mazdas? ....

 

They're nice, but I wouldn't call them amazing.

 

I'm not looking to be "amazed" by a small economy cross over; but "That's a nice little car" is a start.

Admittedly, in this class, there may be a different reaction to seeing an entry-level model vs. a top of the line version.... I don't see any RAV4 LEs and think, "Oh that's nice", but I do when I see a Limited.

 

That was exactly what I said when I saw and sat in the new Corolla Cross, "thats a nice little car"

 

Savagegeese has his review up, and his one major positive is that the Cross has an independent rear suspension which is unheard of in this class consisting primarily of torsion beams like what's found in the Kia Soul and Mazda CX-30. Ironic that one of the cheapest Toyota products gets independent rear suspension while the far more expensive LX and Sequoia have a solid axle.

 

Simple. The LX and Sequoia are designed to carry heavy loads and tow things. Live real axles are generally more durable under heavy-duty conditions.

 

The last Sequoia had an independent rear suspension and both the Cadillac Escalade and Lincoln Navigator, both BOF, also have IRS. Being BOF is no longer an excuse to not have an IRS. The LX and Sequoia simply don't have them because it's cheaper, and probably a limitation of the TNGA-F platform. We've had a long topic about this so I won't rehash that.

 

interesting, from savagegeese video, notes that only the awd version gets independent rear suspension, the fwd gets rear torsion beam.

 

Indeed. My personal favorite example of the importance of the comma is "Let's eat, Grandma"

 

Toyota themselves said the new Sequoia has a live axle specifically to save production costs.

 

In some ways, yes, it is cheaper to produce. But it also has a somewhat better element of durability. That's one reason why Ford held on to Mustang live-axles for so long in the non-Cobra versions...they knew that the young kids that bought the GT Mustangs were addicted to Friday-Night burnouts, and having a live axle reduced the amount of rear ends that had to be rebuilt after failure. The Cobra, SVT, Boss, Mach 1, and some of the other upmarket Mustangs were generally bought by those who were a little older and more mature, and less-likely to get abused in drag-races....they got the IRS for better handling.

 

No....Toyota themselves said it was done in an effort to cut costs. This is not my opinion, the designer and manufacturer of the vehicle said this, that is why they went back to a live rear axle. They did it so they could more easily build Sequoias and Tundras on the same line at a reduced cost.

 

Toyota is just being cheap. There is no real justification for the Lexus LX or the Sequoia to have a live axle and this point. None. Especially when you view the way Toyota is marketing the Lexus LX. You could definitely argue the merits for having a live axle on the Land Cruiser. The durability elements is incorrect and wrong as the outgoing Sequoia already had a IRS and the design was certainly up to the task as if you compare the outing Sequoia to the outgoing LX the performance of the IRS was the same..it would cost Toyota more to design an IRS for the Sequoia which further supports the cost cutting reasons. Ford, GM, as well as NISSAN all have IRS and Toyota used to, so Toyota definitely could have done it. what would I rather have? I'd prefer a solid axle. I love the way my 4Runners drive. They drive with a feel that is strong and firm yet they do not drive like a car which is what I do not wan. . This Sequoia will not be too successful as the price is gonna be too high partly because of the added costs of electrification as well as inflation in general, but Toyota will figure out a way for the short term. Toyota actually. said they were thinking of cancelling the Sequoia from the view point of Toyota Japan which pretty much tells you it is very likely a mistake. The right thing to do what have been to release a full line up of Land Crusiers in the United States. The styling of the Sequoia is quite lovely

 

They are both designed to do work, like larger pick-up trucks. How many full-size pick-ups, even the smooth-riding Dodge Ram with its coil-springs, do you see with IRS? Answer: 0

In fact, some of the heavier-duty pick-ups have live axles on both front and rear.

And, as far as being cheap, IMO, Toyota generally shows a lot more of that in their interiors (including the thread-topic Corolla Cross) than in the underpinnings.


Look underneath a 4Runner, and that is exactly what you will see.....a traditional live-axle. That's one reason (among several) why they last for 300,000 miles...and why you probably won't be replacing yours anytime soon.

On a slightly different note, it's interesting to see that they still have the SR-5 trim-level on the 4Runner....that name goes back to the late 70s, and has been around for decades. Many other Toyota models have ditched that name .

 

Its not about being "cheap" its about being economical. Toyota said they were going to cancel the Sequoia, the move to a live axle in the rear so that they could reduce tooling costs and build it on the same suspension as the Tundra was part of how they were able to justify keeping it in the lineup. The live axle on the Tundra and even the Land Cruiser makes sense. The LX and Sequoia should be IRS, but that increases cost and neither car is a huge seller.