Thanks

At least the previous generation had a fairly nice cabin and did scream cheap which this does IMO.

who doesn’t know of people who often OVERLOAD their trucks (as defined by ‘official’ ratings) with NO ADVERSE effects.

granted, the mfgr may be conservative or even OVER conservative in their ratings. but as mentioned, is suspect this is largely just at the insistence of their legal depts. for liability reasons.

I’m simplifying a bit, but one of the problems using IRS in something like the Sequoia is that even with the best independent suspension systems the wheel alignment (camber/toe-in) changes slightly under different suspension loads. In an ideal world this wouldn’t happen, but usually you have to deal with certain specs – like available suspension attachment points – that force you to compromise in some aspects. This usually isn’t a huge deal on the front axle because the load doesn’t change all that much, but on the rear end of something with a high payload or tow rating there could be fairly extreme variations of suspension load. That’s why you don’t see pickups with IRS – the weight varies too much, and it’s difficult to design one that works.

That said, that shouldn’t be a big issue with the most expensive Sequoias because they have an adjustable air suspension in the rear – so theoretically you could have the same ride height with a trailer as without. The same approach would work with a pickup, though it would add a significant amount of cost – which would be acceptable with a $55,000 SUV, but not on a $20,000 pickup.

So, if the reduced payload isn’t due to alignment problems, what is the cause? Is it that the actual structural members aren’t strong enough to handle the extra weight? The problem with this theory is that a 10,000 pound trailer will put a *lot* more force on the suspension than a few hundred extra pounds in the truck – because a poorly-loaded trailer will introduce a lot of side-load to the rear suspension. I’ve seen trailers well under 10,000 pounds jerk the rear end of a 1-ton pickup around like you wouldn’t believe…and if the IRS in the Sequoia can (hopefully) handle those kinds of loads it seems like it should be able to handle a lot more weight.

I guess one concern is that the air suspension in the Sequoia will cause people to create unsafe conditions without even realizing it – because if the rear of the vehicle doesn’t squat they might not realize how overloaded it is. If they put on a trailer and don’t use an equalizing hitch, and then load up the SUV with people and cargo, they could easily have *way* more weight on the rear suspension than the specs…and with the air suspension trying to compensate for it they might not even notice. Then they take it out and drive too fast, or make an emergency maneuver, and the rear suspension fails…and suddenly the Sequoia turns into Toyota’s own version of the Explorer fiasco.

I’m not trying to be an alarmist, but I’ve pulled 10,000 pound trailers…and I can’t imagine pulling one with something like the Sequoia. The combination of the low payload and the extremely high GCWR just doesn’t make sense from an engineering point of view. Either the GCWR is higher than it should be, or the GVWR is lower than it should be. If they under-rated the GVWR, that’s okay…but if they over-rated the GCWR, that’s not good. I’ve seen times when the marketing department overruled the engineers on this sort of thing, and I’m a little concerned that’s that happened here – that they really wanted to have the highest tow rating out there, and stretched the numbers a bit. Hopefully I’m wrong, and there’s a huge safety margin in the rear suspension design…but then why the low payload rating? I don’t really see an advantage to under-rating the GVWR…in fact, usually there’s an advantage to rating it higher (though some of those loopholes have been closed).

I dunno, I’m just thinking out loud…but it does seem like Toyota should figure this whole thing out, if only for liability purposes. With the law written the way it is, you can’t assume that all the owners will read and understand the manual…and with the current setup it’d be very easy for an owner to exceed the payload ratings without realizing it. Maybe there’s a huge safety margin built in and they’re covered, but if that’s the case than why rate it so low?

I understand how IRS could change the GVWR (payload) but don’t fully understand how it affects tow rating. A ring and pinion gets stressed from the load of the engine, not the load it is carrying, whether it is housed in a live/solid axle or in an IRS.

Solid rear axles generally give you a large safety margin as far as weight is concerned…one of my ranch trucks is regularly loaded at 3,000 pounds over the GVWR, and still went nearly 300,000 miles before blowing the rear axle. But, with an independent rear suspension I’d be a bit more concerned…and as an engineer, the pairing of a relatively new design and a low weight rating makes me more than a little curious.

Toyota did the same thing with their pickup – they went on and on about the new rear axle and frame design, and then they gave the trucks a rather low GVWR. If the new axle and frame are so great, why the low rating?

True, the GVWR spec is a bit tight. In your example you would exceed GVWR by a few hundred.
I understand that makes you nervous.

The Toyota website has a video of a Sequoia towing a large trailer over a gravel road with 2 kids and some camping gear in the back. So that’s the typical use they have in mind.

In an ideal world, the market for vehicles like this is folks who are hauling around more than 5 people *and* pulling large trailers – otherwise they’d be better off using a minivan (for people) or a pickup (for towing trailers). I realize that most of these vehicles aren’t used that way, but it’s the logical way to use them and is the way they’re marketed. With that in mind, here’s the problem:

If you figure a family w/2 adults @ 175 pounds each and 5 kids @ 75 pounds each you have 725 pounds of people in the tow vehicle. And, while you can distribute other cargo to the trailer it’s illegal to put people back there in most states – so they need to be in the vehicle. In the Expedition or Tahoe that load will reduce the size trailer you can tow by approximately 725 pounds (though often they don’t count the driver) – not a large reduction, so you can tow a trailer close to the max tow rating.

In the reviewed Sequoia, you’re only left with a vehicle payload of 530 pounds (and that’s assuming that you have *no* additional cargo in the tow vehicle) – which means that the largest trailer you can pull is a 5,300 pound trailer, which is less than you can pull with the competition. You can say that the Sequoia can pull a larger trailer if you have only the driver in the tow vehicle, but if that’s what you’re doing than why buy the Sequoia instead of a pickup? The advantage of a vehicle like the Sequoia over a pickup is to haul additional passengers, and Toyota should probably point out that if you actually intend to haul passengers you really can’t tow all that much.

There really aren’t that many people out there who “need” a vehicle like this – and I think it should be pointed out that due to the high curb weight and low payload, even those who might actually “need” something like this can’t actually use it. If you have a large family and want to pull a camping trailer, the Sequoia – particularly the 4×4 version – simply isn’t an option. At least, not if you want to follow Toyota’s own ratings…and people towing large trailers should not be ignoring the factory ratings.

Looking at the ads, Toyota is quite aware of these limitations – I’ve seen quite a few Sequoia ads, and yet you never see one where they’re both hauling people and towing a large trailer at the same time. They haul trailers that look big – like the flatbed trailer with those weird balls on it – but nothing that couldn’t be towed by a minivan. They’re sort of the opposite of the Tundra commercials, where every single truck seemed to have a large trailer on the back.

I’m not trying to be a jerk, it’s just that the only legitimate advantage of a vehicle like this is the ability to haul lots of people *while* pulling a large trailer – so if you use that as the benchmark to compare the large SUVs, the Sequoia falls a bit short. It’s sort of like reviewing a sports car that ends up being slow with poor handling – it fails in exactly the areas where it should excel.

You’re right, if you have a lot of heavy cargo you would have to put it in the trailer.

There is probably plenty of safety margin in these numbers, so I wouldn’t worry about a few pounds on my wife.

To compare: the Sequoia SR5 2WD has 17,000 lbs GCWR, while a Chevy Tahoe has GCWR of only 14,000 lbs.
Clearly, you can tow a lot more with the Sequoia.

The Sequoia’s transmission does not hunt for gears, it actually finds them really, really well, having 6 to choose from. Last time I checked, the Tahoe only had 4 (FOUR, THAT’S FOUR) gears.

Everything else about the Sequoia was positive in the review, so I think a higher star count is deserving. Or, if this got 3, the Ford and Chevy should get around 1 or 1.5.

Lets not be biased from the start, and focus too much weight on objective matters such as how well the exterior is styled.

A Sequoia Platinum 4×4 has a 8800lb max trailer weight, a 7300lb GVWR, and a 6045lb base curb weight, yielding a max cargo capacity of 1255lbs. (http://www.toyotausa.com/sequoia/specs.html)

So with ideal 10% tongue weight of 880 pounds, you’d have 375 pounds left for people and cargo. Americans are fat, so figure a 200lb husband, and a 150lb wife, and a 25lb small dog (or more likely an obese cat), you can fill the remaining 120 cu ft with exactly, well, nothing. Zip.

Awesome tow rig?

Toyota is more honest in publishing towing capacities than GM and Ford. With GM and Ford the listed towing capacity includes passengers and cargo.
Toyota allows cargo, passengers and trailer tongue load up to the GVWR in addition to the rated towing capacity.

For instance, the Sequoia 2WD has a curb weight of 5730 lbs, a GVWR of 7100 lbs and a towing capacity of 10,000 lbs.
This means: you can carry a 10,000 lbs trailer and with 10% tongue weight (1000 lbs) you can carry around 400 lbs of passengers and cargo inside the Sequoia.
All in all, an awesome towing vehicle, I think.

To figure it all out exactly you need the Toyota owner’s manual.

Personally, I tow a 3,000 lbs trailer with a Toyota Sienna minivan when I go on vacation. That took a while to figure out, but it works adequately.

and this bloating is getting ridiculus, it used to be that the landcruiser cab chassis and the landcruiser wagon were just the right size but over the years they have continualy gotten bigger to the point where they have to introduce the hilux adn the prado. when the prado got to big they made the kluger and now that the hilux is to big they will have to make an even smaller pickup truck. now this might just be because im a bit bitter about my fav cars becoming huge fat and thirsty but i blame all you americans for it. if it werent for you i would be able to sell my 01 hilux for a new one but because its so damn fat i wouldnt be able to use it for fear ogf gettig bogged.

the only thing i can look forward to is an oil crisis or those bloody environmentalists finally getting to you americans that way all the vehilcles will shrink again and i will once again be able to buy a new car

I think the “green bashing” going on here is misplaced. Toyota is one of the greenest car makers, even while they make these huge SUVs. The profits made on these things help them to make cars like the prius. They do offer a choice.

It does seem Toyota is cheapening their products with dodgy plastics and average fit/finish. (Or maybe the competition has caught up while Toyota stood still?)

As I write gas is $110 a barrel, it will probably fall back from this, however oil is a finite resource and the mighty $ will likely become less mighty as global competitors get more aggressive. So you know where I am going with this? Five years from now the price of gas will change the way we travel, probably to a greater degree than we muse about.

So where is the sense in buying this gas guzzler? I am sure when Toyota first put this on the drawing board gas was around $2 per gallon and it was an annoyance, not a consideration. Now, Toyota launch it at a time where folks are looking more seriously at what the future beholds and being a bit more careful about buying bling. And this car is pure bling, unless you have a boat (more bling, anyone seen the boat resale market recently, it sucks). Not that it matters, you can always sell it when gas prices get ridiculous, right? Well yes, and how much do you think this thirsty monsters resale value will tank? In my town SUV’s are the step children of the used car lots.

So, whether the plastic is cheap, or the engine is great (which I am sure it is), the logic in buying this vehicle is somewhere on par with spending $5,500 on a girl in the Mayflower Hotel.

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080311/NEWS01/80311021

We’ve hit 4/gal for diesel and I don’t live in California or Hawaii! There has to be a reality gut check with the automakers that his super-sized SUV model market has to be in severe decline. Let’s face it – many people who got wealthy didn’t waste money and while I come from a family that can afford a lot of things in life, you wouldn’t know it by the cars in the garage because they all refuse to literally burn their money away.
Toyota and Lexus appeal to this kind of buyer – most of their models are above average in reliability (note…most), up to a couple of years ago their styling was the middle of the road – a design that will look good for 10 years plus, and decent resale value. Now these same family members who are car shopping have crossed Toyota and Lexus off of their list and they are looking at the Infiniti dealer. Why? Styling for one. Engineering and features are a close second. These are not “car people” but without being asked, they flat out told me that what Toyota offers now just doesn’t appeal to them. They’ve asked why each new Toyota has to be supersized and burn more fuel than the model before. They read Consumer Reports and saw the decline in quality.
What I am driving at is that if the middle of the road America is starting to notice the cracks in the armor, they really are in trouble. People are willing to trade bland with reliable. Toyota needs to re-evaluate their model lineup and get rid of the overlap (explain the RAV4/Highlander to me again?) If they want to sell big trucks and SUVs, give us a diesel or hybrid choice. Dump a couple of hundred pounds of bloat from some of their models and give us the couple of extra MPGs as a result.
One closing throught – when Ford and GM were just crazy on huge SUV size, there were plans on the drawing board for a six-door mammoth SUV. I belive the first gas price shock in the early 2000’s shelved those plans, but it goes to show how insane this arms race can get. At this rate, the next Land Cruiser and Sequoia will need a CDL to drive legally and owners will be looking at the weight restrictions on bridges a little closer!
There’s a (paraphrased) line from Dennis Miller about having a lack of choice and it can apply to choices in cars. It asks why Eskimo people enjoy eating whale blubber…well, it’s the only thing on the buffet! It seems like car choices are going down that path.

I missed HP quote, lets call it 350 HP.

Lets hope it has 3x brakes- say 1,050 HP worth of brakes, tailgating me around Boston with solitary driver and TV and phone and coffee pot on and high beams on in my mirror and one of two driving lights on, off center, with nary a house trailer in tow.

Well at least let them be one shot 3x brakes.

I understand the point you’re trying to make but it falls a little flat.

You’re suggesting that Toyota (which is quite capable of making very efficient vehicles) ignore an entire market segment just to prove their green virtues and leave that segment for the domestics to exploit all on their own. Toyota has proven quite convincingly that they’re able to produce and sell these monsters expressly for the US market. They’d be foolish not to when GM and Ford are making so much off their respective large SUV and trucks. Toyota’s proven they can build a vehicle just as big and heavy if no more so than the domestics and consume just as much fuel as well. I’m certainly not in the market for anything this large and wasteful but I applaud Toyota’s enthusiasm for making that pig.

Then again, since I’m probably inclined to buy something smaller and more efficient I can still go to the Toyota dealer and they can accommodate my needs much better than any GM dealer could. It’s not pleasant, but it’s true.

@quasimondo

I know and it’s depressing to see what’s become of them. My dad always bought Chevy’s when I was growing up and I believed they were great. I remember as a kid sliding around the backseat (back in the days of no mandatory safety restraints) of my mom’s ‘67 Camaro RS and how cool that car was. It just seems like the guys at the top are having a blast raping what’s left of a once great company and it’s sad to see.

Toyota could easily go into “cruise control” mode and screw up bigtime. I wish they’d return to their roots and forget the “Americanized” models so they could revamp their lineup with class leading efficient vehicles and amusing rides like the old Celica.

I’m not a huge fan of their “built for American tastes” models, but they’re selling well and people generally *trust* Toyota more than the domestics. They’re certainly guaranteed a better resale value. It’s sad that it’s gotten to this point, but here we are.

GM wasn’t always a perpetual money losing operation. They were raking in billions in the 90’s. And people generally *trusted* them too, but they rested on their laurels and pissed it all away.

Now we look at the latest products which don’t seem like much of an improvement over their previous products and gee, that looks like a page taken directly from the GM playbook. Meanwhile Hondas are still known for their bulletproof reliability, Hyundais are looking like a better value every day, and slowly you begin to realize that minus the brand mismanagement and blatant arrogance of the corporate leadership, they’re looking a lot like GM when they were the toast of the town.

Telling a family of 5 that they do not deserve to drive a 5000lb+ vehicle is like telling the single commuter in a sub-compact that they NEED to be riding a motorcycle or Moped to work rather than drive a “extra” resource consuming car.

In all honesty three normal sized people do NOT fit comfortably in the back seat of an mid-sized car. To totally discount SUVs is to say that only wealthy people have the right to burn extra gas for comfort.

Does the Sequoia make any sense? Truthly yes. Once we take into account how folk actually use these things. Will the average owner of a Sequoia max out the load and towing capacity of this monster? No. Even those that will make proper use of this thing will be more than satified by its abilities. Personally I would never attempt to carry a max load or tow the maximum weight trailer with any 1/2 ton vehicle, the same way I would never attach a trailer to any uniboby FWD vehicle no matter what the tow rating is.

Like I mentioned before anyone who will routinely carry or tow weights in excess of 1000lbs should buy a REAL work truck, not one of these suburban toys.