Difference between 200 and Sequoia (1 Viewer)

[Carl L]

Those articles seemed in favor of the Sequoia, interesting. They had it rated at 10000lbs towing capacity, perhaps that was the rating before it was revised.

For regular towing of something long and tall (more important than weight, within reason) like a travel trailer I'd take the Seq, likewise if I had 5 kids - extra wheelbase is key. For everything else from towing dump trailers, to going off roading, to taking the wife out for dinner it'd be the LC and it's not even close.

Despite looking similar to the layman, they are two distinct vehicles, both in price and purpose, and each does certain things better than the other. But remember, what you spend extra on the LC you get an over-engineered range-topper and this difference is not only reflected in day-to-day use but also come resale time.

 

[pagemaster]

LC you get an over-engineered range-topper and this difference

LMAO...both the Sequoia and Land Cruiser are engineered to the Toyota spec. Neither/nor are going to last longer.

 

[Carl L]

LMAO...both the Sequoia and Land Cruiser are engineered to the Toyota spec. Neither/nor are going to last longer.

I didn't say it will last longer so your attempted smart-ass comment is misplaced.

 

[pagemaster]

No problem Carl.

But neither of them are over-engineered over the next.

 

[Carl L]

No problem Carl.

But neither of them are over-engineered over the next.

All good.

I hear what you're saying. All I basically meant was that it's made with less compromise, for instance the quality of the dash and interior finish.

 

[pagemaster]

I suppose I should've said that it's made with less compromise, for instance the quality of the dash and interior finish.

Meh, quality of the dash is minor for a Sequioa owner and more important for a Land Cruiser owner. There is about a $20k price different between the two vehicle. .

I mean, the argument can go another way. In the Land Cruiser, where is my adaptive cruise control, my ventilated seats, my independant rear suspension (Range Rover, Nissan, Mercedes) all offer them, my power rear hatch, my headlight adjustment,

But then again, the Land Cruiser offers rediculous features like rain sensing wipers, and smart key that the Sequioa does not have.

They both cater to different tastes. The Sequioa competes with American full size SUVS and does very well. The Land Cruiser competes with the Range Rover/QX56/LX570 and does ok. Head to head, they both compete very well with one-another

But to call the Land Cruiser over-engineered compared to the Sequioa is not true. That Land Cruiser 4 link-solid axle is a cost-cutted rear suspension compared to the Sequioa's more modern independent rear. On the flip side, the Land Cruiser's HVAC/Radio is more up to date than the Sequioa's cobbled together system. Then going back the other way, the Land Cruiser's clamshell rear hatch is not all that modern compared to the Sequioa's lift-up hatch which almost every other SUV on the planet has.

As for the interior of the Land Cruiser, it does use different materials than the Sequioa...but then agian, its also uses cheap faux wood like the Sequioa.

 

[Carl L]

Meh, quality of the dash is minor for a Sequioa owner and more important for a Land Cruiser owner. There is about a $20k price different between the two vehicle. .

I mean, the argument can go another way. In the Land Cruiser, where is my adaptive cruise control, my ventilated seats, my independant rear suspension (Range Rover, Nissan, Mercedes) all offer them, my power rear hatch, my headlight adjustment,

But then again, the Land Cruiser offers rediculous features like rain sensing wipers, and smart key that the Sequioa does not have.

They both cater to different tastes. The Sequioa competes with American full size SUVS and does very well. The Land Cruiser competes with the Range Rover/QX56/LX570 and does ok. Head to head, they both compete very well with one-another

But to call the Land Cruiser over-engineered compared to the Sequioa is not true. That Land Cruiser 4 link-solid axle is a cost-cutted rear suspension compared to the Sequioa's more modern independent rear. On the flip side, the Land Cruiser's HVAC/Radio is more up to date than the Sequioa's cobbled together system. Then going back the other way, the Land Cruiser's clamshell rear hatch is not all that modern compared to the Sequioa's lift-up hatch which almost every other SUV on the planet has.

As for the interior of the Land Cruiser, it does use different materials than the Sequioa...but then agian, its also uses cheap faux wood like the Sequioa.

Yes, the Land Cruiser is clearly not perfect. Below-average braking, no steering feel, sub-par interior compared to European competition, fairly basic 6-speed auto, poor specific output engine. But the fact is, it sells well in the ROW. The Sequioa would not, it's a north american special. It's rear end is not advanced just because it's independent, it's still very basic as betrayed by the moderate handling and ride of the vehicle. It's not going to hold up well off road and the interior looks and feels like it was made from melted lego.

 

[JBHorne]

Meh, quality of the dash is minor for a Sequioa owner and more important for a Land Cruiser owner. There is about a $20k price different between the two vehicle. .

I mean, the argument can go another way. In the Land Cruiser, where is my adaptive cruise control, my ventilated seats, my independant rear suspension (Range Rover, Nissan, Mercedes) all offer them, my power rear hatch, my headlight adjustment,

But then again, the Land Cruiser offers rediculous features like rain sensing wipers, and smart key that the Sequioa does not have.

They both cater to different tastes. The Sequioa competes with American full size SUVS and does very well. The Land Cruiser competes with the Range Rover/QX56/LX570 and does ok. Head to head, they both compete very well with one-another

But to call the Land Cruiser over-engineered compared to the Sequioa is not true. That Land Cruiser 4 link-solid axle is a cost-cutted rear suspension compared to the Sequioa's more modern independent rear. On the flip side, the Land Cruiser's HVAC/Radio is more up to date than the Sequioa's cobbled together system. Then going back the other way, the Land Cruiser's clamshell rear hatch is not all that modern compared to the Sequioa's lift-up hatch which almost every other SUV on the planet has.

As for the interior of the Land Cruiser, it does use different materials than the Sequioa...but then agian, its also uses cheap faux wood like the Sequioa.

I 100% disagree. The land cruiser is purpose built to handle extreme conditions whereas the Sequoia is not. Toyota's own testing procedures prove this. They are different beasts. "Spec" is just an R&D number. Specifications differ between the two vehicles for a reason. There's more than $20K difference than the "quality of the dash".

You list independent rear suspension as a "feature" which clearly indicates where you sit (or don't traverse). Hell, if I had $15K I'd SAS the front as well. IRS is a joke on an offroad vehicle. I don't care what the "average consumer" uses the vehicle for, I care what it was BUILT for. Others can boost the economy however they see fit.

I would agree, however, that I'd like to see more creature comforts (however would not pay more for them). My '08 does not have rain sensing wipers. So that, cooled and ventilated seats, auto rear hatch, auto headlights, factory HIDs, laser cruise control, would all be nice options to have.

I think Toyota should take it a step further and have optional e-lockers (not that I'd want an e-locker, but you're not going to convince an OEM to add on-board air and pneumatic lockers).

If they got rid of Crawl Control I wouldn't mind one bit...nearly fell off a huge cliff while "testing" that thing!

 

[Carl L]

I 100% disagree. The land cruiser is purpose built to handle extreme conditions whereas the Sequoia is not. Toyota's own testing procedures prove this. They are different beasts. "Spec" is just an R&D number. Specifications differ between the two vehicles for a reason. There's more than $20K difference than the "quality of the dash".

You list independent rear suspension as a "feature" which clearly indicates where you sit (or don't traverse). Hell, if I had $15K I'd SAS the front as well. IRS is a joke on an offroad vehicle. I don't care what the "average consumer" uses the vehicle for, I care what it was BUILT for. Others can boost the economy however they see fit.

I would agree, however, that I'd like to see more creature comforts (however would not pay more for them). My '08 does not have rain sensing wipers. So that, cooled and ventilated seats, auto rear hatch, auto headlights, factory HIDs, laser cruise control, would all be nice options to have.

I think Toyota should take it a step further and have optional e-lockers (not that I'd want an e-locker, but you're not going to convince an OEM to add on-board air and pneumatic lockers).

If they got rid of Crawl Control I wouldn't mind one bit...nearly fell off a huge cliff while "testing" that thing!

Well said. I'm going to try and checkout at this point as it seems we have a dog with bone scenario in this thread given that my previous attempts to exit have been thwarted.

One last thing though, you may want to be thankful that you don't have rain sensing wipers, mine are very patchy. The keyless entry is also rather aggravating, it just doesn't work as seamlessly as other brands'. Overall though, this truck has given me exactly what I paid for. It's an endearing ol' dinosaur that will trail, tow and dog sit with the best of them. I'll likely keep mine for a lot longer than is usual for me.

 

[pagemaster]

The land cruiser is purpose built to handle extreme conditions whereas the Sequoia is not.

Thats a crock of s***. Both are designed at pretty much the same spec. The GVWR pretty much confirms this. I love how people get so sucked into the marketing of the Toyota Land Cruiser.

The Sequioa was designed to haul people and trailers all day long.
The Land Cruiser is more of a personal use vehicle. A vehicle you would tow, go for picnics, tailgate (cause it has an old fashioned tailgate), even go to the country club....heck even Taylor Swift drives one.
.

One thing is for certain, the Land Cruiser can't handle Northern Canadian Winters as it is not sold in Canada see how stupid the logic of extreme conditions can be?

There's more than $20K difference than the "quality of the dash".

A lot of the difference in price is soaked up with tariffs, shipping across the world, and being built in another country.

IRS is a joke on an offroad vehicle.

Well, the Range Rover, Patrol are the two main competition of the Land Cruiser. Both do very well with their IRS. Also, the Hummer which is an very good off-road machine is IFS/IRS.....

Land Cruiser rear was cost cut, end of story. That is why it does not have a IRS.

And another thing, the only advantage the LC has over the Seq is front approach angles and wheelbase....Sequioa beats the Land Cruiser with the all more important ground clearance of 10 inches vs 8.9 on the Landy.

I love the Land Cruiser, I love the interior, I love the performance but it is not the be all, end all of Toyota SUVs....It also isn't superior over the Sequioa.....

 

[Carl L]

You are foul-mouthed and, evidenced by this thread, lacking in common sense and knowledge.

As with 2500 and 3500 series pickups, GVWR is primarily spring related. Everybody but you knows this.

You read about Taylor Swift.

The Sequoia is better at moving 6-8 people and arguably, at towing. Otherwise was not said.

The Land Cruiser will go further off road than the Seq, drivers and tires being equal. It will also last longer in off-road conditions as it designed for them. It is superior in these areas, likewise in interior. Purchase price is matter less, you can either afford one or you can't.

Nobody claimed the LC200 was perfect or the be all and end all. But, unless you have more than three children, it is a better vehicle than the Seq so long as one can comfortably spend the initial outlay.

You are interested in Taylor Swift.

Canadian winters? They sell LCs in nothern Russia, which is colder.

The new Patrol has been out for all of five minutes. Stop pretending you now what it's like off the beaten path.

Yes, the Range Rover is very capable off road, rims not withstanding.

You do not own a LC200 You should read less and go gain some first hand experience. Also, drop the angst. Your child-like internet anger will only serve to raise your blood pressure.

You follow Taylor Swift.

I'm sure you'll now go spend hours twisting the words of myself and JBHorne and making sure you get the last word. Go for it, that precious post count won't raise itself. Forgive me if I return to my habit of staying away from internet message boards, as serious a business as they are.

 

[pagemaster]

it is a better vehicle than the Seq so long as one can comfortably spend the initial outlay.

This is probably the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

The both can do pretty much the same thing with a few little things here and there which are done differently.

 

[sleeoffroad]

Thats a crock of s***. Both are designed at pretty much the same spec. The GVWR pretty much confirms this. I love how people get so sucked into the marketing of the Toyota Land Cruiser.

You need to put a LC and a Sequoia on a lift next to each other and then look at the details and then you will understand where the difference comes from. The devil is in the details.

 

[pagemaster]

You read about Taylor Swift.

You are interested in Taylor Swift.

You follow Taylor Swift.

Wow, some of you Land Cruiser owners are as sensitive as the women who drive them.

 

[JBHorne]

One thing is for certain, the Land Cruiser can't handle Northern Canadian Winters as it is not sold in Canada

I despise internet battles, but wow, the stupidity of that comment amazes me. You really believe that Toyota not selling the LC200 in Canada is a result of its incapability to handle cold weather? Really???

Well, the Range Rover, Patrol are the two main competition of the Land Cruiser. Both do very well with their IRS. Also, the Hummer which is an very good off-road machine is IFS/IRS.....

Again....really??? The Range Rover has NOTHING on the LC...ask ANYONE that has actually wheeled with them. I won't even begin to comment on the Hummer. LOL!

You need to put a LC and a Sequoia on a lift next to each other and then look at the details and then you will understand where the difference comes from. The devil is in the details.

Thank you Christo for defending the LC's honor! Now you are a man whose opinion I trust!

 

[patrickfinley]

One thing is for certain, the Land Cruiser can't handle Northern Canadian Winters as it is not sold in Canada see how stupid the logic of extreme conditions can be?

Do you really believe Canada doesn't have the LC because it can't handle the winters??? Iceland seems to be very happy with them. If we used your goofy logic then Iceland doesn't have the Sequoia because it can't handle the winters there.

Land Cruiser V8 < Toyota < Brands < Arctic Trucks

Perhaps PlanetAlaska can chime in on how he's happy with his LC200 up in Alaska.

 

[pagemaster]

Do you really believe Canada doesn't have the LC because it can't handle the winters??? Iceland seems to be very happy with them. If we used your goofy logic then Iceland doesn't have the Sequoia because it can't handle the winters there.

Land Cruiser V8 < Toyota < Brands < Arctic Trucks

Perhaps PlanetAlaska can chime in on how he's happy with his LC200 up in Alaska.

Read into what I am saying, my point is, the extreme condition argument is bull****, if a Sequioa can handle Northern Canadian winters, then it can handle extreme environments.End of Story!!!

I don't fall for this extreme conditions, built like a tank blah blah that every Land Cruiser owners spews. Its very good marketing by Toyota.

And technically we do have the Land Cruiser in Canada, we have LX model.

As for that Arctic Toyota stuff, I find it interesting that they are using double cab Tacomas. I guess American built Toyotas can handle the Arctic....

At the end of the day, like I said earlier. Both the Land Cruiser/Sequoia do certain things well as one does some things slightly better than the other and vice versa.

Lots of people dismiss that IRS of the Sequoia and thats fine, but at the end of the day, it should be pointed out that out of all the Toyota body on frame 4WD models, the Land Cruiser comes in dead last for ground clearance at 8.9 inches.

Not only that, but I find a Toyota Tundra 5.7 Reg can approach/dep of 28/27 far more appealing than the Land Cruisers 30/20....and the Tundra also has 1.7 inches in more clearance as both are fitted with 18inch rims.

What is even more stunning is the Access Cab Tacoma approach/dep 35/26 with a breakover of 24....that completely blows away the Land Cruiser.

So, remember, the extreme condition crap is complete marketing bull**** from Toyota. The Land Cruiser 30/20 with a 21 breakover is pretty pathetic for a vehicle that is dubbed a great off-road vehicle. I am not even going to start on the 8.9 inches of clearance.

I guess it would be fair to conclude that the Tacoma with a 35/26 appr/dep, 24 breakover, 9.3 inches of ground clearance would likely be a much better off-road vehcile than the be-all-end-all Land Cruiser 200? Lets add in the Tacoma's locking rear differential...

 

[Billfish]

Hahahah. Keep digging, Hoss.

 

[uzj100]

No seqs listed for sale here.
TGS-Home

No seqs winning (AGAIN) the Paris Dakar rally with minor mods.
http://www.toyota.com.kw/English/toyota_models/landcruiser/history/html/worldwide/dakar_rally.html

No armored up seqs running around in the war zone.

No seq sold in the Australian Outback.
http://www.toyota.com.au/suvs-and-4wds

Not going to happen. Seq is built to take on Ford and Chevy, end of story.

Not marketing, real life. Real offroading. Where people depend on their vehicles to stay alive.

 

[pagemaster]

stay alive.

Lets just hope that along those rough terrains, the Land Cruiser owners don't need more than 8.9 inches of ground clearance.