Toyota Sequoia Purchase for Overlanding: 1st Gen vs 2nd Gen?

Carl7309

New member
Hi all. I had been shopping for 9th Gen Suburbans and Yukon XLs for overlanding/dispersed vehicle camping, but after driving a few, I'm underwhelmed. I like the build quality and ride quality of the Camry I've driven for the past 12 years and there's no reason I shouldn't enjoy that in my overlanding vehicle as well. Mechanics I know have great things to say about the Sequoia, though most are pushing me toward the 5.7L engine in Gen 2. Problem is, there are far fewer 2nd Gen Sequoias for sale as compared to 1st Gen. Those are that are available are priced quite high and all seem to have at least 230,000 miles on them before they go to market (guess that's a testament to their durability and desirability...no one wants to let them go). However, there are plenty of 1st Gen Sequoias for sale, substantially cheaper, closer to home and many of them with low odometer readings.

I'd likely stick with 2005-2007 1st Gen vehicles to get the improvements on the 4.7L engine and the 5-speed transmission. 2nd Gen, based on my budget, I'd have to shop 2008-2012 model years. Before I drive halfway across the country to buy a 2nd Gen Sequoia that I like, is there any reason I need a 2nd Gen over a 1st Gen? Even if, as some have told me, the 4.7 isn't as great as the 5.7, I'll be saving a bundle on the purchase price, which I can apply to future repairs. Other things I've been told: slight drop in MPG on the 4.7 vs the 5.7, and frame rust issues with the 2001-2008 model years. But neither of those is a deal breaker for me.

I'd love to hear from anyone who has experience in driving a late-1st Gen and/or early-2nd Gen Sequoia, particularly regarding any of the following points:

- Highway ride quality
- Off-road suspension performance
- 4WD system performance
- Engine or transmission issues
- Rear living space

I'll be completely removing the third and second row seating to maximize my living space, and it looks like that will be easier in the 1st Gen Sequoias (let me know if I'm wrong there). As for my overlanding habits, I drive a lot of rocky, sandy or grassy two-tracks getting to remote campsites on federal lands. No hardcore off-road hijinx...I move slowly and carefully. Also worth noting that I've never towed anything and never will.

I appreciate your feedback on this. I hope to make a purchase in the next month or so. Thanks!
 

TLar25

New member
What's your budget? I'd also consider a 100 series Landcruiser.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
 

TLar25

New member
And will you be upgrading suspension? As that will have an effect on highway and off-road driving performance. A 2nd Gen Sequoia doesn't have a solid rear axle. Which might not be a huge concern/issue for you if you're mostly just doing forest service roads and whatnot, but something to consider.

The 5.7L really is a pleasure to drive though. The 4.7 just feels like it has to work much harder going up steep inclines/mountain passes, although it does that fine and is a solid motor.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
 

Carl7309

New member
And will you be upgrading suspension? As that will have an effect on highway and off-road driving performance. A 2nd Gen Sequoia doesn't have a solid rear axle. Which might not be a huge concern/issue for you if you're mostly just doing forest service roads and whatnot, but something to consider.

The 5.7L really is a pleasure to drive though. The 4.7 just feels like it has to work much harder going up steep inclines/mountain passes, although it does that fine and is a solid motor.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
Thanks for that info. Not only are the LC 100s out of my budget, but they have far less interior room than the Sequoia...1st Gen Sequoia is almost exactly as big on the inside as a 9th Gen Suburban. And I will need that extra space on my 4 to 6 week road trips.

I will go with existing suspension on the first trip out to see how it handles. Then I can spend the winter upgrading and improving per my notes from the maiden voyage. The stock 1st Gen ground clearance (10") is already a big improvement over the Burb (8.4"), so I may not even need any lift.

Would indeed prefer the 5.7L, the timing chain vs a belt, and the cabin air filter that Gen 2 offers, just disappointed that so few are on the market nearby.

Next step is to find one of each at dealerships fairly close to home and see how they drive. Until then, I welcome more feedback on Gen 1 vs Gen 2. Thanks!
 

bkg

Explorer
I really liked my 07 limited. Plenty of power, much better mileage than the 1st gen tundra’s (which I still don’t believe.) I really liked the rear air bags for hauling. Wasn't a fan of the center row captains chairs, but I bought used and took what I could get. Turning radius is still about the same as an Amtrak, even with the shorter wheelbase.

The 5.7/6-speed is a huge improvement in the gen2. I just like the gen1 better
 
Last edited:

TLar25

New member
I've never driven one but I wonder how a supercharged 1st Gen with all the accompanying mods would perform compared to a stock 3UR-FE

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
 

Carl7309

New member
I really liked my 07 limited. Plenty of power, much better mileage than the 1st gen tundra’s (which I still don’t believe.) I really liked the rear air bags for hauling. Wasn't a fan of the center row captains chairs, but I bought used and took what I could get. Turning radius is still about the same as an Amtrak, even with the shorter wheelbase.

The 5.7/6-speed is a huge improvement in the gen2. I just like the gen1 better
Good to know. Thanks for your feedback!
 

smokeysevin

Re-redoing things the third time
I mean it's a huge cost to install one, but every now and then one pops up for sale with it already installed.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
Its a crazy mod to do, no sane person would do it.

I am midway through supercharging my 01 tundra and its been outrageously expensive. On top of the cost the 4.7 motor really isn't built for boost, it's got little bitty connecting rods and likes to spit them out of the block unless your tune is dead nuts on. A stock 5.7 will make more power, more reliably, and for longer than a supercharged 4.7.

If you are worried about the power, re-gear it. It makes a significant difference vs stock.

Sean
352cc8716bf04849e45d7cfbb2ee0b2e.jpg
 

TLar25

New member
Its a crazy mod to do, no sane person would do it.

I am midway through supercharging my 01 tundra and its been outrageously expensive. On top of the cost the 4.7 motor really isn't built for boost, it's got little bitty connecting rods and likes to spit them out of the block unless your tune is dead nuts on. A stock 5.7 will make more power, more reliably, and for longer than a supercharged 4.7.

If you are worried about the power, re-gear it. It makes a significant difference vs stock.

Sean
352cc8716bf04849e45d7cfbb2ee0b2e.jpg
Yeah definitely doesn't seem like a very practical mod to do, but if you just want to blow money on something why not I guess. What kind of power gains are you expecting? I know I've read about people using rods from a 1uz

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
 

smokeysevin

Re-redoing things the third time
Yeah definitely doesn't seem like a very practical mod to do, but if you just want to blow money on something why not I guess. What kind of power gains are you expecting? I know I've read about people using rods from a 1uz

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
No clue power wise. This is an intercooled eaton tvs 1900 not the m90 like on the trd blower. I'm also setting it up to support ethanol.

Yeah you can use 1uz rods but the eagle rods are $725 which isn't cheap, but if you are opening the motor up, is not that much more expensive vs used 1uz stock rods.

Sean
 

beef tits

Well-known member
I’ve seen 200 series LCs for sub-$30k. Don’t be afraid of high mileage, the 5.7 is even better than the 4.7.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
187,888
Messages
2,899,585
Members
229,073
Latest member
fireofficer001
Top