LC = finely crafted, well insulated gloves
Sequoia = mittens
They'll both keep your hands warm but, well, you know...
Sequoia = mittens
They'll both keep your hands warm but, well, you know...
Last edited:
Difference between 200 and Sequoia (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Von Hayek
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
Another reason the two drive so differently is the the rear wheel drive versus full-time four wheel drive. The LC puts down its power so much better in spirited city driving that, even with "sport" selected on the Sequoia (Platinum), I think the LC can be driven much faster. Of course, I also think the LC had less roll and wish my Sequoia could be fitted with stiffer sway bars.
As soon as a kid or two leaves for college, I will be returning to a Land Cruiser!
As soon as a kid or two leaves for college, I will be returning to a Land Cruiser!
geologic
SILVER Star
Funny I feel completely opposite! I've had two 80 series, three 100 series (2-AHC), and three 200 series (1-AHC). I'm old. I couldn't stand the sway and lack of feel and sway in the top heavy 200 series. I traded for a 2013 Sequoia Limited 4x4 and it drives/handles way better than the LX/LCs. The four wheel high works just like the all wheel drive I had in the cruiser and I have so much more utility out of the rear independent suspension/fold in floor rear seat. The ride and handling are much more sporty and aggressive. The power train is overkill in both of them but the sport mode and ability to use two wheel drive makes this a much better road performer. Plus it's not quite as ugly as my 200 series trucks. I wish Toyota would shift back to the 80 series look. My favorite Toyota I bought new was an AHC 2007 Thunercloud LC. It was the right size, right handling, and right power. Funny how my big Sequoia get the same fuel economy. I can pull my tractor to the shop, take the family to FL, commute to work and get down all the dirt roads at the farm in the same vehicle without feeling like I'm in the wrong vehicle. That's saying a lot.
We are of like minds, except I never owned a 200 series or even driven one. With your experience would you recommend when I'm ready to put my latest 100 out to pasture I look at the current GX460 which is about the same size as all my 100 series? I think the Sequoia is too big for my needs.
If we're going to start awarding points to the Sequoia based on outright practicality, then we really need to open up the entire discussion to other full-sized SUVs because end of day, the LC is essentially blessed/cursed by its priceless heritage.
By nature, the whole idea of blazing trails on the backroads is pure play. We don't need to be out there. We do it for fun. We reward or pay extra for the ooooh what a feeling. We trace the LC roots around the globe. We feel better in it because we see how others are using the very same vehicle across continents, in your backcountry.
And this is where the Sequoia, Tahoe, Q7, and GLs fall woefully short. I could've gotten a lot of additional xtra Xs and Ys by going with any of these high volume sellers, but I don't coach my team based on a set playbook. When it comes to automotive pleasures, I call many plays w/ my gut and heart and such calls lead me to the LC every single down.
I can't imagine owning any other SUV at this point in my life and likely for miles of smiles plus years to come. It's got character.
By nature, the whole idea of blazing trails on the backroads is pure play. We don't need to be out there. We do it for fun. We reward or pay extra for the ooooh what a feeling. We trace the LC roots around the globe. We feel better in it because we see how others are using the very same vehicle across continents, in your backcountry.
And this is where the Sequoia, Tahoe, Q7, and GLs fall woefully short. I could've gotten a lot of additional xtra Xs and Ys by going with any of these high volume sellers, but I don't coach my team based on a set playbook. When it comes to automotive pleasures, I call many plays w/ my gut and heart and such calls lead me to the LC every single down.
I can't imagine owning any other SUV at this point in my life and likely for miles of smiles plus years to come. It's got character.
Last edited:
geologic
SILVER Star
These are from LC heritage too and they may play even better. I'm tired if the sloppy KDSS handling and lack of functionality of the current 200 series. The GX is more four runner oriented. Go with the big one here, the handling an ride are extra nice, better than the others mentioned above, mine's getting more manly each mod. These 18inch TRDs are going on this week. Double independent makes for a lot more functionality in the rear of the vehicle as well. Try the Sequioa
Don’t know if this thread is alive still, but one commonality between the Sequoia and 200 is apparently a similar drivers seat, including, most crucially, seat height. Not an issue for most folks, but for taller drivers definitely an issue.
I’m 6’4” and have bad visibility in my 200. It was better in my 2010 Highlander. So much so that I’m contemplating removing the main visor and leaving just the secondary visor, yielding 1” of additional vertical visibioity, and greatly expanding the line of sight. It may not seem like a big deal, but if you need to crouch in a Land Cruiser to see if the light is red or green, then yeah, it’s a big deal.
Sat in a brand new 2018 Sequoia the other day, and to my great displeasure, seats seem same as 200-series.
Black seats are 2011 200-series.
Tan seats are 2018 Sequoia.
I’m 6’4” and have bad visibility in my 200. It was better in my 2010 Highlander. So much so that I’m contemplating removing the main visor and leaving just the secondary visor, yielding 1” of additional vertical visibioity, and greatly expanding the line of sight. It may not seem like a big deal, but if you need to crouch in a Land Cruiser to see if the light is red or green, then yeah, it’s a big deal.
Sat in a brand new 2018 Sequoia the other day, and to my great displeasure, seats seem same as 200-series.
Black seats are 2011 200-series.
Tan seats are 2018 Sequoia.
gaijin
GOLD Star
I'm also 6'4" and the last car I had where I didn't have to crouch to see the light was my 1967 MGB - now that was a car.
I have a 2007 S197 Mustang convertible for awesome through-windshield visibility and, with the top down, full-spectrum situational awareness. The 100 series visibility was several degrees better (may have just been the beaten cushioning in the older seats) but I was REALLY surprised by the limited visibility in the 200 series.
Right now, the three different plans of action for addressing it, ranked in order of difficulty, Low to High: (1) large sun-visor removal; (2) chopping/fabbing front foot-pegs on driver seat by about 1-2”; (3) carving cushioning material out of seat (which is not advised by the expert upholsterer I consulted bc of the air vents / hardware below); (4) BMW/Recaro driver seat (not advisable bc of airbag concerns/general presentation); (5) deepening floorwell (sounds radical, but may be a matter of cutting and fabbing, which, together with #2 above, results in a more comfortable ride because it’s not just butt that’s lower, but also legs — esp important for longer duration drives); (6) buying a Tesla Model X windshield ($800) or MB Sprinter windshield and fabricating a windshield frame, raised roof setup, where existing frame, A pillar, etc., remain largely untouched as a sort of “factory rollcage” but the parts that currently block visibility are cut out, yielding a significantly higher visible plane.
As every driver knows, every square inch of windshield/mirror/glass visibility is used in situational awareness situations, and the visual cortex can learn/adapt rather quickly to non-linear visual frames, doing real-time stitching to give a bigger image that’s much better than merely a sum of parts. So while #6 is certainly “out there” in terms of the level of work required, if someone decides to combine it with a “Raised Roof” mod, then it’s something that suddenly becomes a lot more plausible. A Model X-type windshield (and cabin air filter) on a 200 series would be two improvements that would make me keep this rig for several decades (along with an eventual E-Cruiser conversion).
mcgaskins
SILVER Star
The only option you listed that makes any sense is number 1. Not sure if you’re even serious about the other stuff, but there are myriad reasons they won’t work. If the visibility is that bad for you, maybe the truck isn’t the right fit. I have a Tacoma that’s about as built as possible, but I find it extremely uncomfortable so I’m selling it. Not every car is the right fit for everyone.
1 through 4 are in play, in that order — and also, of course, reclining seat back, which changes my usual/comfortable riding posture, but may work — so have to see how this will work. But I really appreciate your perspective on the Tacoma build. In the end, it boils down to driver feeling of comfort and feeling of control and feeling of visibility — and these are all 100% subjective. So if there’s no fit, you must acquit. 100% correct.
I have to admit I have no idea what was in those past 15 pages from back in 2013.
I will say the main reasons I have never went with a Sequoia over the 200s were as follows, build quality, material quality, overall physical size, overall appearance, the rear double hatch tailgate design of which the 200 is the only full size body on frame suv to still have this style tailgate rear hatch, flat rear load floor when 3rd row is folded, in the case of the 200 they are folded up into the sides which also aids in keeping the load height much more functional and totally flat not sloped to the rear like many others in this class are.
There is a functional fridge built into the center console. Surround view camera system, push button start totally keyless system, and for me the outer dimensions of the 200 which is the physically the smallest of all full size body on frame suvs it simply fits in the garage better, with little to minimal sacrifices made in terms of interior space by comparison.
Also one I am not all that concerned with is fuel mileage, which the 200s get a little better mileage then the Sequoia's. Not a lot but I think 2mpg better would likely be the average.
Which I think they both have similar size fuel tanks, which should leave the 200 with slightly better range by comparison.
I will say the main reasons I have never went with a Sequoia over the 200s were as follows, build quality, material quality, overall physical size, overall appearance, the rear double hatch tailgate design of which the 200 is the only full size body on frame suv to still have this style tailgate rear hatch, flat rear load floor when 3rd row is folded, in the case of the 200 they are folded up into the sides which also aids in keeping the load height much more functional and totally flat not sloped to the rear like many others in this class are.
There is a functional fridge built into the center console. Surround view camera system, push button start totally keyless system, and for me the outer dimensions of the 200 which is the physically the smallest of all full size body on frame suvs it simply fits in the garage better, with little to minimal sacrifices made in terms of interior space by comparison.
Also one I am not all that concerned with is fuel mileage, which the 200s get a little better mileage then the Sequoia's. Not a lot but I think 2mpg better would likely be the average.
Which I think they both have similar size fuel tanks, which should leave the 200 with slightly better range by comparison.
Last edited:
It's not a case of one being better than the other. They are tailored for different missions. While sharing a lot of the same DNA and architecture from like year models. They are differentiated enough that Toyota felt the need for two full size SUV's in their lineup.
I think we can all agree that the 200-series has more depth of capability for off pavement travel.
While the Sequoia is targeted for more on-road oriented travel.
Both are strong and capable of crossing into each others roles. Yet each is better in their respective specializations.
This is obvious by their dimensions. The 200-series shares its 112.2" wheelbase with the 80-series! While the Sequoia has no need for that constraint at 122". Length is 194.9" to 205.1" respectively. Width 77.6" to 79.9".
As has been pointed out, LC has a solid rear axle to Sequoia's independent rear. This tells us that Sequoia without a doubt will have better on road handling and ride.
LC has a transfer case with torsen diff, while Sequoia's is an open diff. Though Sequoia has the benefit of selectable 2WD.
LC is situated as Toyota's top of the line, vs Sequoia. So it will have more design, goodness, and price.
I think we can all agree that the 200-series has more depth of capability for off pavement travel.
While the Sequoia is targeted for more on-road oriented travel.
Both are strong and capable of crossing into each others roles. Yet each is better in their respective specializations.
This is obvious by their dimensions. The 200-series shares its 112.2" wheelbase with the 80-series! While the Sequoia has no need for that constraint at 122". Length is 194.9" to 205.1" respectively. Width 77.6" to 79.9".
As has been pointed out, LC has a solid rear axle to Sequoia's independent rear. This tells us that Sequoia without a doubt will have better on road handling and ride.
LC has a transfer case with torsen diff, while Sequoia's is an open diff. Though Sequoia has the benefit of selectable 2WD.
LC is situated as Toyota's top of the line, vs Sequoia. So it will have more design, goodness, and price.
I test drove the 2016 GX three times. There were several things that I didn't like about it. It has a high beltline and relatively low roof. Combine that with large D-pillars and small rear-window opening, and I found visibility to be poor.
The drivetrain was smooth, but it seemed to be significantly down on power compared to a 200.
I don't care for the side-hinged rear door. Particularly when I'm fishing in a light rain, I like to have the hatch above me.
The third row seats in the GX460 fold "flat" into the floor. To achieve that, however, they raised the rear floor height 4-5 inches. I suspect you can remove those seats, but then you have to do something about the trim pieces. The result is that the GX460 has very little cargo room:
4th Gen 4Runner with no 3rd row, 2nd row folded: 70 cu ft
5th Gen 4Runner with no 3rd row, 2nd row folded: 80 cu ft
GX460, 2nd and 3rd row folded: 60 cu ft
200 LC with 2nd and 3rd row folded: 80 cu ft
I found the drivers seat to be uncomfortable. It felt as though there was a hard ridge around the edge of the seat cushion that dug into my thighs.
Also, I don't like the spindle grill on the GX -- it reduces ground clearance and cuts into the approach angle. The GX also has a larger turning circle than the 200 LC.
Finally, while the GX starting price is reasonable, that model is rather decontented. To get the options that I wanted sent the price up above $65k. All in all, I liked the size of the GX, but it just didn't work for me.
I found a 2-year-old 2013 Landcruiser for less money, and I liked the LC better. YMMV.
geologic
SILVER Star
