Edmunds: 2008 Sequoia, first drive
11-14-2007, 07:15 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Memphis
Posts: 4,338
Edmunds: 2008 Sequoia, first drive
Sounds like they really liked it. Though I'll wait until I read a full test from them and others.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...hotopanel..2.*
I wonder if the interior quality and other quality control has suffered as much as it has on the new Tundra? If it has then that's good news for GM's Tahoe and Yukon.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...hotopanel..2.*
I wonder if the interior quality and other quality control has suffered as much as it has on the new Tundra? If it has then that's good news for GM's Tahoe and Yukon.
11-14-2007, 08:06 PM
#2
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 3,650
Just skimmed that article after seeing it on Autoblog.
I felt compelled to point out that Edmunds manages to get the fuel economy wrong.
The Tahoe (and the Suburban) is indeed rated at 14/20 in 2wd form. However, 4x4s are rated at 14/19, yet Edmunds says the 4x4 Sequoia's 13/18 rating is "better than all its SUV rivals" save the GM hybrids... 
No question the 381 hp 5.7L will outmuscle the 320 hp 5.3L in the Tahoe if street racing full size SUVs is one's gig, but can they at least get the facts right on fuel economy? After all, Toyota already has the green halo, they don't need the likes of Edmunds to further the cause by making false claims...
It also appears from the pics that the Tundra dash (
) carried over completely intact. 
Looks to me like another competently performing, undoubtedly fairly refined, questionably styled, gas guzzler from do-no-wrong Toyota.
I wonder if the rear liftgate is prone to falling apart like the Tundra tailgates?
I felt compelled to point out that Edmunds manages to get the fuel economy wrong.
Fuel economy is not as terrible as you'd think. The 5.7-liter V8 is the more efficient option, thanks to its dual variable valve timing (the 4.7-liter only has variable intake valves) and extra overdrive gear. In 2WD form, the Sequoia has a rating of 14 mpg city/19 mpg highway — second only to the Tahoe (14 mpg/20 mpg). The 4x4 Sequoia's 13 mpg/18 mpg rating is better than all its SUV rivals except GM's two-mode hybrids (20 mpg city/20 mpg highway).
No question the 381 hp 5.7L will outmuscle the 320 hp 5.3L in the Tahoe if street racing full size SUVs is one's gig, but can they at least get the facts right on fuel economy? After all, Toyota already has the green halo, they don't need the likes of Edmunds to further the cause by making false claims...It also appears from the pics that the Tundra dash (
) carried over completely intact. Looks to me like another competently performing, undoubtedly fairly refined, questionably styled, gas guzzler from do-no-wrong Toyota.
I wonder if the rear liftgate is prone to falling apart like the Tundra tailgates?
11-15-2007, 08:52 AM
#4
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,897
I guess because it's essentially a Tundra SUV it's not that expensive to produce with platform sharing?
Sales have been anything but stellar. They'll be lucky to sell more than 24K total this year.
Sales have been anything but stellar. They'll be lucky to sell more than 24K total this year.
11-15-2007, 08:59 AM
#5
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 10,287
Thats true, I don't know how many they need to sell to have it be "worth it". I think they picked the wrong time to go bigger with this one. This SUV would have been great back in 1999
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Darth_tsunami
V6 Tech
6
09-18-2015 01:57 AM