Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs

Toyota Sequoia



  • I totally agree with you about these two have personal spat. take it some where else. I'm not going to being towing much with my truck so the towing issue is not a major thing we me. BTW, I wouldn't get in explorer if you pay me.
  • Yoss - Your an idiot sometimes!
  • volkovvolkov Posts: 1,306
    Well, 13 days ago we sealed the deal and bought a Yukon XL. In the end it was the vehicle which best fulfilled our needs. I absolutely agonized over the decision, and my wife threatened to medicate me. I really wanted the Sequoia, but it did have some functional limitations which worked against it. We needed a vehicle for our 3 kids in baby seats, ourselves and our dog and luggage, plus the ability to tow our 26' travel trailer. We just got back from a 10 day road trip and I must say that I don't regret the choice. We had the Yukon XL filled to the brim on the way home (lots of Xmas shopping) and we simply could not have put all our stuff into the Sequoia. The fact we got an SLT fully loaded (equivalent to Limited equipment) for the price of an SR5 and 0.9% financing over 48 months did make it sweeter, but didn't influence the decision. All through the trip though I couldn't help but think of things which were better designed in the Sequoia such as the tumbling 2nd row seats, Dunlops vs "Tombstones", better baby seat anchors and cupholders which don't get in the way of CD's. Still, the most sage advice I have seen on this board has been expressed by more than one person - decide on your needs first, then get the best vehicle. I must echo this philosophy. The decision becomes much easier when you know what you need. We needed mucho space and the ability to haul 5500lbs easily. The Suburban/Yukon XL is the vehicle for that. Web sites and articles on towing that I have read have suggested that a payload 75-80% of towing capacity is most reasonable for prolonged towing tasks. With only two kids, I would have pushed the envelope on towing and bought the Sequoia, and for emotional reasons I kept trying to make the Sequoia fit. In the end, it just wan't the right vehicle for us. I still think it is a very nice SUV and miles beyond the 4wd minivan that Motor Trend chose as SUV of the year.
    Thanks for all the input along the way. Maybe when we trade in the minivan in a couple of years we can replace it with a Sequoia.
  • volkovvolkov Posts: 1,306
    some final comments.
    Cliffy - yes you ar right in sayng that the Sequoia will easily tow what most people haul, but I am afraid that your statement about average travel trailer weights isn't correct. Average size these days would fall into the 22-28' range, and these run about 5500-7000lbs. Yes, you can get "lite" versions which weigh less, but most of these are cardboard crap.
    Yoss - thanks for the bucket seat info. We got the bench for various reasons. If the buckets removed like they do in our Sienna, we most certainly would have bought them.
    Yoss part II - sorry, but let me quote from the Suburban brochure. "Any Yukon or Yukon XL can tow a 2000lb trailer without special equipment." Therefore, off the lot, your Suburban tows as well as our Sienna minivan based on your argument.
    Further towing info - "A weight distributing hitch and sway control is required over 5000lb trailer weight. Trailers over 5000lb require optional Trailering Special Equipment (Z82)". Sounds just like the Sequoia doesn't it? There is no 45mph speed limit however.
    Must go I'll bore you all with other things later
  • tbevertbever Posts: 39
    As mentioned in an earlier post, I noticed the booming bass in my Sequoia, which is a limited with the JBL premium with 6 CD indash changer. When the engine is off, it sounds fine, however when the engine is on, the bass is markedly accentuated to the point where I have to turn the bass control to -3 or -4. I don't really care however since I am going to replace the whole unit, but I would have expected better in a 45 K vehicle. Certainly the MDX's stereo was much superior. This sounds very similar to the LC problem. Does anyone know if this is the same system used in the LC??
  • This message is for those fleet managers out there in and around the Southern California area who are willing to negotiate the price of a new Sequoia SR5 2WD or sell way below the MSRP.
    Please email me at [email protected]
  • cliffy1cliffy1 Posts: 3,581
    I was sent an e-mail asking the maximum length of the Sequoia's cargo area witht he back seat removed and the middle row tumbled forward. I went out to do this and discovered that the back is a bit more narrow than I posted earlier. The width behind the 3rd seat is 52 inches but when you remove the third seats, you will discover that the wheel wells cuts this down to 48.5 inches. Still wide enough for sheet rock or plywood more not by as much as I reported earlier.

    The length is just over 71 inches to the end of the carpet and just over 74 inches to the end of the plastic sill. The back door does not cover the plastic sill but you may be limited by height if you go the full 74 inches.
  • hookeyhookey Posts: 54
    Volkov - Thank you for your well-reasoned and factual assessment of the Sub(Yukon XL)/Seq comparison. It was refreshing to see a post that addresses the facts in an unbiased manner, unlike one poster here. It sounds like you made the exactly the right decision in selecting the Yukon XL, as it fits your family's needs the best. I have 4 kids and the extra room in the Sub. is very attractive from my view as well. When we decide to get rid of my wife's mini-van in the next year or so we will probably opt for a Sub or Yukon XL because of that extra space for luggage, etc.

    Golfnuts - you asked in post #51 for my opinion on my Sequoia SR5 so far. With the risk of being called a cheerleader, I'll tell you that so far I really like the vehicle and have no regrets in making this purchase.

    I have had the Seq for about a month now and put on around 3,000 miles. 80% or so of my driving is commuting 30 miles each way from a suburb to large city. I also use it to drive my kids and family around locally and to go on family trips.

    Some aspects of this vehicle I've found to be both positive and negative from my prospective as follows:

    1. Space. 90% of the time the space is adequate or better than adequate. However, on family trips such as our 4-day/200 mile drive on Thanksgiving (with lots of gear and luggage), I could use more space. I configure the vehicle with half of the third seat tumbled forward. I ride three kids in the second seat (only one is in a car seat) and one kid in the half of the third seat that is not tumbled forward. My kids prefer to be the one who sits in the third seat, and we need to alternate that "privilege". On the flip side, the large size makes parking in my parking garage at work pretty challenging as the spots are smallish and the space for maneuvering is tight. The extra size of the Sub would make fitting into these spots even more difficult.

    2. Turning Radius/Height. This is another parking garage issue. The Seq is not easy to park in tight places. The height is pretty close to the maximum for this garage and never fails to make me nervous driving under some of the ceiling pipes (no hits yet after 25 or so days there, so I guess I'll be OK). The height however is great out on the road. I have a good view of the entire traffic situation and can see break lights well in advance which I think is a big safety feature.

    3. Ergonomics. As I have said in prior posts, the radio controls are difficult to reach. I would also like a few inches of space under the second and third rows to carry long, thin objects (skies, hockey sticks, boards). The window control buttons can be difficult to find in the dark until you get used to it.

    One nice surprise for me was the quality of the driver's seat. It has an electronic lumbar support adjustment that provides lots of lumbar support and allows me to vary the shape of my seat which makes long trips much more comfortable.

    Love the engine (smooth) and the power and acceleration is nice for entering highways.

    The vehicle is pretty quite for a truck. You can hear the engine noise, but not much else outside of the vehicle.

    I have not gotten a chance to check out the 4-wheel drive in the snow yet (although living in New England should give me this opportunity soon, and often). However, owing to my road being totally rebuilt I have been driving everyday on a 1/2-mile long dirt road. After rain storms the road is muddy and slippery. The Seq goes through it with no problem at all. Its nice to see the 4WD in action, but on the other hand, even though I wash it every two weeks or so, my brand new truck is always dirty from the dust being kicked up by the roadwork and the cars driving by.

    I have not towed my boat with it yet, but it shouldn't be a problem since my boat is only 20 feet long (ski boat) and weighs around 3,500 pounds, I only tow twice a year (I put it in the water in the spring, take it out in the fall), and the distance I need to travel in minimal (our vacation home where I store my boat is only 1.5 miles from the boat launch).

    If you have any specific questions, I'd be glad to answer them as honestly as I can.
  • I would be surprised to learn that the Sequ has a 42 foot turning radius, as Toyota claims.
    If it did, it should be fairly easy to park.
    The Sub, which claims to have the same turning radius, is remarkably easy to park, and it is a foot longer than the Sequ.
  • hookeyhookey Posts: 54
    There you go again. What the hell are you talking about? You have no idea the amount of space I'm dealing with in my garage. These garages in Boston charge $30 and up per day to park. They try to fit in as many vehicles as humanly possible to make more $$$$. They park cars on the ramps and in the aisles. The spaces are extremely tight. Any SUV is a challenge to park there. I'm not sure what the turning radius is on the Sub, but having larger exterior dimensions would make it that much more difficult to fit in the space provided.

    Once again you take an opportunity to jump on the Seq without any facts and claiming that Toyota is lying about something with no facts backing you up. With your self-admitted habit of “stretching things” (see several posts above), your credibility must be approaching zero by now.
  • Relax there cowboy.
    And $30 is a bargain compared to NYC.
    The original Motor Trend article commented negatively on the Sequ's turning radius. I am curious to know exactly what it is, and, in light of Motor Trend's comment, I doubt it is as tight as what Toyota claimed.
    Just like I was curious as to whether a four-foot wide piece of plywood would fit. I was off by a mere 1/2 inch.
  • like I am curious as to whether the Sequ will live up to Toyota's MPG claims (that have not yet been approved by the EPA, by the way).
    In NYC, most garages won't accept full-sized SUV's, and many that do charge a $20 premium for them because they claim they take up an extra space.
  • cliffy1cliffy1 Posts: 3,581
    The EPA hasn't approved the window sticker fuel ratings? Could you provide your source on this please?
    Footnote #5 in Sequ specifications.
    Was that 48 1/2 inches or centimeters?
    That area between the wheel wells looks very narrow to me.
  • Tundra owners.
    I believe that there is a general consensus among Tundra owners that actual MPG is much less than what is claimed on the sticker.
    If I was Toyota, and I wanted to claim that I was as good as or better than the competition, two areas that would be very important to me would be turning radius and MPG. Could these be two areas where Toyota stretched things a bit to stay even on paper with the competition?
  • we test drove a sequoia and at first loved it but we have 4 children, and one of them decided to roll down the back window, all other windows were closed. wow! the whole truck shook uncontrollably and when we tried to talk to each other we sounded like we were gargling. we thought the truck was possessed. the salesman couldn't believe it either, he said he has never had anyone roll down the back window only. He didn't know what to tell us. It sure change our mind on that purchase. To pricey for that kind of a problem. anyone who has bought this truck should try this and complain to the dealer.
  • hookeyhookey Posts: 54
    My Sequoia computer indicates that I have received 17.3 MPG in mixed use driving. I approximated my mileage at the pump and it appeared to be in the ballpark. I specifically hand calculated one tankful and it indicated I got 16.5 MPG. The hand calculation was done on a long family trip with six occupants in the vehicle, plus lots of luggage. My estimate is that 16/17 is about what I've gotten since I've owned the truck. The Toyota web site states the 4WD version should get 14/17. It appears to be accurate based on my experience.
  • The old 4Runner had the same problem. It had a similar rear window that rolled down so that you can drive with it down. It was a feature that was rarely used because of the "chopper" noise that you described at higher speeeds.
    Personally, I disliked the feature more because it made it difficult to just throw something in the back of the truck. It is much easier to have a flip-open style window that releases and lifts quickly. You don't have to wait for the window to lower, there are no keys to turn, and you don't have to raise the whole liftgate.
  • hookeyhookey Posts: 54
    This vibrating noise with one rear window open has happened to me as well (although not to the extreme that it appeared to happen to you. You could talk, but there was an annoying vibration in my ear). It is solved pretty easily by cracking one of the other windows a bit. I agree that this should not happen. I plan to talk to my dealer to see if there is a longer term fix available.
  • I thought you meant the back window.
    The second row windows are another, but similar problem and are not an easy fix (and I am sure you will want to use those windows a lot more).
    The problem is the large box (the truck) filled with air that has no where to go. Open a window to let more air in, and the air inside the truck, which has no where to go, acts like a drum that is being beat with a stick.
    Open another window to allow a pressure release and the noise should go away.
    Interesting engineering problem. Consequently, no Toyota dealer in the world we be able to fix it. This one is up to Toyota. Maybe in time for the next model year.
  • cliffy1cliffy1 Posts: 3,581
    For those of you interested in what the EPA claims the Sequoia fuel economy is, check out this site; and search for the Sequoia. This is not Toyota's figures but the federal government's.
  • 1) Looks like Toyota might want to update its footnotes on its web page.
    2) However, I am sure the EPA signed off on the Tundra's MPG too, and the Honda Odyssey for that matter. These appear to be two vehicles that get worse, much worse, actual MPG than what is claimed on the sticker.
    3) In light of Hookey's statement, things look good so far. In addition, gas mileage and overall performance usual improve after initial break-in period.
  • hoping you FINE people can be of assistance. I have basically 2 questions.

    1. What color most approximates "Marlin Blue" among other models so I can see what a blue Seq. might look like.

    2. As a fan of Toyota, help me justify overall difference of about $12K between Tahoe/Suburban and the Sequoia. I mean "southern city boy" features, expected resale, etc. I don't care about 4WD, towing, typical SUV stuff. I sell real estate and want a big SUV for work.

    Thanks in advance for your help. FYI, the "FINE" people reference relates to your reasonable natures aka relating to yoss.
  • Despite the inference, I may be able to provide you with some useful info.
    2 wheel drive versions of the Tahoe/Suburban actually hold their value better than 4 wheel drive versions. Surprising, but check resale values on KBB and Edmunds.
    I guess you can assume the same will be true for the Sequ. It may be because they last longer or are more reliable, but I really don't know.
    The Sequ, like any Toyota product, should hold its value better than any GM product, but the Tahoes and Suburbans have the best resale value of anything GM sells. It could be that this was because there really wasn't any competition for these vehicles before, but there is now, which may impact the resale value of these GM products, but I doubt it will have any noticeable impact. Gas prices and rising SUV insurance costs are probably more of a concern when it comes to resale values.
    On the other hand, you have to consider:
    1) That you lose $600 in the extra sales tax/registration fees you have to pay for the Sequ due to the $10,000 difference in price;
    2) Resale values are basically a percentage of the selling price. So, if the Sequ retains 80% of its value, for example, and the Sub retains 70% of its value, it would basically be a wash because of the price differential. E.g., 80% of $38k is about an $8000 loss. 70% of $28k is also about an $8000 loss. Just about the same thing at the end of the day.
    3) If you put that $10k+ difference in the bank or invest it, you would make at least another $600 per year in interest too. Vice versa, if you have to take a loan to pay the difference, you are out $600+ a year in interest payments.
  • hookeyhookey Posts: 54
    3 posts in a row where you are being rational. I hope this is the start of a new trend and we can do away with misinformation and talk facts.

    Thank you.
  • The first year of production issue.
    Like it or not, the first year run of a production model often times has lower resale value than subsequent years, especially if there are reported problems.
    Too early to tell with the Sequ, but a valid issue.
  • My Sequoia came with Dunlop AT21 GrandTrek P265/70R16 tires. I could find no load range rating on the tires so I called Dunlop and was told they were "around" a load range "C". My tire dealer stated that they were probably closer to a "B" rating. M&S was stamped on the tires but they looked like highway tread to me.

    On my personal vehicles, my recently sold Tahoe and on my previous three Blazers, I had Goodyear, load range "D's" put on immediately. From experience driving my assigned "work" vehicle in desert environments, I found that I got flat tires from accidentally running over cactus when using standard equipped load range "b or c's". When changed to "D's" the puncture flats from cacti were eliminated.
  • cct1cct1 Posts: 221
    If you guys don't start arguing again immediately, I'm going to be forced to get my cable TV hooked up again.....
  • cct1cct1 Posts: 221
    Oops--should be hookey, not "hooey"--sorry--I went to the same spelling school as brill...
Sign In or Register to comment.