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
For example a large trailer would have tremendous wind resistance, therefore would affect how much you can tow. Trailers tend to have more weight in front of the trailer axle, therefore a higher tongue weight and often the need for weight distributing hitch. The length of the hitch and distance from axle to hitch is also a factor. Many recreational boats are less than 10% tongue weight. Too much tongue weight is every bit as damaging as too little. To your point, too much tongue weight will result in potentially lifting one part of your truck, not good when going downhill.
I stand by what I say about towing 8000 lbs. with a Yukon. To me it is foolish. It is far more than the weight of the vehicle, and should be towed with a full sized rig more suited for that type of towing.
If the Sequoia and Yukon have same curb weight, roughly the same dimensions and roughly the same torque and power (in fact the 4.8 has less)how are you comfortable towing 3000 lbs more?
What is the difference that allows that much to be towed? Don't you consider the Yukon to have optimistic specifications and at some point common sense plays a role? Do you realize what size boat that would be and how it would feel to tow something like that?
I don't think any boat dealer or towing magazine would recommend that.
One final point- you should never adjust the tongue weight by "winching" the boat further ahead- that is dangerous.
Trailer tongue weight is adjusted by moving rollers and or beds and or location of winch. Boat should always come to rest in exactly the same spot.
OTOH, I have no particular loyalty to any vehicle brand since my view is that most manufacturers rarely have any loyalty to a consumer. In fact, I own a Toyota Avalon (a great vehicle), a BMW 740il (another great vehicle), and a restored '75 conv Caddy Eldo (a rather eclectic vehicle).
I am definitely no shill for GM although I have owned 2 previous 3/4 Silverado Suburbans before the current 2001 Denali XL. I would be the first to buy a Sequoia if I felt it was a superior tow vehicle. While it excelled in many categories when I test drove it, I simply did not find towing (heavier trailers) one of those.
1) Rear suspension capacity
2) Rear axle ratio
3) foot lbs of torque
4) HP
5) tow vehicle's weight and wheelbase
The criteria above is listed from most important to least important, IMO. After 20 years of towing, the rear suspension and rear axle ratio without question have the greatest influence on any tow vehicle's capabilities. If you doubt me, check out how the tow capacities of the many GM and Ford models which can be significantly increased or decreased by a change in rear axle ratio. Optional axle ratios are not available with the Sequoia.
The Sequoia has a lighter duty axle ratio and clearly a lighter duty rear suspension. The Tundra by anyone's measure is a lighter duty truck than the domestics, check out the payloads if you doubt me. Additionally, while I am not sure, I do not believe the Sequoia offers an optional transmission cooler with their towing package. If this is accurate, the Sequoia would definitely be crossed of my shopping list as a tow vehicle as a tranny cooler is a must for any serious towing in my book. If I am off base on the cooler please advise.
To answer your specific question regarding the Tahoe...No... I wouldn't tow 8000# in a Tahoe as I believe in towing no more than 80% of a vehicle's tow capacity. In fact, Edmund's does NOT have the correct tow capacity listed for the Tahoe. It should be 7800# not the 8700# listed on Edmunds.
By my definition of safe towing, the Sequoia would be good for 5000# and the Tahoe would be good for 6300#. The payloads of both vehicles would clearly support those tow capacities comfortably, although leaving a light passenger load capacity in the Sequoia with a 5000# trailer.
The Tahoe and Sequoia are both full size vehicles by their curb weights. Sequoia 5300# curb weight (6200# tow), Tahoe 5050# (7800# tow), 1/2 ton Sub 5123# (8500# tow), 3/4 ton Sub 5760# (12,000# tow), all with similar wheelbases. The difference is really in the suspensions where the Sequoia is simply not designed for moderate to heavy payloads. The GM models clearly are. Ford models have similar advantages in terms of rear suspension and axle ratios when compared with the Sequoia.
Note that while the vehicle weights are within 450# of each other, the tow capacity in a 3/4 ton Suburban is 2X the capacity of a Sequoia. This is primarily due to the Sub having a leaf spring rear suspension, a 4.10 ratio rear, 100 more hp and 140 more ft lbs of torque resulting in a 12,000# tow capacity compared to the Sequoia's 6200# even though they are similar in curb weight.
The Yukon is not at all optimistic in its tow capacities based on the factors above, which after many years of towing safely I believe represent the order of importance of key factors to be used when shopping for a tow vehicle.
I have to strongly disagree with your assessment of properly setting up a boat trailer and recommend you talk to a dealer if you doubt me. The dealer of the boat or the trailer should position a boat on its bed or rollers to achieve about a 10% total trailer weight at the tongue. This is achieved by loosening the bolts holding the winch stand to the trailer frame and moving it forward or rearward to achieve the correct weight distribution.
Rarely are the beds or rollers moved as the winch stand shouldn't need to be moved more than a foot (for boats under 30'). If it does need more than that you have the wrong trailer for the boat or vice versa. Once it is properly setup you are correct....there should be no need for further adjustments and the boat should come to rest in the exact same position each time you trailer up.
For those that believe that less than a 5% tongue weight is acceptable for towing after reading the recent exchanges I would encourage you to talk to a dealer instead of following either my advise or 714cut's.
I own a 2001 SR5 SQ which at the time of purchase, Toyota did not offer fog lights. Now I see that its an option for 2002. Have you heard whether a kit is available (as is with the 4-Runner)or know if Toyota plans to offer one? My dealer tells me that if it didn't come with fog lights, I can't get them, unless I go outside Toyota and have them custom installed. This is not an option as I think I would have too many concerns with respect to potential electrical and warranty issues. With the fog light cutouts already present, I don't see how this could be an overly complex package for Toyota to offer. Could you please advise as to the current status/alternatives?
--RobynK
The problem with you is that much of your information is good. If you would stop using unfounded opinions and speculation, you might be taken more seriously.
The relevant part numbers for these are:
Part Numbers:
81220-0C020 Lamp assy
81210-0C020 Lamp assy
84160-0C010 Tundra Switch
available at Carson Toyota, CA, at 1-800-908-6968
- source for the above: sequioasolutions.com
If you'd like to perform the install yourself, you might want to take a look at Paul Shweggy's site - the most used approach to date, at
http://www.geocities.com/shweggy/shweggys_page.html.html
Good luck...
Like many of you on this board (doudoudig, doeadr, redwood2002), we were also irked that a $35-40K vehicle does not come with remote keyless entry (which is now an SR5 option and not part of the Convenience Package in 2002). Can you please e-mail me (JoeViking@aol.com) and let me know how you resolved this issue with Toyota?
The local Toyota dealers say they do not install on-site and our local electronics dealer does not want to take the chance of installing and blowing the main board (something about Multiplex board design??). Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Joe V. (Newtown, CT)
They say it's 4.10 compared with Acura MDX'x 4.43.
The manufacturer's service manual should also contain that information.
tidester
Host
SUVs
I had my tires rotated five-ways, including the spare, according to the Toyota recommendation in the owner's manual (p. 290). However, this "criss-cross" method of rotation reverses the direction of the two tires. I have heard for a long time now that it is not advisable to reverse the direction of radial, steel-belted tires. The SEQ drives fine after tire rotation, but I am nervous about potential thread separation.
Any comments or advice. Thanks.
Given your knowledge on the Sequoia, I accept your statement that it has a tranny cooler simply because you say so. Can you just confirm its not an oil cooler since I couldn't find reference to a tranny cooler on the web site?
I was unable to find a rear axle ratio for the Sequoia however I agree with you that it is likely the same one as the 3.91 ratio that is the only choice in a v8 Tundra.
Relative to payload you need to do some homework. The Sequoia has a light payload compared to most mid-size or full-size suvs at 1305lbs. The Tundra is also a lightweight in payload (max payload is 1938lbs and a max tow capacity of 7200lbs in 4wd) when compared with the 1/2 ton HD Chevy pickup with a payload of 2847lbs and a tow capacity of 10,000lbs. FYI, the 3/4 ton Chevy HD pickup has a 4108lb payload and a 12,000lb tow capacity. The 1 ton pickup has a 5600lb payload and a 12,000lb tow capacity. I'll let others do research on the Ford specs.
Catch your breath before the quick accusations. Your not the only one trying to provide accurate information. Deceipt has never been an objective of mine, simply sharing info that may or may not meet some of the inflated perceptions of vehicles owned by those on this forum. That includes Ford, GM and God-forbid even Toyota.
It is confirmed as 4.10, which is the same as the optional ration on the Yukon.
This means that with a stock Sequoia vs. a stock Yukon you would have a higher axle ratio and an engine with higher torque, higher curb weight and a longer wheelbase. Advantage Sequoia.
I believe you are twisting the facts on latest post about trucks. Cliffy quoted 1/2 ton pickups, you are quoting HD which is a heavy duty version beefed up. Apples to apples please. What is regular Chevy 1/2 ton?
Deceitful... yes heatwave.
No deceit, just honest feelings. Sorry if it seems like I need to see a mental health professional, but I'm sick to death of every redneck with an attitude telling me that my choice was wrong because they read a brochure that was put out by Marketing people that whose job is to write colorful crap to make me buy what I don't need.
Have a nice day!
heatwave3 Nov 4, 2001 5:07pm
But Town Hall isn't about bashing, so let's stay civil and on topic please (the topic being, lest we forget, the Toyota Sequoia).
Steve
Host
SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
Also, is it common to have vibrations (at low speeds of ~ 50mph) after tire rotations at the 15k service ? This happened to mine and the wheels had to be balanced. The only thing I am still worried about is the slight wandering to the left at highway speeds >70mph... (You can tell I drive fast...). When I took it in, it wandered a little to the right ! now it's off left only very slightly, or am I imagining things in my head ???
Cliffy1 any help you can offer will be much appreciated....
Regarding specifications, there are some that are a lot more important to me as a buyer than payload vs. curb weight. Among them are integrity (won’t flip over frequently), crashworthiness (won’t crush my legs if I hit something at a moderate speed), reputation for reliability (won’t crap out in the middle of nowhere), seat comfort (for those of us who have had back surgery), and finally, thoughtful esthetic design.
As an engineer involved with a government agency in determining airworthiness of military aircraft, I know something about specifications and design trade-offs. A relatively low payload fraction doesn’t worry me at all. Among other things, it can imply increased structural integrity. I’ve also developed a habit of taking marketing claims with a grain of salt. I’m much more convinced by my own direct experiences, those of others I know, and results of reputable tests by independent organizations.
After experiencing this on several trips, I took my vehicle to the dealer but they could not duplicate the smell nor determine the cause. In fact, the service advisor indicated to me that there hasn't been any reported cases of this bad odor as of yet. If anyone has experienced anything like this please e-mail me and report it to your service dealer so that they can become aware that there is a problem.
E-mail:cuba213310@aol.com
In terms of rotation, I did the 5 tire rotation recently. I have not yet tested it at high speeds, but was somewhat concerned about the spare possibly not being balanced as well. Also, if a weight were lost/bumped during the rotation process this could account for your problem.
Perhaps there an element of envy there? So, someone gets a GM and can't admit he made a mistake! :-)
On the other hand, I do find some of the comparisons interesting.
tidester
Host
SUVs
For the most part, I just figure that the ammonia is better than sulfur smell that catastrophic converters produce on acceleration.
In terms the previous posts a few months back on ticking, no ticking of the engine at low temperature (40 degree) start-ups.
Toyota Sequoia vs Mercedes-Benz M-class
Toyota Land Cruiser vs Toyota Sequoia
Toyota Sequoia vs Chevy Suburban/GMC Yukon XL
Steve
Host
SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
Steve
Host
SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
Thanks.
1. I live in California and need chains for my 2wd seq. I am looking at a produce called "z-chain". Has anyone had any expierence with these or any other recommendations.
2. I read "somewhere" that "someone" replaced their stock air filter with a TRD/performance filter and noticed a difference in performance. Has anyone heard of this?
I had my tires BALANCED during tire rotation and I have not observed anything wrong with the vehicle even at 80 mph. Maybe it is just psychological, but I am still worried when some people tell me that the threads might separate when steel belted radials are reversed in direction.
I shared towing information only after others provided erroneous info suggesting the Sequoia was the "best tug" and had significant payloads. I also provided info on trailer configurations (only after recommendations made by others, that IMO if followed, might have caused harm) and provided sources for those views. I didn't initiate the subjects nor claimed that one vehicle was overall superior to another. Only that in the categories being discussed (towing) the data and personal experience suggested a view different from someone else. Kinda sounds like the purpose of these forums as I read the rules of conduct by Edmunds.
For those that have an issue with my view or the data simply move on with the click of the mouse or provide your own view and/or data. No one forces you to read any post. Just because you find the data of no interest doesn't mean someone else doesn't. I have nothing to gain other than the personal satisfaction of sharing info. The fact that some folks don't want to read it suggests its their issue to deal with, not mine.
cliffy1: once again you prove yourself not to have done your homework. I originally referenced the highest tow and payload ratings available for the 1/2 ton and 3/4 ton GM pickups compared to the Sequoia. Both GM chassis setups can be ordered with many options including the HD setup. The HDs are still on 1/2 ton and 3/4 ton chassis' with optional gear not available on the Sequoia. The fact that an option isn't available on a Sequoia shouldn't mean (IMO) that it can't be compared to a GM that has it since we were comparing the maximum tow and payload comparisons available from both makes.
The data I cited reflected those options and if you scrolled further down the list of available truck configurations at the GMC website you would see the ratings for the HD's as I outlined below:
"The Sequoia has a light payload compared to most mid-size or full-size suvs at 1305lbs. The Tundra is also a lightweight in payload (max payload is 1938lbs and a max tow capacity of 7200lbs in 4wd) when compared with the 1/2 ton HD Chevy pickup with a payload of 2847lbs and a tow capacity of 10,000lbs. FYI, the 3/4 ton Chevy HD pickup has a 4108lb payload and a 12,000lb tow capacity. The 1 ton pickup has a 5600lb payload and a 12,000lb tow capacity."
Also I have found no info that suggests the Sequoia has a 4.10 rear axle ratio. The only data that suggests Toyota uses a 4.10 rear axle ratio is when they use a 6 cylinder in the Tundra. The lower axle ratio in the 6 cyl compensates for the lower torque of the smaller engine. The 3.90 rear is the only rear ratio available with the 8 cyl Tundra which helps the Tundra post a better fuel efficiency. The 4.10 rear with the v8 would likely have dropped the fuel economy by 2-3 mpg and may have resulted in more load on the transmission that it was rated for (just a guess on my part).
For those suggesting the comparison discussions should be held on the other forums, its rather interesting you didn't make the same suggestion when a Sequoia owner provided his comparison experience suggesting the Sequoia was a better tow vehicle than the F/S GM SUVs. HMMMMMM?
For those that feel compelled, feel free to flame away. I'm starting to get a kick out of it.
Should you still question the info go to Google and type in "Toyota Seqoia axle ratio". You will see many sites, all of them confirming the 4.10 axle ratio. Clearly there is no denying this fact. Hope this helps!
As a follow-up to my assessment of the Sequoia as a tow vehicle, here is an independent site I came across while trying to find the rear ratio info which came to similar conclusions that I posted regarding the type of towing that the Sequoia is best suited for.
<http://209.132.206.136/content/rts/rts20010101ts.xml>
The following excerpt references the same towing and payload capacity issues I expressed. "Its 6,500-pound maximum tow rating pales next to the Expedition's 7,800- and the Tahoe's 8,700-pound limits. Likewise, its maximum payload also is comparatively modest, ranging from 1,430 pounds in a 4x2 SR5 to only 1,305 pounds in a 4x4 Limited. That's hundreds less than its a similarly equipped Chevy and Ford foes."
Additionally, there final conclusion on the Sequoia was as follows "The final take? If you anticipate lots of heavy lifting and towing interspersed with regular bouts of treading not-so-lightly through Rubicon-like environs, there's likely to be a more suitable mechanical soulmate out there—perhaps even one wearing a red Bow Tie or a Blue Oval badge. But if you're a light-to-medium duty lifestyler whose tastes skew more toward a smooth, stylish and extremely capable all-weather wanderer, the new Sequoia Limited 4x4 is definitely worth serious consideration."
If you'll recall I also stated that I found the Sequoia to be solid SUV that excelled in alot of areas. Towing more than in light-duty situations was NOT one of those areas. Maybe the fact that an independent publication came to the same conclusion will position my view as someone more interested in the towing capabilities of the vehicle than what manufacturer made it.
Crapgame
He felt it was important to stay as close to the OEM tire size as possible when installing winter tires (P265/70-16).
FWIW his highest recommendation for the Sequoia Ltd. 4WD was one of 2 Nokian tires: Hakkapeliitta 1 or WR. The WR is an all weather tire that carries the "severe service emblem" and has a 50,000 mile tread life. It has a silica compound to grip on icy and wet surfaces and a tread pattern that expells water, snow and slush off the side of the tire, keeping the tire free of packed slush. Has anyone had any experience with Nokians?
After spending about an hour discussing and looking at the Nokian as well as the winter tires from Blizzak, Michelin, Yokahama, Goodyear, Cooper, Dunlop and others I feel confident that the NOKIAN WR is the tire I am going to go with for my Sequoia. Hope to have these installed next week, and will post my experience soon after as we are already getting snow. About 8 inches last night !