It seems like forever since body-on-frame SUVs ruled the automotive landscape, but there's still a sizable amount of high-profit share up for grabs, even with gas at well over $3 per gallon. With that in mind, Toyota is planning another crack at the large and in charge Sequoia.
Brenda Priddy's crew got a couple of well disguised spy shots of the Sequoia on public streets, but the massive amounts of dirt adorning the camo tells us that Toyota's future big ute may have actually been tested off-road. The Sequoia is based off the same platform as the Tundra, and the two trucks will share Toyota's awesome new 5.7L, 381 HP engine. The 4.7L V8 should also be available, along with five- and six-speed automatics. Expect the Sequoia to hit show rooms in early '08.
Toyota may be on top of its game when it comes to fuel efficient transportation, but even the boys and girls from Aichi Japan have trouble saying no to a rolling profit waiting to happen.
[Source: Edmunds Straitline]
New KITT Attack Mode revealed at Comic Con
London 2008: Honda OSM concept roadster says, "Cheerio!"
London 2008: Lotus unveils the Evora
2010 Chevy Camaro - Official Details and Images
2010 Chevy Camaro - LIVE from the reveal
First Drive: Maserati Quattroporte S in Europe
First Drive: 2008 MINI Cooper S JCW
In the Autoblog Garage:2009 Nissan GT-R
North American Exclusive First Drive: Alfa MiTo
First Drive: 2009 Kia Borrego
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
dave @ May 24th 2007 4:05PM
Those of us with brains here know that SUVs aren't the only problem, and that hybrids aren't the only solution. But before the angry mob here gets all up in arms about Toyota quietly producing SUVs while pushing their green image, consider this:
SUVs produced, Big 3 Japan:
Toyota:
4runner, sequoia, highlander, rav4, rx350, lx470
Nissan:
armada, qx56, murano, FX
Honda:
pilot, cr-v, rdx, mdx
Total: 14
*****
SUVs produced, Big 3, USA:
GM:
trailblazer, yukon, tahoe, suburban, yukon denali, escalade, escalade EXT, avalanche, acadia, outlook, vue, torrent, equinox, enclave, 9-7x
Ford:
navigator, explorer, edge, mkx, xc90, land rover, land rover sport, aviator, lr3, lr2, mountaineer, escape, mariner, expedition
Chrysler:
durango, aspen, wrangler, wrangler unlimited, patriot, compass, liberty, grand cherokee, pacifica
total: 38
*****
Hybrids produced, Big 3, Japan:
Toyota:
prius, camry, highlander, rx400h, ls600lh
Nissan:
altima
Honda:
insight, civic, accord
total: 9
*****
GM:
tahoe, yukon, vue
Ford:
escape, mariner
Chrysler:
none
total: 5
Note that all the US hybrids are SUVs.
*****
I welcome any additions or subtractions.
John @ May 26th 2007 5:16PM
You forgot to add the Lexus GX and the Nissan Pathfinder.
Brian Dreggors @ May 24th 2007 4:21PM
Oh yeah. The Sequoia. Anyone buy one of these in the past two years?
Required viewing...
http://info.detnews.com/pix/paynecartoons/toons/ShowtoonGreenTundra011007.jpg
To Dave,
Add the Saturn AURA to the domestic list.
Subtract the Yukon Denail (its a trim level) and the Escalade EXT (a pickup). Also subtract Land Rovers and Volvos from Ford's list. Man, you're funny.
You count Japanese cars funny, too.
Subtract the Altima because you can only buy it in a handful of states.
You're also making SUVs out of vehicles that are not (Compass, Pacfica)
Let's put together an accurate list:
JAPAN
Toyota - RAV4, FJ Cruiser, 4Runner, Highlander, Sequoia, Land Cruiser
Lexus - RX350, GX470, LX470
Nissan - xTerra, Murano, Pathfinder, Armada
Infiniti - FX, QX
Honda - CR-V, Pilot
Acura - RDX, MDX
Mitsubishi - Outlander, Endeavor
Mazda - Tribute, CX-7, CX-9 (counted as two since they are marketed as seperate vehicles)
Subaru - Tribeca
Suzuki - XL-7
TOTAL - 26
********
USA
Chevrolet - Equinox, Trailblazer, Tahoe, Suburban
Pontiac - Torrent
Buick - Enclave
Cadillac - SRX, Escalade (arguably marketed as one model with multiple trims)
GMC - Envoy, Yukon, Yukon XL, Acadia
Saturn - VUE, Outlook
SAAB - 9-7x (all four they sold)
Ford - Escape, Explorer, Expedition, Edge.
Mercury - Mariner, Mountaineer.
Lincoln - MKX, Navigator
Dodge - Nitro, Durango
Chrysler - Aspen
Jeep - Wrangler (arguable), Liberty, Grand Cherokee.
TOTAL - 29
Hmmm...
dave @ May 24th 2007 4:35PM
Thanks for some of the clarifications. I agree my count was not perfect, as I was going by memory. I got the Denali confused with the XL--thanks. But the Wrangler as arguable, though? Come on. And I would count the wrangler unlimited the same way I count the Yukon XL. Different vehicle.
Oh, and let's not forget Hummer. Jesus.
Thanks for the other additions. How did I forget the Pathfinder?? Why would you delete the Land Rovers and Volvo, though? You might as well delete all variations of one product, then (e.g., Highlander/RX), if you're not going to include everything produced under the eye of a parent company.
I'm not trying to stir the pot too much here, but it's an interesting debate--who's greener? How much is marketing vs. real action? Nor am I bashing US in favor of Japan. A real fix is needed from both sides of the debate. Producing more gas-consuming cars--no matter how little (relatively) they consume--is a problem no matter who's doing it.
Carletti @ May 24th 2007 4:38PM
People will continue to buy the Sequoia because it is simply a great full-size SUV...not because it's especially more fuel efficient than other SUVs. But in my opinion, Toyota's image as a "green" car company is merely a ploy to get people into showrooms. Are Toyota's SUV's and trucks really THAT much better in terms of fuel economy over domestic makes? No, they aren't. But Toyota has done a good job of making it seem as though they are by making the Toyota name almost synonymous with fuel efficiency.
Gary Z @ May 24th 2007 4:50PM
I was in the market for a full-sized SUV and did a lot of research on the Sequoia, Tahoe and Suburban before I settled on a Sequoia.
I don't think anyone in the market for these vehicles is trying to kid themselves into thinking green or about fuel-efficiency (though the new Tahoe and Suburban are slightly more efficient with their Active Fuel Management systems). You buy these vehicles knowing you're getting into a fuel hog. But you can't get that much space, power, etc. for free.
So I'm not sure it's even fair to bring up which companies are greener when you're throwing their full-sized SUVs into the mix.
BTW-- In doing my research I found it interesting that in 2005 (my model year) Toyota sold 35,000 Sequoias. How many Tahoes did Chevy sell? Over 160,000 units. That's a lot of cars !! They also nearly doubled the Sequoia's numbers in Suburban sales.
Viv @ May 24th 2007 6:14PM
The only people who can destroy the myth that toyota is a green company are those people on the discovery show Mythbusters.
mikomi @ May 24th 2007 4:47PM
What about the European SUVs? I'm sure they have a list comparable to USA and Japan.
But like the post said, who can blame anyone for trying to make a profit? People are still buying SUVs. As long as people want SUVs, companies will keep on making SUVs.
Shawn @ May 24th 2007 5:11PM
Throw a diesel under the hood and I'll write a check. Toyota have any good diesels under wraps?
hotlikehoney @ Jun 20th 2007 6:07PM
no they don't. diesel engines are still in very early development at toyota. the r&d teams in aichi are painstakingly slow and precise when it comes to something like a major engine change, so don't expect a diesel toyota for quite some time.
Shawn @ Jun 21st 2007 2:18PM
Bummer, thanks. Guess I'd better start saving for that used GL320 CDI.
Floyd @ Jul 23rd 2007 5:07PM
The 4.5 liter turbo diesel is scheduled for the 2009 models
Shawn @ Jul 23rd 2007 8:23PM
Yes, I saw, I'm soooo excited!!!
Aki @ May 24th 2007 6:05PM
The reason why Toyota is seen as more green is not because they never produce gas guzzlers, but because more of their R&D and focus goes into more economical cars.
Ford still puts all of its eggs into the SUV/crossover basket. GM seems like it's starting to shift over more to econo cars (upcoming Volt), but by and far much of the Big 2.5's focus has been not-so fuel efficient cars.
Back on point, I think the Tundra/Sequoia looks ugly, and a GM looks aesthetically cleaner. No idea how the thing will actually turn out quality wise though.
far jr @ May 24th 2007 8:26PM
dave if more SUV models correlates to "less green" does that mean that more sedan models correlates to more family friendly? More sports cars correlates to "better performance" company? That is odd logic you use.
GM Sedans
Impala, Malibu, Cobalt, Aveo, Lucerne, Lacrosse, Aura, Ion, Grand Prix, G6, DTS, STS, CTS,
Honda Sedans
Accord, Civic, Fit, RL, TL, TSX
More sedans does not in and of itself make GM a more "family friendly" company than Honda. Funny how the numbers game regarding SUV models always seems to come up in debates to make domestics appear bad but similar tactics are rarely used to bolster the image of the domestics.
Guenther @ May 24th 2007 9:28PM
You kids do realize how pointless a discussion of how many models of one vehicle someone offers is.
I'm surprised it has taken this long to get some confirmation that a new Sequoia is even coming, considering the dismal sales of the "current" model. But I guess they aren't ready to just give those sales away.
Frank @ May 25th 2007 9:07AM
Useless exercise counting models. What counts is platforms. Durango and Aspen are the same vehicle. So is the Trailblazer and the Saab whatever. For that matter so is the Sequoia and the Lexus version (yes Virgina, Toyota does badge engineering, as well as Nissan (Armada and Infinti QX something, and Honda (CRV/RDX, Pilot/MDX).
A company like GM makes a platform for 4 of its divsions and you count that as four separate SUV's while ToOndaSsan makes them for 2 divisions so you count them as two. Doesn't matter how many brands there are just count platforms and you have a real idea of the true number of SUV's. Meanwhile everyone is still coming out with new ones. Why the hell is Audi making SUV's (Q7 and Q5)?
And Compass is no more an SUV than a PT Cruiser. Wrangler and Unlimited are the same vehicle. They are built on the same assembly line.
Speeder @ May 25th 2007 5:52PM
The debate on whether Toyota (or other non-US companies) are green should go beyond just the vehicles they produce. Toyota and Subaru are both very environmentally-conscious manufacturers. Toyota Kentucky and Subaru Indiana are both zero-landfill facilities, and I know Toyota Indiana is moving toward that. TMMK actually has a giant composter on-site that all cafeteria waste goes to, and there are no "Trash" cans, only recycling centers. Just passing by the plants you can see the difference - GM, Ford, and Chrysler's plants tend to be concrete and steel complexes in/around large urban areas. Toyota has relatively small sized plants in rurban areas with significant amounts of green space.
Just a thought.
far jr @ May 25th 2007 6:58PM
Speeder... The concrete and steel facilities you write about must be the ones that were built decades before "green" was good. GM, Ford, and Chrysler have been in this country lond before the plants of Toyota and Subaru ever graced our shores. It simply is not economically feasible to close old facilities simply because they are not as "green" as more modern plants. New domestic facilities are fewer in number than Import facilities, but they are not less "green". That is a mis-conception. Check out the link below. GM's Lansing plant is one of the best in the world!
http://www.greenbiz.com/news/news_third.cfm?NewsID=33486
hotlikehoney @ Jun 20th 2007 6:11PM
it takes that long for a new model to come out because their uber-nutso about sticking to their build schedules, as far as model-life. and the amount of work that goes into a major model change...it takes almost the entire model-life of a vehicle to change over to a new one. ramping up for the brand new sequoia has been in the works for over two years already, and that's just on the production side, not the r&d side, and they won't start rolling off the line for sales for another 5 or 6 months.