With all this talk about green machines (both real and imagined), the LA Auto Show is in danger of boring the snot out of the average driver. And with GM and Chrysler busy hyping hybrid SUVs, those red-blooded American who like driving big ass trucks may be thinking the red dot of political correctness and emissions regulations is trained on their V8-stuffed whips. Leave it to Toyota, the maker of the chattering class’ favorite ULEV fuel miser, to understand that selling vehicles– not press releases– is the name of the game. And so I give you the new bigger (yes bigger) and badder (yes faster) Toyota Sequoia. SUV lovers can now order their supersized ToMoCo truck with an all new 5.7-liter V8, boasting 401 ft.-lbs. worth of bass boat-schlepping, ass-kicking torque. The Sequoia finally joins Lincoln’s Navigator by offering an independent rear suspension, with optional air support. The Sequoia's cabin interior is also longer, wider and taller than afore– making it suitable for eight genuine adults. Fuel economy's up by 12 percent. There’s more. Suffice it to say, the previous Sequoia couldn’t quite match the ‘Slade and Navi for comfort, style or performance. This one looks like it can. Who ARE those guys?
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Toyota.
Thanks for keepin’ it real.
Honestly……………
This is the last thing we need on American roads. 80% will be occupied by a driver only, totally defeating the purpose of having room for eight people.
It looks like the new Sequoia will come with the “smooth” shifting Rumble Strip transmission. Good for those who like Shiatsu massage, bad for those with hemmorhoids.
I’m not really surprised.
I doubt Toyota makes as much of these things as GM once did of its Gigantor-SUVs, but there are people who do need this much vehicle.
Toyota’s secret it that they will never depend on Sequoia sales to keep it afloat.
Glad to see the Sequoia making some waves – I’ve always felt it is what the 4Runner should have been (but resisted for some good and bad reasons), and what the Highlander’s identity crisis could never achieve.
I’m in the market for a crossover, and depending on the engine choice, this could be a contender.
ChrisG:
I’m not sure this still qualifies as a crossover, although that line is getting larger every day. I’d consider it a crossover between the Highlander and STS Space Shuttle.
danms6:
I agree – it’s probably a little too “capable” in terms of off-roadability and towing…. to me… at the risk of over-simplifying the class… a Crossover could be an SUV with three rows? I guess that was my naive criteria… I dunno…
So between the Land Cruiser and the Sequoia, you have two monstrous trucks that are difficult to park, impossible to see around, and thirsty as hell on fuel.
But hey, when you make the Prius, I suppose anything can be overlooked.
One, this is NOT a crossover. This is a true SUV. It rides on a truck frame. There should be no question that this is a pure SUV. The only thing that makes it different is independent (double wishbone) suspension front and rear.
Two, fuel economy is better for the new Sequoia compared to the old model with the 4.7L engine. This is despite the fact the 5.7L is much more powerful than the old 4.7L and also despite a weigh gain of roughly 500 pounds. In fact, fuel economy is 2nd best-in-class right behind the Tahoe. This is despite the new Sequoia having more room than the Tahoe inside and also despite the 5.7L being more powerful than the 5.3L in the Tahoe. When compared to a 6.0L Suburban, the 5.7L Seqouia wins in both power and fuel economy.
According to the EPA, there is a 1 mpg difference between the 6.0 Suburban and the 5.7 Sequoia in both city and highway driving.
Considering that this less powerful Suburban has more metal to motivate than the Sequoia, a 1 mpg difference sounds more like a tossup than a win.
According to EPA numbers, the 6.0L Suburban gets 12/17 in both 2WD and 4WD models. This is for Suburban 1500 models. EPA numbers for Suburban 2500 models are not available.
The Sequoia with the 5.7L gets 14/19 2WD and 13/18 4WD.
Comparing 2WD models the Sequoia gets 2 mpg better in both city and highway. Comparing 4WD models the Sequoia gets 1 mpg better in both city and highway.
The Suburban 1500 weighs less than the new Sequoia and it also tows quite a bit less. So despite being heavier, towing more, *and* having a more powerful engine, the 5.7L Sequoia still gets better EPA numbers than the 6.0L Suburban 1500.
Hardly a toss-up. Certainly seems like a win to me. The 6.0L isn’t offered on the Tahoe, but if it was chances are the Tahoe would lose in EPA numbers compared to the 5.7L Sequoia.
I drive a Sequoia. I load up the family, take long trips, drive it daily to work, and drive it any damn way I please.
Sorry, had to say that first.
Ramble on all you want about the numbers; that 2008 Sequoia is one sharp looking rig.
Comparing 2WD models the Sequoia gets 2 mpg better in both city and highway. Comparing 4WD models the Sequoia gets 1 mpg better in both city and highway.
And in the long run, with various driving styles and traffic conditions, this 2- and 1- mpg difference is statistically nil.
Maximum trailering weight for a Suburban is 9700 lbs.
Maximun trailering weight for a Sequoia is expected to be 10,000 lbs.
If you’re going to agonize over a 300 lb difference, then it’s clear that neither vehicle will suit your needs.
To say that one vehicle has a clear advantage over the other when the differences between them (on paper) are negligible is just flat wrong.
Car and Driver recently averaged 12 on their Sequoia with a small bit of towing, call it 13 to be fair. The Escalade with its 6.0 averaged almost 14 in a luxo-SUV comparo a few months back. The much slower Navigator averaged 15.
That’s splitting hairs, but there is nothing fuel-efficient about this ugly brute (and boy do I mean ugly) or it competitors. Bickering over 13 versus 14 still misses the point that you can carry almost as much stuff in a minivan and some smaller cross-overs and get 17-18 or better under the same conditions. Large SUVs are, generally, nothing but excess. True, you can’t tow as much in a minivan, but tell me how many people use their Suburban/Expedition/Sequoia/Armada for towing above the ability of a minivan.
quasimondo:
And in the long run, with various driving styles and traffic conditions, this 2- and 1- mpg difference is statistically nil.
Maximum trailering weight for a Suburban is 9700 lbs.
Maximun trailering weight for a Sequoia is expected to be 10,000 lbs.
If you’re going to agonize over a 300 lb difference, then it’s clear that neither vehicle will suit your needs.
To say that one vehicle has a clear advantage over the other when the differences between them (on paper) are negligible is just flat wrong.
A bit better fuel economy with a bit more power. They might seem negligible to you but these little things all add up.
And yet again you’re quoting the wrong Suburban figures. Max towing capacity is 9700lbs on the Suburban 2500, *not* the 1500. The quoted fuel economy figures are for the 1500. As I said, EPA numbers for the 2500 are unavailable as they likely would be even lower.
Max towing on a Suburban 1500 is 8100lbs.
RobertSD:
Car and Driver recently averaged 12 on their Sequoia with a small bit of towing, call it 13 to be fair. The Escalade with its 6.0 averaged almost 14 in a luxo-SUV comparo a few months back. The much slower Navigator averaged 15.
That’s splitting hairs, but there is nothing fuel-efficient about this ugly brute (and boy do I mean ugly) or it competitors. Bickering over 13 versus 14 still misses the point that you can carry almost as much stuff in a minivan and some smaller cross-overs and get 17-18 or better under the same conditions. Large SUVs are, generally, nothing but excess. True, you can’t tow as much in a minivan, but tell me how many people use their Suburban/Expedition/Sequoia/Armada for towing above the ability of a minivan.
C&D tested a loaded 4WD Sequoia which had a curb weight over 6000lbs. C&D *also* got a 0-60 time of 6.6 sec, astonishing for a vehicle of this weight and size. Considering C&D testers like to push vehicles, the high curb weight, the tested model being 4WD, and a bit of towing being done 12 mpg real world is very good for a gasoline engine.