Difference between 200 and Sequoia (1 Viewer)

[patrickfinley]

Pagemaster, lets carify something. If you are going to be driving your Seqouia on mostly paved roads, with the occasional fire road, then yes it will last you a very long time. All Toyotas are very reliable vehicles, we all know that. My mothers 97 Camry has 265k and running strong.

However, your Sequoia or my mothers Camry will not last with years of abuse on harsh roads and difficult off road terrain. It's just not built or designed for that. When we claim the LC is overbuilt we mean that it is built to withstand vibrations, banging, twisting and overall abuse much better than any other vehicle in the Toyota lineup.

The vehicles you see in Antarctica are Hilux and not Tacoma's. The Hilux has a fully boxed ladder frame, like the LC. The Tacoma, Tundra, Sequoia do not have these sturdy frames, their frames and bodies flex and move during offroad conditions and cause problems with long term use off road.

You should really read up and know what you are talking about, there is a difference with these vehicles.

 

[pagemaster]

It's just not built or designed for that.

Again, you are falling for the TOYOTA marketing crap!

The vehicles you see in Antarctica are Hilux and not Tacoma's.

Tacoma < Toyota < Brands < Arctic Trucks

I dunno....those look like Toyota Tacoma's to me

 

[patrickfinley]

Tacoma < Toyota < Brands < Arctic Trucks
I dunno....those look like Toyota Tacoma's to me

That Tacoma is in Iceland, not Antarctica. Arctic Trucks have run expeditions on Antarctica with Hilux and LC80's.

Long term Tacoma's, Tundra's and Seqouias will not hold up to off road abuse like the LC, it's just a fact.

I'm not falling for Toyota Marketing, I'm just aware how the vehicles are manufactured. Something you seem to be blissfully unaware of.

 

[pagemaster]

it's just a fact.

And where are these facts?

Fact is.

Sequioa has a higher GVWR than the Land Cruiser
Sequioa has a higher GCWR than the Land Cruiser
Sequioa has more ground clearance
Sequioa has BETTER departure angles
Sequioa weights more than the LC (Land Cruser is built like a tank/Sequioa is built like a freight train)
Sequioa has a tougher frame (hence the extra 400 lbs in weight)

Sequioa is more up to date with modern rear end suspensions (ex Range Rover, Patrol etc)
Even the first gen Sequoia had a more complicated and modern rear end than the 200 series

Where are your made up facts?

I'm not falling for Toyota Marketing

Yes you are. The Land Cruiser has the worst ground clearance combined with the worst appr/dep angles out of any Toyota 4WD body of frame vehicle sold in the United States. You fail to address this FACT

 

[sonk76]

This thread is funny.

 

[pagemaster]

This thread is funny.

What is fxxxing hilarious is the Land Cruisers 8.9 inches of ground clearance. That is what is funny

 

[swoosh]

I've had my 2011 LC 200 for almost 4 months. Regarding Ground Clearance argument, correct me if I am wrong...

As long as ground clearance is over a certain threshold, the 1/4 inch to 1" lesser difference is insignificant due to improved angles, etc Just like my camera with Lumix lenses, although with a modest Megapixel will take superior pictures compared to much higher Megapixel camera.

So, I believe Toyota engineers justified the slight lower ground clearance compared to previous generation LC.

 

[pagemaster]

I've had my 2011 LC 200 for almost 4 months. Regarding Ground Clearance argument, correct me if I am wrong...

As long as ground clearance is over a certain threshold, the 1/4 inch to 1" lesser difference is insignificant due to improved angles, etc Just like my camera with Lumix lenses, although with a modest Megapixel will take superior pictures compared to much higher Megapixel camera.

So, I believe Toyota engineers justified the slight lower ground clearance compared to previous generation LC.

Swoosh, that is incorrect. The Land Cruiser's angles have decreased from the 100 series to the 200 series. The ground clearance has also decreased. The 100 series were 30/23 and 9.6 inches.

IMHO, that is major issue. Having only 8.9 inches of ground clearance IMO is pathetic. The current Land Cruiser image is partly in the marketing.

Older Land Cruiser like the 80 series are different.

Now, here is some food for thought. The first generation Toyota Tundra is not as tall as the current Land Cruiser it is 3 inches shorter, its is about the same width, and is about 1.5 longer. The ground clearance of the first gen 4x4 was 11.6 inches. That is also riding on 16 and 17 inch tires. The first gen Tundra had 29/24 approach/dep.....

Want even better? The 2000-2004 Tacoma in some models has 12.0 inches of clearance, and 35/26 app/dep....pretty impressive stats I have to say for a stock vehicle.

 

[uzj100]

I am not sure how weight or ground clearance or app/dep angles has anything to do with reliability and durability and build specifications. I suggest what Slee said, put them on a rack side by side and see for yourself. Have fun.

 

[sleeoffroad]

Older Land Cruiser like the 80 series are different.

And you base this one what? if you are going to make statements like this, please post why you think that way. Have you ever even looked under a 200? Or are you just quoting from specifications.

Now, here is some food for thought. The first generation Toyota Tundra is not as tall as the current Land Cruiser it is 3 inches shorter, its is about the same width, and is about 1.5 longer. The ground clearance of the first gen 4x4 was 11.6 inches. That is also riding on 16 and 17 inch tires. The first gen Tundra had 29/24 approach/dep.....

Want even better? The 2000-2004 Tacoma in some models has 12.0 inches of clearance, and 35/26 app/dep....pretty impressive stats I have to say for a stock vehicle.

These ground clearance figures you mention, where exactly are they measured. Lowest point, which would be the rear diff. What about the rest of the truck. We measured a 200 and with 32" & 3" lift it has more clearance under the front diff than a 100 with same lift and 35's.

Have you ever thought that maybe the 200 specification for ground clearance is less since the diff is actually bigger than a 4runner?

 

[JBHorne]

Exactly! The sequoia has greater MEASURED ground clearance because of it's IRS. The measurement is the LOWEST point, which on a SRA will ALWAYS be the rear diff. On an IRS, well that depends, hence why the LC's ground clearance numbers do not bode well when compared to vehicles with IRS.

FACT: Almost all vehicles with a SRA will have low ground clearance measurements as the radius of the tire really determines the measurement. Even with a lift, the measurement is THE EXACT SAME! Who would have thunk?

The only way to get a higher MEASURED ground clearance with a SRA is by increasing tire size!

The reason why the LC200 has a lower ground clearance is exactly what Christo said: The differential is larger! So two vehicles, regardless of lift, both with 32" tires will have the same measured ground clearance depending on the size of the rear differential. A larger differential will actually yield a lower measured ground clearance.

Therefore, on SRA vehicles, lowest-point-measured ground clearance is a meaningless figure.

Now, as for approach and departure angles, I will give you that -- I'd have liked to see more. However, after a 3" lift, front/rear ARB bumpers, I'm very happy


PS >> Who ever told you that the Sequoia frame is better built than the 200 was lying. Oh, wait, you just made that up. Nevermind...

FACT: The Sequoia shares the same frame as the Tundra. Toyota engineers took the Tundra/Sequoia frame and improved strength by 20%.

 

[cruiserruf]

comparing the LC to the Sequoia is like comparing apples and oranges. i think the 200 series LC should be compared to the highlander

 

[patrickfinley]

My Favorite quote from the chief engineer of the Land Cruiser, Takeo Kondo:
"Long-term durability has always been the number one goal of the Land Cruiser program," he explains, "and we expect these vehicles to be on the road for at least 25 years."

Lets take a closer look:

Sequioa has a higher GVWR than the Land Cruiser

Not true, the Sequoia is rated at 7300 lbs and the LC200 is rated at 8200lbs. Source Toyota.com The Seqouia is better at towing large long objects because of it's wheelbase, but the 200LC can tow more. The 200LC also can carry roughly 200lbs more in interior payload. BTW, GVWR has nothing to do with offroad ability, dependabilty or quality of construction.

Sequioa has a higher GCWR than the Land Cruiser. - Don't know, but if your above statement is false than this may be false as well. Again GCWR has nothing to do with offroad ability, dependabilty or quality of construction.

Sequioa has more ground clearance - True

Sequioa has BETTER departure angles - True, so does a Toyota Rav4. I guess the Rav4 is a better offroad vehicle than your Sequoia and LC based on this fact.

-Sequioa weights more than the LC (Land Cruser is built like a tank/Sequioa is built like a freight train)
Sequioa has a tougher frame (hence the extra 400 lbs in weight)

It is 220 lbs heavier. This has nothing to do with integrity of build but has to do with the fact that it is consideralby larger. It is 10" longer, 1.5" wider and 5" taller. Bigger means heavier, not more sturdily built.

Sequioa is more up to date with modern rear end suspensions (ex Range Rover, Patrol etc)
Even the first gen Sequoia had a more complicated and modern rear end than the 200 series

You just said it perfectly your self. It's a more complicated rear. The single axle rear is a sturdier, simpler, stronger tried and true off road rear axle. IRS is great for many applications, but for hard core off roading you want a SRA.

Also, many SUV makers are switching to IRS because it gives more room in the rear to allow the 3rd row to collapse in the floor. Toyota did not do this with the 200LC to maintain the integrity of it's offroad abilities.

Where are your made up facts?

The 200LC has a beefier underside overall, put them on a lift and take a look.

The 200LC has KDSS

The 200LC has Crawl Control

The 200LC has Hill start assist.

The Land Cruiser is sold all over the world to very harsh regions of the world and has a heritage dating back to the 50's.

The Seqouia is in North America only, and started in the 90's as a competitor to the Expedition and Suburban, none of which are slated as serious offroad vehicles. Edit...it is being exported in small numbers to parts of Latin America and the Middle East.

The LC is built in Japan, the Seq is built in the US.

The Seqouia is just too big to take seriously off road, unless you have a road crew in front of you blasting the trail to make it wider.

The Seqouia is a really great truck for it's intended purposes, heavy off road use is just not in its design.

Here is a great article about the 200LC design:
https://forum.ih8mud.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=6653065

Here is another one on the 100LC design:
https://forum.ih8mud.com/100-series-cruisers/124579-anyone-have-additional-100-series-info-like.html

Once again, because it sums things up so nicely, my Favorite quote from the chief engineer of the Land Cruiser, Takeo Kondo:
"Long-term durability has always been the number one goal of the Land Cruiser program," he explains, "and we expect these vehicles to be on the road for at least 25 years."

 

[pagemaster]

How lucky was I today? Well, I had the chance to spend a while today with a 2008 Toyota Land Cruiser with 32,000 miles. Colour was blue/grey. No tinted windows, navigation with faux wood trim. Not sure what trim level it was. No idea if it had pre-crash

There were two cosmetic flaws. One was missing headlight washer unit/clip and the other was 1" inch chip in the driver side mirror. It was like a piece of pie was missing from the mirror, the mirror housing was not damaged. God only knows how the mirror got cracked.

How did I get to spend time and drive the Land Cruiser? My friend works at Toyota in the North GTA. The Land Cruiser was off lease. Driven in Canada for somebody who leased it third party. You can check it out at autotrader.ca.

So what were my thoughts? Well, I can pretty sum it up that the Land Cruiser/Sequoia and Tundra pretty much all have the same toughness. It seemed as though it was more "Americanized" than I remember when I had it a few times ago. My test drive kind of confirmed that whatever you are planning to do, you'll be able to it in any of the three models.

Overall, the interior materials/fit and finish kind of reminded me of a cross between a Toyoa Avalon and a 2003-2009 Toyota 4runner. Don't ge me wrong, it was premium, but it was far from luxurious.

I could do with out the push button, digital HVAC, rear heated seats and horrible fold up seats.

The ride was good, but it did feel a little choppy. There was a bit of shakiness over some railroads, but I remmeber the Sequoia wobbling like that too. The KDSS kind of felt like it had no idea what it really wanted to do. I kind of wished it had a simple standard suspension with no KDSS. Brakes needed a service as the pedal felt mushy and brake pedal need to be pushed hard. Tires were Michelins and were about 40% left.

The thing the Land Cruiser didn't have was any feeling of truckiness or machoness. I believe the rear is the same as the 4.6 Tundra and it is geared indentically. The 5.7 was great but it was not geared like the 5.7 Tundra (again, lack of truckiness) were it just wants to move.

Overall, I look at the GVWR of the Sequoia, Land Cruiser, and Tundra. Pretty much they feel the same. Like I said earlier, each does a few minor things better and vice versa. Yes, the Land Cruiser did feel like it wanted to work.

Sequoia is 7300 GVWR
Landy is 7275 GVWR
Tundra Crew MAX is 7200 GVWR

One serious issue I found with the 2008 Land Cruiser (and this not a bash) was appearance of frame and chassis rust. It looked a lot more serious than should be prevelant on a 2008 model. It kind of looked like a 2004 model. I have never seen this type of corrosion on a LX570, Tundra or Sequoia.

Now I bring this up because, back when a lot Canadians were importing American Toyotas to Canada because of the dollar echange rate, Toyota Canada went on an advertising campaign warning againts importing Toyota from the USA (especially from southern states) as they were not made with Canadian spec in mind...weather sealing, and a few other things were mentioned. I should put out, that there was sand all over the place in the little areas of the chassis.


I think it is great that Toyota USA has three vehicles with about the same GVWR with three different suspension set-ups.

 

[JBHorne]

Well, I can pretty sum it up that the Land Cruiser/Sequoia and Tundra pretty much all have the same toughness. It seemed as though it was more "Americanized" than I remember when I had it a few times ago. My test drive kind of confirmed that whatever you are planning to do, you'll be able to it in any of the three models.

I'm so happy to learn of your prodigy in that you could make such conclusions by driving the vehicle on roadways! Most people would actually need to take all three vehicles offroad to REALLY see what they are capable of, but not you!

The KDSS kind of felt like it had no idea what it really wanted to do. I kind of wished it had a simple standard suspension with no KDSS.

On road you would have never experienced KDSS. Without articulation it is simply locked, mimicking the effects of a sway bar. Only when articulated would you experience the advantage of KDSS, which is similar to a sway bar disconnect. If KDSS were not there, a sway bar would be needed or you'd be on your side in turn one! KDSS is the best of both worlds -- sway bar on road, disconnected off road!

...but you already knew this because you pulled a 540 RTI score while crossing railroad ties!

 

[pagemaster]

Nice photo!

JB, we actually did go on some rutted roads. We didn't any serious off-roading and no need for any low-range but trust me, I wanted to know what the suspension would do. What I didn't like is how much body-roll there appears to be. Maybe it was just softer shocks....remember I am used to a standard truck suspension.

 

[MUDIMOND]

How lucky was I today? Well, I had the chance to spend a while today with a 2008 Toyota Land Cruiser with 32,000 miles. Colour was blue/grey. No tinted windows, navigation with faux wood trim. Not sure what trim level it was. No idea if it had pre-crash

There were two cosmetic flaws. One was missing headlight washer unit/clip and the other was 1" inch chip in the driver side mirror. It was like a piece of pie was missing from the mirror, the mirror housing was not damaged. God only knows how the mirror got cracked.

How did I get to spend time and drive the Land Cruiser? My friend works at Toyota in the North GTA. The Land Cruiser was off lease. Driven in Canada for somebody who leased it third party. You can check it out at autotrader.ca.

So what were my thoughts? Well, I can pretty sum it up that the Land Cruiser/Sequoia and Tundra pretty much all have the same toughness. It seemed as though it was more "Americanized" than I remember when I had it a few times ago. My test drive kind of confirmed that whatever you are planning to do, you'll be able to it in any of the three models.

Overall, the interior materials/fit and finish kind of reminded me of a cross between a Toyoa Avalon and a 2003-2009 Toyota 4runner. Don't ge me wrong, it was premium, but it was far from luxurious.

I could do with out the push button, digital HVAC, rear heated seats and horrible fold up seats.

The ride was good, but it did feel a little choppy. There was a bit of shakiness over some railroads, but I remmeber the Sequoia wobbling like that too. The KDSS kind of felt like it had no idea what it really wanted to do. I kind of wished it had a simple standard suspension with no KDSS. Brakes needed a service as the pedal felt mushy and brake pedal need to be pushed hard. Tires were Michelins and were about 40% left.

The thing the Land Cruiser didn't have was any feeling of truckiness or machoness. I believe the rear is the same as the 4.6 Tundra and it is geared indentically. The 5.7 was great but it was not geared like the 5.7 Tundra (again, lack of truckiness) were it just wants to move.

Overall, I look at the GVWR of the Sequoia, Land Cruiser, and Tundra. Pretty much they feel the same. Like I said earlier, each does a few minor things better and vice versa. Yes, the Land Cruiser did feel like it wanted to work.

Sequoia is 7300 GVWR
Landy is 7275 GVWR
Tundra Crew MAX is 7200 GVWR

One serious issue I found with the 2008 Land Cruiser (and this not a bash) was appearance of frame and chassis rust. It looked a lot more serious than should be prevelant on a 2008 model. It kind of looked like a 2004 model. I have never seen this type of corrosion on a LX570, Tundra or Sequoia.

Now I bring this up because, back when a lot Canadians were importing American Toyotas to Canada because of the dollar echange rate, Toyota Canada went on an advertising campaign warning againts importing Toyota from the USA (especially from southern states) as they were not made with Canadian spec in mind...weather sealing, and a few other things were mentioned. I should put out, that there was sand all over the place in the little areas of the chassis.

I think it is great that Toyota USA has three vehicles with about the same GVWR with three different suspension set-ups.

Pagemaster,
Great, I have been looking into purchasing an LC in the same general area and I hope you can give me an idea;
Did you by any chance inquire about the asking price what was it and do you think it is negotiable please?
Were these rusting spots very deep or just usual slight and topical?
Did it feel loose and noisy due to excessive off-road use/abuse?
Any serious signs of deterioration or major damage?
Is this my lucky day or what; after reading the thread and your opinion I guess you will be the best person on earth to state and warn against all the possible faults and weak points in an otherwise indestructible LC...LOL.
Regards,
MD

Sent from my Desire HD using IH8MUD

 

[patrickfinley]

Pagemaster,
Great, I have been looking into purchasing an LC in the same general area and I hope you can give me an idea;
Did you by any chance inquire about the asking price what was it and do you think it is negotiable please?
Were these rusting spots very deep or just usual slight and topical?
Did it feel loose and noisy due to excessive off-road use/abuse?
Any serious signs of deterioration or major damage?
Is this my lucky day or what; after reading the thread and your opinion I guess you will be the best person on earth to state and warn against all the possible faults and weak points in an otherwise indestructible LC...LOL.
Regards,
MD

Sent from my Desire HD using IH8MUD

Caution MUDIMOND, I'm not so sure Pagemaster is giving an unbiased or accurate opinion. He is making claims that:

-The Land Cruiser is not sold in Canada because it can't handle the cold weather.
-The Land Cruiser is not built as sturdy as a Seqouia because the LC is lighter than the much bigger Seqouia.
-The Seqouia is a better tow vehicle and thus is better off road and constructed better than the LC.
-Claims that the Land Cruiser would be better off without KDSS, even though he probably never had it engaged.
-Claims the Seqouia is a better off road and better constructed vehicle than the Land Cruiser.
-Claims the Land Cruiser would be better off road if it did away with the Solid rear axle.
-I'm not sure but he's probably stated somewhere that the Sequoia has more cupholders and is therefore better offroad.

I think Pagemaster will do or say anything he can in favor of his Seqouia.

Edit, Reading your post again Mudimond I think your joking but you can never realy tell tone in posts.

 

[pagemaster]

Pagemaster,
Great, I have been looking into purchasing an LC in the same general area and I hope you can give me an idea;
Did you by any chance inquire about the asking price what was it and do you think it is negotiable please?

$49,888 CAN plus 13% tax.

Were these rusting spots very deep or just usual slight and topical?

The rust spots on the frame and axle were all over the place underneath. I have never noticed that much on the LX570 or 2nd gen Tundra. Also, there was sand all over the place in all the little places in the chassis.

Did it feel loose and noisy due to excessive off-road use/abuse?

The rear upright seats rattled around whenever we hit a bump. Something else was rattling around in back. Everything else was silent...very quiet tires, very muted engine. Only thing was with the brakes.

Any serious signs of deterioration or major damage?

The only sign of damage was the driver side mirror was missing part of the actual mirror and the drivers side windshield washer thingy for the headlights was busted.

indestructible LC...LOL.

From my experience, I would not say the LC is indestructible. I mean, it did have a broken mirror and headlight washer.

I think Pagemaster will do or say anything he can in favor of his Seqouia.

Actually no. I would prefer the Land Cruiser over the Seqouia if I was going to buy either or. But too many people want to call the Sequoia s*** or crap when if look at them both, they both can pretty do the EXACT same thing. I would likely take a Tacoma or Reg Cab 4X4 Tundra will roll up windows over the Land Cruiser/Sequoia.

 

[MUDIMOND]

$49,888 CAN plus 13% tax.

The rust spots on the frame and axle were all over the place underneath. I have never noticed that much on the LX570 or 2nd gen Tundra. Also, there was sand all over the place in all the little places in the chassis.

The rear upright seats rattled around whenever we hit a bump. Something else was rattling around in back. Everything else was silent...very quiet tires, very muted engine. Only thing was with the brakes.

The only sign of damage was the driver side mirror was missing part of the actual mirror and the drivers side windshield washer thingy for the headlights was busted.

From my experience, I would not say the LC is indestructible. I mean, it did have a broken mirror and headlight washer.

Thanks pagemaster,
I guess the rust is from the salt being used to de-ice, can be removed and treated, correct?
The rear upright seat noise is normal in 100 & 200 LCs from my experience.
The price -even before negotiation- seems unusually reasonable compared to what it would sell for in the USA and the usually higher Canadian import prices, don't you think?
Being a unique vehicle in Canada and even in the USA I don't think this one will last for sale for long..
If you look at it from a different angle; what other *equally capable & reliable* vehicle can $49k buy you today?
Again, thanks.

Sent from my Desire HD using IH8MUD