No, TCO of vehicles is now much higher than it used to be, unless you rack up those 100K mi mostly on highways and you're essentially putting more miles on so you end up replacing whole vehicle sooner so you still paid more from higher (re)purchase price, which is looking at reliability from the other parameter of age rather than mileage. The relevant parameter should be cost per year since a vehicle will not last twice as long driving it half as far on city streets stop and go, instead of highway miles.
Collision repair costs are up.
Parts costs are up. Unless you get Chinese junk.
Repair labor rates are up due to increasing disassembly needed.
More electronics systems means more parts to break, more specialized repair skills, and potential programming needed.
20-25 years ago it was more true that all you had to do was change the oil, or the tranny fluid if you picked something with a weak tranny.
Power windows - I've had to repair them. Adding even more things to break does not subtract that they did fail.
Now here is the big question. If they are so reliable until 100K, then why that cutoff? That seems quite arbitrary to me, that if it's a good vehicle you keep it and if you sell it to get a new one at that point, you suffer the most in yearly TCO from another newer vehicle depreciation period so the expected expenses were just shifted, but somebody's still going to pay them one way or another.