back. To the casual observer, 90% of the time it appeared that I didn’t “need” the truck. The observer is ignorant of the need since they don’t see my trailer attached.

I keep this old truck as a 3rd vehicle for runs to the home center store for stuff that won’t fit in the cars. My current home project requires 8 and 10 foot 2x4’s and 2x6’s that won’t fit in my Mustang. My percentage use that requires a truck has gone UP but at least 50% of each trip, the truck is empty so the casual observer still sees I have no “need.” The observer is still ignorant.

Finally, it isn’t always about “need”, now is it? If the buyer wishes to spend their money on a massive SUV or truck and thew fuel to run it, that is their free choice. I’ve seen full size American and Euro SUV’s roaming around European cities. Wouldn’t be my choice - parking is a BEAR - but it is their choice.


I personally don’t care what people drive; it’s their behavior compared to their talk.

I went to an energy efficiency conference and met several whining “environmentalists” who drove Ford Expeditions “because they were safe”.

Other countries that are serious about energy use reduction put a progressive tax on heavy and high horsepower vehicles, and add a hefty gasoline tax as well. In Holland a $50,000 Jeep Grand Cherokee V8 costs twice the US price and uses $9.50 per gallon gasoline.

Our family has already achieved the 30% energy reduction from the 2005 level to be achieved by 2030 as dictated by the United Nations Environmental Council… That includes home energy use as well as transportation. We still live in a good size house and are a 2 car family.

Whether you believe in Global Warming or not, efficient use of energy in everything we do makes sense.


I am with you on that.


“Prevailing” might be a little strong. No one here in my circle of acquaintances has ever mentioned the topic of my truck’s environmental footprint, whether good or bad. The only negative thing I’ve heard is from one neighbor who thinks it’s “rustic” appearance lowers the property values … lol


People’s attitude toward anything is most obvious in their behavior, not their voting patterns. There are a hell of a lot of big SUV’s and pickups here, and they are everywhere. Yes, in the city of San Francisco you do see lots of small sedans and bicycles and scooters, but the sedans are very frequently Uber or Lyft cars or hourly rentals like Zipcar. You also see lots of giant SUVs. It’s easy to make broad statements about a place like San Francisco, and like any easy solutions to a complicated problem, they are usually wrong.