What's the opinion of the Sequioa as a general purpose expo vehicle?

[MoGas]

the slightly older body style Sequoias are awesome in my opinion. There is currently an expedition using them and a Tundra...

Got a link?

I've been looking at 1st gen Sequoias for a while now. I think we may be near to the bottom on pricing. I'd love to see a prepped out one.

Dave

 

[craig]

Fair enough if the vehicle isn't going to be used as an Expedition vehicle, but the original poster asked if it was a good ExPo platform.

Range is very important for an ExPo platform. Carrying extra fuel increases the weight of the vehicle which leaves less room/carrying capacity for additional gear. On Expedition, you need all the room/carrying capacity to carry food, water, and gear.

I suggest Chapter 28 of Tom Sheppards Vehicle Dependent Expedition Guide for a more thorough discussion of the topic. It's available as a free PDF download.

If the vehicle isn't going to be used for Expedition, then none of this really applies.

Craig

:sombrero: in my original post = take a chill pill.

Since you're being serious. Yes it is a fundamental consideration. But in practice, the majority of overlanders/expo guys choose a vehicle that ends up with crappy mileage anyways. They choose a rig they are familiar with in terms of repairing or a truck that will give them the confidence the rig will take them to where they want to go.

I drive a 80 series LC for goodness sake (MPG 10-11). I chose to use it not for the fuel mileage.

As for the range (I'm assuming the OEM fuel tank capacity in your post).They make up for it by outfitting the rig with aux tank or fuel cans as someone has posted. And supplementing that with what is the nearest fuel stop at this point of my fuel consumption so I know how much to bring. So on and so on...

As for "overlanding often means long distance between fuel stops", maybe for some but not for others.

To clear it all up, my post was not meant to be personal. That is if you took it as such.

I apologize to the original poster if my post took the thread in skewed direction.

 

[CSG]

Expedition means different things to different people here. What most people call an "expedition" on ExPo is really just vehicle camping. All you have to do is look at the threads and photos. Very few of us are driving the jungles of Central and South America.

My use is as a camping rig in the western USA, mostly around Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, and Arizona to places I might not wish to take my two-wheel drive camping van. I thought about enclosing my truck with a shell but then I not only lose it as a truck, I lose it as the tow vehicle for our 5th wheel.

 

[RoundOut]

...The stock tires are approximatley 31", and it looks like you could stick 33's under there without lift. I can't say for sure about that, though.

I have a 2003 4WD Sequoia and no, you cannot. We increased tire size to 32" using BFG 265/75/16 AT k/o's. The original was 31" 265/65/16 in a Bridgestone Dueler H/T. The BFG tires rub at full lock in a turn, but since my wife doesn't get tested much at full compression, I don't have the actual data on that.

I do have data on the Tundra, which is almost identical to the Sequoia in the front end. I have 285/75/16 BFG AT k/o's on my 2003 Tundra, and they rubbed with just a 2 1/2" lift. Once I got it up to 3", they are OK, except on compression and then they still rub. The BFH fixed most of the rub except on hard compression and full lock combos. I cannot imagine why the Sequoia would be any different. It would definitely rub horibly with 33"s without a lift.

.

 

[RoundOut]

I have an opinion on 1Gen Sequoia's as an expedition vehicle. I think it would be an AWESOME platform. For front lift, one could use most of the Tundra options, since the front suspension is similar to the Tundra, if not exactly the same. Suggest Camburg UCAs & SAWs. For the rear, it is a coil/link suspension of some kind. I'm not a suspension expert, so don't flame me on this. I just know it is not leaf sprung and there are coils and some kind of traction bar things on the rear axle. I have a buddy with an 80 series and it looks similar to the 80's rear end. I wonder if the OME parts are interchangeable?

Anyhow, let's assume one could lift their rig, get rid of the stock running boards in favor of some decent sliders, and get at least 33" aggressive tread tires on it. Throwing on a custom front and rear bumper solution, would make it an amazing vehicle.

The wheelbase is longer than a cruiser, but not as long as a Tundra. My Tundra has done some amazing things that I never dreamed a long wheelbase vehicle can do. I have hardly ever been stopped by approach or departure angles on any trails. I have rarely been stopped by a trail's width being too narrow. My Tundra turns very tight, as does our Sequoia. The only issue at all becomes breakover. If there is a sharp breakover, it can get hung up, and there is carnage to be had under there.

Other than Breakover, I see no reason this isn't a bomb expedition vehicle. Big I-Force V-8. Lots and lots of room for a storage system with a bed on top. Factory sockets for our fridges. Factory roof racks. It's almost all there except for the lift/sliders/bumpers.

Just my opinion, though.

.

 

[xcmountain80]

I have seen two lifted older gen Seq's around Orlando,FL and while they look pretty darn good I had considered one for some time formy wife. I swear when her Explorer dies she'll get a 3rd or 4th gen 4Runner or Seq.

Aaron

 

[EMrider]

An older model Sequoia would be great for the usage you describe. I've got an 01 Sequoia 4x4 and it has been an excellent vehicle. Total mileage is about 95k. My plan is to do as you suggest, mod it a bit into an decent camping/expedition vehicle. With a modest suspension lift/upgrade, it could handle anything my driving ability allows.

 

[craig]

Expedition means different things to different people here. What most people call an "expedition" on ExPo is really just vehicle camping. All you have to do is look at the threads and photos. Very few of us are driving the jungles of Central and South America.

OK. Well, best of luck finding a rig that will do what you are looking for. Honestly, (not trying to be a smart-MMM), you might check out Consumer Reports for a review of the Sequoia. They do a pretty good job of reviewing vehicles for your application.

Regards,
Craig

 

[CSG]

I know about CR and their love affair with all things Toyota. I was really more interested in the opinion of this group. I've looked on and off at LC's for years but they're just a bit short in back and I have to lay diagonally to be able to sleep in it.

I guess what I was really curious about is what percentage of capability does the stock Sequoia have compared to a 100 series LC? In other words, is the Sequoia 80% as capable or? What will I give up to gain more size and volume?

 

[cruiser guy]

Expedition means different things to different people here. What most people call an "expedition" on ExPo is really just vehicle camping. All you have to do is look at the threads and photos. Very few of us are driving the jungles of Central and South America.

My use is as a camping rig in the western USA, mostly around Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, and Arizona to places I might not wish to take my two-wheel drive camping van. I thought about enclosing my truck with a shell but then I not only lose it as a truck, I lose it as the tow vehicle for our 5th wheel.

This is why I asked the question. If you are using primarily as a vehicle camping rig you should be just fine!

For my purposes, as I DO drive around the jungles of Central America, it would not suit my purposes.

 

[clinnet]

I know about CR and their love affair with all things Toyota. I was really more interested in the opinion of this group. I've looked on and off at LC's for years but they're just a bit short in back and I have to lay diagonally to be able to sleep in it.

I guess what I was really curious about is what percentage of capability does the stock Sequoia have compared to a 100 series LC? In other words, is the Sequoia 80% as capable or? What will I give up to gain more size and volume?

From what you intend on doing, the Sequoia will fit the bill. IIt is 100% more capable than the Land Cruiser in the interior capacity alone. With the ATRAC and C-diff, it is more than capable to handle the task at hand. And what matters most is the Stock equipment between the ears when it comes to navigating the terrain anyway.

 

[FourByLand]

Everytime I see one I wonder why none are set up for overlanding...

 

[kcowyo]

I guess what I was really curious about is what percentage of capability does the stock Sequoia have compared to a 100 series LC? In other words, is the Sequoia 80% as capable or? What will I give up to gain more size and volume?

80% seems high. Maybe 72%...


I'm really interested to see if anyone here has enough trail time in a 100 series and a Sequoia, to answer a question like that. With the same driver in similar situations, I would expect both vehicles to perform very close to each other.

The Sequoia may be bigger than a LC, but they're smaller than a Unimog, so you know, whatever works for you.... The size thing wouldn't bother me. As the owner of a Toyota model with little aftermarket support, I will say that aspect, like with the Sequoia, gets more frustrating as time goes by.
.

 

[Scenic WonderRunner]

My neighbor across the street just bought one. He bought it because it is huge and safe, because last year his older son who was a doctor, was killed in a head on crash along the CA. 99 hwy near Fresno. Some idiot came southbound across the median and killed my neighbors son in a fiery crash! He bought it to protect his grandchildren when they are with him.

I looked underneath in the back and I see what I would call IFS Rear. I think Toyota might call it something different.

http://www.toyota.com/sequoia/specs.html

But I don't Like it.

I would not buy it for off road.



.

 

[Brian894x4]

I dont' own either a Land Cruiser 100 or a Sequoia, but got some wheel time behind both (a 2001 100 and a 2005 Sequoia). I think in stock form, both are good as a daily driver, weekend warrior rig.

The Sequoia surprised me in that's fairly big and roomy compared to other rigs and seems well built. However, the 100 series is at a whole different level when it comes to overall strength, including chassis and suspension strength. This is especially critical when it comes to overloading the vehicle with modifications and gear.

What worries me about the Sequoia is that I wouldn't trust it's front end or steering for extremely duty and I wouldn't trust its frame to be able to withstand being overloaded. As any expedition hauler knows, by the time you've added a front bumper winch, some armor, sliders and a little bit of gear, you're at the max vehicle weight limit, so it's very common for most of us to exceed GVW and we want a vehicle that has been proven to be able to not only withstand exceeding GVW, but doing it while traveling off road.

The 100 is about 300-400 heavier in bone stone form than the Sequoia despite being somewhat smaller in size. It puts the "heavy" in heavy duty. The Sequoia may technically have slightly greater payload capacity depending on which spec you read, but the Land Cruiser has been proven to be able to be well overloaded with no issues. The Sequoia hasn't been proven to accept excess weight to my knowledge, but then it's not commonly used for that purpose.

If you don't plan on building up the rig or adding signficant weight to it, I think the sequoia will do great.

My other opinions are that the Sequoia "appears" to get better gas mileage. My brother in law claims that his 2005 has gotten close to 20 mpg on long trips, with the V-8. I find that hard to believe, but in any case he's achieving better than most 100 series.

One nice thing about the Sequoia is that for less money than a 2005 or later 100, you can find a 2005 or later Sequoia and still get the same updated V-8 engine, making more power and the new 5 speed automatic tranny.

In my opinion, it all comes down to whether you need light (or maybe medium) duty or heavy duty. The Sequoia would make a great cost effective option against the 100 for rig that needs to do double duty as a daily driver or kid hauler on the weekdays and take the family out on weekend jaunts or even long road trips. But if you're trips involve fairly remote travel, especially if we're talking adding a lot of weight and anything that would put a lot of stress on parts like the suspension and especially the front end, I'd definately move over to the 100 series.

Now I'm only comparing the Sequoia to the 100. If you compare the Sequoia to other non-Toyota SUV rigs, the Sequoia could be the superior vehicle, but then I'm pretty bias.