By on March 10, 2008

08_sequoia_platinum_01.jpgProfessor W. Edwards Deming taught post-War Japan statistical process control. Toyota management applied Deming's lessons with characteristic discipline, refining the Yale grad's famous "14 points" to create their lean manufacturing system. Through it all, ToMoCo had one over-riding goal: to mimic and surpass the world's greatest automakers. Driving the new Toyota Sequoia back-to-back against its archetypal competition– the Chevy Tahoe and Ford Expedition– proves the old adage: be careful what you wish for.

Toyota's "homage" to the great American SUV is obvious at first glance. The new Sequoia looks like the offspring of an illicit tryst between the manly Ford Expedition King Ranch and sweet little miss White Diamond Tahoe LTZ. Baby Sequoia has her father's horizontal chrome grille and her mother's facial structure. It's a pastiche without panache, a me-too shape that displays the same lack of originality that's helped propel other Toyota models to stellar sales success.

08_sequoia_platinum_09.jpgOther than the slight "flame surfacing" on the Sequoia's sides (cribbed from BMW), the nose provides the model's only ToMoCo branding. (Again.) While the snout's a straight cop from the Sequoia's sister-under-the-skin (the Tundra), the designers were smart enough to ditch the faux vent that crosses the top of Tundra's grille like a thin John Waters mustache. The Sequoia's front and rear-end are also more squared-off than the pickup, and the beltline is higher.

As befits the SUV version of Toyota's super-sized pickup, the Sequoia's almost an inch wider, over an inch longer and 700 pounds heavier than its previous iteration. And yet the Sequoia is now only par for the course in the big-boned American SUV genre. In fact, the Sequoia is shorter in length than the King Ranch Expedition and shorter in stature that both the Ford and the Chevy. Even so, in Arctic Frost Pearl paint, the Sequoia's doors and side quarter panels appear positively glacial in their vastness.  

08_sequoia_platinum_18.jpgThe Sequoia Platinum is a new trim line above the standard SR5 and former top dog Limited. It's more than just a purdy paint job and blingy wheels. The Platinum coddles its passengers– both front and middle– in infinitely adjustable heated and cooled leather seats. The standard navigation system with thank-God backup camera is the centerpiece of an all-too-busy dashboard awash in clunky brittle plastics. Low-rent vinyl posing as leather covers the doors. Clearly, unavoidably, the Sequoia's cabin is not Toyota's best work.

No matter what guise you prize, the Sequoia's basic packaging fails to outclass the Chevy and Ford– except for third row passengers. Although the Ford's way backs' headroom and legroom are superior, the key metrics here are shoulder room and thigh support, which the Toyota supplies in ample amounts. Raise the retractable shades, fold down the [Platinum's] nine-inch DVD screen, pass out the wireless headphones and Mom and Dad will be blissfully (if only temporarily and only in their imagination) childless.      

08_sequoia_platinum_22.jpgWhile it would be easy to conclude that this is the big rig's raison d'etre, any such misapprehension will be rectified the moment you fire-up Toyota's 381hp 5.7-liter phenom. The V8 growls to life like an irritated grizzly bear awakening from hibernation. Poke the well-placed pedal and the engine gives you a heavy metal power chord that beats anything produced by the [optional] 14-speaker 440-watt JBL stereo system. And the engine ain't just whistling Dixie; the Sequoia's 10k-pound tow rating makes it the boat-schlepper's top pick.

The powerplant motivates the 6045lbs leviathan with ridiculous ease. Provided you've got a platinum credit card to pay the man at the gas station (13/18 mpg), you can blast this big boy from zero to sixty in 6.2 seconds. Even though the Sequoia's class-leading brakes and fixed four-piston front calipers can haul her down from 60mph in 139ft., that's… nuts. Which is OK, ‘cause driving this porker is about as fun as tending a fussy baby.

08_sequoia_platinum_25.jpgMembers of the Platinum club get to chose whether they want the Electronic Modulated Suspension (H-TEMS) set for sport or comfort. Unfortunately, dialing up Sport isn't sporting and Comfort isn't comfy.  Despite a fully boxed frame, low-pressure gas-filled shock absorbers and hollow stabilizer bars, the ride is too jittery for wafting and wafts too much for romping.

The six-speed transmission is another kill-joy; it hunts for gears like cat hunting a room full of mice. Yes, you can take manual control of the tranny, but who does? Meanwhile, jostling in a perch high above highway pavement while the neurotic tranny busily searches for acceptance, drivers are charged with the chore of manning an extremely sloppy tiller. No fun.

08_sequoia_platinum_02.jpgSo here we are. The Sequoia is a bland-looking, gargantuan, comfortable SUV with a five-star engine, a two-star interior and lousy handling dynamics. In Toyota's quest to become like Ford and GM, they've become just like Ford and GM. Yes, but… consider Toyota's Demming-sourced rep for reliability. The ToMoCo juggernaut rolls on.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

85 Comments on “2008 Toyota Sequoia [Platinum] Review...”


  • avatar
    shaker

    So, once well-to-do Mormons and Catholics get their Sequoias, when will ToyMoCo make me (a single agnostic tree-hugger) a fuel-efficient two-door sport hatch?

  • avatar
    SherbornSean

    Good review. But how does the Sequioa compare to the Mitsubishi Outlander, which also can have 3 rows of seating?

  • avatar
    Mud

    6045 Lbs?!?

    Good Lord.

  • avatar
    gsp

    We have a 2002 Tundra at work. The inside is cheap and the plastic breaks all the time. The seats are falling apart already. However the engine – true to Toyota’s rep – has never flinched. I expect that we will not buy another truck for at least another ten years. By then the inside will make dollar store toys look high quality. If I was Toyota I would do the same thing. They are in this to make money.

  • avatar
    frontline

    I think Toyota missed the niche without offering a longer version like the Suburban / Denali XL .

    The performance of that leviathon is nothing short of amazing but I am surprised about chassis stiffness. I have those complaints with my 07 Denali. I guess it is hard to keep those monsters stiff without adding too much weight to the chassis.

  • avatar

    I tested a Tundra CrewMax Limited for a week last month, and I agree with everything you said both about the engine (absolutely incredible, if too thirsty) and the fit-and-finish being only average. But that engine – I couldn’t restrain myself to keep my right foot out of it. Whenever there was an opening in traffic or an on-ramp to attack (only straight ones, of course), I did, to the tune of just over 12 mpg.

    This was a nice, fair review. It’s weird to see Toyota advertising these things as family haulers, since they’re so un-PC nowadays.

  • avatar

    Examining one of these closely at NAIAS, I was amazed at the cheapness of the plastics used for the front and rear center consoles. Very old school American, even the Americans generally do better these days. (Well, except for Chrysler.) On the other hand, those consoles are huge and contain multiple levels.

    Will this tendency to quantity over quality impact reliability? Anyone who frequents TTAC knows that I’ve been developing some research to find out. Details here:

    [url=http://www.truedelta.com/reliability.php]Vehicle reliability research[/url]

  • avatar
    BEAT

    Hey!!! Gas just went up again today!!!

    It’s about $3.29 for a regular and is that an SUV?

  • avatar
    Juniper

    When do we get the “Grand Avalon”?

  • avatar
    BostonTeaParty

    Maybe there is a lesson to be learnt from this vehicle, you can see why Toyota makes so much money. There are so many carryover parts from the tundra on this vehicle. Grill, headlights, i’m sure at least the front doors are the same, the interior has the same Dashboard with the same horrible cheap feel plastic, do you really want to drive an overweight suv thats really a polished up pickup truck?

  • avatar
    mel23

    “I think Toyota missed the niche without offering a longer version like the Suburban / Denali XL .”

    I certainly expected them to do what you mention and still expect them to do it at some point. GM sold over 246k of the Yukon/Tahoe/Escalade size in ’07 and over 145k of their bigger brothers Suburban/Yukon XL/Escalade ESV. It seems that Toyota is leaving a lot of money on the table here. Of course the volumes are trending down while gas prices do the opposite and a sharp rise in gas or hit to its supply could reduce the market of the larger models.

  • avatar
    GS650G

    This thing weighs more than my F-150 loaded with two guys in it. Green company? Sure, I believe that.

  • avatar
    Buick61

    SherbornSean :

    Good review. But how does the Sequioa compare to the Mitsubishi Outlander, which also can have 3 rows of seating?

    Brilliant!

    The RAV4 uproar lives on

  • avatar
    drifter

    6045 Lbs?!?
    you can blast this big boy from zero to sixty in 6.2 seconds

    That makes it is faster than a 2450lbs Miata

  • avatar
    86er

    In Toyota’s quest to become like Ford and GM, they’ve become just like Ford and GM. Yes, but… consider Toyota’s Demming-sourced rep for reliability. The ToMoCo juggernaut rolls on.

    Juggernaut or not, what makes this version a marked-enough improvement over the outgoing model to warrant conquest sales from the market leaders, which do not have any glaring reliability problems that ToMoCo can exploit?

  • avatar
    Megan Benoit

    So, once well-to-do Mormons and Catholics get their Sequoias, when will ToyMoCo make me (a single agnostic tree-hugger) a fuel-efficient two-door sport hatch?

    They do, they’re called the Yaris S (if you want fuel economy more than sporty) and the Scion tC (if you want sporty more than fuel economy). And they are supposed to be bringing the Celica back one of these years… you can always get a used one. “Fuel-efficient” and “sport” don’t really go hand-in-hand, though… you’re going to get one or the other, but not both.

    And Catholics and Mormons buy Suburbans, not Sequoias… the latter seems more geared towards Protestants and Evangelicals, at least, going from what I’ve seen in church parking lots. At least they usually has enough kids to fill one of these monsters. If you figure two adults and 3-4 kids per, these things are getting better usage for their gas mileage than a Yaris being driven by one guy to and from work every day. How’s that for tree hugging?

  • avatar
    NickR

    Hi-ho, hi-ho, it’s off to bloat we go!

  • avatar
    86er

    Catholics are prolific breeders? What year is this?

  • avatar
    bfg9k

    Is anyone else scared shitless by the thought of 6045 lbs doing 0-60 in 6.2 sec in traffic?

  • avatar

    The new Landcruiser literally stopped me in my tracks to look at it on the Toyota dealer’s front row. Parked right behind it was one of these big Sequoias with low profile tires on blingy chrome wheels.

    To me the Sequoia just looked like an ugly pig. The Landcruiser is such a superior machine it isn’t funny.

    Now if I just had a spare $70K.

  • avatar

    BostonTeaParty:
    Actually, the grille isn’t carryover. It’s hard to see the difference, but the Tundra has a black plastic insert across the top that’s supposed to look like a vent, but serves no functional purpose.

  • avatar
    LOPZ

    Now if I just had a spare $70K.

    Well I don’t know of many people that would buy a $70k vehicle with spare cash….

  • avatar
    Mrb00st

    “6045 Lbs?!?
    you can blast this big boy from zero to sixty in 6.2 seconds

    That makes it is faster than a 2450lbs Miata”

    which would you rather drive?

  • avatar
    BEAT

    70K plus $5,000 or More for the yearly fuel budget for this Guzzler.

    Wow!!! people wake up we don’t live in the 90′s anymore the gas is no longer $1.50 a gallon. it is $3.29 for a regular and this coming summer it’s going to be more on the gas pump.

    Who cares if it’s the best truck in the world as the matter of fact it’s just another Truck.

    Be Practical there are millions of people dying in Africa and all we care about is to spend 70k for a destroyer of our planet, that 70k can buy 2 BMW that are more fuel efficient.

  • avatar
    Bancho

    @BostonTeaParty

    “…do you really want to drive an overweight suv thats really a polished up pickup truck?”

    I believe the American public has already answered this with an unabashed “yes”. I’m certainly no fan of this beast (nor am I a huge fan of the domestics using this exact same formula) but it’ll sell and probably pretty well.

  • avatar
    SunnyvaleCA

    Now if I just had a spare $70K.

    Well I don’t know of many people that would buy a $70k vehicle with spare cash….

    I believe that the higher you go up the food chain the more common it is to buy with cash. (Well, a check or money transfer, anyway.)

  • avatar
    Bancho

    @SunnyvaleCA

    I believe a lot of people were taking that cash from their home’s equity to buy these things. When you go higher up the food chain people’s saving habits don’t necessarily improve dramatically.

  • avatar
    Qusus

    In America, there is an inverse relationship between savings and income. That is, the higher you go up the income scale, the more those people will save of that income %wise.

    So I’d second SunnyvaleCA’s comment that people who buy this monstrosity are more likely to do so with cash (or a very very low interest rate financing). Just a guess.

  • avatar
    blowfish

    The six-speed transmission is another kill-joy; it hunts for gears like cat hunting a room full of mice. Yes, you can take manual control of the tranny, but who does? Meanwhile, jostling in a perch high above highway pavement while the neurotic tranny busily searches for acceptance,

    Ya wonder if they spend all these design time & money to invent something to keep shifting all the time and to tell u that the trans is infact working.
    Over shifting is a pain by itself, and cant be good for the longevity for the tranny.
    After your 3 yrs lease is time for a new tranny rebuilt anyways.

    SHould u have a good ratio worked out why bother to keep chaning it? These engine are not old diesels that have a very narrow range of RPM.
    OT so how does the 7 spd Merc’s does it?

  • avatar
    TriShield

    It makes the bland, refridgerator box Tahoe look handsome, and the wide-eyed Yukon not so bad in comparsion.

  • avatar
    86er

    It makes the bland, refridgerator box Tahoe look handsome, and the wide-eyed Yukon not so bad in comparsion.

    If the Tahoe is box-like to you what do you think of the Expy?

    This Sequoia looks very QX56 to me.

  • avatar
    RoweAS

    Who in their right mind would buy any of those vehicles?

  • avatar
    RoweAS

    Oops, silly me, this is the USA LOL

  • avatar
    RoweAS

    By the way, I am new to this site, but I love it. I spent hours over the last few days reading different things, and I am really impressed by the overall intelligence and honesty of the comments, editorials and reviews.

  • avatar
    William C Montgomery

    RoweAS:

    Welcome.

  • avatar
    Johnson

    BostonTeaParty:
    Maybe there is a lesson to be learnt from this vehicle, you can see why Toyota makes so much money. There are so many carryover parts from the tundra on this vehicle. Grill, headlights, i’m sure at least the front doors are the same, the interior has the same Dashboard with the same horrible cheap feel plastic, do you really want to drive an overweight suv thats really a polished up pickup truck?

    Check your facts; it’s more like a redesigned pickup truck. The Sequoia has a fully-boxed frame end-to-end, the Tundra does not. The Sequoia has independent rear suspension, the Tundra does not.

    Also William C Montgomery, in your rating summary you got the fuel economy wrong: it’s 13/18 not 13/15. That also means you tested the 4WD Platinum, not the 2WD Platinum. The 2WD gets 14/19 EPA mpg.

    Yes the interior quality may be average, but it offers overall better packaging than either a Tahoe or Expedition. It also offers a better engine than either of them offer, not to mention the class-leading third row (that can recline by the way). Can a Tahoe’s 3rd row recline? Didn’t think so. There’s also the class-leading towing ability and the incredible performance the 5.7L offers.

  • avatar
    talldude07

    Yeah I was next to one of these the other day and I had to look twice to look at the Toyota logo this monster is overweight and too wide. I think they should take GM’s two-mode (masterpiece) hybrid drive train and shove it in this and give it a Lexus badge. Just think of the marketing possibilities. It could run on E85 and have the hybrid-lexus-greencar image. Image all the soccer moms going 75 in that monster. On a serious note I wish Toyota would stop trying to be GM and Ford and do what they do best, reliable appliances that people happen to drive.

  • avatar
    HEATHROI

    I only wish Toyota would drop that drive train into a Camry.

  • avatar
    sfl2113

    I have sat in one of these monsters, and I have also sat in the new Land Cruiser. The new Land Cruiser has no place in the Toyota showroom. It should only be sold as the Lexus LX 570, the price is just about there, and it only serves to make the new Sequoia look bad. What is with the new Tundra/Sequoia interior? I am 6’3″ and I could not reach the radio buttons on the right side of the console without bending over. How can the target market for these beasts – 5’2″ mothers with one child and a cell phone – function in this vehicle? Toyota needs to concentrate on what they do best instead of screwing around in the dying American 3-ton SUV market.

  • avatar
    86er

    I only wish Toyota would drop that drive train into a Camry.

    They’d have to bring back the Cressida, which will never happen.

  • avatar
    William C Montgomery

    Johnson, the MPG should read 13/15/18, 15mpg being the combined mileage rating. Thanks for pointing this out. The fix to the rating summary will be up shortly.

  • avatar
    quasimondo

    Toyota: The New GM.

  • avatar
    jkross22

    I wonder what mileage this thing really gets… not what they put on the sticker, but what real world driving yields.

  • avatar
    Rix

    For 60k, I would want to see a better interior. For gods sake, a $40k audi has ten times better interior. Sure this is larger, but with $20k or so extra to play with you should get something just as nice. Platinum? Not really.

  • avatar
    theflyersfan

    700 pound weight gain? Does it include a free family of five? Did they stuff rocks and lead into open spaces?
    Does this thing come with the “Jack Ryan Protection Package?” That’s the only way ANY vehicle should gain that much weight – you know, plexiglass windows, explosion-proof underside, run-flat tires, and a driver who’s been through the sh**…er…stuff. If I’m in a 3 ton Sequoia, when I hear the word “INCOMING,” I don’t want to worry about anything. Otherwise, lighten the piece of junk up and get with the times. Toyota’s bloat is making Land Rover look Mini-esque.
    Also, the group of designers that actually thought a cheap dashboard in white and black should never design another car part again. It’s worse in person and would be a deal killer given how tacky it is. 2008 Toyota is turning into the clone of the late 1980′s GM when it was obvious that while they sold cars, they just lost sight of what the market really wants.
    There is not one vehicle in the Toyota lineup that I would ever consider owning. This constant bloat and styling “WTFs” have turned me off to the brand for the past few years and now that the Bible of Consumer Reports has spoken, Toyota has been bruised.
    I’m also ten seconds away from organizing some kind of anti-Toyota movement that states the Truth About Toyota. Whenever a Toyota ad about how green they think they are, the facts are plastered on top of it – I think pictures, real world economy, and sales figures of the Land Cruiser, Sequoia, 4Runner, Tundra, Tacoma, FJ Cruiser, and most of the Lexus line would start to educate many on how fake Toyota really is.

  • avatar
    shaker

    Yes, the Prius gets about 1 MPG city, 2 MPG highway — when it has to haul the rest of Toyota’s lineup around. It’s rather ironic that GM has actually handed Toyota their hat with the 2-mode Tahoe; it’s time for the General to strike another blow with a real Malibu Hybrid to compete with that fat-ass ugly Camry Hybrid.

    Oops, guess not.

    Toyota has an ace up their sleeve: they could offer the 2.4 Hybrid drivetrain in EVERY VEHICLE that uses the (otherwise thirsty) 2.4; imagine an xB with 50% better mileage, or a Corolla with superb acceleration, and even better mileage than now.

    All GM has are Volt dreams and a “bolt-on” hybrid system that I could have made (in principle) in my garage.

  • avatar
    danms6

    theflyersfan:

    Amen, don’t forget to throw the Highlander in there as well. This vehicle is truly pointless. To your average Toyota consumer, what’s the difference between the Sequoia, Land Cruiser and 4Runner? An extra 1.528049 cubic feet of interior space and 500 lbs of tow rating? Ooh, the third row seats recline. Let’s pop out 3 more kids just so we can actually use them. How many times are adults really going to be squeezing in the back of the car? Instead of throwing $60k at this Costco Cruiser, why not take two cars? I’m all for freedom of choice but use some common sense people. Toyota doesn’t make a single vehicle that interests me and they never will if they continue focusing their efforts on crap like this.

  • avatar
    zenith

    Compared to the 2nd and 3 row seats of my old ’84 Voyager, those Toyota seats look nastily thinly padded, and 3rd seat leg room doesn’t look much better than that of the 2′ shorter, 3kilopounds lighter vehicle, either.

    If I had $60K, I’d buy an ’84 Voyager for $1K, put $5K into repairs, have twice as good a vehicle as this piece of crap AND 54 grand in the bank!

    Toyota ain’t staying #1 very long building crap like this!

  • avatar
    drifter

    quasimondo :
    Toyota: The New GM.
    Unlike GM, Toyota gives you the choice of buying 15mpg and 45mpg passenger car.
    How many GM vehicles deliver over 40mpg?

  • avatar
    whatdoiknow1

    WTF, Toyota Fake????

    I dont get it! Toyota is JUST a car company like every other car company out there toady. LIKE GM and Ford they do produce and sell a FULL line of vehicles in every market in the world. Toyota also makes and sells a line of full sized commerical vehicles also called Hino.

    Is Toyota a “green” company? No. Is Toyota greener than other automakers? Yes.

    Lets be honest and fair here and admit that Toyota produces “American” cars and SUV/ Light Trucks specifically for American tastes and for the US/ NA market. Do I like the “new” Toyotas? NO! But I do understand that Toyota is producing exactly what the American market wants and has overwhelming always wanted; Large powerful vehicles that trade-off high quality for sized and rich feature content. The fact of the matter is that one can still find Toyota for sale in other markets that still have that traditional high quality Toyota look and feel to them.

    With that said it is fair to claim that Toyota is becoming GM (in the USA), but that is what Toyota NA has always wanted. Remember this is the “Walmart Society” in which Americans continuously expect more for less.

    I believe many other people and former Toyota customers feel the same way as I do. “IF I wanted a car that looked, felt, and drove like a Chevy, I would buy a Chevy and save some significant coin in the process.” I also get the impression that Toyota is actually reading the writing on the wall and making changes, witness the retirement of most of the Toyota NA top execs.

    Yes, Toyota has done some damage to its image in the USA by bringing to market some recent vehicles that do not feel very Toyotaish. Lets see if they get back to the basics of what a real Toyota is.

  • avatar
    quasimondo

    Unlike GM, Toyota gives you the choice of buying 15mpg and 45mpg passenger car.
    How many GM vehicles deliver over 40mpg?

    Admittedly, none.

    BTW, how many of those other hybrids that Toyota sells can even approach 45mpg?

    Their hybrid lineup is like having Michael Jordan play for the Washington Generals.

    Fuel thirsty vehicles, cheap plasticky interior, dull handling, selling today’s cars based on yesterday’s reputation…the distinctions between GM and Toyota are fading.

    You’d have to have Lutz-like vision to not see where Toyota is heading if they don’t tacklethese issues.

  • avatar
    Shannon

    @ Johnson
    Yes the interior quality may be average, but it offers overall better packaging than either a Tahoe or Expedition. It also offers a better engine than either of them offer, not to mention the class-leading third row (that can recline by the way). Can a Tahoe’s 3rd row recline? Didn’t think so. There’s also the class-leading towing ability and the incredible performance the 5.7L offers.

    You mention the Tahoe, but isn’t the Yukon Denali the direct competitor to the Sequoia Platinum reviewed here? The Denali’s 6.2L makes the same horsepower, and 15 lb-ft more torque, so it would seem to diffuse your claim. The Denali weighs 400lbs less (yes, four hundred pounds less) than the Sequoia. The Denali uses a 3.42 axle ratio where the Sequoia uses 4.30 to leverage the extra mass. Both have the same 18 mpg freeway rating. A similarly equipped Denali is a couple thousand LESS than the Sequoia reviewed here, over $4000 less with rebates. And if space is your thing, there’s always the XL version of the Denali (third seat > Sequoia). If you want a little more feature content and bling, you can step up to the 401hp Escalade for not much more than the Toyota.

    Am I the only one that thinks it’s funny that the Sequoia Platinum has a 6100 lb curb weight and a 7300 lb gross vehicle weight rating? That’s only 1200 lbs until you are MAXED. Try towing your 5000 lb boat (10% tongue weight = 500lb) and taking four adult men (4×200 = 800) and some fishing gear (200lbs) and you would be 300lbs (yes three hundred pounds) overloaded. And you didn’t even use the neat reclining third seat.

    You could, however, do it comfortably (and safely) in a Yukon Denali XL.

  • avatar
    Bancho

    When Toyota manages to lose 39 billion dollars the people here with the torches and pitchforks can be taken seriously. Until then just kick back and watch a company you hate sell more vehicles *at a profit* than GM for the foreseeable future.

    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.

  • avatar
    Zarba

    I parked next to one of these at my son’s school. They have very wierd proportions in front. The hood is very short, and it has a high hood line, if that makes any sense. The hood was about a foot higher than the roof of my Acura TL. There must be about 8 inches of empty space between the engine and the hood.

    It must have a .cd of about 1. And at 3 tons, I’d hate to be paying for the gas. What a hog.

    And don’t forget that it has SEQUOIA in 4 or 5 inch high letters across the ass of this monster.

  • avatar
    Bancho

    “And don’t forget that it has SEQUOIA in 4 or 5 inch high letters across the ass of this monster.”

    That’s where the extra weight comes from.

  • avatar
    LK

    Shannon: Yeah, Toyota’s being a bit deceptive with the tow ratings on the Sequoia (and the Tundra, which has the same issue). In most real-world situations the Tahoe and Expedition actually tow *more* than the Sequoia – because they have 400-700 pounds more payload, at least on the 4×4 versions.

    If you actually filled up all the Sequoia’s seats with average-sized adults, you couldn’t even tow one of those tiny little pop-up campers. Heck, even the Sienna minivan is rated to haul 200-300 pounds more payload!

  • avatar
    KixStart

    Yeah, the thing’s a moose, a champion gas guzzler and a pointless waste of resources!

    Can I still buy a fuel-efficient Prius, Yaris, Corolla or Camry hybrid from Toyota? Yes? Then what do I care about the Sequoia?

    If somebody’s buyin’ a giant, gas-suckin’ SUV, it really doesn’t make much difference to me who builds it for them. I’d like to see the market for these things, generally, die out, but that’s not happening today.

    Toyota has announced a diesel for the Tundra and Sequoia. This info is somewhere on the Toyota web site blog. No date given. Unlike the GM two-mode system, it probably won’t cost $10K+ to get that option. I think we can forecast fuel economy for the Tundra/Sequoia diesel to be comparable to a similar GM two-mode.

  • avatar
    whatdoiknow1

    Tahoe
    Expedition
    Tundra
    Armada

    Try fully loading any of these SUVs and then attaching a loaded trailer, good luck!
    As to the payload, umm they are called 1/2 ton vehicles for a reason.

    If you need more both GM and Ford have super duty vehicles to sell you.

  • avatar
    Shannon

    @whatdoiknow1

    Try fully loading any of these SUVs and then attaching a loaded trailer, good luck!

    Payload = GVWR – curb weight

    Since the Sequoia is heavier, it can carry less.

    The Nissan Armada, as another example, weighs 500 pounds less, so it can carry 300 pounds more. And it tows 9000 pounds, only 100 pounds less than the Sequoia. So, if you have more cargo than trailer, you’re better off in an Armada.

    Yet another example: standard payload in an Expedition is 650 pounds greater than a Sequoia, and it will tow 9030 pounds, only 70 pounds less than Sequoia.

    Even the smaller Nissan Pathfinder will carry over 200 pounds more than the Sequoia.

    Toyota’s own 4Runner can carry 250 pounds more.

    In fact, I couldn’t find a third-row-equipped traditional truck-based SUV with a LOWER carrying capacity than the, ironically larger-than-life Sequoia.

    It’s too heavy for its own good.

  • avatar
    theflyersfan

    I understand fully that Toyota has every single right to sell a full range of vehicles that people can buy. However, and this is like every damaging product to either our person or to those around us like fattening food, cigarettes, alcohol, and weapons, just because they can advertise and sell it, should they? There are too many Toyota SUVs and “crossovers” already and it is just revolting when they wrap themselves in the “green” halo when in reality they sell far more sub-20mpg vehicles.
    I personally wish/think that Toyota could use their huge cash flow and resources and reinvent themselves as a green automaker. They can sell the same efficient vehicles they sell in Japan, Australia, and Europe and ship them here. They can dump the Sequoia, Highlander and all other SUV junk they’ve added over the years…OK…keep a diesel Land Cruiser since that would be like Ford ditching the Mustang and develop new hybrid and alt-fuel vehicles and engines. Acutally I thought Honda was going to play this card until the new Accord came out. Toyota can offer hybrid and diesel technology in new vehicles, advertise the living **** out of them and say that we really do care about the environment and how much very expensive gas you use. That publicity alone would force others to do the same and I don’t see any losers except for those that don’t follow along.
    While I was sitting in a traffic jam (accident at a red light) – I watched the BP station at the corner raise their regular unleaded prices from $3.29/gal to $3.50/gal. When are the automakers going to give us the vehicles that reflect the times?

  • avatar
    whatdoiknow1

    I also hate this SUV craze but whenever I do come across the family with 3 teenage children I do understand why these things are so popular.

    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.

  • avatar
    Wheely

    Or, said families with 3 teenage children could do the smart thing and buy a minivan.

  • avatar
    quasimondo

    Bancho:
    When Toyota manages to lose 39 billion dollars the people here with the torches and pitchforks can be taken seriously. Until then just kick back and watch a company you hate sell more vehicles *at a profit* than GM for the foreseeable future.

    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.

  • avatar
    Bancho

    @theflyersfan

    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.

  • avatar
    johnny ro

    I’ll take the Miata thanks. Really, I am scouring Craigslist for NB.

    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.

  • avatar
    theflyersfan

    Bancho –
    After re-reading my previous post, I realized I left out another point to make. We all know that Ford got big and fat in the 1990′s selling under-engineered body-on-frame SUVs with ancient engines, crude suspensions, tire problems and huge profits. We also all know the sad fate of the Taurus, Thunderbird, and other cars left in the dust for easy profits. Now fast forward to now and I can’t be the only one that sees a bit of Toyota in the above. Even the most ad-driven magazine or newspaper auto critic has stated the decline in interior quality and odd styling of most new Toyota models. Toyota seems to be different in the fact they aren’t leaving their car lineup in the dust, but they seem to be half-a**ing it. If they want a vehicle like this to exist, at least make it a more responsible SUV. It’s so easy to make an underengineered and piece-meal SUV (just ask Ford) – it actually takes skill and talent to make the best SUV and the Sequoia is nowhere close to that.
    It made the front page of my local paper on how overnight and into the day that gas prices just launched up 40 cents in all areas.

    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.

  • avatar

    This is my first post, it’s a great site and I am impressed by the knowledge and intelligence of the posters. I may never be as good. So on to my first post.

    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.

  • avatar
    Dynamic88

    It’s neither suprising nor disturbing that Toyota makes this huge SUV. There is a market for these things, albeit a declining one.

    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?)

  • avatar
    grinchsmate

    i thought i understood this car untill i read that it came with 4WD. why this car is made to carry 5 adults with lots of space and thats what it should do. if for any reason you should ant to drive off road you buy a landcruiser ofany type.

    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

  • avatar
    Carzzi

    Platinum club? To afford the prodigious fossil consumption, one needs to be a member of the Emperors’ Club VIP!

  • avatar
    EJ_San_Fran

    Regarding towing capacity:

    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.

  • avatar
    Shannon

    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.

    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?

  • avatar
    LamborghiniZ

    The Sequoia’s interior is miles ahead of the Ford’s and Chevy’s. The Ford’s is full of even cheaper looking plastics, and is busy and containing a dozen different mediums (“wood”, shiny plastic, dull plastic, black plastic, supposed metal, etc). The Chevy’s is classic GM cloned interior TRASH.

    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.

  • avatar
    EJ_San_Fran

    Shannon:

    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.

  • avatar
    LK

    EJ_San_Fran: I still stand by my original comment that Toyota’s towing numbers are a bit misleading, if not actually dishonest. Anybody who tows should realize the relationship between GCWR, tow vehicle weight, and allowable trailer weight – or at least they should – so there’s nothing dishonest about the way the ‘other’ brands are rating their vehicles. That’s the way it has always been done, and folks who tow should be familiar with it.

    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.

  • avatar
    EJ_San_Fran

    LK,

    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.

  • avatar
    westhighgoalie

    yes. Ok. I don’t. But millions of other americans do. me? give me a previous generation size tundra. with the new 5.7 shoe-horned in under the hood. and the 6 speed transmission and i bet it will get 19 mpg highway just because of all the weight saved by the size decrease!

  • avatar
    LK

    EJ_San_Fran: It doesn’t exactly make me nervous, it makes me wonder about the new IRS the Sequoia uses – is it really only rated for that much weight, or is Toyota under-rating it because it’s new and untested? What if an owner overloads it and has a problem with the rear end…will Toyota cover it under warranty, or will they try to get out of it by saying that the owner exceeded the manufacturer specifications?

    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?

  • avatar
    doctor olds

    Gosh, for $15,000 less you can have a Yukon Hybrid, and buy a nice Cobalt with the difference.

  • avatar
    Shannon

    LK-

    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.

  • avatar
    LK

    Shannon: As you mention, the primary impact of the IRS will be on payload – not on the tow rating. However, if you have insufficient payload to handle the trailer tongue weight then it will also affect the tow ratings.

    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?

  • avatar
    ApexAlex

    imho, you guys make too much of published ratings.

    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.

  • avatar
    derek533

    That has got to be the ugliest dash I have ever seen. It looks as if two totally different cars were sandwiched together.

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

  • avatar
    ponchoman49

    So much for Toyota being so green! And who in there right mind designed the Phantom of the Opera dash where two totally different designers clashed and blended them together. The cat crap brown seats, cheap plastic interior and bland bloated styling relegate this to a 2 star has been.

  • avatar
    kona

    I have driven my 2008 Platinum Sequoia for 21,000 miles now and fully disagree with the review done by William Montgomery. My next door neighbor purchased a new Cadillac Escalade around the same time I bought my sequoia and has had nothing but trouble. His car has been in the shop four time whereas mine none (other than for service). He now wants to sell it and get a Sequoia. For what I feel is a more fair and accurate review of the Sequoia please go to Edmunds.com

    Thanks


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India