• For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.

2021 or 2022 Toyota Sienna AWD as road trip vehicle

Philpug

Notorious P.U.G.
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
42,624
Location
Reno, eNVy
For most, I agree that a Sienna is better than a Sequoia, given it drives better and gets WAY better fuel economy. I'd love to have both in my quiver. We wanted to road trip to CA last summer to avoid the airline fiascos, but the cost of gas for the Sequoia was going to be ridiculous. It also would be great to fit bikes easily inside the Sienna with the extra interior height.

And, yes, they have similar payload capacities. I don't think they are truly equivalent, though. Toyota 4x4s have notoriously conservative payload capacities, and I think they are rated to take that payload off-road. The 4x4 suspension is also going to last much longer carrying loads on rough roads.

Not a Sienna, but my wife's old first-gen MDX had the same payload capacity as my second-gen Sequoia. Loaded up with the same bunch of over-packers crap, it was night and day how they drove. The MDX power was fine, but the suspension was never happy, and handling suffered. You don't even notice the same load in the Sequoia or my old first-gen Tundra.

One other thing to look out for with a car-based platform is hanging bikes off the back, as four bikes made the handling just barely tolerable with the MDX and is nothing for the Sequoia.
When we were shopping for options to replace out 08 Yukon I was asking the question on another sire to compare the GM twins and the Ford Expedition. One guy (there is always that one guy) tried to convince me I just needed a Sedona minivan. I tried to tell him why we needed the Yukon XL ie 180cm skis inside, ect and he assured me I could put a pair under the second row ...when I said I could have 8-10 pairs he continued to argue with me. Payload is another thing, we just traveled 3300 miles with 2-5 adults and the rest of the vehicle loaded up along with the packasport on the top and the mileage never varied more than 1-2 MPG. If we had put a minivan through the same paces, mileage woudl have varied 5-8 MPG and there would have been much more stress on the van.

Now, when we go to replace the Alltrack, I might look at an AWD minivan for our lighter trips, but no way would I expect it to repalce the Yukon XL.
 

Jwrags

Aka pwdrhnd
Skier
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Posts
2,003
Location
Portlandia
In the negative column, I've never had a vehicle that is better at packing up the wheel wells with snow. World Cup podium performance. I probably made a mistake taking the factory mud flaps back in 2011.
Silicone spray or coating of some sort to fix? I mean, Hansen ski boots used to use it to help get your foot in :huh:
 

tball

Unzipped
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
4,362
Location
Denver, CO
The new Sequoias are amazing. Really curious about the hybrid version, but since I keep my vehicles a long time I think I would opt for the non-hybrid version. Batteries go bad, not if but when. That said Toyota has an amazing warranty 10 years / 150k miles for the batteries in all their Hybrid and EV models. So, the only reason to go with a non-hybrid Toyota might be the reduced weight of the vehicle, maybe increased storage space and maybe higher payload?.
Yeah, the new Sequoia is amazing. I love the looks of it, much more than the new Tundra. It's only hybrid, though. In spite of the extra weight, they upped the payload capacity by something like 100 lbs. But it now has a solid rear axle that takes up cargo room as opposed to the previous independent rear suspension.

After they iron out the initial issues, all indications are the new Toyota 4x4 platform should be super reliable and last forever, including the hybrid, as that's in their DNA and what the customers expect. Of course, the hybrid battery is a consideration if you plan to keep it for more than 10 years. I've got a 2012 with 145K miles and it would be a bummer to drop a couple of grand on a battery for an otherwise bulletproof vehicle.

For the same money as a new Sequoia, I'd think about a used second gen Sequoia and a new Prius. The new Prius looks like an awesome vehicle. Yep, I typed that. :geek:
 
Last edited:

Tom K.

Skier Ordinaire
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Dec 20, 2015
Posts
8,404
Silicone spray or coating of some sort to fix? I mean, Hansen ski boots used to use it to help get your foot in :huh:

Done, and it does help a bit, but by no means actually solves the problem. There are a couple of weird (probably structural) cavities molded into the backside of the flaps that provide a great starter point for slush/snow catching.

But it now has a solid rear axle that takes up cargo room

Absolutely KILLED any interest I've got in the new Sequoia. Sad to see this design reversion, and the attendant loss of luggage area "headroom".
 

johnnyvw

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Dec 20, 2016
Posts
1,668
Location
near RDU
Probably due to the fact it is made in the same factory as the Tundra, which has a solid rear axle with either coil or air suspension
 

tball

Unzipped
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
4,362
Location
Denver, CO
Probably due to the fact it is made in the same factory as the Tundra, which has a solid rear axle with either coil or air suspension
For sure, the Sequoia is the same vehicle as the Tundra with the hybrid powertrain. Clearly, the solid rear axle was a cost-saving measure, that they say was put into other parts of the truck. It's a bigger version of the Lexus LX for a lot less, except the LX can't be had with the hybrid.

 
Thread Starter
TS
Wendy

Wendy

Resurrecting the Oxford comma
Admin
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Mar 13, 2016
Posts
4,905
Location
Santa Fe, New Mexico
I'll divulge more in a few days. ;-).
We plan to move to Barcelos, Portugal, and I hopefully will be tending a small fruit orchard (oranges, lemons, clementines, plums, and some other stuff). As far as skiing goes, there's a few places a few hours away in Spain, and there's always the Pyrenees.

Portugal does have ONE ski area - Serra da Estrela.
 

nay

dirt heel pusher
Skier
Joined
Dec 1, 2015
Posts
6,477
Location
Colorado
For sure, the Sequoia is the same vehicle as the Tundra with the hybrid powertrain. Clearly, the solid rear axle was a cost-saving measure, that they say was put into other parts of the truck. It's a bigger version of the Lexus LX for a lot less, except the LX can't be had with the hybrid.


The Sequoia simply replaces the Land Cruiser in North America completely now. That’s why it’s built on the same platform - rather than compete with Tahoe’s and Expeditions sell to people who still value a more rugged and capable truck but that has to be bigger than the Land Cruiser.

The Grand Highlander is probably the answer here. It has almost as much cargo space as a Sienna and can be had as a hybrid with the new turbo 4 cyl platform for 362 HP. That’s going to be like having a full size SUV that gets 30 mpg and the turbo platform means no loss of power at altitude. By comparison, our Toyota 5.7L V8 engines make 384 HP and that’s down to around 260 by the time you are at 11K altitude.

As an Ascent owner, I will say again, you simply cannot believe how much less effort it is to drive a turbo platform in the mountains since the turbo compression adjusts for reduced air pressure at altitude. The more I drove, and the more I needed the cargo space, the more I would want one.

The newer twin turbo V6 SUVs are awesome, but there is no reason to pay a $25K+ penalty if all you are doing is hauling gear and people. Estimated price for the top of the line hybrid is $56K. I have heavier duty Eibach springs for the Ascent sitting in the garage, which i would install if the Ascent was the gear hauler as I’d initially intended now that my family is ever closer to the empty nest. I’m sure that Grand Highlander will get some aftermarket support - there are kits out there for Siennas after all.

I’m a ride or die 4x4 guy, but honestly these new turbo 4 platforms in an actual full size CUV package check all the boxes. Actually, driving the 2008 Sequoia forever and not worrying about getting it dirty or dinging it up checks all the boxes because $56K is a lot of money I’d rather have in retirement assets.
 

nay

dirt heel pusher
Skier
Joined
Dec 1, 2015
Posts
6,477
Location
Colorado
+1 on turbo efficiency at altitude..
The old adage that there is no substitute for displacement is lying dead out in a field somewhere unless you add “for towing” to the sentence.

It’s funny that especially in the Toyota crowd we’ve just been longing forever to have a turbo diesel platform again. Didn’t think the answer would come in 4cyl gas turbos with V8 torque curves.
 

snwbrdr

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Oct 3, 2020
Posts
932
Location
CA
The Sequoia simply replaces the Land Cruiser in North America completely now. That’s why it’s built on the same platform - rather than compete with Tahoe’s and Expeditions sell to people who still value a more rugged and capable truck but that has to be bigger than the Land Cruiser.

The Grand Highlander is probably the answer here. It has almost as much cargo space as a Sienna and can be had as a hybrid with the new turbo 4 cyl platform for 362 HP. That’s going to be like having a full size SUV that gets 30 mpg and the turbo platform means no loss of power at altitude. By comparison, our Toyota 5.7L V8 engines make 384 HP and that’s down to around 260 by the time you are at 11K altitude.

As an Ascent owner, I will say again, you simply cannot believe how much less effort it is to drive a turbo platform in the mountains since the turbo compression adjusts for reduced air pressure at altitude. The more I drove, and the more I needed the cargo space, the more I would want one.

The newer twin turbo V6 SUVs are awesome, but there is no reason to pay a $25K+ penalty if all you are doing is hauling gear and people. Estimated price for the top of the line hybrid is $56K. I have heavier duty Eibach springs for the Ascent sitting in the garage, which i would install if the Ascent was the gear hauler as I’d initially intended now that my family is ever closer to the empty nest. I’m sure that Grand Highlander will get some aftermarket support - there are kits out there for Siennas after all.

I’m a ride or die 4x4 guy, but honestly these new turbo 4 platforms in an actual full size CUV package check all the boxes. Actually, driving the 2008 Sequoia forever and not worrying about getting it dirty or dinging it up checks all the boxes because $56K is a lot of money I’d rather have in retirement assets.
The Grand Highlander won't be almost as much cargo space has a Sienna, since it's still a shorter length vehicle with a shorter height body inside.

The RX500h F-performance is rated 27 mpg combined. So, a larger Grand Highlander is likely not going to make it to 30 mpg combined. Probably slightly less than the Lexus, especially considering the 2.5L hybrid Awd is 34 mpg combined, 1 mpg less than the regular Highlander.
 

Tom K.

Skier Ordinaire
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Dec 20, 2015
Posts
8,404
because $56K is a lot of money I’d rather have in retirement assets TO BUY SKI- AND BIKE RELATED FUN STUFF.

FIFY!

The Grand Highlander won't be almost as much cargo space has a Sienna, since it's still a shorter length vehicle with a shorter height body inside.

Can't beat a Sienna for utility. Bummer that Toyota went with non-removable second row seats, and a gutless 4-banger for the ICE portion of the hybrid powertrain.
 

nay

dirt heel pusher
Skier
Joined
Dec 1, 2015
Posts
6,477
Location
Colorado
The Grand Highlander won't be almost as much cargo space has a Sienna, since it's still a shorter length vehicle with a shorter height body inside.

The RX500h F-performance is rated 27 mpg combined. So, a larger Grand Highlander is likely not going to make it to 30 mpg combined. Probably slightly less than the Lexus, especially considering the 2.5L hybrid Awd is 34 mpg combined, 1 mpg less than the regular Highlander.
Always depends on how you value cargo space. The “almost as much” is in cubic feet with second and third rows folded down: Sienna is 101 cubic feet, the GH is 98 cubic feet, the Sequoia is 87. The second gen sequoia, which is an ultimate gear rig, has 120 cubic feet and that all goes completely flat if you want to sleep in there.

Some initial projection is the Grand hybrid will be rated at 34 combined, meaning about 2 mpg less than the standard Highlander. These 4 cyl turbos will start gulping if you mash them at 95 mph constantly or want to tow with them, but then these are big CUVs and the idea is road trip comfort and capacity.

Anyway, this is a lot of room. It’s 6” longer, 2” wider, and 2” taller than a regular Highlander.

48EEC8A8-2D7A-4480-93A5-174B4C4EEE14.jpeg
 

nay

dirt heel pusher
Skier
Joined
Dec 1, 2015
Posts
6,477
Location
Colorado
FIFY!



Can't beat a Sienna for utility. Bummer that Toyota went with non-removable second row seats, and a gutless 4-banger for the ICE portion of the hybrid powertrain.
Go look at the torque curve of this engine. And then compare it to a 3.5L V6.

The gutless 4 cyl turbo in our Ascent tows a typical 2K lb trailer over 11K feet at a 7%+ grade like it isn’t even back there.
 

Tom K.

Skier Ordinaire
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Dec 20, 2015
Posts
8,404
Go look at the torque curve of this engine. And then compare it to a 3.5L V6.

The gutless 4 cyl turbo in our Ascent tows a typical 2K lb trailer over 11K feet at a 7%+ grade like it isn’t even back there.

OK....

AFAIK the Sienna hybrid doesn't have a turbo 4, just a DOHC 16-valve Atkinson-cycle 2.5-liter inline-4 with 189 hp and 176 torques. I think when combined with the e-motors, it gives a total of 245 hp.

In any event, even though the non-removable seats are a deal killer, I took one for a short drive the other day, and the powertrain is uninspiring, to say the least. Sluggish and DRONY at highway speeds.

It made me wish for a version of the Sienna with the new Hybrid Max powertrain from the Crown, complete with turbo -- and removable second row seats.
 

fatbob

Not responding
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
6,288
We plan to move to Barcelos, Portugal, and I hopefully will be tending a small fruit orchard (oranges, lemons, clementines, plums, and some other stuff). As far as skiing goes, there's a few places a few hours away in Spain, and there's always the Pyrenees.

Portugal does have ONE ski area - Serra da Estrela.
Nice. Good location near the coast and the national park with Braga nearby for the smaller big city vibe.

I drove over Serra da Estrela once on a summer road trip which was pretty cool. You might find it as easy to hop on cheap flights ex Porto to the Alps as drive to the Pyrenees.
 

Ken_R

Living the Dream
Skier
Joined
Feb 10, 2016
Posts
5,775
Location
Denver, CO
OK....

AFAIK the Sienna hybrid doesn't have a turbo 4, just a DOHC 16-valve Atkinson-cycle 2.5-liter inline-4 with 189 hp and 176 torques. I think when combined with the e-motors, it gives a total of 245 hp.

In any event, even though the non-removable seats are a deal killer, I took one for a short drive the other day, and the powertrain is uninspiring, to say the least. Sluggish and DRONY at highway speeds.

It made me wish for a version of the Sienna with the new Hybrid Max powertrain from the Crown, complete with turbo -- and removable second row seats.

That 2.5L non-turbo Toyota Hybrid powertrain is pretty bad as you get into heavier vehicles and/or heavier payloads. Its just no good around these parts. Great in an econobox or with just 1-2 people in the vehicle.
 

nay

dirt heel pusher
Skier
Joined
Dec 1, 2015
Posts
6,477
Location
Colorado
OK....

AFAIK the Sienna hybrid doesn't have a turbo 4, just a DOHC 16-valve Atkinson-cycle 2.5-liter inline-4 with 189 hp and 176 torques. I think when combined with the e-motors, it gives a total of 245 hp.

In any event, even though the non-removable seats are a deal killer, I took one for a short drive the other day, and the powertrain is uninspiring, to say the least. Sluggish and DRONY at highway speeds.

It made me wish for a version of the Sienna with the new Hybrid Max powertrain from the Crown, complete with turbo -- and removable second row seats.
That extra 117 hp of the new engine has to be going…somewhere.

Of course, I completely understand why people don’t like these drivetrains especially with a CVT. They are entirely uninspiring and that’s why C&D hates them, especially with the fake CVT shift points. But…these are exceptionally boring cars and there’s not really any way they are going to get less boring. I mean, we’re talking about how inspiring a minivan can be. They are great, but they aren’t inspiring.

Here is the Ascent torque curve as reported tested on the major Ascent forum, benchmarked against the 3.6L V6. It goes flat because the computer shuts it down probably so it doesn’t start blowing up other components so it is at peak at 2,000 rpm vs. 4,600 for the V6. That car is not many things (anything fun), but gutless isn’t remotely one of them and it has 100 less HP and over 100 less lb/ft than this Toyota motor in hybrid form.

A6022D2A-831C-4C2C-9D82-A4F48BF15A1F.jpeg


I like the CVT in these boring touring turbos. The power band is always exactly where you need it so driving long high altitude passes is completely negated. This is the Ascent towing a loaded 5x8 U-haul trailer at the top of Monarch Pass (11K). That’s 10 mph over the speed limit and it isn’t even breathing.

C48B86C7-E955-4982-BC62-DD76F6274B3B.jpeg


Here is 0-80 on 5%+ grade at 7K ft.


And 40-80 at about 7% grade at 7K feet.


I’d like to say the Sequoia 5.7L V8 can pass like this, but it doesn’t. Takes too long to get any RPM up and you have to stand on it to get the big girl to move. That engine is a lot more inspiring, but it doesn’t drive better unless we equate more driver work with “better”.
 
Last edited:

Sponsor

Staff online

Top