Karl on Cars

Hi Brett,
 
You didn't get my quote in full:
 
"Similarly, the car makes people uncomfortable and it is wasteful of resources when people who don't need it buy it....."
 
On other words, it's wasteful IF AND ONLY IF people who don't need it buy it. The same could be said of sports cars and S-Classes, but there are so few of those cars, unlike the Sequoia which is affordable so many people can afford and buy them for the wrong reason.
 
And to your question: "Please. If you want to take a family of six to the lake with your boat what are you going to pull it with? An Odyssey?"
 
My answer: A Tahoe, a 4-Runner or a Pathfinder.

All I can say - Toyota became a Darth Vader of our days. We had so much hope and faith in Toyota's goodness, but Toyota betrayed us. Good buy Toyota - you turned to the dark side - we have to depart ways - I believe in global warming, Polar Bear and Al Gore. I am almost crying typing these words. World is cruel –no one can be trusted anymore :(

In a hopeful note, the 2007 outgoing 4WD Sequoia gets 13/17 mpg.
This new 2008 5.7-liter gets 13/18 mpg, despite being bigger.
There is improvement. Yay for the environment.
 
Vote with your dollar! Buy the Yaris at 29/35 mpg, or the Camry Hybrid at 33/34 mpg, or the Prius at 48/45 mpg!

Brett, we're absolutely not telling people that they can't buy a Sequoia. Some of us are saying they're stupid if they do, but that's not the same thing. I swear you guys see a conspiracy everywhere...

Ditto, Carlisimo! Exactly! They ARE stupid if the do so, especially when they don't need it!!!

"Do you think this thing's worth the premium that's being charged for it compared to, say, the nice Armada you had a few days ago?"
 
It's definitely got a more refined drivetrain, and overall the Sequoia feel "better executed" than the Armada, though the Nissan's new interior has narrowed the gap considerably. I wouldn't buy either vehicle, as they are too large for my needs, but IF I were going to buy one I'd spend the extra cash for the Toyota, simply because I would want to feel the increased refinement everytime I drove it.

It may not have been the intent of this column, but I'm getting tired of people complaining about the size and fuel economy of vehicles designed to carry 7 or 8 people and their gear. It's as if anything "big" is somehow bad in and of itself. It's like anything, it can be a usefull tool or a wastefull excess depending on how it's used.
 
And why beat up a vehicle for being huge? What if the owner needs the size? Or is he not bright enough to know when he's wasting money, gas, and driving a needlessly ponderous vehicle?
 
Why not go on a tear about how those dang city buses aren't up to snuff in terms of fuel economy, or how they're so darn big. Or condemn the construction worker who uses his 3500 series dually to run to the grocery store on the weekend rather than buy a second vehicle just for that purpose. Neither is a fair criticism.
 
I just drove myself and my wife from Florida for 7 hours in a BMW 3 series. Got almost 30 mpg, (my, don't I feel environmentally superior!) But that is with no rear seat passengers, besides a dog. Not even much luggage. I could NOT have made the trip with a 3rd human passenger. Nor could our other vehicle, a 33 mpg Saab. It took every inch of space in the car, including packing the footwells behind the seats, half the rear seat, the trunk, and the front passenger straddling items on the floorboard to get us and all our luggage , laptops, and gear there. So this "5 passenger car" is really more like a 2-3 passenger one in real life. And with just 2 passengers we're using 6.66 gallons per passenger on this 400 mile trip.
 
A family of 5 in even the Sequoia would use just 4.44 gallons per passenger on the same trip. Even with only 4 passengers they are still beating my 30mpg car in passenger/cargo carrying efficiency. Only when they reduce to just 3 passengers does a midsize car start to make more sense. And while there are certainly exceptions, I usually see the big SUVs parked in front of family homes with kids living there, not apartments full of young singles and childless couples.
 
So why the fuss? If someone needs 5-7 passenger/cargo capacity even a couple times a month, what is their other option? Rent a Uhaul for the luggage and tow it behind your Accord?
  
They don't make many full size cars that will handle even 5 with luggage legitimately, and even fewer that aren't super expensive. And NONE that are stylish, comfortable, perform well, and cheap.
  
The new car based large crossovers are a better fuel economy solution, but even they may lack something in the area of space compared to truely large SUVs like the Sequoia.
 
The "this thing is big" comment tossed in alongside the 13/18 mpg comment gave this reader the impression the vehicle was being condemned for its size and non PC fuel economy attributes.

myob
 senstive a bit? Most people didn't complain about this car being big if you are using the space. But you very well know that a large number of people will not be buying them to hall 6 people around while towing a boat. And thats what people complain about.
 
I'm tired of people thinking they can make a statement/choice, or have a point of view. But cannot take someone else having a different point of view.
 
And if you and your wife filled a 3 series sedan for a 7 hour trip. You wife packed way to much stuff. I've been on trips with a family of 4 in a 4 door sedan, that took 17 hours and we all fit. We later had a mini van, and yes we had alot more room. But we fit in the sedan as well.
 
My uncle did the same trip with a family of 6 but had a cutllass wagon, bigger then our car, but still 2 extra people.
 
what a majority of people are saying, is that a single person, or a couple, without anything to tow, driving one of thse, is a bad person.
 
And they can make that choice, but we can call them out on it

My grandmother fit 7people and their luggage for a 5day trip and a 12 hour drive(miami, FL to Atlanta, GA) in her 05 pathfinder. It can be done if you pack correctly. It wasn't that cramped and there was only enough cargo space to fit another bookbag. She also did this trip but with 6 in a Toyota Highlander(3rd row).
 
If she would have had bought the Sedona instead of the Pathfinder, I guess there would be that underfloor cargo space, a few miles further on a tank of gas, and more personal space for the passengers.
 
Does it make sense that she bought the pathfinder? Not really. But it also doesn't make sense that my dad bought an Expedition and only carries himself. Maybe 2 others on a road trip.
 
Whole point? People buy what they like. If someone likes the Sequoia, They'll buy it.
 
Just 1question. Does the 3rd row in the sequoia fold flat yet?
 
-Cj

Yes, in fact it splits and can POWER fold flat on higher trim models.

People complained that the 1st generation Toyota Tundra/Sequioa werent big enough. Toyota addressed the problem with larger vehicles and now people are complaining that thier too big. WTF?
 
The only problem that I have with the new Tundra/Sequioa is that I dont get the same perception regarding overall build quality. The last Tundra Limited Double Cab just felt almost Land Cruiser like in construction. The new one while not bad just doesnt give me the same feeling. Im guessing Toyota had to save some bucks since they went $400,000,000 over budget with the new plant in Texas.
 
My father (Toyota product planner) told me that the old 4.7 will give way to a newer V8 based on the class leading 5.7 V8. So expect something around 4.7- 5.0 liters and 300-320hp with ample torque and better fuel economy.

I'm a frequent, if quiet reader of your blog, but your comment about the Excursion being run out by environmentalists is ridiculous. Was the Excursion a symbol of the excess of the times? Yes. However, as you so eloquently point out when discussing "who killed the electric car", car companies are unlikely to kill models that are profitable, and which are sold in high numbers. So you claiming that oil companies can't kill a car, but environmentalists can is really hypocritical. Ford stopped selling the excursion for the same reason any manufacturer stops selling any car: because it stops selling well/being competitive.

"Ford stopped selling the excursion for the same reason any manufacturer stops selling any car: because it stops selling well/being competitive."
 
Absolutely Correct...and I would suggest that the reason the Excursion failed to sell well was the stigma attached to it by the greenies. Well, that and because if you actually analyzed the vehicle it was worse than Chevrolet's Suburban in every way (less interior volume, lower tow rating, etc. -- all while being bigger/heavier than the Chevy). Basically, it offered all the disadvantages of an over-sized SUV and none of the advantages.
 
Combine that with the public flogging it took in every remotely left-leaning publication and the vehicle was doomed for failure. Just as well, really. By enlarging the Expedition/Navigator models Ford got everything the Excursion offered and more -- without the negative public perception attached to the Excursion.

I agree. The new LWB Expedition is better than the Excursion is just about every way. The only advantage that the Excursion had was maybe a bit more max towing and the PowerStroke diesel option, and some may even argue that point with all the problems that engine had.
 
I'm actually surprised that the new Sequoia isn't bigger than it is. I thought it would match the Expedition EL in terms of length and rear cargo space. The Suburban and Expedition EL can swallow up 4x8 sheets of plywood flat on the floor with the tailgate closed, and I doubt the new Sequoia can do that.

I'm on the side that says the stigma did affect Excursion sales. When it was doing well, many of its sales were due to how cool it was to get the biggest thing you could buy... that's changed since (though a few still think it's cool due to its size, out of spite). It's like smoking, fewer kids do it because fewer girls think it's cool anymore.
The constant rollover news may have made a dent in the safety sales pitch too. Lastly, people are starting to get over their love of boxes.
 
Without those emotional appeals, the only market left are people who actually plan on using a full-sized SUV... and they had at least one better choice than the Excursion.
 
I know a couple of people who couldn't pass up amazing deals on used Excursions, though.

the argument that people shouldnt own big vehicles if they arent going to use all the space all the time is stupid. Thats like sayng you shouldnt own a car with more than 200hp since you may not use the full capabilities of the engine in every driving situation. If you have a family of 5 or 6 you are going to get a vehicle that can handle your family even if all of your family isnt with you EVERY time you drive the vehicle. Most families with an SUV probably have a car as well and that can be used when its convenient but even if you have one SUV and one car its possible that the SUV may need to be used every day if both parents drive to work. 90% of the vehicles on the road today have more than we need to get from A to B efficiently. This applies to V8 luxury sedans, sports cars, V6 crossovers, etc. If all we cared about was using as little gas as possible to get from A to B we should be driving mopeds or using public transportation.

That IS ugly. Especially once you've looked at the new Tahoe or GMC Yukon, this one looks like a big ugly blob. GM would never, ever design such an obnoxious pile of junk.
 
And if this represents Toyota quality, expect numerous recalls, repair bills and unexpected service visits for stuff like broken camshafts, faulty transmissions, sludged engines and cheap interiors just like the Blundra, Camry, FJ cruiser, Tacoma and every other Toyota piece of crap that is out there at the moment.
 
Good luck is all I say. You're gonna need it.

1487, nobody is saying "that people shouldnt own big vehicles if they aren't going to use all the space all the time". You're missing the point.
 
What people like me are against is people who buy such vehicles for macho or style reasons and not because they need them at all. I believe that most buyers fall into this category. Of course, it's within their democratic right to buy whatever vehicle they so choose, but if their cars are a serious threat to my well-being or the state of my environment then I'd rather the government does something or the other to limit the use of these vehicles by owners who don't need them.
 
Yeah, S-classes, Ferraris and the likes are equally bad in the emissions regard but because of their prohibitive prices so few people can afford them, making their environmental impact negligible. I don't even remember the last time I saw an S-class.

There will always be a market (need) for large truck-based vehicles that can either haul a lot of cargo and people comfortably, or can tow a lot behind it - or both. You simply cannot tow much behind a car-based front-drive crossover or minivan. Toyota is just trying to get its share of customers who need these kinds of vehicles. Personally, I only buy domestic brands (GM & Ford). I hated the Tundra when I sat in one at last year's car show - I hit my head on the door frame getting in and felt like there was no headroom even with the seat all the way down, but I had no issues with the controls. Toyota will still sell plenty of Tundras and Sequoias to make money. As for Toyota's MPG halo, I'll never understand why they get so much praise for selling a few high MPG hybrids when they've always sold lots of gas guzzlers like the Land Cruiser at the same time.
  
In the late 70's through the 80's, cars were downsized and engines became anemic. Over the past decade or so when gas was again cheap, consumers were demanding three things: 1) more power, 2) more power, and 3) more power. Today, consumers want higher MPG but are unwilling to go back to powerless , lifeless, and crampt little vehicles like the Chevy Chevette or GEO Metro just for the sake getting better mileage.
  
The good thing is that with high-MPG hybrids, plug-in-hybrids, and diesels on the horizon, and further transmission improvements, big vehicles will still be marketable as they become more efficient. The new two-mode hybrid SUV's that GM is releasing (Tahoe, Yukon, and Escalade) are a first step. As the technology advances, the mileage will improve and the cost will come down.
  
My parents had a 1979 Suburban that was lucky to get 10 mpg anytime (and it got about 6 mpg when towing a trailer). Personally, I'm pleased that my 2004 Yukon - with the base 295hp 4.8L engine and 2WD - averages 15-16 around town and 19-21 on the highway (lifetime avg of 17 per computer).
  
I don't usually carry any passengers and I don't tow anything, so I'd love to drive a smaller vehicle that gets better mileage. However, I've 'tried on' nearly every sedan, coupe, crossover, and SUV on the market and there are almost none that have sufficient head, leg, knee, hip & shoulder room for Big & Tall guys like me. Many of today's vehicles have very crampt space available for driver legs/knees - especially those with wide center consoles. Even the new Tahoe/Yukon are off my radar now due to their god-awful center console that juts out into my knee room (if only GM would make available the same 'work-truck' interior option that is available in the Silverado & Sierra - and, no, I don't want a pickup truck). The Acadia/Outlook/Enclave get good mileage, have mostly great legroom and are easy to get into and out off, but they too have a wide center console that grates on my right leg after driving one for any length of time. So, when my Yukon lease ends this spring, I'll be getting a new Expedition. It's the roomiest, most comfortable, best handling, best looking, and best 'bang-for-the-buck' vehicle on the market today. If gas jumps to $5/gal, I won't be too happy, but I refuse to squeeze into a smaller vehicle that is uncomfortable to drive just to save a few gallons of gas. Thankfully, I live close to work and have a short 4 mile commute!

rob052067, try a Mini or a VW Beetle. They are extremely roomy for Big & Tall guys.