Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Check out and test drive the 2019 Subaru Ascent.

Underpowered. Way, WAY underpowered for a 3-row SUV. We test drove one in May. It's actually unsettling how slowly it accelerates, even with only me, my wife, and the salesman. On-ramp merging with a heavy load (like 5-7 people) with so little power seems like it would be absolutely terrifying. We have a 2013 Ford Expedition right now, and it might not be perfect, but at least when you hit the gas pedal, it GOES, right NOW! The Subaru, not so much. Plus, the Subaru has the stupid CVT transmission, which Subaru is having all kinds of problems with now in vehicles that are 3-5 years old. No thanks.

Funny because the Ascent is faster to 60 than your 6yo Expedition. I'm not a Subaru fan at all but it sounds like you haven't driven one.

Uh, I think I can correctly recall a car I test drove, thank you very much. I don't care what the stats say, I drove it. It's definitely considerably slower than our Expedition. Even with 7 passengers and 5 bags of hockey gear in back, it still gets off the line faster than the Subaru felt.

Why are you pimping the Subaru so hard? Do you sell them or something? It's a bland, underpowered, scaled-up Outback. It can't tow even half what a Tahoe, Surburban, Expedition, Sequoia or Land Cruiser can. It's a car in a world of real trucks. Plus, it has a lousy transmission that is failing at unprecedented levels in the auto industry.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Check out and test drive the 2019 Subaru Ascent.

Underpowered. Way, WAY underpowered for a 3-row SUV. We test drove one in May. It's actually unsettling how slowly it accelerates, even with only me, my wife, and the salesman. On-ramp merging with a heavy load (like 5-7 people) with so little power seems like it would be absolutely terrifying. We have a 2013 Ford Expedition right now, and it might not be perfect, but at least when you hit the gas pedal, it GOES, right NOW! The Subaru, not so much. Plus, the Subaru has the stupid CVT transmission, which Subaru is having all kinds of problems with now in vehicles that are 3-5 years old. No thanks.

Funny because the Ascent is faster to 60 than your 6yo Expedition. I'm not a Subaru fan at all but it sounds like you haven't driven one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Check out and test drive the 2019 Subaru Ascent.

I don’t know why DCUM loves this vehicle. We looked at it and it’s just another mid-size SUV.

It's not DCUM, it's ONE poster. Probably works at a Subaru dealership


My brother has a 2014 Subaru Crosstrek. It's got 106,000 miles. The transmission is busted. A new one is $7,700. That's almost 2/3 the value of the vehicle!!! That tells me everything I'll ever need to know about newer Subarus. Older ones might be great. New ones are sh!t.

The idea that a 4 year old car should need a transmission replacement at 100,000 miles is absurd. We still have a Honda Accord my wife bought after college. It's 22 years old and has 330,000 miles, and it's transmission is fine.

Anonymous wrote:Check out and test drive the 2019 Subaru Ascent.

I don’t know why DCUM loves this vehicle. We looked at it and it’s just another mid-size SUV.

We have a 2005 sequoia and LOVE it. Over 200 K miles and going strong. Looks great runs great and we will consider another when we need to buy another large family vehicle. . Have a Q5 and love it also but it doesn’t have the staying power our sequoia does.

Anonymous wrote:Check out and test drive the 2019 Subaru Ascent.

Underpowered. Way, WAY underpowered for a 3-row SUV. We test drove one in May. It's actually unsettling how slowly it accelerates, even with only me, my wife, and the salesman. On-ramp merging with a heavy load (like 5-7 people) with so little power seems like it would be absolutely terrifying. We have a 2013 Ford Expedition right now, and it might not be perfect, but at least when you hit the gas pedal, it GOES, right NOW! The Subaru, not so much. Plus, the Subaru has the stupid CVT transmission, which Subaru is having all kinds of problems with now in vehicles that are 3-5 years old. No thanks.

I am on my second Sequoia. The first I drove for 8 years and 150,000 miles. Second one is 4.5 years old and I've already got 95,000 miles. I love this car. It has been great to cart around kids, dog and lots and lots of sports equipment. As PP above said, the turning radius is amazing and it has a smooth drive. I see plenty in NOVA where I am. We also have a Q7, but I definitely prefer the less frilly drive of the Sequoia (Q7 has too many bells and whistles).

I have a Sequoia - bought it two years ago. My DH is a huge Toyota fan - his first car when he was in his early 20's was a Celica and we finally traded it in when DS #1 was a year old. Over 200K miles on that car. We have a 17 year old Toyota Tacoma with close to 300K. It still looks great and runs great. Then we bought a Sienna. I didn't put a lot of miles on it but had it for 10 years. I decided I wanted an SUV so we looked at every SUV on the market. The Sequoia was by far the most expensive (not counting the luxury brands.) I think that's why you don't see as many. I love it - its comfortable to ride in and drive. The only negative is the lousy gas mileage, but unless you get a hybrid SUV, I think it goes with the territory.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Sequoia is GREAT! They're built on the Gen-1 Toyota Tundra platform, which is probably the best fullsize half-ton pickup that has ever been made (sorry Ford! You might be "best selling", but that doesn't mean "best").

There are Sequoias with 400 thousand miles on them. There are Tundras with over a million. So many in fact there's a Facebook group devoted to them (millionmiletundraclub)

I think the reason you don't see as many of them as Suburbans and Tahoes is because Toyotas production capacity has always been less than that of GM. GM has half a dozen truck plants in the US, Canada and Mexico. Toyota has one, in Texas. It's a sheer numbers thing. And with GM production being so high, many of their trucks are heavily incentivized to sell. Toyota doesn't need to do that with lower numbers, so they often cost more than GM vehicles.

We've had our Sequoia ten years, and it's been a great vehicle. 140,000 miles and nothing but gas, oil changes, brakes, tires, and wiper blades. It's been perfect.

This

+1. We have had ours for almost 8 years and it is by far the best vehicle we have ever owned. The ride is quiet and smooth and it has a better turning radius than much smaller cars. It is significantly easier to park than the minivan we had years ago too. In fact, we have never kept a vehicle this long and still have no desire to make a change.

Check out and test drive the 2019 Subaru Ascent.

Anonymous wrote:The Sequoia is GREAT! They're built on the Gen-1 Toyota Tundra platform, which is probably the best fullsize half-ton pickup that has ever been made (sorry Ford! You might be "best selling", but that doesn't mean "best").

There are Sequoias with 400 thousand miles on them. There are Tundras with over a million. So many in fact there's a Facebook group devoted to them (millionmiletundraclub)

I think the reason you don't see as many of them as Suburbans and Tahoes is because Toyotas production capacity has always been less than that of GM. GM has half a dozen truck plants in the US, Canada and Mexico. Toyota has one, in Texas. It's a sheer numbers thing. And with GM production being so high, many of their trucks are heavily incentivized to sell. Toyota doesn't need to do that with lower numbers, so they often cost more than GM vehicles.

We've had our Sequoia ten years, and it's been a great vehicle. 140,000 miles and nothing but gas, oil changes, brakes, tires, and wiper blades. It's been perfect.

This

The Sequoia is GREAT! They're built on the Gen-1 Toyota Tundra platform, which is probably the best fullsize half-ton pickup that has ever been made (sorry Ford! You might be "best selling", but that doesn't mean "best").

There are Sequoias with 400 thousand miles on them. There are Tundras with over a million. So many in fact there's a Facebook group devoted to them (millionmiletundraclub)

I think the reason you don't see as many of them as Suburbans and Tahoes is because Toyotas production capacity has always been less than that of GM. GM has half a dozen truck plants in the US, Canada and Mexico. Toyota has one, in Texas. It's a sheer numbers thing. And with GM production being so high, many of their trucks are heavily incentivized to sell. Toyota doesn't need to do that with lower numbers, so they often cost more than GM vehicles.

We've had our Sequoia ten years, and it's been a great vehicle. 140,000 miles and nothing but gas, oil changes, brakes, tires, and wiper blades. It's been perfect.

We love our 4Runner and were interested in the Sequoia for more room. However it drove like a marsh mellow - best way I can describe it. Very mushy drive. The size didn't bother me.

Ended up with a Q7 which isn't that big and then an Atlas after the Q7 was totaled hitting a deer. Atlas has the just about the same dimensions of the Q7 but much better cargo space.

I have a 2003 Sequoia with over 200k miles. It is a beast and we love it. Most reliable car we have ever owned.

I live in a sea of Suburbans and Yukons so Im curious why no one has a Sequoia especially since a lot of my peer families I see go from Pilot/Highlander to Suburban/ Yukon. Its interesting because normally Honda/toyota people stay that way and almost all the people I talked to loved their pilot/Highlander. Is there something about the Sequoia that make people turn away? (I realize Honda has no size comparison after the pilot.). My highlander is 8 years old and Im starting to shop around so this has peaked my curiosity. Ive never had an American made car and generally heard terrible things about them but that rumor seems to disappear when you get to the truck frame cars...no? Anyone have a sequoia?