Difference between 200 and Sequoia

[Combat Chuck]

this is one of the more fun threads I've read in a while.


Also, Pagemaster, what's wrong with eating squirrel? I grew up on small game, it's actually good meat.
Edit: also, what's up with you and "8.9 in high heels"? you do seem to reiterate on them quite alot, and that seems like an oddly specific number.

 

[Eicca]

this is one of the more fun threads I've read in a while.

Can I get an "amen?"

 

[ShottsUZJ100]

OMG...what person in their right mind praises a Ford Focus over a Ford GT500? Ahh, I mean Sequioa over a Land Cruiser.

 

[pagemaster]

OMG...what person in their right mind praises a Ford Focus over a Ford GT500? Ahh, I mean Sequioa over a Land Cruiser.

Are you sure you don't mean a Ford Focus (Sequoia) to a Mustang (Land Cruiser).....the Mustang still has a solid axle

 

[Eicca]

...Aaaaaand now pagemaster is confusing the application of a solid axle between performance cars and off-road cars.

This just keeps getting better.

 

[pagemaster]

...Aaaaaand now pagemaster is confusing the application of a solid axle between performance cars and off-road cars.

This just keeps getting better.

Not at all, someone used the Focus/GT500 as a metaphor of the Sequioa/LC

I guess the LC compares to a Tahoe? You tell me Eicca?

 

[Eicca]

Not at all, someone used the Focus/GT500 as a metaphor of the Sequioa/LC

I guess the LC compares to a Tahoe? You tell me Eicca?

Well it does in that they both have solid rear axles and solid rear axles (or any solid axles) will take more damage off road and still have a chance of getting you home if they break.

Land Cruiser > Sequoia. Again.

Sorry you lost

 

[pagemaster]

(or any solid axles) will take more damage off road and still have a chance of getting you home if they break.

No, incorret and WRONG!

The Sequoia has a higher GVWR than the LC. More ground clearance and better approach/dep......higher GVWR = a tougher vehicle

No, you are mistaken. The whole world has gone to IRS.

Sequioa = (on par) Range Rover/Patrol/Expedition/G-Glass/Q Audis

Land Cruiser = (on par) low class Chevy Tahoe

Well it does in that they both have solid rear axles and solid rear axles (or any solid axles) will take more damage off road and still have a chance of getting you home if they break.

Land Cruiser > Sequoia. Again.

Sorry you lost

No, you are mistaken. The whole world has gone to IRS. Land Cruiser was cost cut, that is why it has a solid rear

Sequioa = (on par) Range Rover/Patrol/Expedition/GL-Glass/Q Audis (world class)

Land Cruiser = (on par) low class Chevy Tahoe (meh...80's rear tech)

 

[Carl L]

Pagemaster, you moronic, broke-ass fool...everything you type shows you to be ever more stupid.

1. The GT500 IS a Mustang. You're confusing it with the Ford GT, totally different not that you'll ever drive either.

2. The G has solid axles at both ends. You mean the GL, which is not for off road use.

Your mother's basement must have mold.

 

[pagemaster]

Pagemaster, you moronic, broke-ass fool...everything you type shows you to be ever more stupid.

1. The GT500 IS a Mustang. You're confusing it with the Ford GT, totally different not that you'll ever drive either.

2. The G has solid axles at both ends. You mean the GL, which is not for off road use.

Your mother's basement must have mold.

we'll now we have some facts! Thanks for correcting, I have a $10hr got for you if you are interested, you can proof my typing.


The fact of the matter is that a solid rear is s*** by world standards. Mustang/Land Cruiser whatever, that is old tech.....! Every smart manufacturer including Nissan Patrol (benchmark) has gone IRS

 

[Eicca]

No, you are mistaken. The whole world has gone to IRS.

Sequioa = (on par) Range Rover/Patrol/Expedition/G-Glass/Q Audis

Land Cruiser = (on par) low class Chevy Tahoe

The world has gone to IRS because it offers a smoother ride.

The Land Cruiser is not intended to be a pander-to-people car. While it certainly has features that make it so, it's primary purpose is to beat a trail through the Amazon jungle and laugh while it does it.

The reason Toyota put IFS on the LC starting in 1998 is because smooth rides were a major selling point. People didn't care about huge-and-indestructible as much.

Toyota knew IFS vehicles couldn't take as much abuse as their solid-axle counterparts, so they tried to compromise on the 100-series. IFS, but the control arms are MASSIVE. It'll take more force to break one on an LC than it will on a Sequoia. Same holds true for the 200. Put a Sequoia and a Land Cruiser side-by-side and look underneath. The control arms on the LC will be bigger and tougher.

Why do you think the Middle-East spec 105-series cruisers are solid front axle? Because people out there know what tough is. They don't care about ride quality in a vehicle that is designed for pure toughness.

The same reason is probably why Nissan never sold the Patrol in the US. "Oh, the ride quality suck," say the Americans.

And wait... Why do Jeep Wranglers continue to sell more than Land Cruisers or FJCruisers? Because the off-road junkies know that solid axles are stronger and more dependable than independent suspension.

Whoops, you lose again. Land Cruiser > Sequoia.

This is fun.

 

[Carl L]

No, incorret and WRONG!

The Sequoia has a higher GVWR than the LC. More ground clearance and better approach/dep......higher GVWR = a tougher vehicle

Wrong again. Approach and departure on the Seq are not better than the LCs. The lower the number the worse, you imbecile. As for GVWR, it's simply spring related. Besides, the Seq is a significantly bigger vehicle and a people mover so it should have a slightly higher GVWR.

 

[Eicca]

Wrong again. Approach and departure on the Seq are not better than the LCs. The lower the number the worse, you imbecile. As for GVWR, it's simply spring related. Besides, the Seq is a significantly bigger vehicle and a people mover so it should have a slightly higher GVWR.

This.

And IRS is now the "world standard" because people like smoother rides and don't care about off-road functionality nearly as much. Just because everyone wants it doesn't make it better, smart child.

 

[pagemaster]

Wrong again. Approach and departure on the Seq are not better than the LCs. The lower the number the worse, you imbecile. As for GVWR, it's simply spring related. Besides, the Seq is a significantly bigger vehicle and a people mover so it should have a slightly higher GVWR.[You QUOTE]

You are the imbecile.

Does the Sequoia not have better depart angle?

The Sequoia has a stronger frame as the springs are not the issue.

 

[pagemaster]

This.

And IRS is now the "world standard" because people like smoother rides and don't care about off-road functionality nearly as much. Just because everyone wants it doesn't make it better, smart child.

Wrong!

Toyota used to set the bar. Now they are far behind.

The 1st gen Sequoia actually had a better rear than the new Land Cruiser. 5 link vs 4 link

Sequoia higher ground clearance and more GVWR than the Land Cruiser.....LC=Sad I know

 

[Eicca]

Does the Sequoia not have better depart angle?

So let's say it does (and it probably actually does for some reason, I honestly don't know). But now you tell me if that's going to make a bit of difference when a Sequoia breaks a control arm on a rock and has to be winched onto a recovery vehicle because OOPS it has independent rear suspension.

And the difference in angles has to be negligible when both vehicles are as large as they are.

 

[Carl L]

we'll now we have some facts! Thanks for correcting, I have a $10hr got for you if you are interested, you can proof my typing.


The fact of the matter is that a solid rear is s*** by world standards. Mustang/Land Cruiser whatever, that is old tech.....! Every smart manufacturer including Nissan Patrol (benchmark) has gone IRS

It's nothing to do with proof reading, you don't even know what's a Mustang and what's a super car etc. Funny you pretending to offer me a job, when you're nothing but a scooter-riding intern with a malcontent attitude.

Great technical knowledge you have. G-Wagen and Defender owner's must be so sad that you think their vehicles are doubly "s***."

 

[Eicca]

The 1st gen Sequoia actually had a better rear than the new Land Cruiser.

5 link vs 4 link

Oh, look at that. 5 places to break something instead of only 4.

Aaaaaand another point for the Land Cruiser!

 

[pagemaster]

Oh, look at that. 5 places to break something instead of only 4.

Aaaaaand another point for the Land Cruiser!

Agian, 80's 4runner tech = Landy


And Eircca...Explain the poor 8.9 inches of ground clearance? PLEASE!

A solid rear has its place, just not in a world class SUV or even a two door sports car.

 

[Eicca]

Agian, 80's 4runner tech = Landy


And Eircca...Explain the poor 8.9 inches of ground clearance? PLEASE!

A solid rear has its place, just not in a world class SUV or even a two door sports car.

A world-class SUV and a world-class sports car are not the same world-class. That's like saying Picasso and Jimi Hendrix are in the same world-class-artist category.

I'm not going to waste time to explain the "poor 8.9 inches of ground clearance" because everybody else already has. Go back and read.

And 80s 4Runner tech = reliable.

Hmmm. Looks like it's still Land Cruiser > Sequoia.