Sequoia vs 100 series

[D21FJ60]

Clearly the LX, they have Nightview.

Played out

It is very odd to me that the 01 and up 4Runners, Tacos, LCs/LXs, and Tundras all had the same electronic ABS/Booster assembly with accumulator setup, but the Sequoia retained a normal mechanical booster.

This is a good point- wasn't aware that the tundras had the abs booster set up. You'd think that vehicles that are touted for their ruggedness wouldn't have such a difficult (expensive) brake booster.

 

[Zer0zg]

To be fair, if one were going through as much modification as Nuke has done with his vehicles, you might as well start with the Sequoia as a base, since much of the drivetrain and suspension is getting tossed anyway. How hard can a rear SAS be if you can do the front.

 

[Eighteen11R]

As indicated in my signature, my household owns both a 1st-gen Sequoia (2003) and an LC100 (2000). The Sequoia is actually our second; our first was a 2006 that suffered a catastrophic engine failure. To the best of mine (and my mechanic's) knowledge, a P/O had put stop leak in the coolant system, which clogged one of the water passages in the D/S head and resulted in a major head crack. Regardless of that, which I don't feel represents the quality of the Sequoia as a whole...

The 1st-gen Sequoia is a very nice vehicle, but it is completely different than the LC:

Size: It is a MUCH larger vehicle than the Cruiser, which is IMO it's biggest benefit. It was introduced to compete directly the 1st-gen Ford Expedition, and is within fractions of inch identical in terms of its measurements. The clear width of the rear cargo area between the rear wheel wells is over 49 inches, so the Sequoia will swallow sheets of plywood inside. There is probably more than twice the depth between the 3rd row and hatch as well. I can put my 40qt Orca cooler behind the 3rd row in my Sequoia, not so in my Cruiser.

Chassis/Running Gear: This is all based on the Tundra, which is in turn based on the Tacoma/T100. It's good, but not nearly as strong and beefy as the Cruiser. Compare pics of lower control arm, CV axles, and tie rod ends to see how much heavier everything on the Cruiser is. They both use the 4.7L 2UZ-FE of course, but technically they are different engines, tuned slightly differently. The Sequoia engine is built in Alabama using mostly domestic-made parts. As I understand it, while tune up items and most sensor are the same, a lot of the parts are not directly interchangeable due to the location of brackets, etc. It's funny because, between the two, I think my Sequoia is zippier off the line, but the LC pulls harder at higher RPMs. Of course, my Sequoia is electric throttle and my LC is cable throttle, so that may have something to do with it.

On 4WD versions, the transfer case has an electronic locking differential (open on the early versions, Torsen on the later versions, like the LC) and an Automatic Differential Disconnect on the front differential. This is an vacuum-actuated sliding disconnector which decouples the D/S CV shafts from the differential (not the front drive shaft, as some sources say). The front diff always receives power from the transfer case (like the LC), but the front wheels are not driven when the D/S CV is decoupled. This allows a "false" 2WD mode, although I don't think there is really any MPG benefit like on a true part-time 4WD. The 2nd- and 3rd-gen 4Runner Limited used this, as did the GX470. It's a decent system, though the diff is not as strong as the LC diff. As JunkCrzr mentioned, the front wheel bearings are sealed, non-adjustable types, although they don't seem to fail very often.

Body/Build Quality: The Sequoia is noticeably noisier, and compares to other domestic Toyotas, as opposed to Japan-built Toyotas. Every 1st-gen Sequoia I've seen has rust at the front hem-flange weld of the rear wheel arch, and the panel directly adjacent. This is covered by the rear door, so you don't see it when the doors are closed. I consider it to be a fault in the body design/rustproofing. It's interesting to note that, despite its significantly larger size, the Sequoia weighs 900 pounds LESS than the LC100! So that should tell you something!

Interior Features: The Sequoia is very much in line with other domestic SUVs from the era. It is full featured, but without some of the "luxury features" of the LC (although by 2006/2007, the Sequoia Limited was fully inline with the LC and most Lexus models for luxury features). The early, pre-facelift Sequoias (which my 2003 is) share a dash and a lot of interior bits with the Tundra. The dash is hard plastic and the whole impression is more utilitarian. In 2005, they introduced a soft-touch dash and some other niceties that were shared with the 4-door Tundra Limited. My Sequoia is cloth interior, which I wish my LC was!

Overall, the Sequoia is an always was targeted to the soccer-mom, people-hauling crowd. For that, I think it is excellent. It is noticeably higher quality than any Expedition/Suburban/Tahoe/Yukon from that era. Plus, it is a Toyota, so I think it's off-road 4WD chops are better than anything contemporary in its class. But, it is not an LC, which is Toyota's global flagship vehicle, designed for a 25-year service life in the third-world, able to be maintained with basic tools. That said, our Sequoia is our go-to road-tripping vehicle because of its size. With four kids, you can't have enough space.

Nicely written @MissouriLC

 

[ClassyJalopy]

I know people think this is trolling but maybe for people who just need a cheap durable wheeler without brake failure issues would appreciate digging into the differences in drivetrain and durability

This is not unrealistic. I have successfully steered at least 3 different ppl from buying a 100 series in the last two years just because the cost of ownership of a 100 series was not worth what they intended to use it for. A Sequoia or a 4Runner is typically cheaper to run, have longer range on highway and much easier to find.

 

[nukegoat]

To be fair, if one were going through as much modification as Nuke has done with his vehicles, you might as well start with the Sequoia as a base, since much of the drivetrain and suspension is getting tossed anyway. How hard can a rear SAS be if you can do the front.

Not hard

 

[AlpineAccess]

Oh so selfless of you.

Do a "what lift kit should I get" next.

Easy. Body lift and 35's.

 

[AlpineAccess]

This is not unrealistic. I have successfully steered at least 3 different ppl from buying a 100 series in the last two years just because the cost of ownership of a 100 series was not worth what they intended to use it for. A Sequoia or a 4Runner is typically cheaper to run, have longer range on highway and much easier to find.

Easier to work on and loads cheaper to buy

 

[MissouriLC]

It is very odd to me that the 01 and up 4Runners, Tacos, LCs/LXs, and Tundras all had the same electronic ABS/Booster assembly with accumulator setup, but the Sequoia retained a normal mechanical booster.

I wonder if it has something to do with packaging in the engine bay. I don't have a much first-hand experience with 120-series GXs and 3rd-gen 4Runners, but with how tight the engine bay on the 100 is, I imagine that the engine bay on the smaller trucks is even worse. Of course, it could just be commonality with the Tundra.

The brakes on my Sequoia suck in comparison with the electronic system on my LC100. That is probably my biggest complaint with the Sequoia. It takes a good, hard push, and it still doesn't have the stopping power that the Cruiser has. Plus, the Tundra/Sequoia vacuum-assist MC has it's own annoyance; apparently a lot of the vacuum boosters in these develop a slight vacuum leak that shows up when underhood temperatures rise. This causes the brake light on the dash to come on (as though the parking brake is engaged). It doesn't seem to noticeably effect brake performance, but I am always annoyed when I see it (usually, when we are on vacation in Florida, 1000 miles from home!)

 

[MissouriLC]

One other thing I'll add in favor of the Sequoia... its large size makes it super easy to wrench on. The engine bay is huge, with lots of room around everything, and the undercarriage is similarly spacious and uncluttered.

 

[xhifer]

An elephant vs a tree

 

[hoser]

It is very odd to me that the 01 and up 4Runners, Tacos, LCs/LXs, and Tundras all had the same electronic ABS/Booster assembly with accumulator setup, but the Sequoia retained a normal mechanical booster.

AFAIK, Tacos and Tundras of the same vintage as the 100 have the standard vacuum booster.

 

[thebeedeegee]

The brakes on my Sequoia suck in comparison with the electronic system on my LC100. That is probably my biggest complaint with the Sequoia. It takes a good, hard push, and it still doesn't have the stopping power that the Cruiser has. Plus, the Tundra/Sequoia vacuum-assist MC has it's own annoyance; apparently a lot of the vacuum boosters in these develop a slight vacuum leak that shows up when underhood temperatures rise. This causes the brake light on the dash to come on (as though the parking brake is engaged). It doesn't seem to noticeably effect brake performance, but I am always annoyed when I see it (usually, when we are on vacation in Florida, 1000 miles from home!)

Then I definitely need to upgrade the system on my 99. The brakes are kind of spongey and I have to mash the hell out of them to stop quickly.

 

[ClassyJalopy]

Then I definitely need to upgrade the system on my 99. The brakes are kind of spongey and I have to mash the hell out of them to stop quickly.

I read it somewhere here that 98 and 99 brakes didn't have a feature called brake force something or other, that became standard on MY 2000. Even when working properly, they can take a little more effort than other years.

 

[riffman12]

yeah but is an LX really a Land Cruiser?

 

[nukegoat]

yeah but is an LX really a Land Cruiser?

I didn't think this was debated

 

[97 AZ LC]

yeah but is an LX really a Land Cruiser?

And is a Land Cruiser really a Land Cruiser - anymore.

 

[MongooseGA]

yeah but is an LX really a Land Cruiser?

Do you realize how many worms have crawled out of this can?

 

[MongooseGA]

And is a Land Cruiser really a Land Cruiser - anymore.

As long as they're on their own platform, IMO, an LC is an LC.

Once they start building on the same platform as other cars, it's not. So... 300 series anyone? Nah..

 

[ClassyJalopy]

This is fast becoming prime candidate for chit chat. Keep on keeping on!

 

[jLB]

Could someone direct me to the "Is the RAV4 V6 AWD a cat in mouse's clothing?" thread on this forum?

0-60 in less than 6.3 seconds... Isn't that quicker than a stock 200 series?