Howdy, Stranger!

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

Have you recently tried to lease a vehicle again after your last lease ended, and found that average monthly payments have gone so far up that you decided to get a cheaper vehicle with a lower monthly payment or purchase a used car?
If so, a reporter would like to talk to you about it. Please reach out to [email protected] by Thursday, October 18, 2018 telling us a little about your experience, and the Edmunds PR team may connect you with the journalist.
If you experience loading issues with the login/register form, please completely disable ad blocker or use an incognito or in-private window to log in.

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



  • fanman8fanman8 Posts: 65
    For those of you who are on the fence and can't decide between the Sequoia and the Suburban here is some factual data to help with your decision making.
    Side curtain airbags available in Sequoia.
    No side curtain airbags are available in Suburban. NHTS crash tests indicated Sequoia to be a safer vehicle with 5 stars for Driver and 5 stars for passenger. Suburban on the other hand lists 4 Stars for Driver and 3 stars for passenger. Sequoia has 5 year 60,000 mile power train warranty while Suburban has three year 36,000 mile warranty. JD Power and Associates rated Sequoia third among full size sport utility vehicles in initial quality. The Suburban isn't in the top three. Sequoia has better steering response and tighter handling because it has rack and pinion steering instead of recurculating ball type steering in the Suburban. Sequoia turning circle is 42.3' while Suburban is 44.5' And as mentioned earlier, the Sequoia is one foot 3.4 inches shorter making it easier to handle, maneuver and park in tight spaces.
  • gator36gator36 Posts: 294
    Do you know of anyone that owns a GM vortec motor 99-2003 that has piston slap and oil consumption?
    Or are you just responding to one or two messages?

    And that is percieved higher quality...
  • dako_tiandako_tian Posts: 298
    because I needed to carry 8 people, 4 adults and 3/5/9/12 year old kids, all with shoulder belts (one child safety seat in 3rd row middle with a tether) and luggage on vacation and have all that inside the vehicle. I also needed to stay as close to $30,000 as possible. We paid just under $32,000 for a new 2003 YXL last November using GM and dealer incentives. We did get cloth (my choice in any case), bucket front seats, Bose stereo, etc. So it is far from spartan. Try doing all that in a Sequoia.

    If your needs are different, your pockets deeper, your luck and/or shopping skills worse, or biases more entrenched then you may well choose differently. Enjoy what you drive.
  • tdohtdoh Posts: 298
    Well, my unscientific observation seems to reveal that there are more NBS Suburbans than Sequoias out on the roads...and wasn't the Tahoe the best-selling full-sized SUV--in terms of units sold--last year or the year before? Surely the GM SUVs can't be all that bad if there are that many out there...
  • gkatz1gkatz1 Posts: 296
    You're right they are good trucks, if it wasn't for the 80's interior I would have bought one. However, they are not at the same level of quality as the Toyota. Not yet anyway.
  • petro33petro33 Posts: 192
    If there was any doubt about what the public likes and reliability issues that were independently put together just read the latest issue of Consumer Reports!!
  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    "And if you must drive a titanic SUV, you really can't beat a Suburban for ease of use and passenger hauling."

    Sequoia Test Drive (Forbes)

    Steve, Host
  • raddboy41raddboy41 Posts: 249
    I've always had a hard time placing any credence in "lifestyle" magazines that can't even get the engine size correct.

    "And although the 4.6-liter V-8 is buttery, and shifts from the four-speed automatic are as clean as any in all of truckdom, the motor only knocks out 240hp and 315 ft.-lbs. of torque. "
  • husky92husky92 Posts: 56
    And how about the picture of the DVD player? I don't know where that's from, but it's not a Sequoia. Maybe a Landcruiser.
  • gkatz1gkatz1 Posts: 296
    I noticed that too! I don't think it's a Land Cruiser either.
  • lambertlambert Posts: 1
    I have owned 3 Land Cruisers(95,97,02) which I purchased new and have had no regrets. I have owned 2 Suburban 2500 4wdr (99,2001)and also enjoyed owning them. Off road capability and build quality I would give the nod to the Toyotas. For highway driving,power(no comparison)towing and interior space I would go with the Suburbans.
     I am looking to buy a new SUV next month and I am considering the Seqouia,I am not to fond of the current Land Cruiser styling and the Seqouia is larger which I like. I will also be pricing a 2500 4 wheel drive Suburban. Tuff decissions.
  • "The Suburbans are a bargain right now....but you have to wonder how they sell'em so cheap? They ain't in the business to lose money on these things so they are still making why is their cost so low??"

    That's an easy one to answer. It has to do with production capacity. GM adopted Just-In-Time (JIT) practices from Toyota and were able to significantly reduce their overhead costs, mainly in the way of inventory for the production line. Parts are now delivered as they are needed. Plus GM's purchasing division is notorious for getting rock-botton transportation costs.

    Also consider that GM is the largest vehicle manufacturer in the world. This allows GM to offer the higher incentives and cash back values. To make up that lost revenue, GM just has to sell a few more vehicles to offset the cost. It's called a Break Even Sales Point. While GM is till losing some revenue with the higher incentives, ther're able to recoup much more of it than the other manufacturer.

    It due to GM having a lower Break Even point that will enable GM to lead the "incentive war" and come out on top. Just take any Pricing Course and you'll see what I'm talking about.
  • fanman8fanman8 Posts: 65
    G.M. has been manufacturing Humvees for the military. They can't keep up with production and they get $50,000 for each one of them. That amounts to a tidy sum for G.M. It should be no surprise that G.M has ample assets from their military sales of Humvees given that they are unable to meet current demands for the military. As long as the war in Iraq puts increased demand on Humvees, I would expect deals should be had on many G.M. product lines.
  • tasillotasillo Posts: 51
    Unless you plan on driving your new SUV for the next 10+ years, you cannot argue with the Toyota's resale. I happen to be a big Suburban (and Expedition) fan as they are great trucks and that is after many miles of direct experience. However, 3 years later they are worthless! A $50K (sticker) Z71 Sub will be worth about $17K (consult auto lease guide) while the Toyota will command about $25k. Certainly you can buy the Sub for 10K off sticker vs. 5K for the Toyota, however you still come out ahead on the Sequoia. Also, my GM trucks while basically reliable nickel and dimed me to death (4 sets of brake rotors in 85K miles).

    My brothers Expedition was similar. $42K new, $15K 4 years and 75K miles later.

    As they say, "you pays your money and you's take your choice"!
  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    JD Power just came out with the top 3 models in '04 for each segment:

    2004 Initial Quality Study

    Steve, Host
  • You brought up something I have noticed among most car manufacturers... that being increased totor/brake wear on both Japanese makes and domestics. Most manufacturers have gone over to rotors at all 4 wheels now, you typically don't find rear drums anymore unless its a 250 series or higher. Rotors too nowadays are throw-aways, meaning they should be replaced each time you get new brake pads.

    On my wife's Explorer, I've changed the brakes myself and have had to replace the rotors each time. Fords are especially notorious for running undersized rotos and brake pads. I see a trend on most domestics to go with smaller rotors versurs larger ones like on European imports. It boils down to simple physics, the more mass your vehicle has, the more momentum is has, the more heat generated and the harder it is still stop. Common sense should bear out that full-size SUV's should have at minimum 10 inch rotors all the way around. Or at least vented rotors for improved heat dispersion.

    But resale value? It's not really a consideration for when I purchase a vehicle. I look strictly at reliability and ease of maintenance (can I work on the vehicle myself). Plus my overall impression with the vehicle after test driving. I'm a grease monkey at heart and don't mind doing my own automotive work as long as I have the time and know-how. But I have to concede, Toyota's quality outpaces domestic standards. That's what you get by going over to a "Lego" built vehicle with very little variations. GM is definitely heading that way (like Toyota) on their production line. Sooner or later GM will catch up, which will drive the other domestics to follow suit. And that means a better end roduct for all us consumers. But that's my opinion based on much academic research as a Quality guru.
  • tasillotasillo Posts: 51
    The rotor wear/quality issue seems prevalent among all domestic and japanese brands. I believe it is both a size of rotor (ability to dissipate heat) and quality of the metal used. All my GM, Ford and especially Chrysler products go through rotors in 20K miles or less. My BMW 740 however (also a heavy and fast car) has no problems with rotors. BMW does not allow cutting or maching of rotors however so when it's time for pads, it's time for rotors as well (at $100 ea.). From my perspective, this is where the domestic mfg. could really close a gap with the Europeans. Invest in better quality and larger rotors, 4 piston calipers and quality components and customer satisfaction will improve as brakes are a common thread of complaint for GM, Ford and Chrysler.
  • msmith1msmith1 Posts: 2
    Initially bought a 2002 Sequoia Limited, and traded my car in for a 2003 Yukon SLT. The reason was that we were going to have a third child.




    - Great fit and finish
    - Quality interior materials
    - Quiet motor
    - More room behind third seat than Yukon
    - Third seats slide back and forth to add room


    - Needs more power, a lot more power!
    - Very large turning radius
    - Poor visibility out the back
    - Dives into turns like a 65 Buick
    - Second row seats do not fold flat to the floor, only flip up. Then you must manually secure in place with a strap
    - Third row seats very heavy and difficult to remove
    - Rear power window requires that you either have the keyfob in hand or roll down using the button prior to accessing.
    - Feature set less than would expect for this vehicle
    - Experienced terrible mileage (usually 12.5 to 13.0) in town.



    - Good power and pulls trailers well
    - Many features such as XM radio that are not available on Sequoia
    - Tight turning radius
    - Great visibility
    - Good highway manners and very quiet
    - Seats fold flat very easy, with headrests moving out of the way automatically.
    - Third row easy to remove.
    - Average of 15 mpg in town


    - Interior/exterior fit and finish is pathetic, I mean patheetic.
    - Interior materials not up to par with Sequoia
    - Not as good resale value as Sequoia

    We decided not to have the third child, and when deciding on which vehicle to keep, we chose the Yukon and traded the Sequoia.
  • petro33petro33 Posts: 192
    Interesting observation on your pros and cons. I have to agree with your issues on seq second row of seats. The need to tumble forward and strap down and resulting access to the back is troublesome. BUT I disagree on power issue, now maby if you are towing something over 6,000 lbs you might not be able to go 55 up steep hills, but I would take the secure smooth running motor of the seq over the Yukon and the potential repair issues over time.

    Milage is a minor price to pay for engine reliability. Plus with kids you may see the shoddy interior of the Yukon detroiate faster that the seq.

    However I understand that fold down second seat issue and the difficult third row of seats to take out. I don't do either very much so it was not a factor in my decision.

    You can also use the key in the lock in the rear door to roll the window down! What other "back window down options" do you want?

    I use large fish eye mirrors on both sides and it gives me perfect visibility.

    I would prefer that the seq had the dissapering seat feature and easier to remove third row feature.

    Good luck with your new vehicle, I hope yours is one that stands up to the test of time. I do like the way it looks!!!
  • kcflyerkcflyer Posts: 78
    I noticed that caddilac has a new escalade due out as an 06. Assuming they make the obvious move to add a disappearing third row seat I'm curious to see if a new Tahoe/Suburban will arrive at the same time. Has anyone heard anything? Same question for a redesigned Sequoia.
  • raymurraymur Posts: 29
    Anyone who would trade a 2 year old Sequoia for a "you got conned" SLT, is either lying about owning a Sequoia or should have his (or hers) head examined. There's a reason GM is offering $5000.00 off these vehicles and it ain't because they are in hot demand.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,432
    Has anyone brought up the fact that the Toyota Sequoia is a much worse polluter than the Suburban? The Toyota V8 engines have a long way to go to be as clean as the GM V8 engines. The Sequoia along with the Land Cruiser/LX470 are still in the top 5 worst polluters on the Planet..
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,432
    Smart move to keep the Yukon. I would never trade my Suburban for a Sequoia. They don't have as much room and get worse mileage and pollute the air worse.
  • msmith1msmith1 Posts: 2
    I may not have been clear on the trades from your post. I owned both at the same time. First bought the 2002 Sequoia and then bought the 2003 Yukon. When we decided to trade in one of the vehicles, we felt, for us, the Yukon met our needs better. Traded in the Sequoia on a Cayenne S.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,432
    That is a step up for sure. I would love to have a Cayenne. I don't spend enough time on the road to justify that much of a vehicle.
  • I am not sure of the criteria that a car company utilizes when they decide whether or not to issue a Technical Service Bulletin (TSB), but in my mind it's a behind the scenes admission of a problem. Nonetheless, it's designed to assist service technicians in resolving potential problems. The more TSBs a model has been issued, the more problems. End of story.

    Let's take a look at the # of TSBs issued by GM and Toyo for model years '03/'04:

    2003: Toyo issued 6 TSBs, GMC issued 112
    2004 (so far): Toyo issued 3 TSBs, GMC issued 64 TSBs

    Just look that the numbers. Toyo has issued 9 total TSBs for the Sequoia and GMC has issued 176 TSBs!!!

    Personally, I weigh data like this much more heavily than I do for JD Power's customer satisfaction survey.
  • gkatz1gkatz1 Posts: 296
    I have total access to all TSB's for my 2004 Sequoia and there are 24. Granted there are some really minor things in there but nevertheless, there are more than three. The latest was this month and regarded windshield wiper cleaning (real serious, hehe)
  • I referenced the following site:

    This link only shows 3 TSBs for the 2004 model. If you've got a more updated link, I'd appreciate it!
  • gkatz1gkatz1 Posts: 296
    I can't reference the site here because it is a competitor. Your site probably only lists significant TSB's while mine lists all of them. I would imagine, however, that your numbers comparison is fairly consistant. Don't forget though GM has a lot more variations in models than does Toyota.
  • ...from the Nation Highway Traffic Safety Administration website:

    2004 Toyo Sequoia (dates from 8/19/03 to 5/31/04): 6 TSBs
    2003 Toyo Sequoia (dates from 3/05/03 to 5/31/04): 16 TSBs

    2004 GMC Yukon (dates from 1/01/03 to 1/01/04): 104 TSBs
    2003 GMC Yukon (dates from 5/01/02 to 1/01/04): 166 TSBs

    2004 Chevy Tahoe (dates from 1/01/03 to 1/01/04): 101 TSBs
    2003 Chevy Tahoe (dates from 1/01/02 to 1/01/04): 157 TSBs

    Whether or not one of the two sites that I've quoted are 100% correct, I think gkatz1 and I do agree in theory that the Toyota's dependability, as compared to the GMC and their variants, is far superior.

    With the GMCs you can save about 10% off of the Sequoia's price tag, but then you have to deal with 10 times or more the amount of problems with it. To me it's a no-brainer.
This discussion has been closed.