Sequoia gets humped right after its release!!

[Z-06]

Linkity

Toyota Changes the Rules in the Full-Size Class — Again <--- :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

Vehicle Tested:

2008 Toyota Sequoia 4dr SUV

First Impressions:

Arguably the most useful, most refined and easiest-to-drive full-size SUV ever built, the 2008 Toyota Sequoia will keep a large family from being forced to adapt to a fleet of Priuses.

During a day in the 2008 Toyota Sequoia, we end up visiting every small town within 100 miles of Raleigh, North Carolina. We're shooting a video of Toyota's redesigned full-size SUV as it motors along in suburban America. But it's easier said than done on roads dotted with housing subdivisions, school buses and even logging trucks.

Finally, with dusk falling, we point the Sequoia back toward the city. We're tired of each other's company after a long day, but as we look around at the cavernous interior of this new full-size Toyota, we remain in agreement on one thing.

The 2008 Toyota Sequoia is still as quiet, comfortable and pleasant to drive as it was eight hours ago. As large, truck-based, eight-passenger SUVs go, this is a good one.

Maybe we shouldn't be surprised. As Motohara Araya, the Sequoia's chief engineer, told us when he described this SUV's mission, "Americans pack everything they need, and usually a little bit more. Within the cabin, they want to be comfortable, safe and well-fed, and require personalized entertainment for all aboard. Most importantly, they are fearless in their attempts to cover as much ground as possible in a single day — and a thousand miles translates to about 14 hours behind the wheel."

This Is Getting Serious

Sold from 2001-'07, the first-generation Toyota Sequoia was a good one, too. But since it was based on the platform of Toyota's downsized Tundra pickup of that time, it wasn't as roomy or powerful as its chief rivals, the Chevrolet Tahoe and Ford Expedition.

Now that there's a full-size platform available from the all-new 2007 Toyota Tundra, the Sequoia has grown to comfier proportions while picking up Tundra's torque-rich 5.7-liter V8, too.

With a wheelbase that's 4.0 inches longer and a track front and rear that's 2.0 inches wider, the 2008 Toyota Sequoia is a bit larger than the Tahoe and about the same size as the Expedition. The Sequoia's cabin has grown noticeably larger, as there's a huge increase in shoulder room and significantly more third-row legroom.

Maximum cargo capacity has declined slightly compared to the previous generation, although this isn't an apples-to-apples comparison, because the redesigned Sequoia has a fold-flat third-row seat made possible by a new, independent double-wishbone rear suspension. The second-row seats fold flat, too, so there are now 120 cubic feet for non-human cargo — more than 11 cubic feet more than the Chevy or Ford.

From SR5 to Platinum

There are presently no plans for a Lexus-badged twin of the Sequoia (the upcoming LX 570 is derived from the Land Cruiser), so Toyota has been free to expand the Sequoia range upward. In addition to familiar SR5 and Limited trim levels, there's a new Platinum model loaded with kit you might find on a Lexus.

The company expects 55 percent of buyers to choose the sensible Sequoia SR5, which is outfitted with cloth upholstery and seats for eight, triple-zone automatic climate control, a CD stereo with an auxiliary audio jack, stability control and front and rear side airbags as well as three-row curtain airbags. Another 35 percent will opt for the Limited, which adds front and rear parking sonar, leather upholstery, power seats, upgraded instrumentation and a JBL sound system.

Ten percent will take the Sequoia Platinum like the one we're driving, which has 20-inch alloy wheels instead of 18s, Toyota's driver-adjustable suspension, a power rear liftgate, heated/cooled front seats, second-row captain's chairs (dropping capacity to seven) and a navigation system and backup camera. A rear DVD player is optional across the board, and adaptive cruise control is available on the Platinum.

Fast, Yet Fuel-Efficient — for a Big Truck

Although the Sequoia SR5's standard engine is the familiar 4.7-liter V8 rated at 276 horsepower and 314 pound-feet of torque, it's expected that 90 percent of buyers will choose the 5.7-liter V8 introduced by the new Tundra pickup. The new V8 is optional for the SR5 and standard for other 2008 Toyota Sequoias.

We can't argue with that choice. Not only does the 5.7-liter have impressive specs — 381 hp at 5,600 rpm and 401 lb-ft at 3,600 rpm — it manages to help disguise the second-generation Sequoia's massive weight gain, some 500-600 pounds (depending on the trim level). This big V8 and its six-speed automatic transmission add only 50 more pounds over the 4.7-liter and its five-speed auto.

Toyota claims a two-wheel-drive Sequoia 5.7 will hit 60 mph in 7 seconds flat. After driving around in a fully loaded, four-wheel-drive Platinum model, we believe it. Low-end engine torque is abundant, and passing maneuvers come and go in an instant. Exhaust tuning is quieter for the Sequoia than the Tundra, and it leaves you with the impression that the big V8 isn't even breaking a sweat.

Plus, the six-speed automatic always seems to be on its game with gear selection, something we noticed even while towing a 24-foot boat. We scarcely noticed the load, though with a gross combined weight of 12,565 pounds (against a 17,280-pound GCWR) and flat roads with a speed limit of 55 mph, this wasn't an extreme test.

Buyers have a choice between 2WD and 4WD on every trim. Engaging all four wheels is as simple as twisting a dial. The default torque split sends 60 percent to the rear wheels, but depending on traction, the ratio varies between 30/70 and 50/50. Four-wheel-drive Sequoias again have Toyota's four-wheel traction control system, but we're told it has been reprogrammed to allow more wheelspin in off-road situations.

Fuel economy is not as terrible as you'd think. The 5.7-liter V8 is the more efficient option, thanks to its dual variable valve timing (the 4.7-liter only has variable intake valves) and extra overdrive gear. In 2WD form, the Sequoia has a rating of 14 mpg city/19 mpg highway — second only to the Tahoe (14 mpg/20 mpg). The 4x4 Sequoia's 13 mpg/18 mpg rating is better than all its SUV rivals except GM's two-mode hybrids (20 mpg city/20 mpg highway).

Capable Chassis

Like all SUVs in this class, the Toyota Sequoia uses body-on-frame construction, and just as on the first-gen truck, the 2008 model's frame is fully boxed. It's stiffer, though, and Toyota says it's 70 percent more resistant to bending flex, while lateral and torsional rigidity increase 20 and 30 percent, respectively.

The Sequoia's front suspension remains a double-wishbone design, but the mounts and bushings are new, and wheel travel has been increased. In addition, Toyota has repositioned the antiroll bar and steering rack in front of the wishbones to shrink the Sequoia's turning circle to 39 feet, a reduction of 3 feet. It's a difference we felt immediately on the country roads outside Raleigh, and what could have been three-point turns were simple U-turns.

Even in the firmest (Sport) setting of the three driver-selectable suspension modes, the ride quality of this Sequoia Platinum felt downright luxurious, even with P275/55R20 tires. North Carolina highways are wickedly smooth, though, so we'll reserve final judgment until we conduct a full test.

Our verdict on the Sequoia's handling abilities will also have to wait, but the Platinum we drove was extremely well mannered. The suspension did a beautiful job of managing this SUV's weight around turns, so much so that this 3-ton Toyota reminded us a bit of the Mercedes-Benz GL-Class.

Functional, With Few Flaws

There's only one significant shortcoming in the 2008 Toyota Sequoia's cabin. It has the same audio and navigation controls that are impossible to reach when you're behind the wheel of the new Tundra, which forced us to indulge our driving companion's fondness for 1980s hair bands.

Not only do the second-row seats adjust fore/aft regardless of whether your Sequoia has the 40/20/40 bench or the captain's chairs, we counted 11 separate detents. This allows you to get pretty specific about the amount of legroom allotted to each of the rear rows.

The cupholder count in the Sequoia just might cross the line to insanity. We counted 19 in our Sequoia Platinum. The thought of that much liquid in the vehicle at once makes us shudder.

A Sequoia Instead of a Douglas Fir

The 2008 Toyota Sequoia meets the Tahoe and Expedition on their own terms for interior room and engine size, while setting new standards for performance, handling dynamics and seating flexibility.

Toyota expects to sell 65,000-66,000 Sequoias in 2008. "This puts it back with its best sales year in the past in a segment that's declined quite a bit since then," Brian Smith, Toyota's corporate manager of truck and SUV operations, tells us. For comparison, GM is on pace to sell about three times as many Tahoes and GMC Yukons before 2007 is over.

Pricing won't be released until early December 2007, but Toyota says '08 Sequoias will show up at dealerships in time for Christmas. For people whose needs can only be met by a full-size sport-utility, the 2008 Toyota Sequoia should make a great (big) gift.

Edmunds attended a manufacturer-sponsored event, to which selected members of the press were invited, to facilitate this report.

Edited November 15, 2007 by smallchevy

[Guest YellowJacket894]

This article, like the vehicle it relates to, is pure automotive garbage.

But I would expect Edmunds to go gah-gah over a sombrero-wearing, half-melted Dodge Durango with Down's syndrome.

[caddycruiser]

Well, some weird details aside, I like it, just like I thought I would. At least it has much better packaging/space/seating than a big GM ute, but then again, so does everyone now.

I think, in that regard, you could call it best...basically because it has the packaging down pat and done well, much like the new Fords, but with better performance and such. But I wouldn't just jump and call it "best ever" already. That is nuts. In a lot of ways, yes. But in a lot of others yet to be seen, maybe not.

Seems like full-size SUV's will always have a place...and after yet another romp around borrowing mom's Suburban, loading it with car doors, a quarter panel, and more, and still cruising down the road in near silence and smooth as could be...I know WHY.

So...now people have another choice, but just stay away from calling one better just because of a name. Only on merits, and that alone.

[Windy-57]

Now that there's a full-size platform available from the all-new 2007 Toyota Tundra, the Sequoia has grown to comfier proportions while picking up Tundra's torque-rich 5.7-liter V8, too.

Yeah and we know how the Tundra turned out. I think it might be logical to expect some serious quality issues on the Sequoia much like the Tundra has had.

On a side note, the whole Sequoia design is very, VERY derived. It looks like the designers went on vacation and said, "Ummm, just throw the Tundra front end on there and that should be good."

Edited November 15, 2007 by Windy-57

[Chicagoland]

Well, they like it since it reminds them of the cars they love.

[regfootball]

yuk. just yuk.

[scharmer05]

Insane that GM can still get grilled for not differentiating the Suburban/Tahoe and the Silverado enough (same in the GMC department), yet Toyo can go and slap a Tundra front on this blob and not even have them mention it.

[hyperv6]

Thank God it has 19 cup holders!

It is amazing how the same folks who rip GM for their trucks grow so quite when Toyota makes a full size truck or SUV with the same or worse milage.

Some are so two faced.

I guess Al Gore has a new ride to his private jet.

[thegriffon]

"Toyota makes trucks?" In comparison to the Camry, Toyota's trucks have been so far off the radar that the people who complain about SUVs didn't notice them. They do now, and they're starting to get mad. Unlike edmunds, I'm not impressed with the fuel economy, and the GM SUV's do get better economy, even in 4wd.

[K.C.]

2008 Toyota Sequoia

Fast, Yet Fuel-Efficient — for a Big Truck

Although the Sequoia SR5's standard engine is the familiar 4.7-liter V8 rated at 276 horsepower and 314 pound-feet of torque, it's expected that 90 percent of buyers will choose the 5.7-liter V8 introduced by the new Tundra pickup. The new V8 is optional for the SR5 and standard for other 2008 Toyota Sequoias.

No full size SUV is fuel efficient. . . with the exception of the Tahoe/Yukon Hybrid IF it truly gets in the 20 mpg range like they are rated. I think that even the gas only powered Yu/hoe will be more efficient than this heap with EITHER engine. Lies. . ALL LIES!

Insane that GM can still get grilled for not differentiating the Suburban/Tahoe and the Silverado enough (same in the GMC department), yet Toyo can go and slap a Tundra front on this blob and not even have them mention it.

Sing it brother! The media needs to get out of the habit of humping Toyota when they are no better than any of the domestics in terms of anything. The playing field has been leveled with the outing of Toyotas issues they tried so hard to hide.

[RBB]

Lets compare, shall we:

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drive...rticleId=108789

Tundra:

Sold from 2001-'07, the first-generation Toyota Sequoia was a good one, too.

Tahoe:

For "blue state" dwellers here's the bad news on the same subject: GM is still addicted to full-size SUVs! Despite marginal improvements in efficiency, the new Tahoe is an indulgent, thirsty, oversized monster that threatens smaller vehicles while exacerbating America's dependence on imported oil and hastening global warming. So what if it's the best full-size SUV ever built? It's also why the rest of the world hates us.

-RBB

[Derek77]

This is what I wish GM had done to the Tahoe and Yukon. Let me explain that before I get killed. I like the way the rear door is, well, useable. The Tahoe has unusually small back doors. I don't know if this was done with a longer wheelbase, a smaller engine compartment, or smaller front door. Whatever they did, works.

THe leg room in all rows looks to be larger than the GMs, but since we don't have any measurements, that's hard to say. The fold flat 2nd and 3rd row is also a nice feature.

I'm hoping GM puts the hybrid Tahoe seats in the regular version along with the 6speed. That might be enough to hold it over till the next redo.

[Z-06]

For a vehicle that is just release, I did not see any documentation other than crapmunds, which gives the fuel economy of the vehicle.

Which means these estimates are preliminary and may not be official. Yet crapmunds goes lengths and bounds talking about it. They call it a first drive even when they actually did not sit in a vehicle, and just add the press release in the write up. Unfortunately, people read the website.

[thegriffon]

Actually it is easy to compare since we do have measurements for both.

Fullsize	   Cargo Room   Weight  WB   OAL	Width Height	Headroom		  Legroom		 Shoulder room		Hip Room
SUVs		   1st  2nd 3rd								  1st   2nd   3rd   1st   2nd   3rd   1st   2nd   3rd   1st   2nd   3rd
Tahoe		  109  60  17  5233  116.0  202.0  79.0  76.9  40.3  38.5  38.2  41.3  39.0  25.4  65.3  65.3  61.7  64.4  60.6  49.1
Sequoia		121  67  19  5680  122.0  205.1  79.9  74.6  39.7  39.4  38.5  42.5  36.4  35.3  66.4  65.6  65.7  62.1  59.9  50.4
Expedition	 108  55  19  5578  119.0  205.8  78.7  76.7  39.6  39.8  38.3  41.2  39.1  37.7  63.2  63.7  51.9  60.2  59.9  50.2
Armada		  97  57  20  5372  123.2  207.7  79.3  77.2  41.0  40.0  35.9  41.8  41.9  32.2  65.0  64.7  63.7  61.4  60.8  48.8
Expedition EL  131  86  43  5928  131.0  220.5  78.7  76.7  39.5  39.7  37.6  41.2  39.1  37.7  63.2  63.7  67.1  60.2  59.9  51.8
Suburban	   137  90  46  5613  130.0  222.4  79.1  76.8  41.1  38.5  38.1  41.3  39.5  34.9  65.3  65.2  64.7  64.4  61.8  49.4

Edited November 15, 2007 by thegriffon

[Derek77]

Actually it is easy to compare since we do have measurements for both.

Fullsize	   Cargo Room   Weight  WB   OAL	Width Height	Headroom		  Legroom		 Shoulder room		Hip Room
SUVs		   1st  2nd 3rd								  1st   2nd   3rd   1st   2nd   3rd   1st   2nd   3rd   1st   2nd   3rd
Tahoe		  109  60  17  5233  116.0  202.0  79.0  76.9  40.3  38.5  38.2  41.3  39.0  25.4  65.3  65.3  61.7  64.4  60.6  49.1
Sequoia		121  67  19  4875  122.0  205.1  79.9  74.6  39.7  39.4  38.5  42.5  36.4  35.3  66.4  65.6  65.7  62.1  59.9  50.4
Expedition	 108  55  19  5578  119.0  205.8  78.7  76.7  39.6  39.8  38.3  41.2  39.1  37.7  63.2  63.7  51.9  60.2  59.9  50.2
Armada		  97  57  20  5372  123.2  207.7  79.3  77.2  41.0  40.0  35.9  41.8  41.9  32.2  65.0  64.7  63.7  61.4  60.8  48.8
Expedition EL  131  86  43  5928  131.0  220.5  78.7  76.7  39.5  39.7  37.6  41.2  39.1  37.7  63.2  63.7  67.1  60.2  59.9  51.8
Suburban	   137  90  46  5613  130.0  222.4  79.1  76.8  41.1  38.5  38.1  41.3  39.5  34.9  65.3  65.2  64.7  64.4  61.8  49.4

Cool! Thanks! That sucks!

[vonVeezelsnider]

That Review is the softest pile of steaming bulls*** I've ever read

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

LOL

Now, careful there guys...

The import humpers will be coming out of the C&G woodwork soon to tell you that you should be ashamed of your pro-GM bias. And they'll support that theory with half assed rationalizations and demand that you acknowledge how much 'Better' the Tundr, err, I mean Sequoia is than ANY of it's domestic competition, by default.

As for the article.... No big surprise there. I say bring it on! I'm sure the Sequoia will sell in relation to the Tahoe just as the Tundra sells in relation to the Silverado.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

First Impressions:

Arguably the most useful, most refined and easiest-to-drive full-size SUV ever built, the 2008 Toyota Sequoia will keep a large family from being forced to adapt to a fleet of Priuses.

LOL. All of this slurping based on ONE day of testing. Had they driven a GM product for one day, we would've been delivered a write up with the required "yes, but" -or- "we'll have to wait and see if it makes a difference"

Funny how they incorporate the Prius into the picture here to connotate this LARGE and wastefull SUV with Toyota's green image. This will be the new wave of Toyota PR; to paint their most inefficient models with green by incorporating the positive consumer image of Prius into the picture.

TRANSLATION OF ABOVE QUOTE: "You don't have to drive a Prius to save the environment, Toyota makes very kind and efficient SUVs as well." and people WILL believe it too, which is sad.

During a day in the 2008 Toyota Sequoia, we end up visiting every small town within 100 miles of Raleigh, North Carolina.

Too bad I didn't know about this... I could've fire bombed the fleet or at the very least thrown a bunch of nails on the highway.

The 2008 Toyota Sequoia is still as quiet, comfortable and pleasant to drive as it was eight hours ago. As large, truck-based, eight-passenger SUVs go, this is a good one.

Umm... Yeah, normally characteristics of machines don't change much... especially in 8 hours.

Maybe we shouldn't be surprised. As Motohara Araya, the Sequoia's chief engineer, told us when he described this SUV's mission, "Americans pack everything they need, and usually a little bit more.

Backhanded compliment...

Within the cabin, they want to be comfortable, safe and well-fed,

Yet another backhanded compliment.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

they are fearless in their attempts to cover as much ground as possible in a single day — and a thousand miles translates to about 14 hours behind the wheel."

Wow, just wow! Way to play on the mellow dramatic fuel cost issue. Americans are "FEARLESS"; the drive wherever they want regardless. The language strokes the ego of american SUV buyers and paints the company and the SUV in a positive light.

This Is Getting Serious

Not really... 66,000 sales isn't that serious folks.

Sold from 2001-'07, the first-generation Toyota Sequoia was a good one, too.

What a f***in' joke.

But since it was based on the platform of Toyota's downsized Tundra pickup of that time, it wasn't as roomy or powerful as its chief rivals, the Chevrolet Tahoe and Ford Expedition.

Which contradicts the above statement that "[it] was a good one, too."

With a wheelbase that's 4.0 inches longer and a track front and rear that's 2.0 inches wider, the 2008 Toyota Sequoia is a bit larger than the Tahoe and about the same size as the Expedition.

WTF?!?!?! Where are all of the eco-losers now?!?! Why is this article not being painted with the typical green liberal slant that all of Detroit's 'fuel hungry monsters' get served up in?!?!?

The Sequoia's cabin has grown noticeably larger, as there's a huge increase in shoulder room and significantly more third-row legroom.

No effing kidding? I should hope so.

Maximum cargo capacity has declined slightly compared to the previous generation, although this isn't an apples-to-apples comparison,

Why has it declined? GM would be killed for this, but Toyota is 'rationalized' because it basically is a new model ("it isn't an apples to apples comparison) Nothing ever is when it comes to previous generation verses new generation.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

From SR5 to Platinum

There are presently no plans for a Lexus-badged twin of the Sequoia (the upcoming LX 570 is derived from the Land Cruiser), so Toyota has been free to expand the Sequoia range upward. In addition to familiar SR5 and Limited trim levels, there's a new Platinum model loaded with kit you might find on a Lexus.

Meh.. Toyota, Lexus, they're basically the same thing. (Just an image scam)

Ten percent will take the Sequoia Platinum like the one we're driving, which has 20-inch alloy wheels instead of 18s, Toyota's driver-adjustable suspension, a power rear liftgate, heated/cooled front seats, second-row captain's chairs (dropping capacity to seven) and a navigation system and backup camera. A rear DVD player is optional across the board, and adaptive cruise control is available on the Platinum.

The BLATANT option for those of you with "Escalade envy" and a job in the enviro-whacko or academia field, since those don't pay well enough to afford anything other than a Corolla, or this bad boy once Toyota piles $8-10,000 worth of discounts on it like they have with the Turdra.

Fast, Yet Fuel-Efficient — for a Big Truck

Although the Sequoia SR5's standard engine is the familiar 4.7-liter V8 rated at 276 horsepower and 314 pound-feet of torque, it's expected that 90 percent of buyers will choose the 5.7-liter V8 introduced by the new Tundra pickup. The new V8 is optional for the SR5 and standard for other 2008 Toyota Sequoias.

So much for americans and their "desire" for fuel efficiency.

We can't argue with that choice.

Well you sure could argue with the comparative choice in the GMT900s when you all but called would be buyers terrorists for desiring fuel thrirsty SUVs.

Not only does the 5.7-liter have impressive specs — 381 hp at 5,600 rpm and 401 lb-ft at 3,600 rpm —

It also has an impressive defect record, putting it right up there with all those sludgy V6's that consumers got blamed for.

it manages to help disguise the second-generation Sequoia's massive weight gain, some 500-600 pounds (depending on the trim level). This big V8 and its six-speed automatic transmission add only 50 more pounds over the 4.7-liter and its five-speed auto.

Once again, in GM reviews, the cars are called [insert favorite 'fat' slogan of the day] and the writers just 'can't seem to get over the added weight' Yet, in a Toyota review with a pig of an SUV based on their pig of a truck the weight gain is rationalized and barely mentioned.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Exhaust tuning is quieter for the Sequoia than the Tundra, and it leaves you with the impression that the big V8 isn't even breaking a sweat.

So you can have a clean conscience about destroying the ozone.

We scarcely noticed the load, though with a gross combined weight of 12,565 pounds (against a 17,280-pound GCWR) and flat roads with a speed limit of 55 mph, this wasn't an extreme test.

1) How can you scarcely notice towing something like that? This isn't a Kenworth, it's a Sequoia. 2) I'm willing to bet that even the ball-free Ridgeline could accomplish a similar feat on a FLAT road at 55 MPH.

Fuel economy is not as terrible as you'd think.

Fuel economy is painted in a positive light as opposed to the typical negative tone received by Detroit. EXAMPLE: "The Tahoe is big and thirsty at XX MPG combined"

In 2WD form, the Sequoia has a rating of 14 mpg city/19 mpg highway — second only to the Tahoe (14 mpg/20 mpg). The 4x4 Sequoia's 13 mpg/18 mpg rating is better than all its SUV rivals except GM's two-mode hybrids (20 mpg city/20 mpg highway).

Pure

Like all SUVs in this class, the Toyota Sequoia uses body-on-frame construction

Not a negative remark about body-on-frame, instead it's; 'everybody does it'

this 3-ton Toyota reminded us a bit of the Mercedes-Benz GL-Class.

In what way, the constant quality problems?

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

There's only one significant shortcoming in the 2008 Toyota Sequoia's cabin. It has the same audio and navigation controls that are impossible to reach when you're behind the wheel of the new Tundra, which forced us to indulge our driving companion's fondness for 1980s hair bands.

It also suffers from the same cheap, ugly interior as the Tundra. Forgot to mention that, right?

The 2008 Toyota Sequoia meets the Tahoe and Expedition on their own terms for interior room and engine size, while setting new standards for performance, handling dynamics and seating flexibility.

It takes GM 3 generations for them to 'edge ahead' of the competition in the minds of journalists (feable minds, yes, but none the less) yet ONE DAY in a Sequoia in which the drivers didn't even go off road, tow anything for any significant time, haul anything at all OR even push the vehicle remotely to it's limits and they come to THIS conclusion?!?!

Toyota expects to sell 65,000-66,000 Sequoias in 2008.

At an $8,000 each discount naturally.

For comparison, GM is on pace to sell about three times as many Tahoes and GMC Yukons before 2007 is over.

MEANING: GM is still MUCH more evil than Toyota, so don't feel guilty by supporting them. Seriously, why esle would this tdbit be incorporated?

For people whose needs can only be met by a full-size sport-utility, the 2008 Toyota Sequoia should make a great (big) gift.

Maybe they could even do a promotional deal with Spencers who sells the fake turds in a box. I'm sure they'd be happy to wraap this turd up just like they do the smaller ones. Then you can all sit around the fire on christmas morning and joke about the large gag gift you recieved before braving the shoppers the next day to return the thing and go to the Chevy store for the real deal.

[enzl]

BooHoo...the media's killing GM....

Which media is it? The one naming Malibu as an All Star? The almost unanimous positive reviews nationally?

Perhaps the Sequoia is better than the GMT 900's? I really don't know or care if its true, but wouldn't it stand to reason that Toyota has had years to to tear apart, analyze and then respond to the competition, thus enabling them to come up with a good rival?

You guys repeatedly act as if the world should stand still to allow GM to get back on its feet. It just doesn't make sense, nor is it connected to the real world of business...where competitors in all fields consistently attempt to top one another, be it TV sets, widgets or cars.

The sensitivity to GM's 'feelings' is ironic, given the general lack of concern for other insults demonstrated on this board, daily.

[Hudson]

BooHoo...the media's killing GM....

Which media is it? The one naming Malibu as an All Star? The almost unanimous positive reviews nationally?

Or the one that RAVED about the GMT900 SUVs? Now there's a newer kid on the block, which looks to be marginally better in many dimensions than the GMT900 trucks, and suddenly it's a media bias? You guys can't do better than that? Really? Then can I claim a GM-bias on the Malibu and previous GMT900 raves?

[siegen]

By early next year Toyota will have 4 models equipped with the 5.7L V8. Pretty good for the world's greenest automaker, eh.

Tundra - 14 / 18 (4wd - 13 / 17)

Sequoia - 15 / 18

Land Cruiser - 13 / 18

GX - 14 / 18 (honorable mention)

LX - 13 / 17 (ratings from 4.7, 5.7 to come out early next year with likely similar ratings).

I don't see why any media would blast GM for their full size SUV's and Trucks, and then praise Toyota's. GM isn't the one trying to uphold a green image.

Edited November 15, 2007 by siegen

[enzl]

Or the one that RAVED about the GMT900 SUVs? Now there's a newer kid on the block, which looks to be marginally better in many dimensions than the GMT900 trucks, and suddenly it's a media bias? You guys can't do better than that? Really? Then can I claim a GM-bias on the Malibu and previous GMT900 raves?

Forget it. You're bangig your head against the wall.

Good GM reviews are evidence of GM's complette turnaround.

Bad reviews means that the mean old media horde is out to get GM.

Regularly ignored issues such as fleeting dependancy to reach current sales numbers, GM's highly paid/highly educated numbers guys missing the potential housing market meltdown or noticing the price of oil and the marketing nightmare that is their broken apparatus don't matter---it's the Media Bias that's killing GM!

Ostriches, every last one of them.

[Drew Dowdell]

BooHoo...the media's killing GM....

Which media is it? The one naming Malibu as an All Star? The almost unanimous positive reviews nationally?

Perhaps the Sequoia is better than the GMT 900's? I really don't know or care if its true, but wouldn't it stand to reason that Toyota has had years to to tear apart, analyze and then respond to the competition, thus enabling them to come up with a good rival?

You guys repeatedly act as if the world should stand still to allow GM to get back on its feet. It just doesn't make sense, nor is it connected to the real world of business...where competitors in all fields consistently attempt to top one another, be it TV sets, widgets or cars.

The sensitivity to GM's 'feelings' is ironic, given the general lack of concern for other insults demonstrated on this board, daily.

That is not the issue here. The issue is the spin.

As already pointed out in this thread:

Insane that GM can still get grilled for not differentiating the Suburban/Tahoe and the Silverado enough (same in the GMC department), yet Toyo can go and slap a Tundra front on this blob and not even have them mention it.

and

Sold from 2001-'07, the first-generation Toyota Sequoia was a good one, too.

v.

For "blue state" dwellers here's the bad news on the same subject: GM is still addicted to full-size SUVs! Despite marginal improvements in efficiency, the new Tahoe is an indulgent, thirsty, oversized monster that threatens smaller vehicles while exacerbating America's dependence on imported oil and hastening global warming. So what if it's the best full-size SUV ever built? It's also why the rest of the world hates us.

and

By early next year Toyota will have 4 models equipped with the 5.7L V8. Pretty good for the world's greenest automaker, eh.

Tundra - 14 / 18 (4wd - 13 / 17)

Sequoia - 15 / 18

Land Cruiser - 13 / 18

GX - 14 / 18

LX - 13 / 17

I don't see why any media would blast GM for their full size SUV's and Trucks, and then praise Toyota's. GM isn't the one trying to uphold a green image.

Enzl.... that's called spin. Spin Toyota up and Spin GM down. I'm perfectly willing to admit that Toyota's big SUV is every bit as good as the reviewers say it is. It's the spin that I hate. THAT is where the bias is.

Bias is talking about the Cimmaron or 8-6-4 in a 2007 DTS review.

Bias is bringing up the Citation in a Malibu review..... even the previous generation Malibu which wasn't amazing but still didn't deserve to be compaired to a Citation. When do you ever hear about '83 Corolla rust traps in Toyota reviews?

Bias is talking about Toyota's green cred while blasting GM for big SUVs..... forgetting to mention that GM's SUVs are usually more efficient. *this one is starting to go away*

Edited November 15, 2007 by Oldsmoboi

[FAPTurbo]

which forced us to indulge our driving companion's fondness for 1980s hair bands.

Aw, you, Edmunds.

[toesuf94]

But will the Sequoia still carry the Turdra's Best Evar 4-star crash rating?

If the lighter pick-up with the same drive train cannot achieve the fuel numbers that they quoted in the article, how in the F*^k will the HEAVIER Sequoia do it? Sombody want to explain that one to me? [Careful here Toyota - Dodge has a lot of people pissed about the actual versus EPA numbers of the trucks not being what was promised!!! (See Commander, Durango, Charger)] This little factoid really has me curious. I really want to know how this is being achieved, and if they can do it with the heavy tree, they should be doing even better with the Turdra.

Next: Will the body structure on the Sequoia crack due to flex? Let's face it, they slapped a SUV body on the flimsy truck frame...so will it do what the truck does and dance it's ass off?

I do wish my Tahoe had the fold flat seats. About the only thing this thing has over my truck.

[enzl]

That is not the issue here. The issue is the spin.

As already pointed out in this thread:

and

v.

and

Enzl.... that's called spin. Spin Toyota up and Spin GM down. I'm perfectly willing to admit that Toyota's big SUV is every bit as good as the reviewers say it is. It's the spin that I hate. THAT is where the bias is.

Bias is talking about the Cimmaron or 8-6-4 in a 2007 DTS review.

Bias is bringing up the Citation in a Malibu review..... even the previous generation Malibu which wasn't amazing but still didn't deserve to be compaired to a Citation. When do you ever hear about '83 Corolla rust traps in Toyota reviews?

Bias is talking about Toyota's green cred while blasting GM for big SUVs..... forgetting to mention that GM's SUVs are usually more efficient. *this one is starting to go away*

Bias is Bias...Spin is a form of Bias, no?

If you take select bits and pieces of any article, couldn't you support almost any conclusion?

The tide of press affections has been turning in GM's favor lately---they've been given a free pass on a few of the items I've been harping on in the past few weeks---its hard to prove a negative, but doesn't the absence of 'bad' news make an argument that the worm has turned?

And, bear in mind, Toyota has done a masterful PR job with hybrids & Green imaging---so much so that GM's marketing machine has finally caught on---have you seen the 08 Chevy display in LA?

Also, the utter dependence GM has on its GMT900 line (as in every dollar of profit from vehicle sales in the last 10 or so years, at least) makes GM uniquely positioned as the largest, most relevant and most visible of the Big 2.8, whose entire fortunes are basically tied to these dinosaurs--that's just an inescapable fact. Toyota could survive (and prosper) without its large truck lines, while the same isn't true at the domestic co.'s.

So, while you make valid points, I believe that the concern you express is more of a POV issue than a real one. Most people could care less about the industry in general---most people have bought what the Toyota PR machine has sold them---but then you can't ignore the common sense conclusion that GM truly is a truck company that happens to make cars---both as perception and reality, when you take a cold hard look at where their business truly derives profits.

BTW-I haven't seen one Malibu review that references the Citation, nor a CTS review that mentions the V8-6-4 debacle, but keep in mind that Chevy was ubiquitous historically speaking, while Toyota was a coastal player that bearly reached the radar screens of the American public until they really started competing with US products---and eating their lunch. I didn't know anyone with a Corolla in 1980--now I don't know anyone that hasn't at least shopped a Toyota product, regardless of segment.

[enzl]

But will the Sequoia still carry the Turdra's Best Evar 4-star crash rating?

If the lighter pick-up with the same drive train cannot achieve the fuel numbers that they quoted in the article, how in the F*^k will the HEAVIER Sequoia do it? Sombody want to explain that one to me? [Careful here Toyota - Dodge has a lot of people pissed about the actual versus EPA numbers of the trucks not being what was promised!!! (See Commander, Durango, Charger)] This little factoid really has me curious. I really want to know how this is being achieved, and if they can do it with the heavy tree, they should be doing even better with the Turdra.

Next: Will the body structure on the Sequoia crack due to flex? Let's face it, they slapped a SUV body on the flimsy truck frame...so will it do what the truck does and dance it's ass off?

I do wish my Tahoe had the fold flat seats. About the only thing this thing has over my truck.

Guess you missed the latest IIHS (tougher than NTSHA) results, huh?

http://www.autoblog.com/2007/11/15/iihs-aw...award-for-2008/

[ToniCipriani]

Toyoguy disappeared off the face of this planet? Where is he when we need him?

[Drew Dowdell]

BTW-I haven't seen one Malibu review that references the Citation, nor a CTS review that mentions the V8-6-4 debacle, but keep in mind that Chevy was ubiquitous historically speaking, while Toyota was a coastal player that bearly reached the radar screens of the American public until they really started competing with US products---and eating their lunch. I didn't know anyone with a Corolla in 1980--now I don't know anyone that hasn't at least shopped a Toyota product, regardless of segment.

Even better a Pontiac Solstice review that discusses the 8-6-4, Vega, Corvair and Aztec.

1998 Seville review that talks about the 8-6-4 and Cimmaron

[enzl]

Even better a Pontiac Solstice review that discusses the 8-6-4, Vega, Corvair and Aztec.

1998 Seville review that talks about the 8-6-4 and Cimmaron

Ahem...Malibu, CTS...and I'm not doubting their existence, just that it's not a widespread, nor current slap at GM thru 'bu or CTS reviews...which you've proven for me....

[Flybrian]

I've seen a few CTS reviews that mention the Cimarron needlessly.

[Drew Dowdell]

actually, if you scroll up, I said DTS and I said the mentions of the citation were for a previous generation Malibu...again while not a stunning car, didn't deserve to be compared to that. I know I've read a review of a 2007 DTS that mentioned the 8-6-4 and Cimmaron. It was an overall positive review, but there is still no need to be bringing those up. Can you think of any viable reason to mention any of these things in a review of a 2007 DTS or 2006 Malibu?

If the answer is "yes", does that same reasoning apply to the Odyssey and it's first gen? or the G20? or the SLX?

I'll do what I can to find the articles for you.

[toesuf94]

Guess you missed the latest IIHS (tougher than NTSHA) results, huh?

http://www.autoblog.com/2007/11/15/iihs-aw...award-for-2008/

I did see that. In fact it has been plastered all over MSN all morning. Funny, the articles that I read did not mention GM trucks at all, even though they are standard with ESC and side bags and curtains are optional. Seems funny that the IIHS tests and awards picks based on cars with ESC, and then decides to forgo testing the nation's # 1 sellers. Why?

And how does a truck that gets 4 stars in all other tests suddenly score so high in a tougher test? Don't get me wrong - I am glad to see that it is safe and that automakers are making so many safe cars in the market, but GM is barely mentioned in this story - and Toyota suddenly makes big news. And where are the Lambda crossovers in this test? Those are standard with ESC and side curtains.

[Drew Dowdell]

Ahem...Malibu, CTS...and I'm not doubting their existence, just that it's not a widespread, nor current slap at GM thru 'bu or CTS reviews...which you've proven for me....

So, other than the Malibu or CTS, what GM cars currently made are worthy of a review that includes any of the following?

8-6-4

Cimmaron

Citation

Vega

Celebrity

Corsica

Quad-4

Aztek

[Z-06]

Apart from bias and other pro or con GM sentiments, I still stand by this:

1. Edmunds is a bunch of coffee talk journalists with the most unscientific way of testing.

2. They justify and cling to their claims like a kid holding her Barbie.

3. Other than their car appraisal calculator, they have nothing to offer to form a judicial view of any car.

4. They write it up like the smut magazines found in the checkout isles of Walmart. Look at their Inside Line News and their comments on the bottom of Edmund's Take, any sensible reader can see how much pile they throw.

5. Any glowing review of a GM vehicle from them, makes me hate them even more. Because they always want to refer to the history of GM even if there is a pile of crap not related to the latest GM vehicle.

6. They like to create the flash in the pan. They are always the first to put on something about anything the day it is released and put a caveat saying they attended the special event provided by the manufacturer for "few" or "elite" members of the press staff.

7. As much as they claim that they are true car enthusiasts, most of their tests involve automatic transmissions whenever they can.

[enzl]

So, other than the Malibu or CTS, what GM cars currently made are worthy of a review that includes any of the following?

8-6-4

Cimmaron

Citation

Vega

Celebrity

Corsica

Quad-4

Aztek

Few, if any, which is a great accomplishment...however, there's a part of me that would respond with a list of mediocrities that still inhabit the GM line-up---do we need to go through them?

Bear in mind that GM has visited this horror upon itself....the Zombia Zarella years come to mind as an era with so few truly worldclass products, you'd think by some happy accident one or two gems might have appeared. It's taken Mr. Lutz 6 llong years to work his guidance into real projects that are now available for retail purchase---I'm not certain that GM has 6 more years to wander around hoping that the marketers, retailers & money men can improve GM in their areas of expertise, nor do I believe there's a Lutz-type in any of these areas to lead them out of the woods.

VW used to be the 'bug' company. Hyundai meant cheap & unreliable. Honda was a motorcycle maker and Lexus (Lexis, asctually) was a legal archive/research co.

Obviously, all of these companies have evolved in many ways, so GM can too...but each of the above still gets some grief for the 'old' perception of them.

Case and point: VW was roundly criticized for their move upmarket, as they had an association with affordability. Hyundai is still given the mantle of 'newly' reliable product. Honda has still not made a universal success of Acura and Lexus takes many hits (especialy in Europe) for its lack of history. If these examples are anything to go by, clearly GM has a shot---it's just that their margin for error has shrunk dramatically and I've seen nothing in their top leadership that leads me to believe that they are the men for the job.

[Camino LS6]

Only three factors really matter to me concerning this vehicle.

1) Toyota's limited experience with full-size trucks and SUVs

2) The obvious flaws in the Tundra on which it is based

3) The fact that it is stone ugly

The rest doesn't matter after those three.

[Drew Dowdell]

Few, if any, which is a great accomplishment...however, there's a part of me that would respond with a list of mediocrities that still inhabit the GM line-up---do we need to go through them?

All I want is fairness in the reviews. There is no need for mention of any of those product in a review of a current product. I doubt there would be much debate between you and I on the remaining trouble spots. I like the W-body but I know it needs to go. I think the Lacross and new Aveo5 have been beaten with an ugly stick. I think GM made a mistake not giving the Cobalt an MCE for MY2007, I think GM is making a mistake not continuing with the the SRX. I think all the pushrod V6s could be replaced with the turbo 4, HF2.8 and HF3.6 with various goodies like DI or turbo grafted on as needed.

I'm not a kool-aid drinker. I slam GM where they deserve it and defend them when they get slammed inappropriately. Bringing up the 8-6-4, unless directly discussing AFM, is inappropriate.

[enzl]

All I want is fairness in the reviews. There is no need for mention of any of those product in a review of a current product. I doubt there would be much debate between you and I on the remaining trouble spots. I like the W-body but I know it needs to go. I think the Lacross and new Aveo5 have been beaten with an ugly stick. I think GM made a mistake not giving the Cobalt an MCE for MY2007, I think GM is making a mistake not continuing with the the SRX. I think all the pushrod V6s could be replaced with the turbo 4, HF2.8 and HF3.6 with various goodies like DI or turbo grafted on as needed.

I'm not a kool-aid drinker. I slam GM where they deserve it and defend them when they get slammed inappropriately. Bringing up the 8-6-4, unless directly discussing AFM, is inappropriate.

You're not wrong...and perhaps I'm unfairly lumping you in with others, but there is an element at C&G that sees GM's problems as external--"Import humpers won't give us a chance""We forgave the Japanese for Pearl Harbor..." & of course, Media Bias.

I feel strongly that as soon as an excuse is made, you're losing the larger war, because an admission that something is broken always predates an attempt to fix it. The product machinery seems to be fixed, but GM's difficulties are not behind it---and many of the same element here at C&G are declaring victory.

The truth is that the recent sales success is fleet driven, the books are still not in order, the future profits are no longer anticipated and, quite frankly, without trucks, GM cannot fund the completion of a product renaissance that is really in its infancy---a generation of product isn't enough to turn it around, we need 2-3 just to get back in the game. Lots of dealers are going under--small sales losses, perhaps, but they add up and highlight the fragility of a distribution network that GM needs to work to be healthy.

[Camino LS6]

Seems to me that a decline in the number of dealerships is necessary - I don't see that as a real negative overall.

[siegen]

Toyoguy disappeared off the face of this planet? Where is he when we need him?

Where did he go?

I don't want to have to start defending Toyota, cause right now it's all one sided and not fun anymore.

[Z-06]

Where did he go?

I don't want to have to start defending Toyota, cause right now it's all one sided and not fun anymore.

Are you going to change sides?

[Drew Dowdell]

Lots of dealers are going under--small sales losses, perhaps, but they add up and highlight the fragility of a distribution network that GM needs to work to be healthy.

I think there needs to be a substantial dealer consolidation. If Toyota is pushing out that many cars from so few dealerships, GM can too.

[thegriffon]

I agree. Lots of dealers are going under simply because there are too many of them to begin with. That many dealers could be supported when you have 50% market share, but not when you have 25%. The game has changed as well. The days of Mom and Pop dealers with a dozen cars in inventory are numbered. You can't depend on service income because cars don't break down like they used to, and need servicing less often as well. People won't stand for expensive day-long services anymore either. Check fluids and TSBs and go. Too many dealers are still a guy with a mobile office building , some cars and bunting in a vacant lot.

[siegen]

Are you going to change sides?

Well without some opposition we're all just preaching to the choir. :AH-HA_wink:

Edit: everyone go get Toyota nation accounts!

Edited November 16, 2007 by siegen

[Z-06]

Well without some opposition we're all just preaching to the choir. :AH-HA_wink:

Edit: everyone go get Toyota nation accounts!

We still have some people who bash people when GM does wrong or not perfect.

Besides most of the people here are peaceloving despite some of them not trumpeting for GM, why do you want to create holocaust by creating a holy war after joining Toyota Nation?

Edited November 16, 2007 by smallchevy