I have noticed that when I go to fill up my Seq the auto-shutoff on the pump occurs at around 21 gallons. It always seems to be 21 gallons - when there was an eighth of a tank left or it was at empty. I can always pump about 2 additional gallons without topping off. I have read others with the same problem. Is this related to the design of the tank? Any help is appreciated. Also, I wonder if those that are getting really low mileage don't know that the tank seems to take different amounts to get to full.
oac3: The fact that someone exceeds the manufacturers specifications and than provides an opinion that he felt safe is not, IMO a safe method for coming to the conclusion that the Sequoia is the "best tug". Data and manufacturer's specifications are signficantly more important in safe towing than someone's opinion or feel. Unusual circumstances occur when towing, unexpected surprises, tougher inclines than anticipated, typically are not taken into consideration and yet they happen. A safe feeling towing a 6000# package on an open highway doing 60mph should not be the basis for determining the capabilities of a tow vehicle.
You appear to be satisfied that the opinion of a new Sequoia owner that compares his experience to older GM and Ford models should carry over to current models. I'm surprised you made no challenge to his comparisons.
2heeldrive's comparison were "2002 Sequoia: -9- Easiest of all to tow with 1999 Sub 1500 4WD 5.7L V8: -8- Good tug, bad, bad brakes 1999 Sub 1500 4WD 5.7L V8: -8- see above (I know, I had two; it's a long story) 1993 Explorer 4WD v6: -6- Seemed ok at the time but in retrospect got pushed around quite a bit 1982 Bronco 4WD 5.0L V8: -3- No power, scary brakes, but was heavy and had a short axle to hitch distance so it didn't get pushed around.
2heeldrive was balanced and fair in his comparisons, unfortunately he was comparing a new Sequoia to GM's last Suburban platform which is a decade old design. I would hope that the Sequoia was substantially better than a decade old design. He also compared to much older Ford designs (20 years older). By all measures the Sequoia had better be a superior vehicle or it shouldn't even be on the market when compared to these older designs.
For anyone shopping for a new vehicle the comparisons to older models is irrelevant. While I have not towed with a Sequoia, I did test drive it when I was shopping for the Denali XL. I stand by my opinion and the facts support that opinion, that the Toyota excels in a lot of categories that matter in shopping for a F/S SUV, moderate to heavy towing is NOT one of those categories the Sequoia excels in.
Down to the choice of colors on an SR5. They're aren't too many available where we live so we are ordering one with the specs we want. Any opinions if a white with "warm silver" fenders looks better with tan leather or grey leather interior? I know, I know these aren't huge issues in the real world, but since we can't see them and we are ordering, it might as well look nice. Any opinions?? Thanks.
My guess is that the auto shut off has to do with the vapor recovery system. This is only a guess because I have not heard of such a concern before. Cars and trucks now days have so may things built into them to prevent gas fumes from escaping that its a wonder we can even drive them.
I appreciate your response and thank you for taking the time to clear things up. On the technical aspect of towing, I'll let 2heeldrive speak for himself. For me, my main concern was the "opinion" versus "fact" part. On public fora such as on Edmund's, debates and posts are often a mixture of facts and opinions; together they make the forum lively and entertaining. No one opinion need be put down as baseless unless backed with "facts"... These so-called "facts" are written by some shmuck and they certainly can be flawed sometimes. That is all I want to say on the non-technical aspect of towing comparisons. Now I'll let the towing experts duke it out technically
Take care, Pete, and I do enjoy hearing from you whenever you drop by this forum...
Has anyone else noticed that when getting gas the pump shuts off wells before the tank is actually full? I read this on another site and it is true with my Seq. I can pump a couple of gallons more gas after auto-shutoff without overflow.
oac3: thanks for the feedback. I try to keep my opinions limited unless its a subject I am very familiar with. Towing happens to be one of those subjects and relevant for folks that are shopping for f/s suvs. I also try to back up my opinions on various subjects with some basic data which is readily available on the net.
Mistakes on vehicle specs do happen and I try to check numbers that look strange against other sites like Carpoint and the manufacturer's site. Once again, thanks for the feedback as I will continue my occasionally drop in just to keep things from getting too quiet.
midwestfan1, I have a 2002 SR5, White with the gray leather interior. I choose the gray interior because it matched the fenders. Some may say, you can't see the fender color from the inside and the windows are tinted so you can't see in the vehicle. But, I would go for the gray.
I have a 2002 Sequoia and generally like it, only a few weeks old. Found a design flaw. At 45 mph and above if you open just the back passenger windows the vehicle vibrates like you have a square wheel. Service manager admits all dealerships know of this problem, yet, saleperson fail to warn anyone, at least to save a trip to the service manager. I was told don't hold my breath for a fix. Aerodynamic problem causing the vibration. I have heard Honda has similar problem. Still like vehicle SO FAR.
This week I've driven both the Tahoe and Sequoia and like different things about both. Tahoe- felt wider and did better on bumps at speed. Sequoia- drove and turned tighter. Did notice more bumps on the drive; however took them on different routes. I liked the controls and six disk changer better on Toy. Both had the easiet seat to flip up, with a slight nod to Tahoe. I would like to see from other who have driven both. I'll be leasing and the Tahoe is in stock. Toyota has a 30 day lead time to keep all of SE toyota's junk, like a $695 protection package off.
I drove both, also. After first sitting down in the Tahoe, my wife opened the center console and one hinge broke off. So long Tahoe. I'll take Toyota reliability every time!
Just purchased a 2002 SR5 4WD Sequoia. Options included: DR Roof rack GY Side and head air bags RL Daytime running lights SR Power sunroof CC Captain's chairs AH Alloy wheel package AC Dual zone auto a/c KE Keyless entry CQ Convenience package with power heated mirrors,compass,trip computer and homelink garage opener. Also floor mats at dealer cost of $123. The sticker price including destination fee, but without the floor mats was $40205. Edmunds TMV (True Market Value) came out as $38099. I paid $36704 plus registration, title and taxes. I think I did pretty well.
Need some help in deciding. I have a 5 year old, a 2.5 year old and one due in a few weeks. I don't tow anything. Like the X5's handling, performance, safety and the fact that it is a BMW. Like the Sequoia for the amount of space, the ease of getting the kids in and out (I hope) and the ability to add a few adults and/or other kids on occasion. I hope it is as safe as the BMW but not sure. Also not sure if the wife will get used to the size of the Sequoia - she will be the primary driver. The cost of a loaded Sequoia is about the cost of a nicely equiped X5 3.0. Minivans are out of the question as we had buyer's remorse after just test driving one. Your opinions would be appreciated.
iglow, please don't take this the wrong way, but...
You have already bought the vehicle. If it is what you wanted and you are comfortable with what you paid, why ask us if you did OK? Are you looking to see if you left money on the table? Looking to see if you got the best deal ever? The price you paid is the price you paid. Period.
Maybe I'm having a bad day, but I simply don't understand posts like these.
My husband and I are also in the market for either a Tahoe, GMC Yukon, or Sequoia. Last week, we test-drove the Tahoe and really liked it. We're also planning to lease but did not talk price with the Chevy dealer because we won't be leasing until March. During the next few weeks, we'll drive the Sequoia and Yukon. I expect that the Yukon drive very much like the Tahoe. Did you happen to talk about lease rates with either one? How do they compare. It seems that you can buy a fairly loaded Tahoe or Yukon for almost the same price as a basic no-frills Sequoia. Anyone know if this is a fair assumption?
I have been participating in the winter tires forum, but this question is Sequoia-specific, so I thought maybe I'd get better answers here.
I am looking for good winter Snow and especially Ice tires for my Sequoia. I thought I had settled on Bridgestone Winter Duelers, but now I'm confused about the sizes.
Tire Rack recommended Winter Dueler DM-Z2 for my vehicle (2001 SR5 4x4) in a size 245/75QR16. But that appears to be the wrong size for my vehicle. My current (OE) tires are P265/70 R16 111. The closest sizes of Winter Duelers available appear to be 265/75QR16 or 275/70QR16. Can I use any of these sizes of Winter Duelers on my Sequoia? Do I need to get new wheels to do so?
You really need to talk lease rates to be sure. The Sequoias may have somewhat higher residuals than the GMC or Yukon. I know that when we were comparing last year, we got a higher price quote for the Seq but lower lease payments! The only vehicle that would have been cheaper to lease was an Expedition, and it just didn't stack up, in our opinion. Also, I think you will like the ride of the Sequoia better.
Thanks for the info! Did you negotiate the purchase price of the car first and then tell them you wanted to lease or did you negotiate lease rates. I'm understand how to negotiate the price of the car, but am unsure how negotiable the lease rates are. Thanks!
We negotiated the price first, then asked about leasing -- well, sort of all at once, really. They knew we wanted to lease but we were clear that we wanted to negotiate and know what price they were plugging in to the lease calculations.. The lease info was very volatile -- rates and residuals seemed to vary almost daily! We ended up taking a 39 month lease to get a better payment than available for a 36. Make extra-sure they are using the negotiated selling price when computing the lease -- sales people (all makes) had a tendency to try to quote lease payments based on full sticker price, even after discussing a lower price!
robynk : I am in the same situation as you on the winter tires. The tirerack.com recommended the 245/75QR16 also. This just didn't seem like the right tire for the Sequoia so I checked with a local tire dealer in Vail, CO and they recommended 265/75R16 which they said is only about 1/2" taller than the 265/70's. To me, the Sequoia could handle the 1/2" without a clearance problem.
Maybe tirerack.com just doesn't stock the 265/75's. FWIW I was quoted $133 each or total of $608 with mounting and balancing. They also recommended a Nokian HAKKA 1 SUV tire at $150 each in the 265/75R16. I've heard some good things about Nokians, but have not talked with anyone who has actually used them. As of today, I think I'm going with the Blizzaks as I have used them on my Ford rear-wheel-drive conversion van for the past 9 winters , and have never had a problem with them on snow or ice. And that's about 6 months of Winter driving in the Colorado mountains.
Of course I would like to hear more about NOKIANS if anyone here has an opinion or more information.
fhsimmo-thanks for the feedback re: interior color. I was able to find one "in the pipeline" and it is supposed to be built today. Still not sure of the delivery lag time, but we can't wait to see it. Thanks for releaving some anxiety!
cap10chuck: tirerack *does* stock the 265/75QR16s and also 275/70QR16s -- I think their "shop by vehicle" database must just have the wrong info about the Seq. tire sizes. They recommended 3 tires, all in the 245/75-16 size. btw, tirerack has the 265/75s for $104. I don't know if your dealer is inclined to match their prices, but it might be worth asking. If you get a 265/75 can you put them on your existing wheels? I assume so based on the rest of your post.
I don't know about the Nokians either. Check the winter tire board. Many people there do like them but the overall consensus seems to be that the Bridgestones are the best thing for ice if you are not going with studs. Since ice is our biggest (and frequent) driving challenge, that is why I am leaning toward the Winter Duelers. My dealer is recommending a studded tire, but we travel to places where they are illegal, so that's not an option for us.
robynk: Appreciate the reply. I was told that the 265/75's would work on the OE wheels. The only difference was the 1/2" in height.
I'll definitely ask my local dealer to match the tirerack price. That's $29 per tire or $116 difference.
I would agree, at least in my experience, that the Blizzaks are superb on ICE. Many times I encountered extreme ice conditions on Loveland Pass, Vail Pass and the Eisenhower Tunnel. This was in the rear-wheel-drive van and often due to jacknifed trucks etc. It was Slow, Stop n Go on sheer ice. I was ALWAYS able to continue on. Never was I unable to gain traction. Also stopping on the ice (which is MOST important) was superb. I also felt like I got decent mileage on the Blizzaks; however, I never let this be the deciding factor. My most important criteria is always being able to stop and go in severe ice and snow conditions.
Let me know what you end up doing and I'll do the same.
tom00: Regarding your view that the "Sequoia- drove and turned tighter" when compared to a Tahoe. I can't quantify the "drove tighter" part as that is certainly a seat of the pants sensational, however you might want to take note of the actual turning radius' of the vehicles.
The Tahoe/Yukon has a significantly (4 ft) smaller turning radius at 38.3' than the Sequoia. In fact, the turning radius of a Sequoia is identical to that of the full size Suburban/Yukon XL at 42.3'.
Whew, do you have some thinking to do. These two are just not comparable in any way but price. (Full Disclosure: My wife drives our Sequoia) We drove quite a number of vehicles, including the ML 320, the MDX, the Tahoe/Yukon, 4Runner, Pathfinder, QX4, Exploder, etc. We have a 6 month old. With her car seat in the middle of the back row, there is room for an adult on either side of her car seat. Try that with the X, and you'll see your 2 1/2 yr old will be cramped. Your choice will be to put the booster seat on one side and the car seat on the other. That will mean no other passengers. And forget about bring the Stroller in the X if you plan on doing any serious shopping. There isn't any room.
Now on the other hand, the Seq seems like a Winnebago in terms of comparing the handling and performance of the X and the Seq. The X will turn circles around the Seq. But, I don't want my wife to even be tempted to drive like that with my daughter in the car, so I don't mind that her Seq isn't a race car.
Both are relatively quiet vehicles, and I believe both should not be awful in terms of reliability.
I guess it boils down to whether you want space for those occasions, or performance. We chose space, but you have to think hard about what you want. They are very different animals.
There are a few other options for winter tires that should be checked out. If you want to stay with OEM size (265/70 - 16) then look at Yokohama Geolander I/T which is an ice and snow tire like Bilzzaks, but has a solid centre core so is more capable of supporting and handling a heavy vehicle. Tiredepot.com rates them the best in their on-vehicle tests. Also noteworthy of consideration is the Michelin 4x4 Alpin. Both are available in OEM size, whereas with the Bridgestones you should go down to the 245 width (and although some claim better in deep snow to have a narrower width, just keep in mind that those four little patches of rubber are all that hold you on the road)
crapgame: Not to throw too many specs around, however its rather interesting that the much smaller MDX has such a large turning radius for its size. As you put it "The X will turn circles around the Seq." The MDX has only a 6 inch smaller turning radius than a Tahoe or Yukon (although 4 ft smaller than Sequoia). I would have thought for such a supposedly "nimble" suv it would have had a much tighter turning radius.
Why do you say that with the Bridgestones we should go down to the 245? That doesn't make sense to me when there are sizes that seem much closer to OEM sizing.
The Blizzaks seem to have a very dedicated following. I keep hearing that they are way better than the Michelin Alpins on ice. So I would like to get them, but not if changing tire sizes is going to cancel out any advantage of the better tire. My local dealers recommend a cheaper cooper tire, but I'm not convinced.
When I spoke to my local tire dealer, he suggested I call the Toyota dealer and make sure that changing tire sizes would not void my warranty or cause any other problems with them. I did that and they said it was fine. He also seemed to think the 265/75 is a better choice than the 245/75.
I also emailed tirerack to ask them why they recommended the 245's -- whether that was a mistake or what. I'll let you know what I hear....
This is a recommendation based on the best snow performance size. Thinner is always better in snow tires. This allows you to get down to somethisng the tire can grip, and not just ride on top of the snow.
I've read more than one poster here with this delimma. I think that these are two completely different animals with two completely different purposes in the auto kingdom. I drive an X5 and my wife drives a Sequoia Limited.
The X5 is much smaller and nimbler and is basically an all around fun car to drive(as are all BMWs). The Seq wasn't as bad as I thought and quite good given it's size. In terms of interior room of course the Seq wins. We got this as a people mover to replace our minivan. We don't tow anything at all. The X5 is one of the most inefficient users of space when you compare it even to an RX300, MDX or a CR-V. Most of the time however I'm the only person in the car. The Seq is our weekend/long distance/bring everyone and their luggage type of vehicle. Yes the Seq is large but my wife surprised herself but adapting pretty well to the size. Another way to think of it is-can you live with the space of a 5 series BMW sedan with the little ones on vacation, long trips, etc.
All I can say is try both. I love both vehicles but in different ways. My 2cents
i haven't quoted the lease on a sequoia yet. i'm planning to meet with the fleet manager to spec it out, the local leasing company will get the invoice price and determine payments. The tahoe listed slightly above $43,000 and a 36 mo lease was 780 with 0 down. He indicated the sequoia should be within $25 of that range.
Heat Wave-i did not to turn a circle. a smaller radius helps in parking, but i was referring to highway driving. i don't plan on doing sharp turns at speed in any SUV, but having VSC would help. as you said "seat of pants", but that is what most people will use to decide.
Donlino- My wife wants to lease a 01 x5 4.4, which has 3,000 miles and i could lease for 780. i own a 00 528 and we have decided we need a larger vehicle than the x5. it handles fantastic and we would get it if we also had an old pick up. you can get a roof carrier, but the x5 is tight with alot of stuff.
I know that this subject is getting old for the folks that don't tow, but I just want to clear up a couple of things:
heatwave, you said that the Sequoia does not excel at moderate to heavy towing... if that's defined by anything much over 5000# I agree and said so. IMO, for frequent and long distance towing of more than 5000# only a 3/4 ton vehicle will do.
cac, I don't know what Sequoia owner you were referring to about exceeding manufacturer’s ratings, but I hope it wasn't me. My boat and trailer, when ready for the water, weigh no more than 4000# and the trailer tongue weight is 175# which leaves 1255# for payload. My kids eat pretty well, but the 5 of us with gear are well under 1255#. Tongue weight at 10% of the trailer weight is a general rule of thumb for cargo trailers. Tongue weight on boat trailers is usually much less because most of the weight is in the back (that's the stern for those who are nautically inclined) of the boat. I would never exceed or recommend exceeding the manufacturer’s load and tow specs.
As far as Toyota towing specs go, there are a lot of legal wiggle words there. For example, in the 2001 Sequoia brochure they give a 6200# (4WD) tow rating and then say that: "Please note that all figures reflect the weight of occupants, equipment and cargo... see your Toyota dealer for details" What does that mean? Talk about subject to interpretation.... does that mean that you add the payload spec to the towing spec? Subtract the payload spec from towing? Add or subtract parts of either or both spec? Who knows? Any dealers want to help?
GM says: "Maximum trailer weight ratings are calculated assuming a base vehicle, except for any option(s) necessary to achieve the rating, plus driver." -- Simple and to the point.
Well, getting back to the original purpose for this discussion which was helping someone decide on a Sequoia v. the MDX, the bottom line for me is that I am satisfied and pleased with my Sequoia. I bought the Toyota (in no particular order of importance) because: it is comfortable, every seat reclines, has leather on all seats, is quiet, roomy, holds my family and some of their friends, has full time 4WD High and Low ranges, has a powerful and sweet sounding engine, has a great stereo (this was not a purchase consideration but was a pleasant surprise), gets good fuel economy (for a SUV), has an Ultra Low Emission engine, a 60,000 mile drivetrain warranty and of course it pulls my boat easily and safely. I would buy it again.
I am a Sequoia owner and I'm a little surprised that none of the questions pertain to Expeditions-only Tahoe vs. Sequoia. The Expedition is a fine vehicle, and has more toys and gadgets than either vehicle. Also it will be brand new (I believe coming out in Spring of 2002?)and should be something to consider. Let's keep in mind the Expedition is the #1 seller in the full size SUV category. (I would still pick my Sequoia!!
The reason the Expy isn't usually mentioned is because it feels like a turd when driven. OK, maybe that's a bit harsh, but fit and finish, ride quality, handling and perceived power are really lacking, as are head rests in the back and easily removed back seats.
I'm not a big GM fan, but I would buy a Tahoe long before I'd consider an Expy. As a matter of fact, the Tahoe/Burb and the Silverado are the only GM products I actually like. I wouldn't buy one, but I do like them.
2heeldrive: Most of my towing exprience has been with boats although also with campers. Having less than 5% of your boat trailers weight on the tongue would be highly unusual although I suppose possible. I wouldn't tow a trailer with such a light tongue weight on a 4000# trailer. An unexpected bump could result in some pretty strange handling with such a little amount of your trailer weight sitting on your trailer hitch. Still, the 175# tongue you claim would leave an 1130# payload not the 1255# payload you posted.
Putting the numbers aside, I would agree that a 4000# trailer should be comfortably handled by a Sequoia (although I would want at least double the tongue weight you have in your current setup for safe trailering).
The fact the the Sequoia does not provide clear guidance to its onwers for trailering should be a clear give away that neither Toyota or the Sequoia designers have a solid grasp of the unique needs of trailering. GM has substantially more experience (65 years with the Suburban) than Toyota which has alot to catch up on.
IMO, if you towing less than 5000#, I would classify that has light trailering, which the Sequoia should accomplish comfortably. I consider 5000-8000# as moderate towing and above 8000# as heavy towing. The Sequoia has a 6200# tow rating, a 1305# payload and a Combined Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (CGVWR) of 11,800#. The CGVWR is the real measure of a tow vehicle capabilitie's (minus the weight of the vehicle) since this determines how much the safe weight limit is for the tow vehicle, its contents and the weight of the trailer.
Compare the Sequoia's CGVWR of 11,800# to that of the Tahoe's 15,000#, 1/2 ton Suburban at 15,300#, 3/4 ton Suburban at 20,600#, Expedition at 14,500# and the Excursion at 18,500# and you can see why the Sequoia can only be classified as a light duty "tug" when compared with the capabilities of the domestic tugs.
FYI, there are substantially more GM twins of the Tahoe/Yukon than the Expedition sold annually.
As I've stated in earlier posts, the Sequoia is an excellent towing vehicle. I tow 5500 lbs. and it is a dream and I've done some very long trips with mountain passes included. To my friends who quote statistics so much- towing requires common sense. I would not even dream of towing close to 8000 lbs with a Yukon. This would require a heavy duty vehicle. The Sequoia and Yukon are very similar in engine, curb weight size and design. Does it ever occur to you that Toyota may have conservative ratings- maybe for legal reasons or longevity- who knows? Regarding Toyota information on towing, it is clearly stated in the owners manual. Please read the manual cover to cover. It answers many questions posted on here. Most boats are towed closer to 5% tongue weight. Larger trailers and horse trailers are 10% and usually require weight distributing hitches. Again, you can not call a Sequoia an inferior towing vehicle when it wins a direct competition with the Yukon and Expy by a national magazine (Trailer Boats magazine March 2001). It won in non-towing, braking, fuel economy, towing, mountain towing. In fact, it dominated. My experiences towing would reinforce their findings. Towing also requires more than statistics. Braking, handling of tongue weight, torque curve of engine etc. all play a significant role.
Regarding Expy- I am not a big fan but I predict the all new 2002 will be a contender. The original Expy has been around since 1996 and the new one will be a huge improvement. I've seen some spy shots in car magazines and it looks sharp.
Has anyone heard about this? The Lexus version of Sequoia with NAV, DVD, 300HP. This would be the most expensive Lexus suv to date. Where would this leave the LX470? Original message on the GS400 boards.
Has anyone heard definatively about the proposed state tax amnesty week for Nov.23-Dec 2? It would be an amazing saving on cars. Will they be excluded? Any of the dealerships gotten info? Cliffy?
I'm not sure how this would affect car sales. Keep in mind that many states don't have an actual "sales" tax on titled property. It is a "title tax" and in many cases, this is the same rate as the sales tax, but that is a coincidence. Here in VA, the sales tax is 4.5% while the title tax is 3%. We had a recent situation with a church buying a car. Churches are exempt from sales tax, but not title tax.
I doubt the tax amnesty would do anything for car sales but I would sure be happy if it did.
On another note, car sales have gone through the roof. October was the biggest October ever for Toyota in the Central Atlantic Region.
714cut: Just a final thought you might want to consider. I am not sure where you are getting your view that most boats have 5% of their trailer weight on the tongue.
The tow vehicle has no idea what type of trailer is behind. The standard safety of any trailer regardless of its type would call for about 10% of the weight of the trailer to rest on the rear suspension of the tow vehicle. The reason being to ensure unexpected bumps don't result in the rebound of the trailer actually lifting the rear suspension of the tow vehicle reducing its traction.
This applies to all trailers including boat trailers. In fact adjusting boat trailer tongue weight is one of the easiest of all trailers. Simply move the winch forward a few inches and you will automatically move the boat forward on the trailer adding weight to the tongue. Obviously the opposite is true if your boat trailer has the rear of your tow vehicle "dragging".
Actually the new Tahoe is well designed to comfortably tow 8000#, with its tow rating at 8700#. Which would be approximately the same % of its tow rating that you are towing with Sequoia. The GM design with its significantly higher payload and tow capacity has a 2500# advantage over a Sequoia which for some towing applications would be a clear advantage.
Your persistent posts about GM products remind me a little bit of a guy named Yossarian who used to hang around this forum. All I could figure out was he was being paid to be a GM shill. Is that how you really want to come across?
Comments
You appear to be satisfied that the opinion of a new Sequoia owner that compares his experience to older GM and Ford models should carry over to current models. I'm surprised you made no challenge to his comparisons.
2heeldrive's comparison were "2002 Sequoia: -9- Easiest of all to tow with
1999 Sub 1500 4WD 5.7L V8: -8- Good tug, bad, bad brakes
1999 Sub 1500 4WD 5.7L V8: -8- see above (I know, I had two; it's a long story)
1993 Explorer 4WD v6: -6- Seemed ok at the time but in retrospect got pushed around quite a bit
1982 Bronco 4WD 5.0L V8: -3- No power, scary brakes, but was heavy and had a short axle to hitch distance so it didn't get pushed around.
2heeldrive was balanced and fair in his comparisons, unfortunately he was comparing a new Sequoia to GM's last Suburban platform which is a decade old design. I would hope that the Sequoia was substantially better than a decade old design. He also compared to much older Ford designs (20 years older). By all measures the Sequoia had better be a superior vehicle or it shouldn't even be on the market when compared to these older designs.
For anyone shopping for a new vehicle the comparisons to older models is irrelevant. While I have not towed with a Sequoia, I did test drive it when I was shopping for the Denali XL. I stand by my opinion and the facts support that opinion, that the Toyota excels in a lot of categories that matter in shopping for a F/S SUV, moderate to heavy towing is NOT one of those categories the Sequoia excels in.
Take care, Pete, and I do enjoy hearing from you whenever you drop by this forum...
Also, thanks for responding Cliffy.
Mistakes on vehicle specs do happen and I try to check numbers that look strange against other sites like Carpoint and the manufacturer's site.
Once again, thanks for the feedback as I will continue my occasionally drop in just to keep things from getting too quiet.
Frank
I would like to see from other who have driven both. I'll be leasing and the Tahoe is in stock. Toyota has a 30 day lead time to keep all of SE toyota's junk, like a $695 protection package off.
GY Side and head air bags
RL Daytime running lights
SR Power sunroof
CC Captain's chairs
AH Alloy wheel package
AC Dual zone auto a/c
KE Keyless entry
CQ Convenience package with power heated mirrors,compass,trip computer and homelink garage opener.
Also floor mats at dealer cost of $123.
The sticker price including destination fee, but without the floor mats was $40205. Edmunds TMV (True Market Value) came out as $38099. I paid $36704 plus registration, title and taxes. I think I did pretty well.
iglow, please don't take this the wrong way, but...
You have already bought the vehicle. If it is what you wanted and you are comfortable with what you paid, why ask us if you did OK? Are you looking to see if you left money on the table? Looking to see if you got the best deal ever? The price you paid is the price you paid. Period.
Maybe I'm having a bad day, but I simply don't understand posts like these.
Rant off.
Enjoy your new vehicle.
I am looking for good winter Snow and especially Ice tires for my Sequoia. I thought I had settled on Bridgestone Winter Duelers, but now I'm confused about the sizes.
Tire Rack recommended Winter Dueler DM-Z2 for my vehicle (2001 SR5 4x4) in a size 245/75QR16. But that appears to be the wrong size for my vehicle. My current (OE) tires are P265/70 R16 111. The closest sizes of Winter Duelers available appear to be 265/75QR16 or 275/70QR16. Can I use any of these sizes of Winter Duelers on my Sequoia? Do I need to get new wheels to do so?
Thanks in advance,
--RobynK
Good luck shopping!
--RobynK
Maybe tirerack.com just doesn't stock the 265/75's. FWIW I was quoted $133 each or total of $608 with mounting and balancing. They also recommended a Nokian HAKKA 1 SUV tire at $150 each in the 265/75R16. I've heard some good things about Nokians, but have not talked with anyone who has actually used them. As of today, I think I'm going with the Blizzaks as I have used them on my Ford rear-wheel-drive conversion van for the past 9 winters , and have never had a problem with them on snow or ice. And that's about 6 months of Winter driving in the Colorado mountains.
Of course I would like to hear more about NOKIANS if anyone here has an opinion or more information.
I don't know about the Nokians either. Check the winter tire board. Many people there do like them but the overall consensus seems to be that the Bridgestones are the best thing for ice if you are not going with studs. Since ice is our biggest (and frequent) driving challenge, that is why I am leaning toward the Winter Duelers. My dealer is recommending a studded tire, but we travel to places where they are illegal, so that's not an option for us.
--Robyn
Appreciate the reply. I was told that the 265/75's would work on the OE wheels. The only difference was the 1/2" in height.
I'll definitely ask my local dealer to match the tirerack price. That's $29 per tire or $116 difference.
I would agree, at least in my experience, that the Blizzaks are superb on ICE. Many times I encountered extreme ice conditions on Loveland Pass, Vail Pass and the Eisenhower Tunnel. This was in the rear-wheel-drive van and often due to jacknifed trucks etc. It was Slow, Stop n Go on sheer ice. I was ALWAYS able to continue on. Never was I unable to gain traction. Also stopping on the ice (which is MOST important) was superb. I also felt like I got decent mileage on the Blizzaks; however, I never let this be the deciding factor. My most important criteria is always being able to stop and go in severe ice and snow conditions.
Let me know what you end up doing and I'll do the same.
The Tahoe/Yukon has a significantly (4 ft) smaller turning radius at 38.3' than the Sequoia. In fact, the turning radius of a Sequoia is identical to that of the full size Suburban/Yukon XL at 42.3'.
Now on the other hand, the Seq seems like a Winnebago in terms of comparing the handling and performance of the X and the Seq. The X will turn circles around the Seq. But, I don't want my wife to even be tempted to drive like that with my daughter in the car, so I don't mind that her Seq isn't a race car.
Both are relatively quiet vehicles, and I believe both should not be awful in terms of reliability.
I guess it boils down to whether you want space for those occasions, or performance. We chose space, but you have to think hard about what you want. They are very different animals.
Good luck.
Why do you say that with the Bridgestones we should go down to the 245? That doesn't make sense to me when there are sizes that seem much closer to OEM sizing.
The Blizzaks seem to have a very dedicated following. I keep hearing that they are way better than the Michelin Alpins on ice. So I would like to get them, but not if changing tire sizes is going to cancel out any advantage of the better tire. My local dealers recommend a cheaper cooper tire, but I'm not convinced.
Thanks for your input!
I also emailed tirerack to ask them why they recommended the 245's -- whether that was a mistake or what. I'll let you know what I hear....
This is a recommendation based on the best snow performance size.
Thinner is always better in snow tires. This allows you to get down to
somethisng the tire can grip, and not just ride on top of the snow.
The X5 is much smaller and nimbler and is basically an all around fun car to drive(as are all BMWs). The Seq wasn't as bad as I thought and quite good given it's size. In terms of interior room of course the Seq wins. We got this as a people mover to replace our minivan. We don't tow anything at all. The X5 is one of the most inefficient users of space when you compare it even to an RX300, MDX or a CR-V. Most of the time however I'm the only person in the car. The Seq is our weekend/long distance/bring everyone and their luggage type of vehicle. Yes the Seq is large but my wife surprised herself but adapting pretty well to the size. Another way to think of it is-can you live with the space of a 5 series BMW sedan with the little ones on vacation, long trips, etc.
All I can say is try both. I love both vehicles but in different ways. My 2cents
Heat Wave-i did not to turn a circle. a smaller radius helps in parking, but i was referring to highway driving. i don't plan on doing sharp turns at speed in any SUV, but having VSC would help. as you said "seat of pants", but that is what most people will use to decide.
Donlino- My wife wants to lease a 01 x5 4.4, which has 3,000 miles and i could lease for 780. i own a 00 528 and we have decided we need a larger vehicle than the x5. it handles fantastic and we would get it if we also had an old pick up. you can get a roof carrier, but the x5 is tight with alot of stuff.
heatwave, you said that the Sequoia does not excel at moderate to heavy towing... if that's defined by anything much over 5000# I agree and said so. IMO, for frequent and long distance towing of more than 5000# only a 3/4 ton vehicle will do.
cac, I don't know what Sequoia owner you were referring to about exceeding manufacturer’s ratings, but I hope it wasn't me. My boat and trailer, when ready for the water, weigh no more than 4000# and the trailer tongue weight is 175# which leaves 1255# for payload. My kids eat pretty well, but the 5 of us with gear are well under 1255#. Tongue weight at 10% of the trailer weight is a general rule of thumb for cargo trailers. Tongue weight on boat trailers is usually much less because most of the weight is in the back (that's the stern for those who are nautically inclined) of the boat. I would never exceed or recommend exceeding the manufacturer’s load and tow specs.
As far as Toyota towing specs go, there are a lot of legal wiggle words there. For example, in the 2001 Sequoia brochure they give a 6200# (4WD) tow rating and then say that: "Please note that all figures reflect the weight of occupants, equipment and cargo... see your Toyota dealer for details" What does that mean? Talk about subject to interpretation.... does that mean that you add the payload spec to the towing spec? Subtract the payload spec from towing? Add or subtract parts of either or both spec? Who knows? Any dealers want to help?
GM says: "Maximum trailer weight ratings are calculated assuming a base vehicle, except for any option(s) necessary to achieve the rating, plus driver." -- Simple and to the point.
Well, getting back to the original purpose for this discussion which was helping someone decide on a Sequoia v. the MDX, the bottom line for me is that I am satisfied and pleased with my Sequoia. I bought the Toyota (in no particular order of importance) because: it is comfortable, every seat reclines, has leather on all seats, is quiet, roomy, holds my family and some of their friends, has full time 4WD High and Low ranges, has a powerful and sweet sounding engine, has a great stereo (this was not a purchase consideration but was a pleasant surprise), gets good fuel economy (for a SUV), has an Ultra Low Emission engine, a 60,000 mile drivetrain warranty and of course it pulls my boat easily and safely. I would buy it again.
2HD.
The Expedition is a fine vehicle, and has more toys and gadgets than either vehicle. Also it will be brand new (I believe coming out in Spring of 2002?)and should be something to consider.
Let's keep in mind the Expedition is the #1 seller in the full size SUV category. (I would still pick my Sequoia!!
I'm not a big GM fan, but I would buy a Tahoe long before I'd consider an Expy. As a matter of fact, the Tahoe/Burb and the Silverado are the only GM products I actually like. I wouldn't buy one, but I do like them.
Putting the numbers aside, I would agree that a 4000# trailer should be comfortably handled by a Sequoia (although I would want at least double the tongue weight you have in your current setup for safe trailering).
The fact the the Sequoia does not provide clear guidance to its onwers for trailering should be a clear give away that neither Toyota or the Sequoia designers have a solid grasp of the unique needs of trailering. GM has substantially more experience (65 years with the Suburban) than Toyota which has alot to catch up on.
IMO, if you towing less than 5000#, I would classify that has light trailering, which the Sequoia should accomplish comfortably. I consider 5000-8000# as moderate towing and above 8000# as heavy towing. The Sequoia has a 6200# tow rating, a 1305# payload and a Combined Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (CGVWR) of 11,800#. The CGVWR is the real measure of a tow vehicle capabilitie's (minus the weight of the vehicle) since this determines how much the safe weight limit is for the tow vehicle, its contents and the weight of the trailer.
Compare the Sequoia's CGVWR of 11,800# to that of the Tahoe's 15,000#, 1/2 ton Suburban at 15,300#, 3/4 ton Suburban at 20,600#, Expedition at 14,500# and the Excursion at 18,500# and you can see why the Sequoia can only be classified as a light duty "tug" when compared with the capabilities of the domestic tugs.
FYI, there are substantially more GM twins of the Tahoe/Yukon than the Expedition sold annually.
To my friends who quote statistics so much- towing requires common sense. I would not even dream of towing close to 8000 lbs with a Yukon. This would require a heavy duty vehicle.
The Sequoia and Yukon are very similar in engine, curb weight size and design. Does it ever occur to you that Toyota may have conservative ratings- maybe for legal reasons or longevity- who knows?
Regarding Toyota information on towing, it is clearly stated in the owners manual. Please read the manual cover to cover. It answers many questions posted on here.
Most boats are towed closer to 5% tongue weight. Larger trailers and horse trailers are 10% and usually require weight distributing hitches.
Again, you can not call a Sequoia an inferior towing vehicle when it wins a direct competition with the Yukon and Expy by a national magazine (Trailer Boats magazine March 2001). It won in non-towing, braking, fuel economy, towing, mountain towing. In fact, it dominated. My experiences towing would reinforce their findings.
Towing also requires more than statistics. Braking, handling of tongue weight, torque curve of engine etc. all play a significant role.
Regarding Expy- I am not a big fan but I predict the all new 2002 will be a contender. The original Expy has been around since 1996 and the new one will be a huge improvement. I've seen some spy shots in car magazines and it looks sharp.
I doubt the tax amnesty would do anything for car sales but I would sure be happy if it did.
On another note, car sales have gone through the roof. October was the biggest October ever for Toyota in the Central Atlantic Region.
The tow vehicle has no idea what type of trailer is behind. The standard safety of any trailer regardless of its type would call for about 10% of the weight of the trailer to rest on the rear suspension of the tow vehicle. The reason being to ensure unexpected bumps don't result in the rebound of the trailer actually lifting the rear suspension of the tow vehicle reducing its traction.
This applies to all trailers including boat trailers. In fact adjusting boat trailer tongue weight is one of the easiest of all trailers. Simply move the winch forward a few inches and you will automatically move the boat forward on the trailer adding weight to the tongue. Obviously the opposite is true if your boat trailer has the rear of your tow vehicle "dragging".
Actually the new Tahoe is well designed to comfortably tow 8000#, with its tow rating at 8700#. Which would be approximately the same % of its tow rating that you are towing with Sequoia. The GM design with its significantly higher payload and tow capacity has a 2500# advantage over a Sequoia which for some towing applications would be a clear advantage.
I enjoy reading posts from both of you.
tidester
Host
SUVs
tidester
Host
SUVs