Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Toyota Sequoia vs Chevy Suburban, Chevy Tahoe, GMC Yukon XL

1235

Comments

  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,911
    Drawing the conclusion from your handle. I would say you are not unbiased. My experience with Toyota over the years is just the opposite, very poor quality vehicles. A PU and a Land Cruiser, were a constant source of trouble. My current Suburban a 1999 model is near perfect after 6 years. One slight exhaust leak and the trip odometer replaced. I wasted the $1100 on an extended warranty.
  • All Sequoia's meet 50 state ULEV standards and get better city and combined mileage than the current 4WD GM Suburbans. Better crash test scores too. Very interesting link, thanks, gagrice. Rumor has it that the 2005 Sequoia will get 16 city and 20 hwy and will have 45 more horses (285).
  • shieattshieatt Posts: 75
    I think the assumption that if there are 10 times as many TSBs that you have to deal with 10 times or more the amount of problems is some pretty faulty logic. As one poster pointed out, many, if not the majority, of TSBs are are things that do not translate into owner issues and are extremely minor in nature, and the GMC trucks also offer many more variants... e.g., four different powertrains vs. Sequoia's one.

    We now have 24K miles on our Suburban and not a single problem yet... in spite of hundreds of TSBs. I personally would still tend to believe that Toyota has an edge over GMC in terms of quality, but IMO the difference is not material and certainly doesn't justify the premium if otherwise GMC has a more capable, better looking and feature laden vehicle. While of course looks are subjective, as to capability (greater towing capacity even with base powertrain, more cargo capacity, more power even with base engine) and available features (XM radio, programmable driver center w/trip computer, memory seats, etc., tri-zone climate control, 2nd row captains chairs, OnStar, nav system (on Denali), Autoride suspension, etc.), Suburban/YXL has the Sequoia beat easily.

    Besides, as I've mentioned before, the Suburban/YXL/Escalade are in a class alone in terms of ability to carry 6+ passengers and cargo... for those of us with such needs, there is no comparison.
  • petro33petro33 Posts: 192
    good points, Your statements make it clearer than ever that there is no one SUV for everyone. Weigh all the options and the tasks you wish the vehicle to perform and pick the one that best suites your needs!!
  • texasmomtexasmom Posts: 114
    Need an SUV w/ as much safety, space, features as possible but would like to stay in the under 45K price range. Edmunds' editors rank Chev Tahoe/GMC Yukon first in the large SUV under 45K category, giving Toyota Sequoia an honorable mention. What I don't understand is why the editors' score for the Tahoe/Yukon is 7.3 but is higher (8.3) for the Sequoia.
     
    For both vehicles the consumer scores are comparable (9.0 for Tahoe/Yukon and 9.1 for Sequoia).

    I'm confused about the editor's score being lower for their first choice vehicle; but, even more than that, I'm confused about the biggest pros and cons of the two.

    Finally, I keep hearing that people who have owned Suburbans and Lincolns are VERY faithful owners and "get addicted" to their vehicles. I've talked to some of them and they seem almost sheepish about their need to continue to owning these trucks. But they love them. So, they are on my list, too.

    HELP !! Thanks!
  • mark1mark1 Posts: 5
    The reality is that this is an individual choice: some need towing, some passenger room, some have specific outer size requirements (to fit in a garage or parking space), etc. I, for one, found the Sequoia the most polished bang for the buck (or 50k, as the case may be). I was impressed that, for a vehicle its size, the Sequoia drove not all that differently than one much smaller. Neither the Armada, Expedition nor, heaven help me, the Yukon drove (in my humble opinion) anything nearly as polished and smooth. That’s what did it for me.
  • beach15beach15 Posts: 1,305
    Finally, some pics of the next generation Tahoe/Yukon! Look significantly different, especially from the b-pillar back. Taller and flatter seem to be what I get out of it.

    http://www.thecarconnection.com/index.asp?n=178&sid=178&a- rticle=7703

    Some people are saying these are '06s, others say '07s. Not sure.
  • 4rider4rider Posts: 96
    I currently have a 99 suburban and thinkng may be getting a 2005 sub or seq. Can anyone who actully has owned both and tell me your overall feeling about them? Dealership test drive usually does not reflect the whole driving experience. If you have had both of them , which one of them will you buy again? My experience with my sub has been farily pleasntly and have not had any problem over 5 years. The only thing I dont like about the sub is that the chassis has much less and clean grand clearance than the seq. Also, chevy's resale value sucks.
  • oacoac Posts: 1,594
    I've never quite understood how and why GM makes the rear doors on their F/S SUV's (Tahoes, Yukons, Escallades, etc) so much more NARROWER than the front doors. And this doesn't appear to be changing in the cameo pics of the re-designs here.

    Anyone know why ??? Could it be a design artifact, for aestethics, or safety-related ???

    My Sequoia, like 99.99% of all SUV's, have all doors in almost similar sizes, except those from GM.... Perplexing ! Do owners not wish the doors were larger ? Just wondering.

    Happy Turkey Day everyone....
  • z71billz71bill Posts: 2,000
    IMO the size of the rear doors would be - way down on the bottom of my list of important things to consider. I have owned a Tahoe for more that 7 years and have never even noticed this "flaw" -
  • We own a Toyota Highlander and a Sanoma pickup... both great cars. I purchased my (first) Z71 Suburban '04 to accommodate a growing family and never really considered the Seq because of it's smaller size. The Suburban, for 6000 miles so far, has been a great car (sorry, I don't call these things trucks since they ARE cars to me)... no problems and quite a nice drive... rear wheel drive is a first for me in a long time. There are many small things which annoy me about the Chevy... most of which have been cited in these forums--but I still enjoy driving the beast without any problems. I'm sure the Toyota is a fine vehicle and I will probably get one to replace our Highlander. In my final analysis, I must remember that, after all, it's JUST a car! Have fun in either!
  • I have a 1995 1500 Suburban. The transmission broke down at around 114k. I had the transmission rebuilt. It took another 30k until it broke down again.

     

    I love the room and power that the suburban have. But are the newer model suburbans have the capability of surpassing the 100k mark without any mayor problem?

     

    Would it be better to get a 2500 model in order to get the same performance and maybe longer life span?

     

    You input would greatly be appreciated.
  • I am buying a truck for my wife. She likes the Suburban and recently the Sequoia has popped up on our radar. I have looked at the reviews on MSN Auto and the reviews from the professionals were better on the Suburban than the Sequoia. For me the reviews don't matter as much I come from a Toyota family. I KNOW the reliability is their claim to fame. However the Suburban is a vehicle that we love. But the warranty on a used Sequoia can get me up to 100,000 miles. The Suburban does not. I know at some point I will have to be in the shop. My wifes Corolla was bought with 43,000 miles and now is at 120,000 and we have not had any major problems. My Nissan has had few problems also. Should I get the Sequoia or the Suburban. I need objective feedback pleas.
  • oacoac Posts: 1,594
    On a forum such as Edmunds ? The best objective feedback I have seen around here is this:

     

    Buy what you LIKE !

     

    If its the 'Burb, go for it. If the Seq appeals to you bcos of its Toyota heritage, then go for it as well. You do not want to buy one and look longingly at the other choice every time you drive past one.

     

    Maybe more importantly, what does the WIFE want ?

     

    Good luck !
  • z71billz71bill Posts: 2,000
    I faced the same decision back in 2001 -

    Could not decide between Tahoe - Suburban - Sequoia. At first it seemed like the Suburban was a little too big - the Tahoe was a little too small and the Sequoia was just right.

    We test drove each a few times and cut the choice down to Tahoe VS Sequoia. The pricing difference pushed me to the Tahoe.

    I can't recall the exact difference - but it was well over $5K - the Sequoia was new and I could not get any dealer to give me any significant discount.

    If you really like both - I would work with both dealerships - see what the best deal you can get on each truck - then ask yourself - is this truck worth $XXX more?

    If the price would have been the same (or close)I would most likely be driving a Sequoia - but no way did I see a $5K difference - new model or not.
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,641
    That is where the value of the Sub/Tahoe kicks in. I have recently been looking at used burbs & Seq's, and the Sequ's go for a ton more $$ used. I couldn't justify the difference. I ended up finding a 2000 burb LS 4x4 w/46K for 17k. It's older than I wanted, but it is very clean and I couldn't justify paying atleast $7k more for an 03 with the same amount of miles. The used Seq's are hard to find with low miles, and when I did find one the prices were to high for me to justify.
  • I bought a 99 K1500 (4x4) Suburban in December of 2003. I am the second owner. At the time of purchase it had 208K miles. I changed all the fluids, immediately, replaced the tires and had the fuel system cleansed. I have put 51K more miles on it and had to replace the tranny. Purchased from and installed by a GM dealership. There are over 260K miles on it today. Runs like a top. Early January last year went to southern California (I live in Texas) and pull a 26' trailor loaded (helped a friend move) back to Texas. Other than the tranny (which is to be expected) I have not had major problems. All the issues that I have had I can associate with the milage of the vehicle. To date the items that have been replaced since I have owned it are:
    Power Steering Pump
    Fuel Pump
    Intake Gasket
    Transmission
    Exhaust (this was not necessary, but the glass packs sure do sound good)

    My two pence. The Suburban is my kind of vehicle, would not own a Toyota at all (unless it was given to me).

    -DeaconLew :)

    99 K1500 Suburban Red (Like the blood of Jesus)
    350, K&N, Dual Exhaust w/ Glass Packs
    Husband and father of five
  • chevymanchevyman Posts: 1
    Not only having GM qualitly and reliablility, the Suburban has so much more room and power than the Sequoia. I love my 1998 GMC 4x4 Suburban. My suburban has 98,000 miles and I have never had to replace anything, EVER! Obviously everything but oil and tires. I also tow my 30ft. travel trailer that weight 6500 lbs. dry with ease! :shades: No struggles, I would love to see a Sequoia do that! But it couldn't ;) . The Suburban is the perfect large SUV. :blush:
  • edwin10edwin10 Posts: 32
    Interesting reading this Sequoia vs Tahoe forum. Suburban is much bigger and
    should be left out. Gas much higher now, and both Seq and Tahoe are now
    heavily discounted.

    I purchaed a 2002 sub, and my friend purchased a 2002 seq limited. I have
    had to pick my friend up at the Toyota dealer 4 times so far, and he has never
    had to get me. My sub has not broken yet.

    The seq has been recalled twice now, and just this year Toyota has had
    to recall 2.6 million vehicles, just recently the hybrid car.

    So in my opinion both are very close in equality, get the best deal, and buy
    the best deal, because as soon as you drive it off the dealer lot, you just
    lost at least 10 grand $$$.
  • nrsmdnrsmd Posts: 4
    Help!

    Even the Chevy dealer can't give me the answer.

    While installing a brake controller for my RV, I LOST the nut that goes to the fuse box inside the engine compartment, and can't find a replacement.

    On the fuse box in the engine compartment, (facing the steering wheel), there are two power poles standing straight up and a bolt that shoots out to the fender (parallel to the ground) where lots of red wires are connected. The nut that tightens on to that bolt that shoots out from the fuse box toward the fender (parallel to the ground) got lost, and the Chevy dealer has no idea what size or replacement I would get.

    Right now, I have the cables (which when not connected the car will not start) pressed against the bolt, so the car works, but this is dangerous -- if the connection comes loose the car will die!

    All I need is the actual size of the nut that turns on to this bolt and perhaps where I can find it.

    It is uncanny that a single 1 penny nut is causing so much problem!

    Thanks in advance.

    Nathan
  • I find it hard to believe that your dealer, or one of their mechanics, can't tell you the size of the nut. Any good garage mechanic should have a "Thread Gauge"(Sears sells them and they aren't expensive. I keep one in my tool box). A thread gauge will tell you the type of thread on the bolt whether it be standard or metric. Once you know the thread size then measure the diameter of the bolt. Together it should tell you the size of the nut plus the thread size, ie: 1/4-20, as an example of a common type nut. Talk to a good auto mechanic they should be able to tell you the exact size. Hope this helps.
  • tomk4tomk4 Posts: 1
    Chevy/GMC have the muscle in terms of towing capacity, but in terms of the 5000-6000 pound load, how does the Sequoia, rated at a 6200 pound capacity, handle it? OR, should someone not even REALLY think about towing this kind of load with a Sequoia and just go with the Chevy/GMC?
  • I am trying to get the most for my $$$. I have a family of 5 boys ( one of them I'm married to ) and we already have 2 trucks. The latest being a Chevy Silverado HD Duramax etc. I am currently in a KIA mini van and want to trade for an SUV. Have been looking at the SEQ but kind of pricey. Don't do any towing but do live in the mountains of Montana and boys in family do a lot of hunting so for me to go where they are I need a4x4. Husband tends to think trailblazers and such are to small, but I like the 6 cyl for the gas economy.

    Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
  • ggesqggesq Posts: 701
    Just a couple of things for you to consider:

    2006 Tahoe is a brand new model with new exterior/interior styling; more engine configurations with a hybrid coming out soon.
    2006 Tundra was just introduced at I believe the Chicago auto show so the "new" model Sequoia would be following not too long after the Tundra starts rolling off the assembly line. Of course, the Tundra/Sequoia is completely redesigned with a new engine as well. Toyota is talking about a hybrid for the Tundra/Sequoia.
    I guess the relevant question would be; what is your time frame for purchasing/leasing?
    Additionally, Toyota will have a higher resale value even though it is more "pricey."

    BTW, just for reference, I owned a Tahoe (2000) before buying an 04' Sequoia. Gotta love the power in the Chevy but after 60k miles and it starting to have problems I got rid of it quick and bought the Toyota. Got about 30k on the Toyo and so far it is flawless.
    Hope this helps. ;)
  • :mad: In August of 2005 I traded a 2003 Suburban LT on a 2005 Toyota Sequoia Limited. BIG MISTAKE!!! I have been having many problems with the Sequoia and have had it back to the dealer twice. Now it will be going back a third time for problems not solved in the first two trips and all this in only 4,100 miles. My Burb only had 11,000 care free miles on it and I only had to take it back to the dealer for a recall on the second row seat belt. They fixed the problem in less than an hour and I was on my way. The #1 and only reason I went with the Sequoia was because of the so called Toyota Reliability Factor! I can assure you my Sequoia certainly does not live up to Toyota's so called RELIABILITY????. RELIABILITY???? give me a break!!
    The new 2007 Suburbans are coming to the dealers around April or May and I can tell you I WILL be going back to the SUBURBAN. My take on the Sequoia is that it is HIGHLY OVERRATED AND HIGHLY OVER PRICED. No wonder the Sequoia is said to have a higher trade in value. It's OVER PRICED to begin with. My 03 Burb had many,many, more bells and whistles for much less money($3000 less MSRP) than my Sequoia has. My advice is go for the all new 2007 Suburban as that is exactly what I am going to do. I have owned my first and last Toyota guaranteed! For me its Suburban all the way. After all the Suburban was the first and is the Granddaddy of all the SUVs, as we know them, today. Take notice as to what the U.S. Government is using....Suburbans!!
  • tdohtdoh Posts: 298
    If "2006 Tahoe is a brand new model...", as you put it...what does that make the '07 Tahoe--a brand-newer model? ;)
  • ggesqggesq Posts: 701
    Oops, looks like I misspoke. Yes, you are correct, I meant the 07 as being a brand new model. ;)
  • jck1jck1 Posts: 3
    I tried the Expedition, Sequoia, Armada, Tahoe & Suburban. In truth, the Sienna had more passenger room than all but the Suburban. My wife and I have 4 boys, a girl and 115 yellow lab. The Suburban was the clear choice. It also makes me feel better knowing that my most presious cargo is in such a safe vehicle.
  • dietrichdietrich Posts: 3
    Just got done towing a 5000# dry (probably 5800# loaded) travel trailer from Denver to Steamboat Lake with a 93 SR5 Sequoia. Handled great over Eisenhower tunnel and Rabbit Ears pass (did get down to 35 mph over Rabbit Ears). Gas mileage did drop as low as 4 mph for a time, but made it all the way back on one tank and 3 hours drive time! I was very concerned about towing that kind of weight but did clear it with the TRD guru at a local dealer. Guarantee I was over the GVWR of 11,800 ( I'd have to pull the seats and drive naked not to).
    The key is to get a good hitch set up and dial in the trailer breaks (recommend cam anti-sway control and load equalizer bars). Temps were in the 90's pulling extended grades of 6% at altitude and never had the temp budge. I know alot of people will argue to NEVER exceed weight limits. I am very conservative and never felt overloaded, unsafe or white knuckled. I guess I don't necessarily buy into attorney and lawsuit driven national paranoia of guard rails everywhere and coffee labeled hot.
  • ggesqggesq Posts: 701
    "My take on the Sequoia is that it is HIGHLY OVERRATED AND HIGHLY OVER PRICED. No wonder the Sequoia is said to have a higher trade in value. It's OVER PRICED to begin with."

    Having owned a Tahoe and now a Sequoia I thought you might be interested to know that according to Edmunds TMV pricing-

    2007 Burb LT 1500 4WD w/ LTZ package & Navigation is $48,267.

    2006 Sequoia Limited 4WD w/ Navi is $40,700.

    And you were saying? Almost 8K more and in a couple of years the Sequoia will still have a higher resale than the Chevy. Heck, it will most likely outlast it too.

    "Take notice as to what the U.S. Government is using....Suburbans!!"
    Yes, they are cheap and expendable. :P
Sign In or Register to comment.