xjokerz

Okay I will. Saw a comparison last night between an 03 LX and this one. It was the same guys who did the Century.

I think you would know my thoughts on the new LX even without me writing them. Lol

FastTurtle

🤣 you know it

sorptd

Almost every reviewer I have watched seems to very impressed with new powertrain. Don’t think many people are going to miss the V8, this new i-force max engine seems to be another level.

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

Its next level compared to the old engine, but thats like saying this interior is much better than the last tundra. F150 Powerboost makes essentially the same power/torque levels but gets 24/24 mpg vs the tundra hybrid 20/24, has a larger battery, no annoying floor hump in the rear, still has rear underseat storage, onboard generator, and power receptacles. Wait until it appears in the Expedition. The way Toyota executed the hybrid in the Tundra/Sequoia is lackluster.

Striker223

As usual for them.....issue is ford still offers the 5.0 and if you have 5k more for a wipple you have a 3.5 sec 0-60 or better. A LOT of dealers including mine offer a 5.0 stang or truck with a super retaining full warranty. Toyota doesn't give you anything past the 6, the old 8 had the TRD super and there are tons of aftermarket units that do better than that with much superior engine mapping.

xjokerz

You guys are nuts if you think a turbo attached to a V6 is better than a NA, inherently smoother, more luxurious V8. Yeah if you go off a spec sheet of course it may have a 1/5 of a second better 0-60 but reliability and flat-out better engine, no there's no comparison. A V6 is just not better than a V8 if you get away from the spec sheet lol.

mbarron37

I like the looks of the Sequoia, but the more I look into this, the more reluctant I get.

I do not like the 3rd row situation and lack of usable cargo space, especially when compared to the outgoing model. Does not appear the 3rd row can be removed either. Pretty big deal if you want a large SUV with a big cargo area.

Overall this is nice, but may not fit my needs. I will still look at one and test drive it. Could have been better.

pbm317

Agreed. Yes, sure they're playing up the "rugged" capabilities as they try to appease no Land Cruiser. And yes, great updates to bring a 15 year old vehicle close to the competitive benchmarks. But so many 90%+ usage case compromises. No more on-road 4 wheel drive capability, borderline ridiculous 3rd row execution. This was a GROUND up frame and platform change. They knew they needed to incorporate hybrid from the get go, and yet all these choices that make it decided less consumer friendly.

Others will hybridize/electrify their full size SUVs and still retain better ride quality and dynamics and interior packaging and space.

AJT123

Yeah. Looks wise it's killer but WTF were they thinking with the flooring/utility? Especially comparing the new one to the old one, pic wise. Not even close.

SW17LS

Yeah the two glaring issues are auto/full time 4WD and that cargo situation. For as big as it is I would lose interior room vs the Pacifica.

mbarron37

Hopefully they make a 3rd row delete or something down the road. Or just offer a 2 row and standard and 3rd row as optional.

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

no point in buying this thing if its only 2 row, just buy a tundra with a bed top

mbarron37

Ideally it really needs the 3rd row to fold flat or have the 3rd row be easily removable. Not
good either way.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

what in the world is the deal with that rear cargo area? TOTALLY LAME!
it may drive nice, but that's just terrible.

AJT123

Right and another thing that sucks is I believe the cargo situation is because of the Hybrid engine, which I would skip altogether. I wouldn't want it in my Tundra either, the base ttV6 would be my choice. If they offered a non-hybrid model I don't think the floor would "start" a foot up in the air. They should have also given buyers a choice like in the Tundra, even though you get stuck with the hybrid in those higher models as well so not really.