Last post on Aug 28, 2011 at 3:00 PM
You are in the Toyota Sequoia
What is this discussion about?
Toyota Sequoia, Chevrolet Suburban, GMC Yukon XL, SUV
#111 of 173 Toyota vs Chevy suburban
Apr 25, 2004 (5:17 pm)
I have owned 3 Land Cruisers(95,97,02) which I purchased new and have had no regrets. I have owned 2 Suburban 2500 4wdr (99,2001)and also enjoyed owning them. Off road capability and build quality I would give the nod to the Toyotas. For highway driving,power(no comparison)towing and interior space I would go with the Suburbans.
I am looking to buy a new SUV next month and I am considering the Seqouia,I am not to fond of the current Land Cruiser styling and the Seqouia is larger which I like. I will also be pricing a 2500 4 wheel drive Suburban. Tuff decissions.
#112 of 173 Suburbans are a Bargain
Apr 28, 2004 (5:24 am)
"The Suburbans are a bargain right now....but you have to wonder how they sell'em so cheap? They ain't in the business to lose money on these things so they are still making something...so why is their cost so low??"
That's an easy one to answer. It has to do with production capacity. GM adopted Just-In-Time (JIT) practices from Toyota and were able to significantly reduce their overhead costs, mainly in the way of inventory for the production line. Parts are now delivered as they are needed. Plus GM's purchasing division is notorious for getting rock-botton transportation costs.
Also consider that GM is the largest vehicle manufacturer in the world. This allows GM to offer the higher incentives and cash back values. To make up that lost revenue, GM just has to sell a few more vehicles to offset the cost. It's called a Break Even Sales Point. While GM is till losing some revenue with the higher incentives, ther're able to recoup much more of it than the other manufacturer.
It due to GM having a lower Break Even point that will enable GM to lead the "incentive war" and come out on top. Just take any Pricing Course and you'll see what I'm talking about.
#113 of 173 Another reason They are dropping prices on Suburbans
Apr 28, 2004 (3:01 pm)
G.M. has been manufacturing Humvees for the military. They can't keep up with production and they get $50,000 for each one of them. That amounts to a tidy sum for G.M. It should be no surprise that G.M has ample assets from their military sales of Humvees given that they are unable to meet current demands for the military. As long as the war in Iraq puts increased demand on Humvees, I would expect deals should be had on many G.M. product lines.
#114 of 173 GM vs. Toyota, RESALE!!!!
Apr 28, 2004 (6:20 pm)
Unless you plan on driving your new SUV for the next 10+ years, you cannot argue with the Toyota's resale. I happen to be a big Suburban (and Expedition) fan as they are great trucks and that is after many miles of direct experience. However, 3 years later they are worthless! A $50K (sticker) Z71 Sub will be worth about $17K (consult auto lease guide) while the Toyota will command about $25k. Certainly you can buy the Sub for 10K off sticker vs. 5K for the Toyota, however you still come out ahead on the Sequoia. Also, my GM trucks while basically reliable nickel and dimed me to death (4 sets of brake rotors in 85K miles).
My brothers Expedition was similar. $42K new, $15K 4 years and 75K miles later.
As they say, "you pays your money and you's take your choice"!
Apr 28, 2004 (6:56 pm)
JD Power just came out with the top 3 models in '04 for each segment:
2004 Initial Quality Study
#116 of 173 Re: GM vs. Toyota, RESALE!!!! [tasillo #114]
Apr 29, 2004 (5:19 am)
You brought up something I have noticed among most car manufacturers... that being increased totor/brake wear on both Japanese makes and domestics. Most manufacturers have gone over to rotors at all 4 wheels now, you typically don't find rear drums anymore unless its a 250 series or higher. Rotors too nowadays are throw-aways, meaning they should be replaced each time you get new brake pads.
On my wife's Explorer, I've changed the brakes myself and have had to replace the rotors each time. Fords are especially notorious for running undersized rotos and brake pads. I see a trend on most domestics to go with smaller rotors versurs larger ones like on European imports. It boils down to simple physics, the more mass your vehicle has, the more momentum is has, the more heat generated and the harder it is still stop. Common sense should bear out that full-size SUV's should have at minimum 10 inch rotors all the way around. Or at least vented rotors for improved heat dispersion.
But resale value? It's not really a consideration for when I purchase a vehicle. I look strictly at reliability and ease of maintenance (can I work on the vehicle myself). Plus my overall impression with the vehicle after test driving. I'm a grease monkey at heart and don't mind doing my own automotive work as long as I have the time and know-how. But I have to concede, Toyota's quality outpaces domestic standards. That's what you get by going over to a "Lego" built vehicle with very little variations. GM is definitely heading that way (like Toyota) on their production line. Sooner or later GM will catch up, which will drive the other domestics to follow suit. And that means a better end roduct for all us consumers. But that's my opinion based on much academic research as a Quality guru.
#117 of 173 Re: GM vs. Toyota, RESALE!!!! [wildwills #116]
Apr 29, 2004 (6:28 am)
The rotor wear/quality issue seems prevalent among all domestic and japanese brands. I believe it is both a size of rotor (ability to dissipate heat) and quality of the metal used. All my GM, Ford and especially Chrysler products go through rotors in 20K miles or less. My BMW 740 however (also a heavy and fast car) has no problems with rotors. BMW does not allow cutting or maching of rotors however so when it's time for pads, it's time for rotors as well (at $100 ea.). From my perspective, this is where the domestic mfg. could really close a gap with the Europeans. Invest in better quality and larger rotors, 4 piston calipers and quality components and customer satisfaction will improve as brakes are a common thread of complaint for GM, Ford and Chrysler.
#118 of 173 Re: Hey [cats_echo #1]
Jul 01, 2004 (2:10 pm)
Initially bought a 2002 Sequoia Limited, and traded my car in for a 2003 Yukon SLT. The reason was that we were going to have a third child.
- Great fit and finish
- Quality interior materials
- Quiet motor
- More room behind third seat than Yukon
- Third seats slide back and forth to add room
- Needs more power, a lot more power!
- Very large turning radius
- Poor visibility out the back
- Dives into turns like a 65 Buick
- Second row seats do not fold flat to the floor, only flip up. Then you must manually secure in place with a strap
- Third row seats very heavy and difficult to remove
- Rear power window requires that you either have the keyfob in hand or roll down using the button prior to accessing.
- Feature set less than would expect for this vehicle
- Experienced terrible mileage (usually 12.5 to 13.0) in town.
- Good power and pulls trailers well
- Many features such as XM radio that are not available on Sequoia
- Tight turning radius
- Great visibility
- Good highway manners and very quiet
- Seats fold flat very easy, with headrests moving out of the way automatically.
- Third row easy to remove.
- Average of 15 mpg in town
- Interior/exterior fit and finish is pathetic, I mean patheetic.
- Interior materials not up to par with Sequoia
- Not as good resale value as Sequoia
We decided not to have the third child, and when deciding on which vehicle to keep, we chose the Yukon and traded the Sequoia.
Jul 02, 2004 (6:11 am)
Interesting observation on your pros and cons. I have to agree with your issues on seq second row of seats. The need to tumble forward and strap down and resulting access to the back is troublesome. BUT I disagree on power issue, now maby if you are towing something over 6,000 lbs you might not be able to go 55 up steep hills, but I would take the secure smooth running motor of the seq over the Yukon and the potential repair issues over time.
Milage is a minor price to pay for engine reliability. Plus with kids you may see the shoddy interior of the Yukon detroiate faster that the seq.
However I understand that fold down second seat issue and the difficult third row of seats to take out. I don't do either very much so it was not a factor in my decision.
You can also use the key in the lock in the rear door to roll the window down! What other "back window down options" do you want?
I use large fish eye mirrors on both sides and it gives me perfect visibility.
I would prefer that the seq had the dissapering seat feature and easier to remove third row feature.
Good luck with your new vehicle, I hope yours is one that stands up to the test of time. I do like the way it looks!!!
#120 of 173 When do the new Tahoes/Sequoias arrive
Jul 05, 2004 (11:02 am)
I noticed that caddilac has a new escalade due out as an 06. Assuming they make the obvious move to add a disappearing third row seat I'm curious to see if a new Tahoe/Suburban will arrive at the same time. Has anyone heard anything? Same question for a redesigned Sequoia.