Difference between Land Cruiser and Sequoia? Really. (2 Viewers)

[kbahus]

What is not comparable is price. There is no conceivable way I could justify spending over twice as much money on a used 200 vs a 2nd gen Sequoia with similar mileage and condition. Granted everyone’s uses will be different and I don’t plan to rock crawl the Sequoia, but that allowed me to save $10k or more on my purchase. I am more than impressed with the Sequoia and happy I made the choice. It is overbuilt in many ways and the selectable 4wd is fantastic. If I had one complaint it would be the interior quality, it is not bad, but the Japanese trucks are better. $10k better? Not a chance.

To answer the op more directly, I personally feel the Sequoia is a close runner up to the Land Cruiser in build quality and longevity. I also feel it is a better value.

 

[Markuson]

What is not comparable is price. There is no conceivable way I could justify spending over twice as much money on a used 200 vs a 2nd gen Sequoia with similar mileage and condition. Granted everyone’s uses will be different and I don’t plan to rock crawl the Sequoia, but that allowed me to save $10k or more on my purchase. I am more than impressed with the Sequoia and happy I made the choice. It is overbuilt in many ways and the selectable 4wd is fantastic. If I had one complaint it would be the interior quality, it is not bad, but the Japanese trucks are better. $10k better? Not a chance.

Sounds to me like you made the right choice for yourself.

Your use sounds like you don’t really need the LC, so it’s good that you figured that out.

For me, I honestly don’t believe the Sequoia could do what I’ve asked of my LC...so despite my limited funds, finding a great used 200 was the right choice...for me.

 

[eatSleepWoof]

What is not comparable is price. There is no conceivable way I could justify spending over twice as much money on a used 200 vs a 2nd gen Sequoia with similar mileage and condition. Granted everyone’s uses will be different and I don’t plan to rock crawl the Sequoia, but that allowed me to save $10k or more on my purchase. I am more than impressed with the Sequoia and happy I made the choice. It is overbuilt in many ways and the selectable 4wd is fantastic. If I had one complaint it would be the interior quality, it is not bad, but the Japanese trucks are better. $10k better? Not a chance.

To answer the op more directly, I personally feel the Sequoia is a close runner up to the Land Cruiser in build quality and longevity. I also feel it is a better value.

Interesting to hear the price differences in your neck of the woods.

When I was shopping, prices for Sequoias were pretty much identical to prices for LXs. (No LCs in Canada.)

 

[TeCKis300]

I would say it's less about build quality and quality control than it is of design and intent. Don't get me wrong, I do believe 200-series is built to higher standards being that it is top of the line and a Land Cruiser. It also costs something like 2x the price so there's likely slight emphasis differences such as manufacturing to design rather than manufacturing to cost.

The Sequoia and Tundra share much of the same architecture and family of components. That's not to say that they are the same pieces and same durability however. The Land Cruiser frame is bespoke specific to it. So is the body, So is many of the suspension details. Etc. Even if they were to share the exact same parts, it's highly probable that the QC process is different, with the Land Cruiser requiring less number of defects per batch number of units. Lexus does indeed use the same practice with requirements to have less defect per batch.

Speaking of which, the LC is manufactured in some of Toyota's finest manufacturing lines. Some of which is greatly shared with the Lexus models. It's changed over the years, but they do reserve the more sophisticated and tighter controlled lines for higher end model production. Tundra and Sequoia are manufactured in the US.

All the Toyota models are highly durable and reliable. The LC is at another level still. If we had insight into their detailed design and requirements, we would be able to objectively quantify this. As a consumer, all we have to go by is annecdotal information. For a heritage model like the LC that is time tested and actually used and abused in some of the most extreme conditions, I think many of us would agree there's surely substance behind it.

 

[Str8Laced]

That's one fugly roof rack on the heritage edition

LOL, I have one on my Highlander, Yakima MegaWarrior, I'd put it on the LX but wouldn't fit in the garage.

Yakima MegaWarrior

 

[Markuson]

Not sure why...but it’s an oft-repeated myth that the LC is nearly 2x the price of the Sequoia...

Not even close.
Not unless the LC starts at $100k...

The Sequoia starts at $50k (OK, $49.4k)...and builds up to $66k (OK, $65,945)...!
And frankly, only the highest trim level Sequoia is in any way close to a fair comparison.

LCs certainly not $100k to $132k....so it would be great if that 2x myth would go away.

For that matter...
Even a Chevy Tahoe hits $74k and even higher depending on options.
-Even Chevy’s front page Tahoe example photo unit is $74k plus...

All that to say... The LC is expensive, no doubt. **Too expensive for me to buy new... But it’s not quite as crazy as most articles and comparisons tend to suggest when you see what lesser trucks can price out to...

 

[kbahus]

My twice the price comment was based on the used marketplace. 2008 Sequoia Limited with 240k in excellent condition for $10,900. The cheapest 200 series LC that could be found was over $20,000 and most were around $25k with similar mileage at the time.

 

[Markuson]

My twice the price comment was based on the used marketplace. 2008 Sequoia Limited with 240k in excellent condition for $10,900. The cheapest 200 series LC that could be found was over $20,000 and most were around $25k with similar mileage at the time.

My mini-rant wasn’t directed at you at all. Land Cruisers definitely do age well, and definitely hold value better than most.

Was about new pricing, and the stubborn tendency to end up with lopsided comparisons of the *cheapest* Sequoia trim...vs the US spec LC trim—which is actually the *highest trim level LC* in most world markets—but just happens to be the *only* trim level available in the US. If the Sequoia only came in it’s most expensive trim level...like the LC...(or the Lc was offered here at lower trim levels like it is elsewhere....then this argument wouldn’t come up so often.

But meh...

 

[ridetime]

But, Sequoia is a much bigger mass and has ONLY a 6-speed automatic. We Have 8 speed in the 2016 and up. So, if sequoia has the LC tranny, then it should get better MPG, esp highway.

They have the same engine, weigh the same and get the same mileage. The 8-speed tranny does nothing for fuel economy. So your theory is incorrect. Having a part time 4wheel drive setup vs full-time in the LC has no impact on mileage per Toyota's documentation.

 

[FJ73Texas]

The Sequoia was not always for the North America market only or "US market" only. Not sure about now but in the past, there was some variants of 07+ models shipped to the middle east.

 

[Madtiger]

They have the same engine, weigh the same and get the same mileage. The 8-speed tranny does nothing for fuel economy. So your theory is incorrect. Having a part time 4wheel drive setup vs full-time in the LC has no impact on mileage per Toyota's documentation.

Technically speaking, Sequoia 4wd system is NOT part-time. That's the beauty of Sequoia's 4wd system.

As for fuel economy, i can go only by what Toyota states in their literature. See quote above from Toyota.

 

[TeCKis300]

I maintain 2x.

Yes, sometimes less but sometimes more. The OP also commented on the 4Runner.

Depending on what one uses for context:

New pricing:
4Runner: $36k - 49k
Sequoia: $49k - 68k
LC (and if we include the LX as the higher trim): $85k - $100k

Used pricing can be even more dramatic.

 

[OregonLC]

I can't believe no one has brought up IRS. For any type of heavy trail use that's a big deal. Though you wouldn't think so with the new Discovery...

 

[M1911]

I stand corrected on the LC fuel economy. Toyota states that the 8-speed improves fuel efficiency:

"For 2016, a new 8-speed automatic transmission replaces the 6-speed unit, with the added ratios allowing a wider ratio spread to help enhance acceleration and fuel efficiency. When the going gets rough, the driver can select manual control for more powertrain control. EPA fuel efficiency is 13 mpg in the city, 18 mpg on the highway and 15 combined."

But at least per EPA, there was no change.

Look at real world figures on fuelly.com: Toyota Land Cruiser MPG - Actual MPG from 1,004 Toyota Land Cruiser owners

The sample sizes are small, but as you can see from that page, there hasn't been any significant change.

Adding more gears helps to keep the engine operating in a speed range where it has the best performance with the least fuel consumption. An 8-speed automatic can deliver up to 11 percent better fuel economy than a 6-speed, for example, depending on engine, vehicle and drive-axle gearing.

Full text here: Beyond the 6-Speed: More Ratios forTransmissions

There certainly is a theoretical benefit to an 8-speed transmission over a 6-speed, but it doesn't seem to have made much difference in the real world. YMMV.

 

[M1911]

I can't believe no one has brought up IRS. For any type of heavy trail use that's a big deal. Though you wouldn't think so with the new Discovery...

Most IRS systems that I've seen have pretty poor articulation. They try make up for that with traction control.

 

[OregonLC]

Traction control is part. Rear axle durability it another. Have never taken something with rear A-arms on a trail, but i would think those would be very vulnerable to damage vs a solid tub steel axle. Not to mention the added complexity of rear CVs.

Then again, everyone said IFS would be the end of off-roading and here we are...

 

[Markuson]

I can't believe no one has brought up IRS. For any type of heavy trail use that's a big deal. Though you wouldn't think so with the new Discovery...

It was mentioned, I think, but serious wheeling with the Sequoia doesn’t come up much in discussion...probably because it’s just not really built for it (IMO). If someone were arguing the merits of the Sequoia as a serious off roader, I’d wager the the IRS thing would pop up every few posts.

 

[M1911]

Traction control is part. Rear axle durability it another. Have never taken something with rear A-arms on a trail, but i would think those would be very vulnerable to damage vs a solid tub steel axle. Not to mention the added complexity of rear CVs.

Then again, everyone said IFS would be the end of off-roading and here we are...

The HUMMV has independent suspension all around. I assume a manufacturer can make an IRS stout enough to survive off-road abuse. So I don't think IRS is necessarily weaker than SRA.

That said, I doubt that the Sequoia or Range Rover suspensions are as stout as the 200's rear axle, but I don't have any data to back up that hunch.

In terms of the Sequoia as an off-roader, it has a larger turning circle than the 200, worse angles, and is larger overall.

 

[bloc]

Does the sequoia 4WD system decouple the front diff to shut down that driveshaft when not in 4WD?

If not it’s basically the same as AWD for mileage purposes.

If so, when you consider how much of the required HP to push the thing down the road is consumed by drag from aero, tires, rear driveline, front CVs.. the front driveshaft and diff would only add a small percentage of drag

 

[sanscruiser]

I just sold my 94 LC to my brother and bought a 2018 Tundra CrewMax for reliability and resale value..plus I needed a bed. I looked at the Sequoia just for grins, and would rather own an older 200 series LC if money IS an object, which of course it is for me. I might consider the Sequoia TRD Pro in a few years when they enter the used market...