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
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