New Toyota Sequoia

[JST]

It's an interesting product, and I've seen a fair amount of coverage of the hybrid drivetrain and the fact that it's sort of replacing both the last gen Sequoia and the Land Cruiser here in the States.

I've seen less coverage of a couple of interesting things. One, it's switched back to a live axle in the rear; this is the only SUV I can think of that's done that.

Two, it's "hybrid" battery is only 1.5 kWh, so it's not going anywhere on battery power alone.

Three, it doesn't offer AWD, just traditional switchable 4WD. Again, goes with the sort of rugged image but still surprising to me that they would compromise that much suburban capability in this product.


https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a3...vealed-hybrid/

[ZBB]

I see Toyota styling remains ugly…

Guessing this is based off the pickup? Probably explains the live rear axel and part time 4WD….

Is Toyota entering their version of 80s GM cost engineering?

[FC]

I see that the trend of massive center screens continues.

[Nick M3]

I'd bet that most of the demand for this platform demands greater off road capability. And Toyota didn't feel like the American market would actually care enough to make it worth spending extra money to differentiate.

Edit: OK, not most, but enough of...

[SCA]

Originally Posted by ZBB

I see Toyota styling remains ugly…

Guessing this is based off the pickup? Probably explains the live rear axel and part time 4WD….

Is Toyota entering their version of 80s GM cost engineering?

Yep, styling is horrible. Yes, it is based on the new Tundra.

https://youtu.be/c2Mrg_ZeoAE

[John V]

Toyota is pretty incapable of building good-looking vehicles.

Having said that, it looks better than anything BMW makes.

[SCA]

Originally Posted by John V

Toyota is pretty incapable of building good-looking vehicles.

Having said that, it looks better than anything BMW makes.

I would not go that far… I would take an X7 or even a G05 X5 over this.

My last experience with Toyota was exactly that my last.

One of Toyota's least popular SUVs gets a 4Runner-like redo. https://apple.news/AAZFzzDG7SFip2Gzug7KFDw

Edit: Speaking of the 4Runner… an all new one would be nice as the current generation (5) has been in production since August of 2009.

[JST]

Originally Posted by Nick M3

I'd bet that most of the demand for this platform demands greater off road capability. And Toyota didn't feel like the American market would actually care enough to make it worth spending extra money to differentiate.

Edit: OK, not most, but enough of...

I actually kind of doubt that--I mean, I suppose that might be true of the Land Cruiser, but they didn't sell enough of those to justify bringing it here except in Lexus form (and even that, I bet, was 80/20 mall/off road park use).

The vast majority of these full size three row SUVs I see are doing suburban kid duty. My SIL has an Expedition and it drives like total garbage, but I can only imagine how much worse it would be with a live axle--plus, there's a space efficiency reason that GM and Ford (and, indeed, Toyota) went to that design.

It's very puzzling to me. Yes, they'll sell more to a few dozen overlanders, but that is not the main market for this.

[Nick M3]

Originally Posted by JST

I actually kind of doubt that--I mean, I suppose that might be true of the Land Cruiser, but they didn't sell enough of those to justify bringing it here except in Lexus form (and even that, I bet, was 80/20 mall/off road park use).

The vast majority of these full size three row SUVs I see are doing suburban kid duty. My SIL has an Expedition and it drives like total garbage, but I can only imagine how much worse it would be with a live axle--plus, there's a space efficiency reason that GM and Ford (and, indeed, Toyota) went to that design.

It's very puzzling to me. Yes, they'll sell more to a few dozen overlanders, but that is not the main market for this.

My point is that an IRS AWD land cruiser doesn't cut it. So if you're going to pick one drivetrain/suspension for the platform, you can't do that.

[Jeff_DML]

Originally Posted by JST

I actually kind of doubt that--I mean, I suppose that might be true of the Land Cruiser, but they didn't sell enough of those to justify bringing it here except in Lexus form (and even that, I bet, was 80/20 mall/off road park use).

The vast majority of these full size three row SUVs I see are doing suburban kid duty. My SIL has an Expedition and it drives like total garbage, but I can only imagine how much worse it would be with a live axle--plus, there's a space efficiency reason that GM and Ford (and, indeed, Toyota) went to that design.

It's very puzzling to me. Yes, they'll sell more to a few dozen overlanders, but that is not the main market for this.

yeah I agree and they had to make a kludgy shelf thingy to get a flat load floor with that solid rear axle. Doesn't seem like a big deal switching out the solid axle for IRS with same platform , prettty sure others have done it. Sort of like torsion beam and IRS cars.