Hoovey689

iTrader: (16)

Time for a title change. Must have been before the 'MM Review'

mmarshall

Yep.. Had to add the MM to differentiate them from the reviews that start with "H"

UZJ100GXR

People here seem to do it better or so i'd like to believe. Especially with well informed members like yourself.



...

As for the Sequoia, does Toyota not care for it anymore? With competition in the segment heating up you would think they would update it, the Tundra has a much nicer interior. This leads me to believe they will drop it. I remember hearing a while back they could introduce a cheaper lower spec Land Cruiser to replace it, but obviously the interior size will be smaller than the Sequoia. Maybe they will wait until the next gen LC is out with a larger interior?

Toys4RJill

I think the next gen Land Cruiser will be a little bigger than it is right now and a bit smaller than the Sequoia. I don't think we are going to see a new Sequoia that is built separately from the Land Cruiser.

BTW, Toyota Canada just recently updated the fuel economy specs for the Sequoia to better reflect the changes by the Canadian EPA. The new testing reveals how thirsty the Sequoia really is.

16.6/100km combined hwy/CTY while a Tahoe is something like 13.2 combined.

mmarshall

Assuming, then, that is with a Canadian (Imperial) gallon of fuel, which is roughly 22% more than a U.S. Gallon? Or is it with litres?

pbm317

It's always liters per 100 km. Just use some logic, would it make sense that a car uses 16.6 imperial gallons, which is nearly 20 U.S. gallons, to drive just 100 km, or 62 miles? Sequoia luckily is rated at more than 3 miles per gallon.

Toys4RJill

Yes that is liters per 100 km. For a time Canada had conservative fuel ratings but for 2015 they have updated the methods to better reflect real world situations.

I am curious to see what the Lexus LX is rated.

The GM SUVs get very good 2015 ratings which is impressive.