Anonymous wrote:Anyone have the new sequoia? Do you like it?
I have a 2004 sequoia and time to replace it -but the reviews on the new sequoia are terrible for cargo and 3rd row.
I am leaning towards the Yukon now both cars are about the same price at 100k. Which is crazy as my sequoia was 47k new 19 years ago.

47k was crazy 19 yars ago

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why anyone needs such a ginormous SUV. I've never seen people drive them full of both people and stuff ever, let alone on a regular basis.

Because “needs” don’t determine what people enjoy, and they’re free to spend their money however they want without your envy and naysaying getting in the way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, Toyota really screwed up on the Sequoia. Every other manufacturer goes to IRS to make their full-sized SUVs larger in the back, but Toyota says "nope, people don't want legroom or cargo capacity!"

It's like their decision to make the middle row of the Sienna non-removable. Toyota is really dumb sometimes.

Because IRS is a terrible suspension design for vehicles that actually haul or tow heavy loads, even infrequently. The changes in tire camber that occur as the suspension loads and unloads can cause uneven tire wear and handling changes. A solid “live” axle is far superior for heavy vehicles.

That seems fixable with self-leveling suspension, right? Chevy seems to have figured it out.

Are you thinking the Tahoe sized Denali or the Suburban sized one? If the Tahoe size, there isn’t much room in the back with the 3rd row up. If you’re thinking suburban size, definitely would pick that over the sequoia. Way more space. I have the big Denali and it’s really nice and drives very smoothly.

I think they need to raise the height, add more batteries on perimeter to keep center of gravity stable for solid rear axle.

It is a 2-3 year problem. Batteries will have more options than when they designed this 5 years ago.

I have a Yukon and the third row is comfortable for an adult. I wouldn’t buy a full-size SUV without a usable (for and adult) third row.

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, Toyota really screwed up on the Sequoia. Every other manufacturer goes to IRS to make their full-sized SUVs larger in the back, but Toyota says "nope, people don't want legroom or cargo capacity!"

It's like their decision to make the middle row of the Sienna non-removable. Toyota is really dumb sometimes.

Because IRS is a terrible suspension design for vehicles that actually haul or tow heavy loads, even infrequently. The changes in tire camber that occur as the suspension loads and unloads can cause uneven tire wear and handling changes. A solid “live” axle is far superior for heavy vehicles.

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why anyone needs such a ginormous SUV. I've never seen people drive them full of both people and stuff ever, let alone on a regular basis.

I don’t understand why there are people who don’t understand that there are actually people out there who don’t agree with everything they think.

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why anyone needs such a ginormous SUV. I've never seen people drive them full of both people and stuff ever, let alone on a regular basis.

Because the minivan market in the US is anemic. I'd much prefer a minivan and miss my old one, but my new SUV is far more comfortable and has better features.

I think sequoias batteries and rear suspension is what doomed an otherwise good car. It looks much better from the outside, but non-removable third row or at least flat folding for cargo kills the entire vehicle.

People paying over msrp for it are insane. I bet in 2025 or 26 they make significant changes to cargo and 3rd row.

I don't understand why anyone needs such a ginormous SUV. I've never seen people drive them full of both people and stuff ever, let alone on a regular basis.

Yeah, Toyota really screwed up on the Sequoia. Every other manufacturer goes to IRS to make their full-sized SUVs larger in the back, but Toyota says "nope, people don't want legroom or cargo capacity!"

It's like their decision to make the middle row of the Sienna non-removable. Toyota is really dumb sometimes.

NP. I was so eager and ready to buy the new Sequoia until I saw it in person. The rear cargo area and third row are deal breakers for me. Sitting in the third row feels like you're sitting on a Squatty Potty with your knees up, and the head room is lacking. Coming from a mid-size SUV (older Traverse), I just expected the Sequoia to have better if not the same third row space.

In addition, we often travel with our two very large dogs and we crate them in the trunk area on road trips. With the awkward raised floor of the Sequoia that just won't work. The fact that they are trying to pitch the unusual configuration of the trunk as a plus was a bit insulting since it's clearly not an improvement to the large open FLAT space most SUVs offer.

Now I feel like I'm back to the drawing board because we've just had several bad experiences owning American made SUVs - so I'm hesitant to buy the Tahoe or Yukon.

I looked into the Sequioa a few months ago and was excited for it to come out. Then the reviews about a stiff ride and dealer mark ups made it close to $100k which was out of the budget. $47k 19 years ago is almost $74k today. Add in all the new tech, features, and engine and it’s not too far off.

Anyone have the new sequoia? Do you like it?
I have a 2004 sequoia and time to replace it -but the reviews on the new sequoia are terrible for cargo and 3rd row.
I am leaning towards the Yukon now both cars are about the same price at 100k. Which is crazy as my sequoia was 47k new 19 years ago.