Any comparisons between MDX & Toyota Sequoia?

The Sequoia was one of the first SUV's I looked at. I really liked how I felt in it, as well as the look of the dashboard with all its gauges. I test drove it right after the Highlander.

Unfortunately, when I drove the Sequoia, the salesman said it needed gas and had me stop at a real busy station where cars were coming in every which way. I had to back out and move around the other cars and I felt like I was driving a tank. I was so afraid that I would hit something that when I got back to the dealer, I crossed the Sequoia off my list. Even standing next to it I felt so small. That too bad as I really liked sitting in it. Even the seats were gray, which was the interior color of choice for me.

Whats interesting is I looked at the RX300, the ML320, the Qx4, the Envoy and Bravada, before I even considered the MDX (because it seemed too high priced and no one had one to even look at. Once I finally tried the MDX, I was sold.

The Sequoia is a nice SUV, but not in the size category as the above ones and the MDX.

Ira

Before, I found out about the MDX, I was looking at a Sequoia. They hadn't come out yet(2000), but on paper, it was larger than the Tahoe, and smaller than the Suburban. I was thinking it would be a steal considering the fact that it was larger than a Landcruiser, shares the same engine/drivetrain and its cheaper. Knowing Toyota reliablility and durability, I figured it would last "forever". Then I found out it was based on the Tundra, I thought it can't be that expensive(A Tundra V-8 4wd access cab starts at $26,500). With my hopes high, I went to the Toyota dealer. They didn't have one available yet(this was october of 2000), but they were taking deposits, and were still bebating how much over sticker they were going to ask for the beast. they were quoting me prices in the $43-$47k range depending on whether you got the SR5 or the Limited. I told the salesman "what are you guys smoking?" and told him thanks, but no thanks. I already had a deposit on the MDX and picked it up 2 wks after its launch(paid MSRP). I went by the Toyota dealership a couple of months later to check the sequoia. I liked it(if you need a full size SUV, with large towing capacity). However, it has the same cheap interior as the Tundra, height is 11 inches off the road, 3rd row seats don't disappear, is pricey and its a gas guzzler(14/17 mpg). I calculated that it would be cheaper to refill the MDX with Premium gas(17/23 mpg) than to fill the Toyota with Regular gas(14/17 mpg).

If you are thinking of buying a Tahoe or Expedition or a Suburban, then I would definetly look at the Sequoia. However, it would be hard for me to pay $45k for a loaded sequoia when you can find a loaded Tahoe or Expedition for $34k. I am just glad I picked the MDX.

All other things being equal.........

The BIGGEST and MOST IMPORTANT reason to not get the Sequoia and get the MDX would be the fact that even the "Limited" model does not come with an optional DVD Navigation System - AND THIS IS A 40K+ vehicle for CRYIN OUT LOUD - No need to even consider this vehicle - MDX wins, CASE CLOSED

Shame on Toyota!! Shame on them again for not offering a Navi, in an age when even "lesser" vehicles have begun to offer this amazing device as an option! - Sometimes I wonder what TOYOTA is high on - They offer a Navi system option on the "lowly" (relatively speaking) Camry and THE MATRIX (for cryin out loud) - These low-IQ humans at Toyota probably think FOR SOME ODD STUPID LOGIC THAT ONLY MAKES SENSE TO THEM - that buyers of a Matrix would want a Navi system, while buyers of the MORE EXPENSIVE RAV4, Highlander and Sequoia have ABSOLUTELY NO NEED for a Navi system - I think by Toyota's lopsided reasoning they probably believe these buyers are HOMING PIGEONS