another Hundy vs Sequoia thread

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

A decent resource for common issues on most makes and models is www.carcomplaints.com.
They list a ton of info on peoples complaints big and small and everywhere in the middle.

There isn't much info on land cruisers of course because they are perfect in everyway :)
 
I think the 5.7 L engines are getting the same MPG as the 4.7s are, but with more power. At least for the LX last time I checked.
 
my 2cents. There are a LOT of Sequoias around here, but very very few Land Cruisers.

From what I've seen the "fit and finish" on the Land Cruiser is light years beyond the Sequoia. This goes a long way toward the longevity of a car, especially how long you can be proud of it before you walk out the front door and go "uggg, i'm so tired of looking at you."

A hundy still looks modern and relevant, even an 80 still looks great. But Sequoias from mid-00's are already looking dated IMO.
 
The complaints site was interesting. I found more nhsta complaints on freevincheck.com. there are a few serious complaints for the 100, but still not the quantity or percentage of nuisance complaints as the Sequoia. The quantity difference can partially be explained by number of units sold. But there are clearly a difference in things reported pointing to two possibilities. either Sequoia owners are more picky owners or more little crap is breaking on Sequoias than TLCs. I suspect the latter. Both vehicles have had problems with VSC/ABS systems, resulting in some fatal accidents and more near misses. This was the biggest safety issue I ran across for the Sequoias so far. The total number of complaints of TLC was much lower but also included a few fatalities from a bad neutral safety switch. My survey didn't cover all years and was just a quick scroll through the lists. reading these complaints for more than 15 minutes could make a sane person agoraphobic and I realize these are generally exceptional instances, bit they do point to a few systemic issues and the general build quality difference . I feel a little bett r informed and more confirmed in my dislike for brake assisted traction control systems. There appear to be ways to disable VSC systems, but I think it kills abs as well... more data to add to the mix.

As for style, I'd still be happily driving my fj62, if it weren't for the third row issue. I like older lines, bit it takes people buying the new stuff, so I can buy the old stuff. I'm glad there are different strokes for all the different folks.
 
are there 100s out there with the 5.7? I thought that option came out in 08 with the 200. Shutting down 4 cylinders at highway cruising speed makes intuitive sense, but suddenly tonight it makes less sense: the engine still needs to supply x kW of energy to overcome drag and other sources of negative friction. Maybe the theory is the 4 active cylinders in the gas v8 are more wide open to make the x kW and therefore maximizing efficiency for a gasoline engine by limiting throttle restrictions. In any case, even my wife noticed the torque difference between the v8 powered cruiser and the i6. I was surprised she noticed and had to smile thst she like the 1fz better, though of course she doesnt know its name. The 4.7s I've driven have been pretty smooth though, I'll give them that. Pros and cons to both. I suspect towing our little camper through the passes will be easier going with the v8.
 
ylexot said:
are there 100s out there with the 5.7? I thought that option came out in 08 with the 200. Shutting down 4 cylinders at highway cruising speed makes intuitive sense, but suddenly tonight it makes less sense: the engine still needs to supply x kW of energy to overcome drag and other sources of negative friction. Maybe the theory is the 4 active cylinders in the gas v8 are more wide open to make the x kW and therefore maximizing efficiency for a gasoline engine by limiting throttle restrictions. In any case, even my wife noticed the torque difference between the v8 powered cruiser and the i6. I was surprised she noticed and had to smile thst she like the 1fz better, though of course she doesnt know its name. The 4.7s I've driven have been pretty smooth though, I'll give them that. Pros and cons to both. I suspect towing our little camper through the passes will be easier going with the v8.
Click to expand...

I used to have a Pontiac G8 GT with a 6.0L L76. That engine shuts off 4 cylinders when cruising on the highway. I LOVED this feature. After basic modifications the engine produced over 400hp, but I got 30+ MPG on the highway EASILY. There was a difference in engine note when 4 cylinders cut out, but other than that there wasn't really a difference. If you mashed the gas they kicked in instantly.

I really miss that car
 
Hello,
Perhaps time to make a "LC/LX v Seq" Sticky?

To answer 2 posts above, there were no 100 Series equipped with the 5.7. However, there are 200 Series ROW equipped with a petrol engine almost the identical displacement to the 2UZ-FE engine (4.7 V8) from the LC/LX.

At least to me, these are such different vehicles that whatever power train commonality is almost besides the point.
Simply, one is the flag bearer of maybe the most powerful automotive company in the world. To so many outside the developed world, the Land Cruiser represents the ultimate. As well it should considering when living when places where life and death are decided by preparation and safety, I just cannot fathom a superior vehicle.

Just a quick aside, the LC100/200 are very popular armored vehicle candidates. Aside from brake upgrades due to the massive weight added, little if nothing is needed beyond in terms of needing to retrofit the vehicle to handle the weight.

To me, comparing these 2 vehicles is comparing apples to oranges. That said, there are some fantastic posts on this thread and I believe sticking it could perhaps save new members feeling the need to start another similar thread.
Best,
Jack
 
jdlobb said:
my 2cents. There are a LOT of Sequoias around here, but very very few Land Cruisers.

From what I've seen the "fit and finish" on the Land Cruiser is light years beyond the Sequoia. This goes a long way toward the longevity of a car, especially how long you can be proud of it before you walk out the front door and go "uggg, i'm so tired of looking at you."

A hundy still looks modern and relevant, even an 80 still looks great. But Sequoias from mid-00's are already looking dated IMO.
Click to expand...

I think one reason older Sequoias may look dated is the headlight bezels: Toyota used the plastic bezel (lense) material that turns cloudy and yellowish over time. That makes any vehicle look dated.

Haven't noticed that problem with older LC, and my LX has glass headlight bezels (lenses) which do not cloud up or turn yellow. (Of course, glass has its own drawbacks - it can be more prone to cracking/chipping than polycarbonate. Mine still look new, until you get close enough to see the two bullseyes from flying rock on the highway, and my ghetto-rig of clear packing tape to seal the one with a pinhole. :)
 
Last edited:
I won a record for the shortest period of ownership of a motor vehicle when I bought an 01 Blazer about 10 years ago. I returned it after a day because I didn't feel in control of the truck. It felt similar to the Sequoia today.

Is this typical of the Sequoia? Or just a random overly soft ride with squishy brakes. The suspension didn't feel soft per se, just completely isolated, like I imagine Luke Skywalker's land speeder.
Click to expand...
Installing the Bilstein 5100 adjustable shocks completely removed this sensation from my '01 4wd. Granted, the seats still feel different / not as good as the 100, but as for the ride, a very slight lift with a firmer shock was a GREAT improvement.

Tinkerer said:
I think one reason older Sequoias may look dated is the headlight bezels: Toyota used the plastic bezel (lense) material that turns cloudy and yellowish over time. That makes any vehicle look dated.

Haven't noticed that problem with older LC, and my LX has glass headlight bezels (lenses) which do not cloud up or turn yellow. (Of course, glass has its own drawbacks - it can be more prone to cracking/chipping than polycarbonate. Mine still look new, until you get close enough to see the two bullseyes from flying rock on the highway, and my ghetto-rig of clear packing tape to seal the one with a pinhole. :)
Click to expand...
Good news on that is DEPO replacement headlight assemblies (not just the bulb - the whole headlight assemblies WITH bulbs) are less than $70 per pair.....DELIVERED!

Why some mfr. hasn't begun offering 98-05 replacement 100 series headlight assemblies (even in polycarbonate) is a mystery to me.......
 
Good to know.

The last few days I've been looking exclusively for 98 and 99 LC/LX with locker, and other desired features. I might go that rout regardless. But I've also been thinking about VSC and ATRAC systems and the bugs the last few days. Compared to number of vehicles out there, there is only a handful of reported issues it does suggest a weak design. But I suspect there are many unreported cases where the traction controls systems performed well and perhaps even saved lives. My buddy's negative testimony about poor performance in deep snow and some off road reviews are my main concern.

I have a read a couple threads on the tundra forum that state disconnecting the VSC / ATRAC is a small harness, maybe 2 wires, connected around the brake booster. If that's the case a switch wired up on the dash would be an easy mod and give me much more peace of mind. Especially if the system can be turned on and off without power cycling the whole system (ignition switch).

Does anyone know about this? Is the wiring and proposed disconnect the same for the 100? Would turning off traction control also turn off ABS?

Thanks.
 
You should read the Triple-Locker vs ATRAC thread that popped up yesterday. Most people there seem to be pretty happy with the ATRAC system.
 
Thanks. I'll check out that thread. I'd still like to be able to turn off traction control, if possible and keep ABS. (I imagine ABS automatically turns off in low range on all platforms, but maybe not.)
 
ylexot said:
Good to know.

The last few days I've been looking exclusively for 98 and 99 LC/LX with locker, and other desired features. I might go that rout regardless. But I've also been thinking about VSC and ATRAC systems and the bugs the last few days. Compared to number of vehicles out there, there is only a handful of reported issues it does suggest a weak design. But I suspect there are many unreported cases where the traction controls systems performed well and perhaps even saved lives. My buddy's negative testimony about poor performance in deep snow and some off road reviews are my main concern.

I have a read a couple threads on the tundra forum that state disconnecting the VSC / ATRAC is a small harness, maybe 2 wires, connected around the brake booster. If that's the case a switch wired up on the dash would be an easy mod and give me much more peace of mind. Especially if the system can be turned on and off without power cycling the whole system (ignition switch).

Does anyone know about this? Is the wiring and proposed disconnect the same for the 100? Would turning off traction control also turn off ABS?

Thanks.
Click to expand...
I must be honest and say I haven't used my Sequoia off-road yet. That being said, I DID use my last 2000 Land Cruiser (with ATRAC) off-road extensively, and it definitely works well! Do I like it as much as I do the selectable lockers in my '96? Probably not, but that's not because ATRAC isn't as effective....I just like the option to lock in what part of the truck I want to lock in at the time.

On the issue of disconnecting ATRAC, I'm not understanding the reasoning behind that. It doesn't affect the performance of the truck one way or the other when it's not needed. It only activates when it detects wheel slippage, and many say it's more effective than manually-selectable lockers as a result. Also, to answer your other question: if ATRAC is off, ABS is off, so interrupting ATRAC with a switch would disable other important features.

On Sequoias, the VSC/ATRAC module is known to be a problem point (in fact, mine is out now - the party from whom I purchased the truck disguised the problem by removing the warning lights from the dash......my loss for not inspecting the ignition-on dash lights when I purchased it. Looks like it's going to be about $800 P&L to replace), but as you correctly stated, that appears to be the exception, rather than the rule. I don't know which vehicle you're leaning more toward, but they both have their weak points - the LC may just have fewer than the Sequoia, although the LC's problem points will likely cost more to repair.
 
Why turn off traction control? Good question. There are some instances when traction control will not be helpful. Swimming through mud or deep snow when cleaning tire tread blocks by spinning tires is needed and or when momentum needs to maintained in order to get to the other side. These are the normal type cases I can imagine turning off traction control. Why Mr.T didn't make a button to disable traction control available from the factory, I don't know. Maybe someone can hazard a guess. I will say that I have seen enough YouTube videos of ATrac equipped Cruisers to believe they are decent for a lot of off road conditions. It's a option to have, but I'd like to be able to turn it off.

Other cases to disable VSC/ATrac are cases when the system isn't working properly. Several of the cases studies I read where the traction control caused a problem were in every day on road driving conditions. The malfunctioning, or perhaps over sensitive, traction control resulted in dangerous situations, stopping in front of oncoming traffic. Being able to quickly disable the system and move the vehicle normally would be a big advantage.

I want to be in control of the car as much as possible. In today's world of drive by wire, this is less and less a possibility, but I at least like the illusion. A hard cutoff gives me that security blanket. I personally like ABS, especially on road in slick conditions. I try not to rely on ABS, but it's good to have there in backup, kind of like the intent with VSC and ATrac being on by default. Further, temporarily loosing ABS with the flip of a switch is acceptable I guess. Driving around in the winter with a gimpy VSC/ATrac turned off is not as cool though.

$800 to repair the traction control system is spendy. Does your ABS work, or is that a casualty of whatever is at fault as well?
 
ylexot said:
Why turn off traction control? Good question. There are some instances when traction control will not be helpful. Swimming through mud or deep snow when cleaning tire tread blocks by spinning tires is needed and or when momentum needs to maintained in order to get to the other side. These are the normal type cases I can imagine turning off traction control. Why Mr.T didn't make a button to disable traction control available from the factory, I don't know. Maybe someone can hazard a guess. I will say that I have seen enough YouTube videos of ATrac equipped Cruisers to believe they are decent for a lot of off road conditions. It's a option to have, but I'd like to be able to turn it off.

Other cases to disable VSC/ATrac are cases when the system isn't working properly. Several of the cases studies I read where the traction control caused a problem were in every day on road driving conditions. The malfunctioning, or perhaps over sensitive, traction control resulted in dangerous situations, stopping in front of oncoming traffic. Being able to quickly disable the system and move the vehicle normally would be a big advantage.

I want to be in control of the car as much as possible. In today's world of drive by wire, this is less and less a possibility, but I at least like the illusion. A hard cutoff gives me that security blanket. I personally like ABS, especially on road in slick conditions. I try not to rely on ABS, but it's good to have there in backup, kind of like the intent with VSC and ATrac being on by default. Further, temporarily loosing ABS with the flip of a switch is acceptable I guess. Driving around in the winter with a gimpy VSC/ATrac turned off is not as cool though.

$800 to repair the traction control system is spendy. Does your ABS work, or is that a casualty of whatever is at fault as well?
Click to expand...
No, unfortunately, my ABS is out also.

By the way, it's my understanding you can disable the VSC/ATRAC system by unplugging the harness that plugs into the brake booster. Again, that also disables the ABS system.....
 
With everything you're debating on the VSC/ATRAC stuff, it sounds like you're where I was about 15 months ago. I came from a 2nd Gen 4Runner, and one thing I liked about it was that it was mechanically straight forward. When looking at 100's, got a bit overwhelmed with all of the electronic "safety" feature and I felt like they would be in the way of what I really wanted. That's when I found out 98-99 didn't have those systems, and the the perfect rear-locked 98 came up for sale. I wouldn't look back... I've offroaded with my friends 2000 100, and mine still just feels more in control for me. I can also do epic monster truck style donuts, he cannot... but that's not what these trucks are for lol.
 
A 98/99 100 with a rear locker sounds pretty ideal to me. Less electonics and some mechanical traction enhancement. (I had an old retired highway patrol Impala with positraction in the rear. Definitely the medicine for making donuts, or turning cookies depending on your preference. Also frightful with balding tires and even a dusting of snow when you let off the brake to fast at a stop light. It didn't take many times where the rear started sliding toward a neighboring car that I learned that lesson.)

So the situation has changed a little. The plan now is that whatever 4x4 I buy will be the 4x4 for the family. When my wife is done with the automatic opening van doors, she will get a smaller vehicle. So now if I buy a Sequoia, I'm stuck with it and there's no 60 series waiting in the wings.

I think I am convinced that the Sequoia will be an adequate platform, at the very least. The Tundra forum is no Ih8mud, and that's an extra bummer. The traction control concern is reduced with what sounds like a simple mod, so any 2000+ Toyota is also back on my radar. Now it comes down to preference and the 3rd row. Not considering the 3rd row, I'd choose the hundy, no question (or start restoring another 60). I like the Land Cruiser. I don't think I need to say much more about that here. The choice is between the tangible and intangible benefits (and preference) of the TLC/LX vs the raw space of the Sequoia. (Kind of feels full circle, don't it?)

I have briefly sat in the 3rd row of my 80 and a few 3rd rows for the 100. They seem similar, if not identical, with the exception that there are more creature comforts in the back of the 100. My 25 year old 5'8" sister-in-law was a good sport and rode in the 3rd row for a couple 3 hour drives without complaint, but that may be a sign of her good manners more than her actual comfort. There is little doubt that the Sequoia would be more comfortable for 5+ passengers, and carries a lot more gear. I don't expect many, if any more, adult 3rd row passengers on road trips. But you never know. I've had my 62 to full capacity, 5 passengers with back and roof loaded with gear, many more times than I would have ever expected.

Can anyone testify to the 100 series 3rd row being comfortable enough? Enough is a tricky word: let's say comfortable for a 6'2" teenager on 5 hour road trips? Or, do I just suck it up and get a Sequoia?
 
Can anyone testify to the 100 series 3rd row being comfortable enough? Enough is a tricky word: let's say comfortable for a 6'2" teenager on 5 hour road trips? Or, do I just suck it up and get a Sequoia?[/QUOTE]

No way a 3rd row LC is comfortable for a 6'2" person on a 5 hour road trip. I sat in the back of my 80 and 100 and for me at least its bearable up to just over a hour. I am 5'9"

The Sequoia I think has the flatter deeper floor and the more knee room which is more comfortable for all ages and heights unless your really really tall.
 
Our Sequoia definitely has a more spacious 3rd row but I still wouldn't stuff a 6 footer back there for a road trip. Nobody shorter to put in the third row lol?
 
Easy for me to spend your money, but I think you'll be far happier with the LC/LX over the long-term since this will become the family 4x4. I'm 6'1" and I wouldn't want to sit in the front seat for 5 hrs let alone the 3rd row! The problem with the 3rd row is not the distance to the middle row, it's the low height off the floor. Your 6'2" teenager will be sitting with his knees in his chest. On the other hand, my 7 and 9 year old girls only want to sit in the 3rd row because they can touch the floor with their feet while buckled in their car seats! They can't do that in the middle row.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom