Toyota Sequoia

cliffy1 · February 2002

4th gear is overdrive.

rruck1 · February 2002

The rear air is fine. While New England is not quite as warm as Texas I have to say that when it's HOT, I want to be inside my truck.

The climate control works very well throughout the whole truck.

heatwave3 · February 2002

thirdsuv: I suspect they compared the Sequoia Limited to a Denali XL because they cost about the same, they weigh about the same and their turning radius is the same, after those comparisons all the advantage is in favor of the DXL:)

714cut · February 2002

Price as tested showed the Denali nearly $6000 US higher than the Sequoia Limited.

heatwave3 · February 2002

714cut: Price as tested is irrelevant to anyone other than the magazine. The walk-out-the-door price is the only one that matters to mosts consumers.

Share with us a Sequoia Limited that anyone on the forum purchased for under $41-43K and maybe you have a point. The Denali XL can be driven off the lot for $42-44K and less than that by several thousand if you have the GM credit card $ to use in the purchase. A regular Denali would be $2k less than the XL.

Consequently these were two equally priced suvs by the measure of a consumer's pocketbook.

714cut · February 2002

Come on! If you have a GM credit card? How is that comparing apples to apples? Maybe if you could use your GM card to buy a Toyota

714cut · February 2002

Since there's so much focus on price, how about sharing your reasons for picking the Sequoia? Obviously if we went only by price we would never have purchased the Sequoia (according to you know who!).
For me it was the fit and finish, smoothness of the engine, feeling of being well-built and solid and the good old Toyota reliability (from past experience).

mulligan2 · February 2002

ML 320 was too small. MDX had no stability control, no side-curtains, silly center seat seat belt hanging from the roof, third-seats that do not fold flat. Suburban too ponderous, the steering wheel seemed crooked, no stability contol, no side-curtains plus lousy reliability. Sequoia had VSC, side-curtains, solid handling, firm ride, excellent center seat lap and shoulder belt, flexible seating, good access to third row, Toyota reliability.

714cut · February 2002

Tundrasolutions.com has pictures of the 2003 Step side Tundra. The interior pictures show what looks to be control buttons on steering wheel (stereo,cruise?) and maybe a navigation system in the centre console? It also has a dual "cat-back" exhaust for a little better airflow and meaner sound. I'm sure some of this will be available in the Sequoia? This would definitely address some of the "wants on this board". Oh, by the way it is a great-looking truck!

fanman8 · February 2002

I purchased my Limited for $39,700. With (No trade-in) to cloud the transaction pricing issue.
Show me the real world Denali XL's under 44,000! Your purchase with G.M. discounts and various other rebate specials are not the norm. You're trying to price these two vehicles as the same when in fact they are not. I guess one would have to have your keen bartering skills to purchase a 51,000 vehicle for 42,000 or just maybe one would stand a better chance having a close relative that owns the dealership. That's the measure of a consumer's pocketbook as I see it.
Third Suv is right to say the regular Yukon would have been too much of an easy mark for comparison purposes for the write up of the vehicles selected.

heatwave3 · February 2002

fanman: No need to trust me. Just go check it out yourself on Edmunds. A loaded Thunder Gray Sequoia Limited has an MSRP of $45,175, an Invoice of $39,893 (therefore you got quite a deal on your Limited) and an Edmund's TMV of $42,190.

A Pewter Metallic Denali XL with Sunroof has an MSRP of $50,109, an invoice of $43,926 and an Edmund's TMV of $45,457. These are the numbers for the average guy walking in off the street PLUS you automatically qualify for a $2002 rebate that brings a new Denali XL down to a TMV of $43,455. Most people with any negotiating skills can reduce that further while my understanding from this forum and my personal experience is that Toyota dealers rarely negotiate below about $1500-2000 off MSRP. Please advise me if you believe thats an inaccurate statement.

714cut · February 2002

I think for the purpose of comparisons and apples to apples, current discounts and incentives should not be included. The $2002 rebate will not be around for the long haul and therefore temporarily is a good deal, but does not change the long-term real price. I don't dispute your numbers, however there is a hypothetical chance that GM will stop the rebate and Toyota will offer one. That could take the difference back to 5 or 6K difference.

rovers1 · February 2002

Just picked up my wife's sr5 4wd the other day and we are both loving the vehicle. Her last car having been a Land rover Discovery (always discovering what else is broken) we were inclined to purchase the Toyota extended warranty. It would cover the car for 7yrs/75k. Cost 1085.00. My understanding is this can be added at any time before 3yr/36k, or if purchased at delivery, be refunded down the road on the unused portion should one decide to terminate the service. If anyone could share their thoughts or experiences with Toyota extended warranty I would be greatfull.
Additionally, I am looking for some rubber floor mats that cover the entire 2nd seat floor. The Toyota ones look nice, but do not cover the center passenger's area. Has anyone installed a bug reflector and does it really work?

misejh1 · February 2002

I have driven them all over 100,000 miles. I now own a 2002 Sequoia. To me, if you are going to have any major problems, it is going to be within the first 36 month/36,000 mile warranty. I had a friend who bought the extended warranty in 1994 on his 4Runner just like you. In the year 2000 (end of warranty period), he went back to the dealer. Within 5 minutes they issued him a check in the full amount he paid and they said "Thank you for your business." I just don't think the extended warranty up to 75,000 miles is worth it. JMHO

heatwave3 · February 2002

714cut: I agree that rebates can be transitory however right now there is about a $1000 difference between a Sequoia Limited and a Denali XL with the current GM rebate. And thats before any significant negotiations which tend to favor a more successful outcome for the buyer with a GM dealer than a Toyota dealer.

Secondly even without the rebate the difference in actual purchase price (no rebates or GM credit card discounts) is about $3000 not the $5-6K you outlined in your last message.

When comparing cars at this level a $3K price difference before any discounts places these cars into the same shopping category, IMO as well as that of the magazine doing the comparisons.

semantics · February 2002

A Sequoia Limited with 45,175 MSRP has a dealer invoice of $40,199.

fanman8 · February 2002

Just to set the record straight. My Sequoia is a loaded 2 wheel drive. But you will notice that the TMV for a four weel drive loaded Sequoia is 40,276 as you stated. That means you should be able to purchase one loaded for $40,276. The Dinali XL listed at TMV $45,457 means you should be able to purchase it for that price. Forget all the rebate nonsense for now and the fact that you are a skilled negotiator the price difference is $5,181 not $3,000. Sequoia's prices are better now than when I purchased my 2 wheel drive Ltd.

heatwave3 · February 2002

fanman: I went back and checked to make sure I hadn't made a mistake. The Edmund's TMV for a Sequoia Limited with all options is $42,190 as I stated in my earlier post. I think its very doubtful that even this price can be achieved at a dealer, however for comparison purposes Edmund's figures are as good as any.

The TMV for the Denali XL with sunroof is $45,457 as I stated above. I am confident that this number can be significantly improved on as many new owners have posted lower purchase prices on the Denali forum. However comparing apples to apples and using the TMV numbers the difference between a fully loaded 4wd Sequoia Limited and a DXL with sunroof is $3,267 if we're looking to get exact. Thats without rebates.

With rebates if you were to buy these two vehicles today with little or no negotiating, the difference would be about $1200 using Edmund's TMV prices and the GM rebate of $2002 now in effect.

The $40,276 price for a loaded 4wd Sequoia Limited as I referenced is factory invoice, not the TMV price. If you can buy a 4wd Limited with all options for factory invoice, you should hire yourself out as a professional negotiator...you'll make a fortune.

714cut · February 2002

I have the Husky liner for the second row seats. Great color match, fit like a glove, covers the hump in the middle and they are also cupped around the edges so they hold spills and water. Not the prettiest mats but definitely the most functional. They are slightly pricey, so shop around.

714cut · February 2002

I was simply using your scenario in reverse to arrive at 5-6k difference. If GM stopped their incentive and toyota offered one, then that would be the difference in Toyota's favor. Hence the "danger" in relying on incentives.

heatwave3 · February 2002

714cut: So do you agree that the difference between a loaded Sequoia Limited and a Denali XL with sunroof is about $3000 excluding any available rebates and using the Edmund's TMV prices?

oac3 · February 2002

the denali, of course... price-wise (and feature-wise, according to Truck trend) that is ! does that settle it ?

back-and-forth argument on price won't prove anything beyond what we already know. the price one pays for a vehicle is a function of many variables too numerous to describe here. whatever edmund's tmv says is simply a guide and nothing to use to make an assertion one way or another. jmho tho'

while out with the wife for a nice romantic valentine dinner (left the kids with grandma, for a change), i found a very beautiful white yukon xl packed right next to our seq. it was a thing of beauty ! and the owner ought to be real proud of this vehicle. it looked every inch a solidly built vehicle. very lovely indeed... (maybe the wine had something to do with my vision

. but seriously, this yukon xl looked very very solid indeed. packed side-by-side with the yukon xl and the seq, the visual difference was the slightly longer wheelbase of the yukonxl. imo, the gmc brands (yukon, denalis) have always had better aestethics than the chevy brands (tahoes, burbs) and the denalis are great examples of these.

easy guys, Pete especially !

adebisi1 · February 2002

Hi all,
I haven't been on this board in months but if I'm correct when I last visited Heatwave and a few others were discussing the value,price etc. of the Denali over the Sequoia and vice versa. I see that not much has changed since my last visit.I've been hanging out at Tundrasolutions.com but now that board is having problems,so now I'm back here.

Anyway,I've had my truck for 6 months now and with almost 10k miles on it.I still have that feeling as when I first drove it off the dealership lot.My only problem was the VSC on and off lights and brakes lights not turning off.I took it to the dealer and it was corrected in about a week and a half.It wasn't the brake fluid causing the problem either because the service guys claimed they had to call California in order to solve the problem.I plan on getting a billet grill and rims someday as well as an entertainment setup.

What's up OAC3? My old email address is obsolete I'll update my profile in a few seconds.

714cut · February 2002

Great to hear from adebisi1, oac3, thirdsuv. I missed your postings of late!

714cut · February 2002

No, I don't agree. You can use your GM cards, rebates, incentives and come up with whatever you want. I like to compare source to source.
I'll give you what I use: company website to company website. No distorting figures, no cards, rebates. GM Canada website Yukon Denali XL is $63595 (not including shipping, taxes etc, just the vehicle)Sequoia Limited is $58205, a difference of $7390.

heatwave3 · February 2002

714cut: First maybe your confusing the entire subject by mixing in Canadian $'s. No body pays MSRP for any of these vehicles so if you sleep better by thinking the Sequoia is worth $7000 less than a Denali XL, have a nice nap.

I'm not going to try and compare the differences between the prices of these two vehicles AND try and factor in Canadian exchange rates for goodness sake. If you are too hardheaded to admit that Edmund's shows a TMV price difference between these two vehicles to be only about $3000, so be it. (oac, I think you'll agree I've tried to be as reasonable as possible however it appears that 714cut insists on providing false information, so if you have another admonishment to issue you might want to consider directing it at him.)

Therefore for those that are interested in comparing these two excellent vehicles, anyone prepared to spend over $40K for a f/s suv will find the Denali XL and Sequoia Limited comparably priced. I think you'll also find that you'll get more for your money in the GMC than in the Toyota (depending on the features that matter most to you). In the same way, that Motor Trend compared these two vehicles and found the Denali XL superior, I think most will also.

Do you shopping, compare these two vehicles (among others) and make your decisions. No one will ever be disappointed that they looked at all the alternatives when deciding to plunk down $40+K for an suv.

adebisi1 · February 2002

714cut · February 2002

Contrary to your posting I am simply providing facts just like you like to do. I am Canadian. I bought a Sequoia from a Canadian dealer. I checked the prices on GM Canada and Toyota Canada website.
Just because it provides facts and maybe a different perspective doesn't mean it's not valid.
Wow, "if you sleep better, have a nice nap, insists on providing false information, too hardheaded".
Wasn't one of your earlier posts about how you never take shots at people, just stick to the facts?
How is taking info off company websites false info? Wouldn't it be in their best interest to post a price as low as possible? As far as nobody pays MSRP for these vehicles, there are discounts off MSRP for both vehicles, not just the Denali so there is still a large gap.

Anyways, you never disappoint. It was getting quiet around here and once again you get things going.

Finally, if I was considering a Denali I would get the Yukon not the Yukon XL. Obviously if I wanted a larger vehicle than the Sequoia I would have chosen Suburban or Yukon XL. The non XL vehicles are much closer to the Sequoia.

cliffy1 · February 2002

The Toyota warranty is extremely comprehensive. There is VERY little not covered and the price you were quoted is very low. Retail on the 7/75 Platinum is $1300. Everything else you were told it correct.

heatwave3 · February 2002

714cut: yeah, I just jumped in to avoid you guys going comatose trying to figure out which tire size looked best on a new Sequoia:)

Regarding your comment "Finally, if I was considering a Denali I would get the Yukon not the Yukon XL. Obviously if I wanted a larger vehicle than the Sequoia I would have chosen Suburban or Yukon XL. The non XL vehicles are much closer to the Sequoia." you wouldn't be surprised to hear me disagree, would you?

Actually the Sequoia being on the overweight side for its power, weighs more than the Yukon XL, not to mention the Yukon. It also has a pretty poor turning radius for a shorter vehicle with a turning radius equal to a Yukon XL and 4 ft wider than a Yukon. Add all that weight with alot less HP and a "round the neighborhood" turning radius and I think its unfair to compare the Sequoia to either the Yukon or the Yukon XL:)

tony2putt · February 2002

Why is there so much info about GMC or Chevy on this Sequoia post. I'm interested in Sequoia! If I want info on Yukon or Denali I would go to that post. Thanks for your strong OPINION though. Do I need more horsepower? NO. Do I care about my ability to u-turn either vehicle? NO. It is about desire/emotion when purchasing a vehicle. They are all safe and reliable (we believe are cars are the best). T

2heeldrive · February 2002

Overweight is just an opinion, not a fact. The GM SUV's are lighter because GM decided to compromise content and save a few bucks. Just like they do when you order a leather interior but get vinyl on the third seat (and lots of vinyl on the other seats too, for that matter).

Perhaps we should make a price per pound comparison?? I know I got my money's worth.

And Heatwave, please don't forget to add the cost of an extended warranty to your figures. You know, the Toyota drive train is covered 2 years and 24,000 miles longer than the GM SUV's.

714cut · February 2002

Only you could argue that a Sequoia in not closer in size to a Yukon than a denali XL.
There actually is quite a difference in size my friend.
Also, since the Yukon and Sequoia are so close in size you are actually arguing that a Yukon and a Yukon XL are the same size.
Obviously they are different vehicles with different targets or else why would GM make them both?
The Yukon XL and relatives are bigger, harder to park, taller and generally more difficult to handle.

714cut · February 2002

Actually if I was interested in a Denali, I would go for the Cadillac. More engine power, rugged looks, nicer interior, more bells and whistles.
It's about $7000 more than the Denali. About the same amount the Denali is over the Sequoia. With discounts, etc.the gap shrinks. I'll take the Escalade. Now if they only made an Escalade XL...

rovers1 · February 2002

Appreciated your inputs regarding warranty and floor mats....still trying to find out if those bug (rock) deflectors really work.

714cut · February 2002

While it is true the Sequoia is 5 inches longer than a Yukon, a Denali is nearly 16 inches longer than a Sequoia! No small difference wouldn't you say?
It is also true that a sequoia weighs 250 lbs more than a Yukon but it is slightly bigger. You neglected to mention that a denali is 439 lbs heavier than a Sequoia and a whopping 700! lbs porkier than a Yukon.
So is it not true that a Sequoia is closer in size and weight to a Yukon than a Denali?

oac3 · February 2002

thanks for yours... i've been in-and-out of edmunds due to other pressing matters. but have caught up to many posts, and like adebisi1 said earlier, nothing really has changed on this forum.... it's same-old-same-old stuff with heatwave leading the GMC charge on the Sequoia forum. Is there something we could do to pry him loose away from this board ?

just kidding tho'... without heatwave, this would be a dull forum, since he is quite entertaining with his crusade. more power to him.

a couple of quick points:

1. after the adjustments to my alignments, i have found the vehicle tracks so very well now. last weekend, we had winds up to 40mph+ and on the freeway the vehicle was rock solid, at speeds higher than 80mph (don't try it folks, i wanted to test things out at high speeds in heavy crosswinds), and expectedly at 70mph freeway cruise speed, it is straight as an arrow.

2. a slight annoyance is the constant popping off of the panel at the rear-left corner. Has anyone been able to secure this cover firmly or changed it to something that holds firm ? it is a little annoyance tho'

Otherwise, life is great. The vehicle is doing its job very well, transporting the family safely and securely. I have no major complaints whatsoever, and i just passed 23K miles (not that I expect any major problems)...

will4271 · February 2002

Do anyone know or have read the reports for 0-60 in the Sequoia?

I wonder if that 240HP is enough for this big SUV?
How's the acceleration like?

thx.

aix91 · February 2002

oac3: I agree with you, heatwave keeps this thread from being dull! I am still not clear about the price difference between the Sequoia and Denali XL. Just kidding!!!

Off Topic:
Is it true that Hummer is GM owned company? I also heard rumours that the H2 will priced around 40-50k. If you haven't seen the Hummer H2 you should. That's what a truck should look like. It's got third row seating options to boot. I just hope it will be reliable.

nighter50 · February 2002

oac3 - I had the same problem with the storage coverage on the left side cargo area (i think that is what you are talking about). I had some heavy items in there that were not secured and on short turns those items would sometimes knock the panel off and scatter through the back. After securing the items, I haven't had the problem.

will4271 - From autosite's website I got the following: Motor Trend 0-60 in 8.90, Car&Driver 0-60 in 9.10 and AutoWeek 0-60 in 10.5. I don't really know what that tells you because these things aren't really designed to move off the line too quickly. I have had my SR5 4X4 for about 10 months. I have found the power to be good but i dont tow (sorry to bring that up everybody). Sometimes while driving in the city i take off the overdrive and it pushes the rpms a little and gives me a little more instant power.

minuteman26 · February 2002

My 2001 SR5 manages 9.08 in a highly unscientific 0-60 test. Differences in the different magazines' results may be in different loadings, say, maximum vehicle weight vs. something else. In my thrilling ride, it was just me and 3/4 tank of regular unleaded fuel. HTH...

fanman8 · February 2002

I visited AIC Autosite and thought Heatwave should have a look at the January 2002 results of the Toyota Sequoia sold 5,021 vs Yukon XL/Suburban sold 3,947. Also interestingly enough the Sequoia's 5,021 in January this year is up from 4,492 last year while Yukon XL/Suburban is down 3,947 this year from 4,286 last year.

This data conflicts with information Heatwave has been posting on this Sequoia site. The Yukon XL/Suburban sales don't exactly look like they are towering over Sequoia's. Tahoe while rated number three on the list with 13,974 this year is also down from 14,250 from last year. Have a look-

http://www.autosite.com/editoria/asmr/svolsu.asp

oac3 · February 2002

yes you are quite right, i was refering to the storage cover in the cargo area. i regularly keep a roll of duck tape and other stuff inside this panel. and the cover falls off everytime, apparently due to the contents pushing against the cover panel. if the answer is to simply leave the storage bin empty, then i guess it really isn't that useful afterall... which begs the question: isn't it supposed to be used for storage ?? i'd much rather prefer to continue to use it as storage while figuring out a secure/firm fit for the cover panel to not rattle/pop off everytime i turn a corner.

hey, maybe the answer lies with those duck tapes i keep in the bin... hummmm....

nighter50 · February 2002

I had mine packed full of stuff...flashlights, oil, bike lube, etc. I agree that the latch or really the lack thereof is annoying. Too bad they didn't put a latch on it like that on the jack storage area. But I haven't had a problem since I loaded the heavest items at the bottom and used the strap inside to secure as much as possible. Good Luck.

Does anyone actually use duct tape on ducts?

esg121 · February 2002

You may have missed the Auto site entry for Chevy Suburbans sold in January (9590). The figure you quoted refers to the GMC version(GMC used to be called Surburban a few years ago) You are qiute correct in that the trend is downward for GM and should continue due to lack of zero percent financing

heatwave3 · February 2002

tony2putt: Sounds like you chose the perfect vehicle by your quote "Why is there so much info about GMC or Chevy on this Sequoia post. I'm interested in Sequoia! If I want info on Yukon or Denali I would go to that post. Thanks for your strong OPINION though. Do I need more horsepower? NO. Do I care about my ability to u-turn either vehicle? NO. It is about desire/emotion when purchasing a vehicle. They are all safe and reliable (we believe are cars are the best)." For those people that prefer less power (dare I say...a "putt, putt"...sorry, I couldn't resist given your internet handle) and wider turning radius, as it appears you do, the Sequoia was a perfect choice.

2heeldrive: Yes my comments about the Sequoia being overweight were just my opinion. If the Sequoia came with 300+ hp my opinion would be different. You make an excellent point on the longer warranty and the cost of adding the extra miles and years to the standard GM 3/36 should certainly be taken into consideration when evaluating the "true" cost of the two vehicles.

714cut: alright, alright....I agree, when comparing the Denali models (particularly when comparing weights), the regular Denali is probably a more direct comparison. I do think however that most people shopping for full size suvs are not going to ignore the XL or Suburban while in the show room. If they've taken the time to look and shop for one, they will also considering the larger version. The same will be true when Toyota eventually comes out with a Sequoia XL (hopefully with more power and AWD).

aix91: just some additional info on the H2. While the body design will be a "chip off the block" of its big brother the H1 (Hummer), the chassis will be the same as the Denali XL with AWD but shortened. (why they didn't just use the regular Denali, I don't know).

fanman: The data you shared does not conflict with anything I've posted in the past. You simply shared the latest numbers from the same source I have shared in the past, updated for January. The Sequoia shows very solid growth, increasing from 4,492 units in Jan 2001 to 5021 last month for an 11.8% increase in sales. Which is very nice growth on a relatively small base.

The following are the latest GM sales numbers which are not terribly surprising given GM's extremely strong growth in Nov and Dec. due to 0% financing which I suspect pulled alot of sales forward into 2001. Even still GM did quite nicely when considering the full line of f/s suvs in a deteriorating market.

The GM Suburban/Yukon XL went from 14,787 in Jan 2001 to 13,537 last month for a decrease of 8.5%. The Yukon/Tahoe/Escalade went from 20,308 in Jan 2001 to 21,904 last month for an increase of 7.9%. The entire f/s suv line was modestly up by 1% over the same month last year.

It is yet to be seen if the 0% financing was a good marketing move in the 4th qtr of last year. We will really only know after the entire first qtr is complete. In the interim, the Sequoia continues with healthy growth although on a relatively small base. For each Sequoia that Toyota sells, GM is currently selling 7 f/s suvs.

Now don't you all jump on me at once about how having 1/7 the volume is a good thing because you enjoy exclusivity or because the lower volume enables Toyota to make a better vehicle. I was just stating the facts and I'm sure if Toyota could have their way, they would prefer the stats were reversed given the margins that both maufacturers make on their F/S SUVs.

714cut · February 2002

I think you will find the acceleration excellent on the Sequoia. My suggestion is to drive the Expedition (it is all new as well) and the Tahoe and see which one you like best. Acceleration is only one factor. I extensively drove all 3 and can tell you "seat of the pants" Sequoia was faster than Expedition and similar to Tahoe. Tahoe felt a little stronger off the line but Sequoia felt stronger after that.
As for the specs, Motor Trend did a comparo with Sequoia, Expy and Tahoe. The Tahoe had the optional 5.3 engine and Ford 5.4.
Zero to 60:
Sequoia 8.88
Tahoe 8.53
Expy 9.63

1/4 mile:
Sequoia 16.70
Tahoe 16.35
Expy 17.02

There are other things to keep in mind as well. Rear axle ratio makes a big difference. Torque is probably more important than HP in a big rig. Sequoia has only 10 lb/ft less than Tahoe and peak torque happens earlier in Sequoia so these are factors as well.

I'd be the first to admit it would be great if the Sequoia had 300 hp but in reality, there are lots of other factors.

Just a couple of other factors as well- Sequoia brakes better than the other two (quite significantly) and when Trailer Boats magazine awarded Sequoia Tow Vehicle of the year, Sequoia got 2 mpg better mileage non-towing and in mountain towing tests Sequoia was able to achieve or exceed the speed of the others-in fact fastest in 2 of 4 and tied for other 2 (2000 and 4000 ft elevation, 2,4,5 and 6% elevations).
Based on this it looks to me like there is ample "power". Oh and by the way the towed boat was a 5840 lb. Sea Ray 23 foot boat on a tandem axle trailer.

pschreck · February 2002

I'm not sure, but I believe that the Japanese use bigger horses when they determine horsepower. After all, don't horses come in different sizes?

714cut · February 2002

You're absolutely correct. There was an expensive and extensive 3 year study done on this very point

will4271 · February 2002

Thanks for stats nighter50 and 714cut.

The crash test results are not out yet. Any features differ it from the Toyota Tundra pickup that makes it more safe?

The Tundra was listed as "Good" for all except the "right leg/foot" by the insurance test.

http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0108.htm

Any comments?

Toyota Sequoia

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles

Your Privacy