By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
My wife and I were VERY disappointed with the quality of the upholstery when we took delivery. We had previously only seen the LIMITED which has leather (no SR5 in stock). We ordered the SR5 since we did not want leather.
The dealer agreed that the quality does not seem to be the usual Toyota standard and the Toyota representative agreed. They will try to fix the problem.
The individual cloth panels do not seem to match properly resulting in ruffles along the stitching.
Has anyone else had this experience?
-mike
Any comments on 4WD vs. 2WD? I don't plan any off road type driving. Looking at SEQ for it's size, quality and looks.
Here is what they say on their web page:
"A model earns a "Recommended" label by Consumer Reports when it has performed well in our tests and when our reader-survey data indicate that it should be at least average in reliability. There are several reasons why a model would have no designation: It wasn't tested recently; it didn't test well; it has a below-average reliability record; it's too new to have reliability data; or we have insufficient reliability data."
I have come to expect from Toyota. The leather, plastics and carpeting are of a more "industrial" quality that those on
my previous Toyota vehicles. (4-Runners and Avalon). Overall I am reasonably satisfied with the entire package but
it looks like Toyota is starting to use other North American vehicles as their "benchmark" for quality of materials instead
of themselves (and Lexus). I have always purchased Toyota products because of their superior "fit and finish" and attention to interior detail. This is not to say that I think that the comparable products from Ford, GM, and Chrysler are better, in fact they are much worse! Just my two cents worth!
One more thing for Heatwave. I never said the parts were identical. I said the systems operated the identically but for a few nuances such as the availability of 2WD in the Sequoia and the ease of locking the center on the LC.
May we now move on?
I will check out my SR5 B package to see how upholstery is. I have not noticed anything so far. 3rd Toyota, wife has a Camry.
"a. When the Vehicle is Travelling Straight
There is practically no speed difference between the front and rear wheels the vehicle is running straight
a constant speed. In this condition, the transfer clutch hub, drive sprocket and rear output shaft rotate
at the same speed. That is, they rotate together with the center differential unit. In this case, the driving
force from the transfer clutch hub is distributed uniformly and transmitted to the front and rear wheels
from the planetary pinion carrier."
AND YOU??????
I need this information to determine how late I can wait to factory order one.
The issue of a lack of published data was not on whether the Sequoia system has open diffs or mechanical drawings of its center diff. It has to do with the inaccurate assertion made on this forum that the Sequoia delivers powers to all wheels at all times "just like an AWD system" when the full-time 4wd is engaged.
The answer remains irrefutable that the Sequoia does not deliver a minimum amount of power to all wheels under all circumstances in full-time 4wd. Delivering equal power to all wheels on level dry pavement could be done with 60 year old technology and any system with open diffs. Thats not the question.
The question is when the going gets tough, will the Sequoia in full-time 4wd deliver power to all its wheels under all circumstances like awd. With three open diffs it can not and does not.
Anyone suggesting otherwise is uninformed and merely deluding themselves.
So the question remains, does the Sequoia deliver a minimum amount of power to all wheels under all circumstances and is the power distribution published like it is for all manufacturer's of awd systems or is this the published "crap" that can't be found because it doesn't exist?
The question I asked was if Toyota published a minimum torque distribution ratio like all other awd manufacturers (I recognize it was a loaded question since the Sequoia is not AWD). However some of the Sequoia owners seemed to try to make a case that the Sequoia has AWD. That could only be true if there was a minimum torque delivered under all circumstances and since Sequoia owners only believe you, I challenged them to find any source on the net with the Sequoia drivetrain specs showing minimum torque levels.
That is how the question was raised regarding published data. The answer is that the Toyota 4wd system does not ensure there is power delivered to all wheels under all road conditions at all times. The tt4 system simply ensures that the tires don't slip, which could also mean they don't turn at all. That would not occur in an awd vehicle.
A local Ford dealer is offering their 2002 Eddie Bauer 4WD Expedition for only $31,975 which is about $10K UNDER total MSRP and $4,700 UNDER standard invoice. The NEW redesigned 2003 Expedition will be out in a few more months so they really want to move out the older 2002 models.
A Toyota dealer has offered me $40,550 for a brand new 2002 Toyota Sequoia Limited 4WD. This comes out to only $500 OVER standard invoice.
We are planning on keeping the SUV for about 6 years and will end up putting on about 16,000 miles each year. This comes to a total of 96,000 miles at time of resale. I know the Toyota Sequoia will resale for more but want to get an idea of how much more it could be worth over the Ford at this age of both these vehicles.
My guess is that the Ford Expedition would be worth around $10K based on current depreciation for the Expeditions. I would guess that the Toyota Sequoia would be worth around $15K based as a medium between the Toyota 4Runner & Land Cruisers historical resale values. Do you all agree that this $5K difference in resale would be possible or do you believe the gap will be tighter? If tighter, how much? If larger, how much?
I want to justify the Toyota Sequoia but want to get an idea of what the total cost of ownership would be on these two SUV's to find out the true overall cost. I know the Sequoia will be more expensive than the Ford which I can justify since there are quite a few things that I like about it over the Ford (smoother ride, nicer looking IMO, better quality, more reliable, etc.). I just want to determine approximately how much more it will be to see if it really makes financial sense.
Which SUV would you choose and why considering the $8,500 initial price difference and your perceived difference in resale values after 6 years & 96,000 miles????
Not to complicate things but I think I'd wait for the new Expy and compare to the Sequoia-price may still be cheaper than Sequoia and you would have a better expy.
My Sequoias have both been tickers (2001 and 2002)but there have been no recalls or TSB's that I'm aware of. The sound goes away after a few minutes of warming up. I'd prefer it wasn't there at all but I don't think it's a major mechanical problem. That same engine has put a lot of miles on lexus and Tundras. Doesn't Toyota have a longer engine warranty as well?
what was your main motivation for this? Color? the expanded "B" option package? I understand that your payments were almost the same but what was the actual depreciation?
(These are not trick questions, I am merely curious)
Also you mentioned that you sent your 2001 south through an auto broker. Even with the favourable exchange is it not
hard to recoup the 17% sales tax that you paid? Is some of it refundable on sale? GST, PST or both?
On a lease taxes are paid monthly as opposed to up front (if I remember correctly). To tell you the truth, I don't know the actual numbers the dealer got. I just couldn't believe I could get a brand new truck, same payments, new model year with more options. I kept waiting for the catch but there was none. That's what happens I guess with a desirable vehicle.
I also think this was a very special lucky circumstance. I am in no way suggesting that this would be available again or would be commonplace out there. I think it was simply right place right time right vehicle.
p.s. does your name have something to do with Toyota Racing Division supercharged something?
supercharger installed on it last year. The vehicle has 81,000km on it and I've put on about15,000km since intalling the SC. It is an automatic LTD so the performance, although increased noticibly, is not exactly "blow your doors off". The extra power is most noticable when cruising at freeway speeds and especially when negotiating hilly or mountainous terrain. I took it to the Grand Canyon and back last September and experienced better gas mileage and no problems in maintaining (and accelerating) speed on any type of grade. The only draw back
to this is the"whine" but that is almost unnoticeable unless you are accelerating or going up a
hill. At crusing speeds or 120 to 140km/hr on the interstates there is more wind noise than
any whine from the supercharger. I know that this is a rather long answer to a short question
but since I am a new contributor I felt that it would be an interesting sideline.
To comment on your experience getting out of your 2001 into a 2002; for my situation I would
not consider sending a vehicle south unless there was some way to recoup some of the taxes
paid as you can when you trade your vehicle in to a dealer. Even with the value of the CDN dollar relative to the US greenback; a person would have to live in Alberta where only the GST
applies to vehicle purchases to make any money on having a "new" vehicle brokered into the US.
ps. and your moniker (or maybe I should not ask)
also, although I am a new contributor, I have followed this interesting forum since last
summer.
As for 50/50 torque split, it does prove that both axles get equal torque as a std torque split, similar to the denali VC. The denali VC will not provide a min. amount of power to each axle, if the rear axle is spinning on ice 100% of the power will be directed to the other axle and visa versa that is the whole concept behind the VC.
The brakes being applied will shift around the power through the open diffy based on traction, at least that is my take on the Sequoia. I don't like using the brakes to shift around power, but that is just me.
-mike
In my 4WD Ford Expedition I get 13 MPG with most driving being done on the freeway. I am considering the Sequoia but would hope that it would get better gas mileage (say around 15-16 for 4WD or 16-18 for 2WD).
Any input would be greatly appreciated...
could improve the design, ergonomics and fit and finish of this vehicle. Here is my list of suggestions:
1. More horsepower (atleast 300hp total) not that I think that the vehicle is totally underpowered
2. Insulation and a light under the hood.
3. Bigger wheels and tires (16" wheels and 265/70R16 tires are not proportional to the size of the vehicle)
4. A rear window switch that would both open and close the window on the keyless entry.
5. Wood dash and console trim on the Ltd models (optional on SR5)
6. A more "conventional" shape to the console and HVAC, and stereo system. (this shape reminds me of "retro Taurus")
7. A lock on the console and glove compartment.
8. A more "conventional" look to the gauge cluster (More like the LC and 4-Runner) less like the Tundra
9. A console mounted shifter, lumbar support on the passenger seat, and an easier to use "tumble" lever
10. Better quality of materials used in the interior (carpets, leather & plastic)
I realize that there are some among you that may think that I am concentrating on "minutia", but having bought
Toyota for their superior ergonomics and "fit and finish" over the years, I think that they could have done a better job
on this model!
What do you think??
Your pal
Obi Wan
I would wish for a quieter heater blower.
I really like the keyless entry system on Fords. I used it all the time on my explorer.
A subwoofer and better sound for the stereo.
Radio controls for the steering wheel.
Driving lights instead of/as well as fog lights.
An engine that doesn't tick when cold starting.
Push buttons for 4wd instead of console lever.
it is a fine vehicle. I like the exterior look, and the power of the 6.0L engine. I do NOT
like the interior looks, especially the centre pod. For a vehicle that cost him almost $60,000 CDN, which was about $6000 CDN less than the MSRP of $65,695 I think that the
interior design should have looked a lot better than a "gussied up" GM 1/2 ton pickup. Also
what he paid was some $5000 CDN more than what I paid for my fully loaded LTD Sequoia;
from my perspective, it was NOT worth the price differential since I am not intending to tow
any large motorhomes in the near future.
claiming that they are design flaws by the manufacturer Toyota. I merely think that constructive evaluation is good and
that is how improvements are made.
"Trinner" you posted a comment about buying in Seattle. Did you purchase??
trdsctwo: I think there is plenty of power (but am coming from an 88 4rnner with the 2.3 liter 4 cyl engine... just about 1/2 the size of the seqs engine).
A while back there was a lot of discussion re: the lack of a rear window up button on the keyless fob... it was decided that this was omitted as a safety consideration... the fobs work from some distance (my 15 mo old girl activated my alarm from more than 100 ft while playing with the keys). You wouldn't want to roll up the back window when out of sight, on the chance that a hand or head might be in the way.
Apparently, there are some pretty good kits for retrofitting a wood dash for ~$300-400...
I agree with 714cuts wish for a quieter fan, and would like a (child proofed) rear hatch release on the inside of the hatch (would make it easier to get out back when I am sleeping in the seq on fishing trips).
Please note that I have driven only 2,731 kms or 1,697 miles with my new SR5. Most of my driving has been in the city with some freeway driving and virtually all in 2WD mode.
(10 miles) until empty. Has anyone actually ran it out of gas and measured exactly how much gas that the tank will
hold. Both my 4-Runner and Avalon had 70litre tanks and I have filled up with almost 76 litres of gas without
running dry. This was both in the summer and winter since the volume of gas at the pump is corrected to 15 degrees
C or 59 degrees F. Also gas mileage improves at higher altitude.
the tank up with as much as it will take. ie. I can see the gas right up to the cap, sometimes a few drops over. This adds
about 8 to 10 litres over what it would be if I just used the automatic fill mechanism at the pump. A fill-up for me
using takes about 5 minutes longer than normal because it takes time to squeeze in that very last litre.