My wife and I were VERY disappointed with the quality of the upholstery when we took delivery. We had previously only seen the LIMITED which has leather (no SR5 in stock). We ordered the SR5 since we did not want leather.
The dealer agreed that the quality does not seem to be the usual Toyota standard and the Toyota representative agreed. They will try to fix the problem.
The individual cloth panels do not seem to match properly resulting in ruffles along the stitching.
I've just been in touch with a dealer and will be doing a test drive on Monday. He told me about 8 weeks to complete a factory order. The primary reason I'd have to do an order rather than a dealer search is that I'm in the northeast and all they get is 4WD SEQ's. I'm looking for a 2WD.
Any comments on 4WD vs. 2WD? I don't plan any off road type driving. Looking at SEQ for it's size, quality and looks.
The reason that the Sequoia was not "Recommended" by Consumer Reports was because it has not been tested by the magazine not for any "technical" reasons.
Here is what they say on their web page:
"A model earns a "Recommended" label by Consumer Reports when it has performed well in our tests and when our reader-survey data indicate that it should be at least average in reliability. There are several reasons why a model would have no designation: It wasn't tested recently; it didn't test well; it has a below-average reliability record; it's too new to have reliability data; or we have insufficient reliability data."
I recently took delivery of a Ltd 4x4 and must agree that the quality of the interior materials is a cut below that which I have come to expect from Toyota. The leather, plastics and carpeting are of a more "industrial" quality that those on my previous Toyota vehicles. (4-Runners and Avalon). Overall I am reasonably satisfied with the entire package but it looks like Toyota is starting to use other North American vehicles as their "benchmark" for quality of materials instead of themselves (and Lexus). I have always purchased Toyota products because of their superior "fit and finish" and attention to interior detail. This is not to say that I think that the comparable products from Ford, GM, and Chrysler are better, in fact they are much worse! Just my two cents worth!
Thanks Piasan for posting that. I assume this is from the information you got from Pscheck, so thanks to him as well. I am really hoping this puts and end to the myth of a viscous coupling center differential in these vehicles.
One more thing for Heatwave. I never said the parts were identical. I said the systems operated the identically but for a few nuances such as the availability of 2WD in the Sequoia and the ease of locking the center on the LC.
Thanks for the correction. Why do I have such a hard time remembering the name slickrock? I would really like to hear from him again. He posted a VERY good review of the Sequoia off road. This wasn't anything moderate either. He really put it through its paces. If I had the time, I'd scan back and repost it.
Wow. Thanks again Paisan and pscheck for the PDF file. Did you notice in link 2 that there is a description that confirms the 50-50 power distribution when traveling straight with equal traction?
"a. When the Vehicle is Travelling Straight There is practically no speed difference between the front and rear wheels the vehicle is running straight a constant speed. In this condition, the transfer clutch hub, drive sprocket and rear output shaft rotate at the same speed. That is, they rotate together with the center differential unit. In this case, the driving force from the transfer clutch hub is distributed uniformly and transmitted to the front and rear wheels from the planetary pinion carrier."
Hard to say. The sales teams are separate as are the showrooms. My experience each time has been with different dealerships (new and used are also separate at this dealership) other than the two 4-Runners that I purchased within a 5 month period in 1996. I would have to say, that based upon my past history in buying vehicles, each experience has had challenges of it's own.Some examples of this are: getting value for trade-in, having exactly what has been promised in negotiations delivered the first time without having to return several times and going up in the "chain of command", and the condescending attitudes on the part of some sales people; just to name a few!
When does production of 2002 Sequoias stop?? Called up Toyota customer service, and they told me this information can not be given to consumers/public.
I need this information to determine how late I can wait to factory order one.
I am in Vancouver and purchased my SR5 from Westminster Toyota, New Westminster since they could get delivery within two weeks and also offered me the best deal.
pschreck: you state "I'm sure this won't be the end of this discussion but maybe it will at least put an end to the "it's not published" crap."
The issue of a lack of published data was not on whether the Sequoia system has open diffs or mechanical drawings of its center diff. It has to do with the inaccurate assertion made on this forum that the Sequoia delivers powers to all wheels at all times "just like an AWD system" when the full-time 4wd is engaged.
The answer remains irrefutable that the Sequoia does not deliver a minimum amount of power to all wheels under all circumstances in full-time 4wd. Delivering equal power to all wheels on level dry pavement could be done with 60 year old technology and any system with open diffs. Thats not the question.
The question is when the going gets tough, will the Sequoia in full-time 4wd deliver power to all its wheels under all circumstances like awd. With three open diffs it can not and does not.
Anyone suggesting otherwise is uninformed and merely deluding themselves.
So the question remains, does the Sequoia deliver a minimum amount of power to all wheels under all circumstances and is the power distribution published like it is for all manufacturer's of awd systems or is this the published "crap" that can't be found because it doesn't exist?
cliffy: No way! The debate was clearly around the view that pschreck and wwest were trying to make that the open diffs delivered a ratio of power to the front and rear that equalled 50/50 under all circumstances at all times when engaged in full-time 4wd. Even you know this isn't true.
The question I asked was if Toyota published a minimum torque distribution ratio like all other awd manufacturers (I recognize it was a loaded question since the Sequoia is not AWD). However some of the Sequoia owners seemed to try to make a case that the Sequoia has AWD. That could only be true if there was a minimum torque delivered under all circumstances and since Sequoia owners only believe you, I challenged them to find any source on the net with the Sequoia drivetrain specs showing minimum torque levels.
That is how the question was raised regarding published data. The answer is that the Toyota 4wd system does not ensure there is power delivered to all wheels under all road conditions at all times. The tt4 system simply ensures that the tires don't slip, which could also mean they don't turn at all. That would not occur in an awd vehicle.
I don't think anybody here, except you, believes that AWD is a superior system. Possibliy those that don't own a Full-Time 4WD vehicle. I believe that the Sequoia system is superior because it is more versatile while providing all the benefits of AWD. Clearly the Sequoia delivers power to all four wheels. Certainly under any circumstance that the Denali will ever see that is true. You argued that it was more like the GM auto 4WD system. Wrong. What number can minimum torque equal? One percent? If any power whatsoever goes to the front wheels at all times, then those wheels are receiving minimum torque. Also, show me where I said that the torque split is 50/50 at all times under all conditions. If you do, I will concede that to you. It will only do that when the center diff is locked (Sequoias can do that you know...now). I believe what I said was that the front wheels are powered when the 4WD is engaged. You denied that fact.
Let me start this post with the fact that I believe the Toyota Sequoia is the nicest full size SUV on the market for the overall cost. However, with the HUGE price discounts that are available on the 2002 Ford Expedition it has made me consider another option.
A local Ford dealer is offering their 2002 Eddie Bauer 4WD Expedition for only $31,975 which is about $10K UNDER total MSRP and $4,700 UNDER standard invoice. The NEW redesigned 2003 Expedition will be out in a few more months so they really want to move out the older 2002 models.
A Toyota dealer has offered me $40,550 for a brand new 2002 Toyota Sequoia Limited 4WD. This comes out to only $500 OVER standard invoice.
We are planning on keeping the SUV for about 6 years and will end up putting on about 16,000 miles each year. This comes to a total of 96,000 miles at time of resale. I know the Toyota Sequoia will resale for more but want to get an idea of how much more it could be worth over the Ford at this age of both these vehicles.
My guess is that the Ford Expedition would be worth around $10K based on current depreciation for the Expeditions. I would guess that the Toyota Sequoia would be worth around $15K based as a medium between the Toyota 4Runner & Land Cruisers historical resale values. Do you all agree that this $5K difference in resale would be possible or do you believe the gap will be tighter? If tighter, how much? If larger, how much?
I want to justify the Toyota Sequoia but want to get an idea of what the total cost of ownership would be on these two SUV's to find out the true overall cost. I know the Sequoia will be more expensive than the Ford which I can justify since there are quite a few things that I like about it over the Ford (smoother ride, nicer looking IMO, better quality, more reliable, etc.). I just want to determine approximately how much more it will be to see if it really makes financial sense.
Which SUV would you choose and why considering the $8,500 initial price difference and your perceived difference in resale values after 6 years & 96,000 miles????
Heatmiser, i too am considering the expy or the seq. but my major concern is which is going to give me the most trouble for the next 6 years. i know that toyota is known for it longevity, but i have read the sequoia message board and am a bit concerned with the engine noises that several of the posters have written about (engine is lexus, right). i know a 2001 sequoia owner, she loves the vehicle but, she also confirmed a ticking engine noise (this kinda scares me). and i also know expy owners who are very pleased. the problem is i dont know anyone who has owned and expy for more than 3 yrs and obviously sequoias havnet been around that long. anyway heat, i feel your pain.
You are looking at only a difference of $3500 between the 2 based on numbers you provided and factoring in resale value. The Expy would be fine obviously for the first 3 years because of warranty but then I think you'd be ahead with Sequoia reliability. Also, I think the depreciation will be much more severe on the Expy with a new model waiting in the wings. Think about selling your Expy with 100k on it and an old body style.
Not to complicate things but I think I'd wait for the new Expy and compare to the Sequoia-price may still be cheaper than Sequoia and you would have a better expy.
My Sequoias have both been tickers (2001 and 2002)but there have been no recalls or TSB's that I'm aware of. The sound goes away after a few minutes of warming up. I'd prefer it wasn't there at all but I don't think it's a major mechanical problem. That same engine has put a lot of miles on lexus and Tundras. Doesn't Toyota have a longer engine warranty as well?
Don't know if any of you had a chance to read April Car and Driver but they had a long term X5 for 40,000 miles. The vehicle looked like a real lemon. Grab bar broke right off, vinyl peeling off door handle, both front doors needed new actuator motors, loud rattle in hatch area and miscellaneous warning lights coming on. You'd expect more from any vehicle but certainly from one that expensive.
714cut: been going through the archives and noticed that you traded in your 2001 for a 2002, what was your main motivation for this? Color? the expanded "B" option package? I understand that your payments were almost the same but what was the actual depreciation? (These are not trick questions, I am merely curious) Also you mentioned that you sent your 2001 south through an auto broker. Even with the favourable exchange is it not hard to recoup the 17% sales tax that you paid? Is some of it refundable on sale? GST, PST or both?
My local dealer knew a broker who had a U.S. client that was looking for a Sequoia just like mine. My vehicle was leased. My Sequoia was in perfect condition, only 10000 kms and with the exchange and shortage of Sequoias the dealer made a healthy profit on my Sequoia, much of which was applied to the new one as down payment. It appears there was no depreciation on my vehicle. There was no additional outlay of cash and payments were within $10 of each other. This was also helped by Toyota lowering their interest rates. I kept the same color, Silver Sky but gained the sunroof, upgraded package B. The sunroof is huge and a real plus. Also fog lights are standard. On a lease taxes are paid monthly as opposed to up front (if I remember correctly). To tell you the truth, I don't know the actual numbers the dealer got. I just couldn't believe I could get a brand new truck, same payments, new model year with more options. I kept waiting for the catch but there was none. That's what happens I guess with a desirable vehicle. I also think this was a very special lucky circumstance. I am in no way suggesting that this would be available again or would be commonplace out there. I think it was simply right place right time right vehicle.
p.s. does your name have something to do with Toyota Racing Division supercharged something?
That is a very astute observation. I also own a 1996 4-Runner with a second generation TRD supercharger installed on it last year. The vehicle has 81,000km on it and I've put on about15,000km since intalling the SC. It is an automatic LTD so the performance, although increased noticibly, is not exactly "blow your doors off". The extra power is most noticable when cruising at freeway speeds and especially when negotiating hilly or mountainous terrain. I took it to the Grand Canyon and back last September and experienced better gas mileage and no problems in maintaining (and accelerating) speed on any type of grade. The only draw back to this is the"whine" but that is almost unnoticeable unless you are accelerating or going up a hill. At crusing speeds or 120 to 140km/hr on the interstates there is more wind noise than any whine from the supercharger. I know that this is a rather long answer to a short question but since I am a new contributor I felt that it would be an interesting sideline. To comment on your experience getting out of your 2001 into a 2002; for my situation I would not consider sending a vehicle south unless there was some way to recoup some of the taxes paid as you can when you trade your vehicle in to a dealer. Even with the value of the CDN dollar relative to the US greenback; a person would have to live in Alberta where only the GST applies to vehicle purchases to make any money on having a "new" vehicle brokered into the US.
ps. and your moniker (or maybe I should not ask) also, although I am a new contributor, I have followed this interesting forum since last summer.
My username has nothing to do with being a butcher or liking horror movies or violence. It's personal and really wouldn't make sense to anyone else. Sorry for the letdown!
The PDF files don't say anything about TLCs so we should leave that out.
As for 50/50 torque split, it does prove that both axles get equal torque as a std torque split, similar to the denali VC. The denali VC will not provide a min. amount of power to each axle, if the rear axle is spinning on ice 100% of the power will be directed to the other axle and visa versa that is the whole concept behind the VC.
The brakes being applied will shift around the power through the open diffy based on traction, at least that is my take on the Sequoia. I don't like using the brakes to shift around power, but that is just me.
I also felt the upholstery was lacking on my SR5. When I bought my 2001, I commented on the fact to the salesman. The fabric felt very loose and/or saggy. I checked cloth seats in the other Sequoias and they felt the same. Since I do not prefer leather, that was not an option. In the long run, I feel this is something I can live with due to the Sequoia's other redeeming qualities.
Has anyone here calculated ACTUAL gas mileage on their 2WD and 4WD Sequoia's? When I say "actual" I mean manually calculating mileage between refills. Typically the on-board computers are off by 2-3MPG on either side so I find them unreliable.
In my 4WD Ford Expedition I get 13 MPG with most driving being done on the freeway. I am considering the Sequoia but would hope that it would get better gas mileage (say around 15-16 for 4WD or 16-18 for 2WD).
Although I have had my Sequoia for a relatively short period of time, I have come up with a list of how Toyota could improve the design, ergonomics and fit and finish of this vehicle. Here is my list of suggestions: 1. More horsepower (atleast 300hp total) not that I think that the vehicle is totally underpowered 2. Insulation and a light under the hood. 3. Bigger wheels and tires (16" wheels and 265/70R16 tires are not proportional to the size of the vehicle) 4. A rear window switch that would both open and close the window on the keyless entry. 5. Wood dash and console trim on the Ltd models (optional on SR5) 6. A more "conventional" shape to the console and HVAC, and stereo system. (this shape reminds me of "retro Taurus") 7. A lock on the console and glove compartment. 8. A more "conventional" look to the gauge cluster (More like the LC and 4-Runner) less like the Tundra 9. A console mounted shifter, lumbar support on the passenger seat, and an easier to use "tumble" lever 10. Better quality of materials used in the interior (carpets, leather & plastic) I realize that there are some among you that may think that I am concentrating on "minutia", but having bought Toyota for their superior ergonomics and "fit and finish" over the years, I think that they could have done a better job on this model! What do you think??
I disagree with many of your comments. Having driven the competition extensively many things you mentioned are best in class, but I agree things can always be better.
I would wish for a quieter heater blower. I really like the keyless entry system on Fords. I used it all the time on my explorer. A subwoofer and better sound for the stereo. Radio controls for the steering wheel. Driving lights instead of/as well as fog lights. An engine that doesn't tick when cold starting. Push buttons for 4wd instead of console lever.
My friend bought a fully loaded XL Denali in January and he loves it. Traded in a SC'd 1997 Navigator and took advantage of the 0% financing. I have driven it and I would say that it is a fine vehicle. I like the exterior look, and the power of the 6.0L engine. I do NOT like the interior looks, especially the centre pod. For a vehicle that cost him almost $60,000 CDN, which was about $6000 CDN less than the MSRP of $65,695 I think that the interior design should have looked a lot better than a "gussied up" GM 1/2 ton pickup. Also what he paid was some $5000 CDN more than what I paid for my fully loaded LTD Sequoia; from my perspective, it was NOT worth the price differential since I am not intending to tow any large motorhomes in the near future.
I realize that SOME of my suggested "improvements" are subjective and reflect my own personal taste; I am not claiming that they are design flaws by the manufacturer Toyota. I merely think that constructive evaluation is good and that is how improvements are made.
Just got caught up on this board after not reading for a couple months. Same old...same old. "Trinner" you posted a comment about buying in Seattle. Did you purchase??
I routinely calculate my "real" mileage based on mile driven and gallons used. Last summer, I typically got 12.5 mpg in town and 18+ mpg on the road. Tops was 20.5 mpg for a tank with lots of 50 mph up in Yellowstone (speed limit is 45 mph). During the winter, in town mileage dropped to ~10 mpg... cold weather and short drives that never gave the engine a chance to warm up (and oxygenated gas?).
trdsctwo: I think there is plenty of power (but am coming from an 88 4rnner with the 2.3 liter 4 cyl engine... just about 1/2 the size of the seqs engine).
A while back there was a lot of discussion re: the lack of a rear window up button on the keyless fob... it was decided that this was omitted as a safety consideration... the fobs work from some distance (my 15 mo old girl activated my alarm from more than 100 ft while playing with the keys). You wouldn't want to roll up the back window when out of sight, on the chance that a hand or head might be in the way.
Apparently, there are some pretty good kits for retrofitting a wood dash for ~$300-400...
I agree with 714cuts wish for a quieter fan, and would like a (child proofed) rear hatch release on the inside of the hatch (would make it easier to get out back when I am sleeping in the seq on fishing trips).
I keep track of the actual fuel consumption. My 2002 SR5 with 4WD has consumed an average of 16.8 l / 100 km or traveled 14.0 miles per U.S. gallon. The onboard computer gives a reading which is about 10% too optimistic, i.e. the actual consumption is about 10% higher.
Please note that I have driven only 2,731 kms or 1,697 miles with my new SR5. Most of my driving has been in the city with some freeway driving and virtually all in 2WD mode.
I have only had my Sequoia for 600 miles, so I am not so sure with accuracy, I have only filled up twice. But after the first fill up I reset my ave mpg computer and it seems to match my manual calculation (within 0.5) on the second fill up.
Recently had may first fill up. It took almost 99 litres or 26 US gallons. My trip computer said that I still had 16km (10 miles) until empty. Has anyone actually ran it out of gas and measured exactly how much gas that the tank will hold. Both my 4-Runner and Avalon had 70litre tanks and I have filled up with almost 76 litres of gas without running dry. This was both in the summer and winter since the volume of gas at the pump is corrected to 15 degrees C or 59 degrees F. Also gas mileage improves at higher altitude.
Your gas filling experience goes against my experience and most postings on this topic. The capacity is 100 liters but most people have problems even getting close to that i.e. 90 or 95 filling up when empty. Same with your readout on the computer. My experience is the opposite- computer will say 0 miles to go and then it will only take 90 liters. I've run it so low (by mistake of course) that when I slowed down the engine almost stalled and barely made it in to gas station. Still wouldn't take 100 liters!
hmmm; maybe I should try a different gas station next time. I should also mention that I have a habit of "toppi ng" the tank up with as much as it will take. ie. I can see the gas right up to the cap, sometimes a few drops over. This adds about 8 to 10 litres over what it would be if I just used the automatic fill mechanism at the pump. A fill-up for me using takes about 5 minutes longer than normal because it takes time to squeeze in that very last litre.
I drove a Sequoia from one dealership to another, a distance of 14 miles with the trip computer showing 0 miles until empty. I don't know how far you can really go like that, but I can tell you from personal experience that you have at lest 14 miles.
it is not adviced to "top off" the gas tank after each fill-up. The manual states so, you may want to check to find out why; the reason escapes me right now.
Comments
My wife and I were VERY disappointed with the quality of the upholstery when we took delivery. We had previously only seen the LIMITED which has leather (no SR5 in stock). We ordered the SR5 since we did not want leather.
The dealer agreed that the quality does not seem to be the usual Toyota standard and the Toyota representative agreed. They will try to fix the problem.
The individual cloth panels do not seem to match properly resulting in ruffles along the stitching.
Has anyone else had this experience?
-mike
Any comments on 4WD vs. 2WD? I don't plan any off road type driving. Looking at SEQ for it's size, quality and looks.
Here is what they say on their web page:
"A model earns a "Recommended" label by Consumer Reports when it has performed well in our tests and when our reader-survey data indicate that it should be at least average in reliability. There are several reasons why a model would have no designation: It wasn't tested recently; it didn't test well; it has a below-average reliability record; it's too new to have reliability data; or we have insufficient reliability data."
I have come to expect from Toyota. The leather, plastics and carpeting are of a more "industrial" quality that those on
my previous Toyota vehicles. (4-Runners and Avalon). Overall I am reasonably satisfied with the entire package but
it looks like Toyota is starting to use other North American vehicles as their "benchmark" for quality of materials instead
of themselves (and Lexus). I have always purchased Toyota products because of their superior "fit and finish" and attention to interior detail. This is not to say that I think that the comparable products from Ford, GM, and Chrysler are better, in fact they are much worse! Just my two cents worth!
One more thing for Heatwave. I never said the parts were identical. I said the systems operated the identically but for a few nuances such as the availability of 2WD in the Sequoia and the ease of locking the center on the LC.
May we now move on?
I will check out my SR5 B package to see how upholstery is. I have not noticed anything so far. 3rd Toyota, wife has a Camry.
"a. When the Vehicle is Travelling Straight
There is practically no speed difference between the front and rear wheels the vehicle is running straight
a constant speed. In this condition, the transfer clutch hub, drive sprocket and rear output shaft rotate
at the same speed. That is, they rotate together with the center differential unit. In this case, the driving
force from the transfer clutch hub is distributed uniformly and transmitted to the front and rear wheels
from the planetary pinion carrier."
AND YOU??????
I need this information to determine how late I can wait to factory order one.
The issue of a lack of published data was not on whether the Sequoia system has open diffs or mechanical drawings of its center diff. It has to do with the inaccurate assertion made on this forum that the Sequoia delivers powers to all wheels at all times "just like an AWD system" when the full-time 4wd is engaged.
The answer remains irrefutable that the Sequoia does not deliver a minimum amount of power to all wheels under all circumstances in full-time 4wd. Delivering equal power to all wheels on level dry pavement could be done with 60 year old technology and any system with open diffs. Thats not the question.
The question is when the going gets tough, will the Sequoia in full-time 4wd deliver power to all its wheels under all circumstances like awd. With three open diffs it can not and does not.
Anyone suggesting otherwise is uninformed and merely deluding themselves.
So the question remains, does the Sequoia deliver a minimum amount of power to all wheels under all circumstances and is the power distribution published like it is for all manufacturer's of awd systems or is this the published "crap" that can't be found because it doesn't exist?
The question I asked was if Toyota published a minimum torque distribution ratio like all other awd manufacturers (I recognize it was a loaded question since the Sequoia is not AWD). However some of the Sequoia owners seemed to try to make a case that the Sequoia has AWD. That could only be true if there was a minimum torque delivered under all circumstances and since Sequoia owners only believe you, I challenged them to find any source on the net with the Sequoia drivetrain specs showing minimum torque levels.
That is how the question was raised regarding published data. The answer is that the Toyota 4wd system does not ensure there is power delivered to all wheels under all road conditions at all times. The tt4 system simply ensures that the tires don't slip, which could also mean they don't turn at all. That would not occur in an awd vehicle.
A local Ford dealer is offering their 2002 Eddie Bauer 4WD Expedition for only $31,975 which is about $10K UNDER total MSRP and $4,700 UNDER standard invoice. The NEW redesigned 2003 Expedition will be out in a few more months so they really want to move out the older 2002 models.
A Toyota dealer has offered me $40,550 for a brand new 2002 Toyota Sequoia Limited 4WD. This comes out to only $500 OVER standard invoice.
We are planning on keeping the SUV for about 6 years and will end up putting on about 16,000 miles each year. This comes to a total of 96,000 miles at time of resale. I know the Toyota Sequoia will resale for more but want to get an idea of how much more it could be worth over the Ford at this age of both these vehicles.
My guess is that the Ford Expedition would be worth around $10K based on current depreciation for the Expeditions. I would guess that the Toyota Sequoia would be worth around $15K based as a medium between the Toyota 4Runner & Land Cruisers historical resale values. Do you all agree that this $5K difference in resale would be possible or do you believe the gap will be tighter? If tighter, how much? If larger, how much?
I want to justify the Toyota Sequoia but want to get an idea of what the total cost of ownership would be on these two SUV's to find out the true overall cost. I know the Sequoia will be more expensive than the Ford which I can justify since there are quite a few things that I like about it over the Ford (smoother ride, nicer looking IMO, better quality, more reliable, etc.). I just want to determine approximately how much more it will be to see if it really makes financial sense.
Which SUV would you choose and why considering the $8,500 initial price difference and your perceived difference in resale values after 6 years & 96,000 miles????
Not to complicate things but I think I'd wait for the new Expy and compare to the Sequoia-price may still be cheaper than Sequoia and you would have a better expy.
My Sequoias have both been tickers (2001 and 2002)but there have been no recalls or TSB's that I'm aware of. The sound goes away after a few minutes of warming up. I'd prefer it wasn't there at all but I don't think it's a major mechanical problem. That same engine has put a lot of miles on lexus and Tundras. Doesn't Toyota have a longer engine warranty as well?
what was your main motivation for this? Color? the expanded "B" option package? I understand that your payments were almost the same but what was the actual depreciation?
(These are not trick questions, I am merely curious)
Also you mentioned that you sent your 2001 south through an auto broker. Even with the favourable exchange is it not
hard to recoup the 17% sales tax that you paid? Is some of it refundable on sale? GST, PST or both?
On a lease taxes are paid monthly as opposed to up front (if I remember correctly). To tell you the truth, I don't know the actual numbers the dealer got. I just couldn't believe I could get a brand new truck, same payments, new model year with more options. I kept waiting for the catch but there was none. That's what happens I guess with a desirable vehicle.
I also think this was a very special lucky circumstance. I am in no way suggesting that this would be available again or would be commonplace out there. I think it was simply right place right time right vehicle.
p.s. does your name have something to do with Toyota Racing Division supercharged something?
supercharger installed on it last year. The vehicle has 81,000km on it and I've put on about15,000km since intalling the SC. It is an automatic LTD so the performance, although increased noticibly, is not exactly "blow your doors off". The extra power is most noticable when cruising at freeway speeds and especially when negotiating hilly or mountainous terrain. I took it to the Grand Canyon and back last September and experienced better gas mileage and no problems in maintaining (and accelerating) speed on any type of grade. The only draw back
to this is the"whine" but that is almost unnoticeable unless you are accelerating or going up a
hill. At crusing speeds or 120 to 140km/hr on the interstates there is more wind noise than
any whine from the supercharger. I know that this is a rather long answer to a short question
but since I am a new contributor I felt that it would be an interesting sideline.
To comment on your experience getting out of your 2001 into a 2002; for my situation I would
not consider sending a vehicle south unless there was some way to recoup some of the taxes
paid as you can when you trade your vehicle in to a dealer. Even with the value of the CDN dollar relative to the US greenback; a person would have to live in Alberta where only the GST
applies to vehicle purchases to make any money on having a "new" vehicle brokered into the US.
ps. and your moniker (or maybe I should not ask)
also, although I am a new contributor, I have followed this interesting forum since last
summer.
As for 50/50 torque split, it does prove that both axles get equal torque as a std torque split, similar to the denali VC. The denali VC will not provide a min. amount of power to each axle, if the rear axle is spinning on ice 100% of the power will be directed to the other axle and visa versa that is the whole concept behind the VC.
The brakes being applied will shift around the power through the open diffy based on traction, at least that is my take on the Sequoia. I don't like using the brakes to shift around power, but that is just me.
-mike
In my 4WD Ford Expedition I get 13 MPG with most driving being done on the freeway. I am considering the Sequoia but would hope that it would get better gas mileage (say around 15-16 for 4WD or 16-18 for 2WD).
Any input would be greatly appreciated...
could improve the design, ergonomics and fit and finish of this vehicle. Here is my list of suggestions:
1. More horsepower (atleast 300hp total) not that I think that the vehicle is totally underpowered
2. Insulation and a light under the hood.
3. Bigger wheels and tires (16" wheels and 265/70R16 tires are not proportional to the size of the vehicle)
4. A rear window switch that would both open and close the window on the keyless entry.
5. Wood dash and console trim on the Ltd models (optional on SR5)
6. A more "conventional" shape to the console and HVAC, and stereo system. (this shape reminds me of "retro Taurus")
7. A lock on the console and glove compartment.
8. A more "conventional" look to the gauge cluster (More like the LC and 4-Runner) less like the Tundra
9. A console mounted shifter, lumbar support on the passenger seat, and an easier to use "tumble" lever
10. Better quality of materials used in the interior (carpets, leather & plastic)
I realize that there are some among you that may think that I am concentrating on "minutia", but having bought
Toyota for their superior ergonomics and "fit and finish" over the years, I think that they could have done a better job
on this model!
What do you think??
Your pal
Obi Wan
I would wish for a quieter heater blower.
I really like the keyless entry system on Fords. I used it all the time on my explorer.
A subwoofer and better sound for the stereo.
Radio controls for the steering wheel.
Driving lights instead of/as well as fog lights.
An engine that doesn't tick when cold starting.
Push buttons for 4wd instead of console lever.
it is a fine vehicle. I like the exterior look, and the power of the 6.0L engine. I do NOT
like the interior looks, especially the centre pod. For a vehicle that cost him almost $60,000 CDN, which was about $6000 CDN less than the MSRP of $65,695 I think that the
interior design should have looked a lot better than a "gussied up" GM 1/2 ton pickup. Also
what he paid was some $5000 CDN more than what I paid for my fully loaded LTD Sequoia;
from my perspective, it was NOT worth the price differential since I am not intending to tow
any large motorhomes in the near future.
claiming that they are design flaws by the manufacturer Toyota. I merely think that constructive evaluation is good and
that is how improvements are made.
"Trinner" you posted a comment about buying in Seattle. Did you purchase??
trdsctwo: I think there is plenty of power (but am coming from an 88 4rnner with the 2.3 liter 4 cyl engine... just about 1/2 the size of the seqs engine).
A while back there was a lot of discussion re: the lack of a rear window up button on the keyless fob... it was decided that this was omitted as a safety consideration... the fobs work from some distance (my 15 mo old girl activated my alarm from more than 100 ft while playing with the keys). You wouldn't want to roll up the back window when out of sight, on the chance that a hand or head might be in the way.
Apparently, there are some pretty good kits for retrofitting a wood dash for ~$300-400...
I agree with 714cuts wish for a quieter fan, and would like a (child proofed) rear hatch release on the inside of the hatch (would make it easier to get out back when I am sleeping in the seq on fishing trips).
Please note that I have driven only 2,731 kms or 1,697 miles with my new SR5. Most of my driving has been in the city with some freeway driving and virtually all in 2WD mode.
(10 miles) until empty. Has anyone actually ran it out of gas and measured exactly how much gas that the tank will
hold. Both my 4-Runner and Avalon had 70litre tanks and I have filled up with almost 76 litres of gas without
running dry. This was both in the summer and winter since the volume of gas at the pump is corrected to 15 degrees
C or 59 degrees F. Also gas mileage improves at higher altitude.
the tank up with as much as it will take. ie. I can see the gas right up to the cap, sometimes a few drops over. This adds
about 8 to 10 litres over what it would be if I just used the automatic fill mechanism at the pump. A fill-up for me
using takes about 5 minutes longer than normal because it takes time to squeeze in that very last litre.