Sequoia gets humped right after its release!!

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

BooHoo...the media's killing GM....

Which media is it? The one naming Malibu as an All Star? The almost unanimous positive reviews nationally?

Perhaps the Sequoia is better than the GMT 900's? I really don't know or care if its true, but wouldn't it stand to reason that Toyota has had years to to tear apart, analyze and then respond to the competition, thus enabling them to come up with a good rival?

You guys repeatedly act as if the world should stand still to allow GM to get back on its feet. It just doesn't make sense, nor is it connected to the real world of business...where competitors in all fields consistently attempt to top one another, be it TV sets, widgets or cars.

LOL...

As usual, you completely missed the point.

It's not that the media is 'killing GM'. It's that the media is STILL giving Toyota a free ride.

The truck was driven for one day during a manufacturer sponsored event and is automatically the best at everything now? Yeah right, talk about credibility issues.

The sensitivity to GM's 'feelings' is ironic, given the general lack of concern for other insults demonstrated on this board, daily.

[VenSeattle]

The Car Connection wasn't as kind to the Sequoia as Edmunds was...

Bigger, better, porkier.

http://www.thecarconnection.com/Vehicle_Re...181.A13642.html

[K.C.]

Funny they say PORKIER with the nose end of that thing looking like a pig who ran into a brick wall.

[Intrepidation]

Here's far more fair review of the vehicle.

http://www.thecarconnection.com/Vehicle_Re...13642.html?pg=3

[PurdueGuy]

VW used to be the 'bug' company

They still are... they're built into every car!

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

[enzl]

LOL...

As usual, you completely missed the point.

It's not that the media is 'killing GM'. It's that the media is STILL giving Toyota a free ride.

The truck was driven for one day during a manufacturer sponsored event and is automatically the best at everything now? Yeah right, talk about credibility issues.

It's One review!

We'll see what some of the more respected journals say, then see if Toyota got a free pass.

And, as usual, you missed my point: Stop with the excuses. Just create, maarket & sell good cars and the rest takes care of itself---you've obviously missed the slew of good press GM has received recently and the lack of real scrutiny of their true financial situation....

[cire]

Only three factors really matter to me concerning this vehicle.

1) Toyota's limited experience with full-size trucks and SUVs

2) The obvious flaws in the Tundra on which it is based

3) The fact that it is stone ugly

The rest doesn't matter after those three.

I totally agree. If you are in the market for this type of vehicle and Toyota is your brand of choice, I would wait a couple of years for them to work the bugs out. They certainly dropped the ball with the new Tundra. Since this vehicle is based on the same platform, etc., I would be equally cautious about its build quality and reliability.

As for item number three listed above, I have an addition to make:

IT'S COLASSALLY HUGE AND INCREDIBLY UGLY!

[Hudson]

That is not the issue here. The issue is the spin.

As already pointed out in this thread...

ALL of you "GM Boyz" better take off your rose-colored glasses and realize what's really going on.

I never noticed where GM has gotten grilled for the GMT900 SUVs looking like the pickup counterparts. And show me where more than ONE writer has done this...and I might see your point. And if you can show me where that same writer touted Toyota's styling, I'll definitely take your side. But you won't be able to.

Pointing out that GM sells HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of oversized (yes, I said it) full-sized SUVs which waste far too much gas (a minivan would cover the needs of a very high percentage of SUV drivers' needs) is just taking the biggest seller of such vehicles as an example. Ford, Chrysler, Toyota and Nissan are all guilty of the same errors, but the others barely match GM's total market share in this segment. When you're the biggest, you need to be ready to take the shots.

Also, find me a writer who hated a good GM product and loved a bad Toyota product....A SINGLE WRITER. THAT would be bias, but a magazine typically has a dozen or so writers which means that each one can have his or her own taste and style. And many of the better magazines allow for multiple opinions on vehicles to allow the reader to see multiple sides of the story. If I wanted nothing but statistics, I'll read Consumer Reports.

Yes, there's bias. But it's called OPINION....I have one, you have one, everyone with a brain cell has one. I see NOTHING wrong with the Sequoia article since it raves about many of the same things that GM SUVs were touted for just two years ago. I would expect any newer product from ANY company (and Toyota is one of them) to improve upon its last product and compete well with anyone else's new products in the marketplace.

You guys are really clutching at straws here.

[sciguy_0504]

Didn't even know this was being introduced/released at this time.

I like the exterior but I can't believe Toyota included that nasty silver plastic in the interior. It's bad enough in the Tundra. Without it, the interior would be great. I really like that brown-orange color. It's different but not in a bad way, IMO.

[K.C.]

They still are... they're built into every car!

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

That's rich!

[corvette_dude729]

It's the best full-size SUV, yet the center console is the exact opposite of ergonomic. What hypocrites...

[RBB]

So, other than the Malibu or CTS, what GM cars currently made are worthy of a review that includes any of the following?

8-6-4

Cimmaron

Citation

Vega

Celebrity

Corsica

Quad-4

Aztek

2004 Cadillac CTS Test Drive

Cynics trace the 2004 Cadillac CTS' genealogy back to the dreadful Cavalier-based Cimmaron of the early 1980s. This was Cadillac's appallingly misguided first attempt to tart itself up for the younger demographic. It colored the brand for an entire generation.

2006 SUV of the Year Contenders: 2006 Pontiac Torrent

Everyone's got to have an SUV these days--even Pontiac, which made do with the misconceived, misshapen Aztek until just last year, when executives at GM's excitement brand were wise enough to give it a date with the guillotine.

By Design: 2008 Chevrolet Malibu

GM has come a long way back from the awful Pontiac Aztek, but "nice" is not nearly enough if there is to be any hope of General Motors defending its number one position--or ever getting it back from Toyota once GM loses its top ranking.

2005 Chevrolet Cobalt

Remember the Saturn Ion? GM hopes you don't, because it's widely regarded as the General's nastiest product since the Aztek. The Delta platform introduced with the Ion received a deep therapeutic massage in anticipation of its use under Chevrolet's new Cobalt.

2009 Cadillac Escalade Hybrid

From the GM Department of Apparent Oxymorons (DAO) comes the 2009 Cadillac Escalade Hybrid. You'll remember the DAO for its groundbreaking work on the Malibu SS and the Cadillac Cimarron.

With Cobalt SS, is GM Getting Serious About Small-Car Performance?

Well, the new Chevrolet Cobalt goes on sale in the fall, replacing the Cavalier. Cavalier rides on the 23-year-old J platform (Cavalier, Pontiac Sunfire and Cadillac Cimarron), known for being sensible and cheap but unexciting in the extreme.

-RBB

[K.C.]

Reading that was painful, but really brings home the argument that the media cannot forget GM's screw ups from the past, but Toyotas are immediately forgiven.

[Hudson]

Reading that was painful, but really brings home the argument that the media cannot forget GM's screw ups from the past, but Toyotas are immediately forgiven.

I think if you read the full context of most (if not all) of those reviews, you'll see that the magazines are framing up how far GM come. Toyota doesn't have a bad Camry Corolla to over come...but GM has made some mistakes as they've tried to find their way in the competitive market. These mistakes only point out that GM was not ready for competition and took years to change their ways. I hope they've actually turned a corner, but you can't assume that because a magazine pointed out 23 years of relatively unchanged Cavaliers or bad starter Cadillacs the rest of the article will be negative.

What's wrong with historical context? How boring would an article be if they discussed 20 years of successes with the Camry before going on to the new model? But stating that GM had faltered a few times before reaching Cadillac CTS lets the reader know that this is NOT a Cimarron or a Catera. I don't have a problem with it.

[VenSeattle]

Heh... try this... In celebration of Thanksgiving... Auto turkeys - The 10 worst cars of the last 25 years!

Yep... it's a Cimmaron Holiday all over again... Of course the CTS is mentioned with it.

Cadillac Cimarron (1982)

A Cimarron is a horse, of course. But the Cadillac Cimarron was more like a horse by-product, a tarted-up Chevy Cavalier that GM tried to pass off as a real Caddy. With its inflated price and oil-spewing engine—the first four-cylinder in any Cadillac since 1914—the Cimarron helped trash Cadillac's reputation and its finances. Today, as Cadillac rebuilds its image with solid models such as the new CTS sedan, product director John Howell has a picture of the Cimarron hanging in his office, captioned, "Lest We Forget."

It's amazing the Cimarron was the only car that slid in right at 25 years!

6 cars were within the this decade, and none were mentioned from the 1990s at all. Some cars over the past 25 years that were left off... No Tempo/Topaz. No Mystique. No Five Hundred/Montego. No Ford Thunderbird. No Crossfire. No Toyota T100. No Toyota Echo. No Toyota MR2 Spider. No Mercury Capri. No Honda Accord Hybrid... Not even the Acura RL.... which I think was worse at ruining the Acura Legend than the Sterling mentioned in the article.

[Drew Dowdell]

Toyota doesn't have a bad Camry Corolla to over come...but GM has made some mistakes as they've tried to find their way in the competitive market. These mistakes only point out that GM was not ready for competition and took years to change their ways. I hope they've actually turned a corner, but you can't assume that because a magazine pointed out 23 years of relatively unchanged Cavaliers or bad starter Cadillacs the rest of the article will be negative.

Toyota doesn't have a bad Camry or Corolla from 25 years ago because they built in the "self destruct by rust" feature. Try and find an 81 Cadillac with an 8-6-4.... you'll find a bunch... you might even find a few with the 8-6-4 mechanisms still operating. Now... try and find an 81 Toyota.

What's wrong with historical context? How boring would an article be if they discussed 20 years of successes with the Camry before going on to the new model? But stating that GM had faltered a few times before reaching Cadillac CTS lets the reader know that this is NOT a Cimarron or a Catera. I don't have a problem with it.

You want historical context? How about they talk about the ES250 or Echo or Tercell or just about any >'99 minivan or Corolla's "historical" sludge problem.... or hey... at Nissan where is the mention of the G20, J30, QX4, Stanza, just about any Quest.... or Honda, there's the original Odyssey, the Vigor, the RSX, the Passport, the SLX. I love how the fact that Acura's flagship sedan had 225hp until 2004 is never mentioned. Oldsmobile was getting 215 out of a 3.4 litre in 1989! If the reviewers really wanted "historical context", every RL review should start off with "Acura's flagship sedan, which until 2005 only had a lowly 225hp, ......."

[CARBIZ]

I think if you read the full context of most (if not all) of those reviews, you'll see that the magazines are framing up how far GM come. Toyota doesn't have a bad Camry Corolla to over come...but GM has made some mistakes as they've tried to find their way in the competitive market. These mistakes only point out that GM was not ready for competition and took years to change their ways. I hope they've actually turned a corner, but you can't assume that because a magazine pointed out 23 years of relatively unchanged Cavaliers or bad starter Cadillacs the rest of the article will be negative.

What's wrong with historical context? How boring would an article be if they discussed 20 years of successes with the Camry before going on to the new model? But stating that GM had faltered a few times before reaching Cadillac CTS lets the reader know that this is NOT a Cimarron or a Catera. I don't have a problem with it.

I agree with you, but unfortunately the average person has the reading comprehension of, at best, grade 3 level. I mean, how hard was it for Toyota to produce 5 or 6 models through the '80s and not fall flat on its face - especially considering many of them were sold as 5 spd with maybe a/c only? When the media keeps dredging up GM's flops and near disasters, the average Joe (especially those too young to remember the Awful Eighties in any context) keeps seeing GM and Ford's names in dubious lights and think, 'Wow, the domestics are crap, I think I'll buy Japanese. Again."

We self-appointed 'enthusiasts' can laugh and cry about GM's foibles in the past, but even 'mistakes' like the Corvair were not as bad as the jaded media loves to point out. The General used to put itself 'out there' to try new ideas and technologies. No wonder it has become such a conservative company in the past couple decades.

[A Horse With No Name]

I agree with you, but unfortunately the average person has the reading comprehension of, at best, grade 3 level. I mean, how hard was it for Toyota to produce 5 or 6 models through the '80s and not fall flat on its face - especially considering many of them were sold as 5 spd with maybe a/c only? When the media keeps dredging up GM's flops and near disasters, the average Joe (especially those too young to remember the Awful Eighties in any context) keeps seeing GM and Ford's names in dubious lights and think, 'Wow, the domestics are crap, I think I'll buy Japanese. Again."

We self-appointed 'enthusiasts' can laugh and cry about GM's foibles in the past, but even 'mistakes' like the Corvair were not as bad as the jaded media loves to point out. The General used to put itself 'out there' to try new ideas and technologies. No wonder it has become such a conservative company in the past couple decades.

The Corvair was in fact a really cool and well designed car in its own way, especially after the 65 redesign....

Chris

[regfootball]

i dunno, my dad's corvair seems to be fine.....

Edited November 23, 2007 by regfootball

[bcs296]

Fuel economy is not as terrible as you'd think. The 5.7-liter V8 is the more efficient option, thanks to its dual variable valve timing (the 4.7-liter only has variable intake valves) and extra overdrive gear. In 2WD form, the Sequoia has a rating of 14 mpg city/19 mpg highway — second only to the Tahoe (14 mpg/20 mpg). The 4x4 Sequoia's 13 mpg/18 mpg rating is better than all its SUV rivals except GM's two-mode hybrids (20 mpg city/20 mpg highway).

Keep spewing the bull$h!, Edmunds. A 4x4 Tahoe with the 5.3 gets 14/19 which, according to preschool math, is better than 14/18. Nice try though.

This article just enforces how badly the GM twins need a real transmission rather than a 25 year old 4L60. Fuel economy, acceleration, and towing would all improve.

Edited November 23, 2007 by bcs296

[ponchoman49]

Notice how they keep bringing up engine power. Like the Turdra from which it's based, this new pig like slug of a vehicle has little else going for it other than slightly greater interior measurements in certain areas. Even it's fuel economy is worse than the GM products and it will surely be more expensive.

[Z-06]

That thing weighs 6100lbs. Heavier than the 1/2 ton Suburban and almost as heavy as 3/4 ton Suburban.