Thinking about a Sequoia

[cyclist]

I am starting to poke around for options for a camping rig and am considering a 1st gen sequoia.
I am fairly tall (6'3") and want something big enough to sleep in comfortably with the middle row down and a platform with room for 2 sleeping or 4-5 sitting.
Usage will be around town, highway, and a mix of unpaved roads around Montana. I am new to the area and don't know what these will look like but I drive to get places to ski or ride my bike not to wheel, so likely nothing higher than a 3 rated trail. I might be doing a lot of highway miles with this truck for both work and recreation so highway milage and driving is more important than real off road capability.
I don't tow anything but might buy snowmobiles in the futures so a light trailer might happen, but big hauling won't.

I have had 2 tundras at varying points including a 2003 with a camper that I drove 15,000 miles through south america last year. In general I like the platform although the 2003 did not have enough leg room for long days with shoes on, is a sequoia better? The 2006 double cab was fine.

I plan on building a sleeping platform for whatever I buy and making some accommodation for bike transport inside (I have a hitch rack for more than one). Other than that the only mods would be tires when needed and maybe a stereo.

I am also looking at suburbans but I generally prefer toyota trucks and prices are similar. Depending on what I find I would prefer an 05+ for the increased power and 5spd tranny but I would really like to be at or under $10,000. I don't think I gain a lot going to a land cruiser and it sounds like a 100 is a bit shorter for sleeping than would be ideal and get's worse milage than a sequoia. I don't like expeditions for no good reason so I am not considering one. Might consider an AWD astro, but not convinced on those. Not looking at anything smaller because I would rather have a truck I can sleep in than a minor bump in gas milage.

Any comparisons between the suburban and sequoia? Any other vehicles I should consider? I want reliable and comfortable not a project or a wheeling rig.
thanks

 

[d67u57]

judging by the last line, i see no problems with a sequoia for your needs.

comparisons...hmm...id say the sub is a tougher (built) vehicle. and the yota more confortable.

before mods.

now,if you need truckloads of space, you may want to check out some van builds.

with good tires 'unpaved roads" shouldn't be an issue either for a 2wd model.

 

[Clutch]

now,if you need truckloads of space, you may want to check out some van builds.

with good tires 'unpaved roads" shouldn't be an issue either for a 2wd model.

"smidgen" above the OP's budget, but still not bad.

http://www.race-dezert.com/classifieds/index.php?ct=orcar&md=details&id=42785

this one is $4K under budget

http://www.race-dezert.com/classifieds/index.php?ct=orcar&md=details&id=42295

 

[Martinjmpr]

Interior compartment length....

Just something to be aware of.

I was in a similar situation (wanting a newer vehicle and one of the requirements being the ability to sleep inside it.)

Make sure you look at the seats. I looked at a Seqoia, too, and rejected it, oddly enough, as being too small, and got a smaller 4runner instead (2007, 4th gen.)

The 2nd row seats in the Sequoia are "fold and tumble" style. That is, the seat back flips down onto the bottom cushion and then that whole assembly flips forward 90 degrees to lie along the back side of the front seats. So the usable cargo length (with the 3rd row remved completely) is reduced a considerable amount by the thickness of both the seat back and seat bottom cushions. On the Sequoia I looked at, I actually tried to lie down in the area between the flipped-up 2nd row and the rear tailgate and it was too short for me at 6'1".

Not only that, but it looked like it would be difficult to remove the 2nd row seats. I didn't check this out thoroughly, but it looked like there were a number of bolts holding the 2nd row seats in and it would be a PITA to remove all of them and then remove the heavy 2nd row seats as a unit.

By contrast, the 4th gen 4runner, like the 3rd gen, has "flip and fold" style 2nd row seats. The seat bottom cushions flip up to lie against the back of the front seat, and the seat back folds down to form a nearly-flat surface. So the usable length is only reduced by the thickness of the seat bottom cushion, and even better, the seat bottom cushions can be removed by taking out 4 12mm bolts and then removing the seat bottoms entirely, which are very small and light and easy to store.

I'm not saying a Sequoia wouldn't work, just saying make sure you figure out how to get that 2nd row seat out for maximum length for sleeping. I was quite surprised to find that the interior length of the Sequoia wasn't that much longer than the interior length of the 4runner. I would guess maybe a foot longer, but with those fold-and-tumble seats, it's hard to measure. With the seat bottom cushions removed from my 4runner the distance from the back of the front seat to the liftgate inside is about 74".

 

[cyclist]

Thanks for the advice Martin. To be comfortable for more than occasional use I really want about 78-80" of space. My plan with whatever I get is to build a sleeping platform that can extend over the folded middle row seats and have storage underneath in the rear. This gives me the dual benefit of more sleeping width and length along with a hidden storage area that I can use at the same time as the bed. I have driven a gen 4 4runner and found it quite cramped in the front seats, so I am not considering one despite the fact that they are really solid trucks.

 

[hillbillyjake]

not quite what your looking at but, i have an 04 sequioa and a 00 (nbs) tahoe. i know, not a sub but close. the tahoe has the flip and fold style of middle seats that martin was talking about. noticeably more room than the sequioa when comparing both middle rows folded down. with a sub from similar years (00-06) you would have more than enough room to sleep in. i'm 5'9" and would be comfortable sleeping in the back of the tahoe.

on a side note. a small lift and 285's on a tahoe/suburban would probably do everything you want.

i'm not meaning to sway you, just trying to give you side by side comparisons.

 

[BIGdaddy]

I travelled all around Western montana (whitefish, flathead lake, Missoula mostly) in a 2wd Expedition with the triton V8 motor when I was interning up there.

One particular time my office (Arch. firm I worked at) all drove and met up at a clients property in Whitefish to tour the progress on his house thus far.

Once there, 7 of us piled in my Expedition and toured part of the 1100 acres on this ranch through varying terrain and road conditions.

I was very surprised how much traction my rig found, seeing how it was a 2wd. We've long since sold that rig, but it definitely made an impression on me, as to how capable/comfortable/affordable a 2wd or a 2wd with a locker can be.

I think a lot of folks aren't realistic about what they'll use the vehicle for, and end up spending a lot of $$$ on capabilities that they'll never really need. Definitely think it's a great idea to consider 2wd as you're much more likely to find one with low miles, than you will a 4x4.

I have nothing but good things to say about the 2003ish Expeditions, but also, my family just recently sat in a 2001 Sequoia and I was VERY surprised at how comfortable/tight/awesome it was even with 140k miles on the ticker. I really liked it.

I've got 3 kids, and I'm coming to terms with the fact that the best rig for us is no longer a explorer or fj100 landcruiser sized rig. It's a mid-sized or above, if we actually want to be able to NOT have everything we're bringing slung on the outside or drug behind on a trailer....

Cheers, Good