You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
SequoiaGeneral discussion forum for the second generation 2008 and later Toyota Sequoia.
This is a discussion thread titled "2008 Sequoia payload looks too low", within the Sequoia forum, part of the SUV Forums category.
Well the real story here is revealed very clearly in components that make up the Sequoia. Others refer to the Yukon XL here. the model to really look at is the Ykon XL 2500 or Suburban 2500. both of these actually tow less than what Toyota claims. Yet these 2500 series vehicle are built on HD truck frames as a reult they are quite heavy. That weight results in strength as well as controlling mass when towing heavy loads. But the components on the Sienna that reveal it's abilities are it's independent suspension (which is inappropriate for towing but great for light load ride quality and handling) and more importantly tire ratings. If you look at the tires on the 2500 series Suburban/Yukon you will find that they are 10 ply load range E - LT (light truck) 80 psi on 16" high pressure forged wheels. These tires are all about load carrying, heat tolerating conditions. They are pretty unattractive and they compromise ride quality for load capacity. It turns out, the rest of the vehicle reveals much of the same. On the surface these cars seem similar but in reality, one is very much of a heavy work oriented vehicle while the other is an occasional weekend tow vehicle for things like boats and pop up campers. Towing is one thing, load in the vehicle is different and generally additional. I would argue, if your planning to travel with your family and all of their stuff (which is why you own these things) you have to have both. But with a large margin in capacity if you want to travel safe and enjoy the process. Travelling with your family and toys is a real joy when you have the right equipment. in this case the right tool for towing costs 8K less. that does not happen very often. hope this helps you
The 2500 Suburban weighs about 250lbs more than a Platinum Sequoia. I've owned 2 2500 Suburbans and they were sturdy tow vehicles. Its worth noting that they were not the best everyday vehicles since their leaf spring rear suspension is not the most pleasant of rides on a daily basis. Having towed an 8000 lb boat with a 2500 and a 1500 I would take the 1500 since the marginally higher towing capability isn't worth the trade-off of a far less comfortable ride for everyday driving.
Well the real story here is revealed very clearly in components that make up the Sequoia. Others refer to the Yukon XL here. the model to really look at is the Ykon XL 2500 or Suburban 2500. both of these actually tow less than what Toyota claims. Yet these 2500 series vehicle are built on HD truck frames as a reult they are quite heavy. That weight results in strength as well as controlling mass when towing heavy loads. But the components on the Sienna that reveal it's abilities are it's independent suspension (which is inappropriate for towing but great for light load ride quality and handling) and more importantly tire ratings. If you look at the tires on the 2500 series Suburban/Yukon you will find that they are 10 ply load range E - LT (light truck) 80 psi on 16" high pressure forged wheels. These tires are all about load carrying, heat tolerating conditions. They are pretty unattractive and they compromise ride quality for load capacity. It turns out, the rest of the vehicle reveals much of the same. On the surface these cars seem similar but in reality, one is very much of a heavy work oriented vehicle while the other is an occasional weekend tow vehicle for things like boats and pop up campers. Towing is one thing, load in the vehicle is different and generally additional. I would argue, if your planning to travel with your family and all of their stuff (which is why you own these things) you have to have both. But with a large margin in capacity if you want to travel safe and enjoy the process. Travelling with your family and toys is a real joy when you have the right equipment. in this case the right tool for towing costs 8K less. that does not happen very often. hope this helps you
The 2500 Suburban weighs about 250lbs more than a Platinum Sequoia. I've owned 2 2500 Suburbans and they were sturdy tow vehicles. Its worth noting that they were not the best everyday vehicles since their leaf spring rear suspension is not the most pleasant of rides on a daily basis. Having towed an 8000 lb boat with a 2500 and a 1500 I would take the 1500 since the marginally higher towing capability isn't worth the trade-off of a far less comfortable ride for everyday driving.
Heatwave3,
i agree with you on the ride characteristics of the 1500 vs 2500 especially after the 07 redesign. i moved from a 1500 to 2500 because i was at the upper limits of it's tow capacity as were you at 8000lb. we now tow a 34 ft (10,000 lb) auto transporter from California to northern Wisconsin each year and to Aspen in the fall. the weight of the tow vehicle (as well as long wheelbase) is super important when confronting high speed side winds in areas like the wind farms around Palm Springs. actually the weight difference you mention is 450 lbs but more important is the GCWR which is much higher since the vehicle is loaded with 7 people and all of their stuff. depending on where you live, tow claims and real capacity may or may not show up. when diving in the midwest through flat cornfileds everything seems easy and rarely do you see any stress. but when climbing out of Phoenix up to Flagstaff on a July afternoon with 120 degree temperatures and 7% uphill grades, you quickly see all tha bravado go away. 2 airconditioners blasting forced into second gear and floored for an hour. then you have the big downhill grades where big brakes, bigger brake cooling, and tow vehicle weight makes all the difference. the right vehicle for this is a Gooseneck trailer into the pickup bed of an F-250 with a PowerStroke Diesel. But you cannot get your family into one of those so the 2500 is a pretty rare choice. I live in Los Angeles. in order to go anywhere we have to climb mountains and descend montains. and with montains come wind. and to top it all off it's all desert here so heat is the killer. so we see it all, all of the time. You are right about ride quality but when you load up and hook up that alll changes. we use the 2500 exclusively for towing. for comfort we use a Sienna XLE limited. it too is awesome at what it does
Heatwave3,
i agree with you on the ride characteristics of the 1500 vs 2500 especially after the 07 redesign. i moved from a 1500 to 2500 because i was at the upper limits of it's tow capacity as were you at 8000lb. we now tow a 34 ft (10,000 lb) auto transporter from California to northern Wisconsin each year and to Aspen in the fall. the weight of the tow vehicle (as well as long wheelbase) is super important when confronting high speed side winds in areas like the wind farms around Palm Springs. actually the weight difference you mention is 450 lbs but more important is the GCWR which is much higher since the vehicle is loaded with 7 people and all of their stuff. depending on where you live, tow claims and real capacity may or may not show up. when diving in the midwest through flat cornfileds everything seems easy and rarely do you see any stress. but when climbing out of Phoenix up to Flagstaff on a July afternoon with 120 degree temperatures and 7% uphill grades, you quickly see all tha bravado go away. 2 airconditioners blasting forced into second gear and floored for an hour. then you have the big downhill grades where big brakes, bigger brake cooling, and tow vehicle weight makes all the difference. the right vehicle for this is a Gooseneck trailer into the pickup bed of an F-250 with a PowerStroke Diesel. But you cannot get your family into one of those so the 2500 is a pretty rare choice. I live in Los Angeles. in order to go anywhere we have to climb mountains and descend montains. and with montains come wind. and to top it all off it's all desert here so heat is the killer. so we see it all, all of the time. You are right about ride quality but when you load up and hook up that alll changes. we use the 2500 exclusively for towing. for comfort we use a Sienna XLE limited. it too is awesome at what it does
Given your towing requirements, your 2 vehicle arrangement is a good one. That having been said I think the advantages of a 2500 series Suburban over an '08 Sequoia are much smaller than they would have been in the past. Still an advantage but nominal in my opinion. The weight of a 4wd Platinum Sequoia is 6045lbs. The 2500 4wd Sub is 6327lbs, a difference of only 283lbs.
The tow rating for the Plat Seq is 8800lbs and the 2500 Sub is 9300lbs. The Seq has the advantage in both hp and torque with 381hp vs 352hp and 401ft lbs vs 382ft lbs. From my perspective I would prefer the engine with the greater torque for towing and therefore the advantage goes to the Sequoia.
Turning radius is a significant factor in towing and the advantage again goes to the Sequoia with 39 ft vs the Sub's 45.3 ft. The Seq has larger brakes than the Sub which will definitely give an edge to the new Seq over the Sub.
The major advantage for the 3/4 ton Sub over the Seq. is the payload rating of 2273lbs for the Sub vs the Seq's 1235lbs. The primary driver of this significantly higher payload rating is the rear leaf spring suspension in the Sub vs the IRS/shock/spring/air bag suspension of the Seq. This Sub advantage in payload rating is also a disadvantage when not towing and therefore how much of an advantage it is, is dependent on how much towing and how heavy the load is. If the tow load is within the ratings of both vehicles than IMO the Seq gets the overall edge.
The Sub also has an advantage with a longer wheelbase at 130" vs 122" for the Seq. but it is only a 6% advantage and I think it will be difficult to really notice a 6% advantage in the wheelbase for normal recreational towing. This rear suspension and wheelbase do give an advantage to the Sub for heavy towing however when balanced against the other disadvantages, IMO its no longer enough of a difference to choose the 2500 Sub over the Sequoia as a better recreational tow vehicle that spends more time as a daily driver than a tow vehicle.
That was my conclusion after carefully evaluating both vehicles and having owned 4 previous Subs (2 1500's and 2 2500's) and deciding to buy a new '08 Seq. Once I start towing again this Spring with the new Seq. I'll be able to confirm whether my real would experience of the new Seq. matches the "on-paper" advantages.
curb weight is 6480. check out this link GMC | GMC Yukon: SUVs: XL 1/2 Ton, XL 3/4 Ton, Denali, XL Denali: Yukon Specifications
you are right about the HP and torque, but there again everyone that tows heavy knows you don't do it for a long time with an alumnum engine. if you lie underneath both of these vehicles you see a massive difference in component design and size. it absolutely starts with a stack of leaf springs and a huge fully boxed frame. the huge rear solid axle vs and independent set up. independent suspension is absolutely wrong for towing due to poor power transfer, wheel bearing loading as well as rim and tire loading. on the idea of vehicle length you make your own point. while6% may not sound like alot it makes a big difference in low speed manuvearbility as you mention, but on the road at speed with side forces it makes the same big difference. there is a really easy way to demonstrate the effects of those crazy big springs in the back. open your tailgate and have a couple of large adults sit right on the bumper. and thats nothing. remember the rule is AT LEAST 10% tongue so if you pulling 10,000 pounds you would have at least 1000 pounds of tongue weight. I run 1200 lbs. and that brings this whole thread full circle. the question was about payload and it is low. as i said tires alone reveal it. max load of 2187 vs 3042. an 855 pound difference per corner. 3420 total pounds on the vehicle. And here is the real kicker. all trailers over 5000 pounds are required by law to use a weight distribution hitches and as you know, you cannot use these hitches with the Rear Height Control Air suspension. tbis whole issue of capacity is playing out in real life on the new Tudra's. look at the guys with the bent and delaminating tailgates from loading light items, and the pinched top tailgate corners from exccessive chassis flex. the commercials, the specs, the websites the test drives do not reveal these things. time and heavy use does. if Toyota stays with it, they will get all of this right. designing a truck is different than designing a car. designing a heavy truck is different than designing an SUV. at the end of the day, 8 bolt forged rims, load range E 80psi truck tires, fully boxed hydroformed frames (with snowplow mounts), large spring systems, forged steel suspension components, 14bolt cast solid axles, telescoping tow mirrors, 40 gallon dual gas tanks, real time high resolution tire pressure sensing, power steering coolers, dual batteries and rear sonar system that detect a trailer and self disable makes for the case of towing and overall capacity. On the topic of brakes - 2 things first is that it's a thermodynamics problem - heat dissipation. the Corvette was the first performance car to begin decreasing the rotor sizes because computer modelling allowed for optimal air flow. rotors are unsprung weight so the game is to make them as small as possible. the other thing that all truck guys know about that entertaing commercial is that the it's the trailer brakes that are stopping. but time will tell here. the navigator is a great SUV but no one tows heavy with them. my suspicion is the Seqouia will end up in a similar place.
curb weight is 6480. check out this link GMC | GMC Yukon: SUVs: XL 1/2 Ton, XL 3/4 Ton, Denali, XL Denali: Yukon Specifications
you are right about the HP and torque, but there again everyone that tows heavy knows you don't do it for a long time with an alumnum engine. if you lie underneath both of these vehicles you see a massive difference in component design and size. it absolutely starts with a stack of leaf springs and a huge fully boxed frame. the huge rear solid axle vs and independent set up. independent suspension is absolutely wrong for towing due to poor power transfer, wheel bearing loading as well as rim and tire loading. on the idea of vehicle length you make your own point. while6% may not sound like alot it makes a big difference in low speed manuvearbility as you mention, but on the road at speed with side forces it makes the same big difference. there is a really easy way to demonstrate the effects of those crazy big springs in the back. open your tailgate and have a couple of large adults sit right on the bumper. and thats nothing. remember the rule is AT LEAST 10% tongue so if you pulling 10,000 pounds you would have at least 1000 pounds of tongue weight. I run 1200 lbs. and that brings this whole thread full circle. the question was about payload and it is low. as i said tires alone reveal it. max load of 2187 vs 3042. an 855 pound difference per corner. 3420 total pounds on the vehicle. And here is the real kicker. all trailers over 5000 pounds are required by law to use a weight distribution hitches and as you know, you cannot use these hitches with the Rear Height Control Air suspension. tbis whole issue of capacity is playing out in real life on the new Tudra's. look at the guys with the bent and delaminating tailgates from loading light items, and the pinched top tailgate corners from exccessive chassis flex. the commercials, the specs, the websites the test drives do not reveal these things. time and heavy use does. if Toyota stays with it, they will get all of this right. designing a truck is different than designing a car. designing a heavy truck is different than designing an SUV. at the end of the day, 8 bolt forged rims, load range E 80psi truck tires, fully boxed hydroformed frames (with snowplow mounts), large spring systems, forged steel suspension components, 14bolt cast solid axles, telescoping tow mirrors, 40 gallon dual gas tanks, real time high resolution tire pressure sensing, power steering coolers, dual batteries and rear sonar system that detect a trailer and self disable makes for the case of towing and overall capacity. On the topic of brakes - 2 things first is that it's a thermodynamics problem - heat dissipation. the Corvette was the first performance car to begin decreasing the rotor sizes because computer modelling allowed for optimal air flow. rotors are unsprung weight so the game is to make them as small as possible. the other thing that all truck guys know about that entertaing commercial is that the it's the trailer brakes that are stopping. but time will tell here. the navigator is a great SUV but no one tows heavy with them. my suspicion is the Seqouia will end up in a similar place.
A few additional towing thoughts and comparisons: The 2500 Chevy Sub weighs 6327lbs and 2500 Yukon XL weighs 6480lbs to the Platinum Sequoia's weight of 6045lbs.
Unlike the Tundra which only has a boxed frame under the front half of the frame and a C-channel frame in the rear, the Sequoia has a fully boxed frame from front to rear same as the 2500 series GM's.
IMO I'll take the IRS vs the solid rear axle for almost all recreational towing within the ratings of the vehicle. I wouldn't tow 10,000lbs with either of the 2500 series GM SUVs as neither are rated for that weight. I also wouldn't go over the Plat Seq. rating of 8800lbs.
The highest tow rated 4wd SUV is now the 2008 SR5 Sequoia which is rated at 9600lbs. The highest rated RWD SUV is also now the 2008 Sequoia (SR5) at 10,000lbs. In fact, this is now the only SUV rated to tow 10,000lbs.
You are incorrect with respect to weight distibuting hitches being required for all trailers over 5000lbs. In fact, weight distributing hitches are generally NOT recommended for any trailer that uses surge brakes (which would be all boat trailers as they can't have electric brakes given their submerged application). Weight distributing hitches can actually interfere with the braking operation of a trailer that operates with surge brakes. Weight-distributing hitches are generally limited to heavier trailers that utilize electric brakes such as campers and haulers.
Having towed for 1000's of miles with 2 - 2500 Subs and 2 - 1500 Subs and soon with a Plat Seq. here is my list, in order of priority, of what makes for the best tow vehicle.
First and foremost - the tow vehicle is operated within its Max Tow weight rating. If your trailer weighs more than the rating of the tow vehicle, the rest of this list is irrelevant.
- 4wd Plat Sequoia the Max tow rating is 8,800lbs
- 2wd Pat Sequoia - 9,100lbs
- 4wd SR5 Seq - 9,600lbs
- 2wd SR5 Seq - 10,000lbs
- 1500 4wd Sub - 8,000lbs
- 1500 2wd Sub - 8,100lbs
- 2500 4wd Sub - 9,300lbs
- 2500 2wd Sub - 9,600lbs 2008 Chevrolet Suburban options and specifications page on gm.ca
If all else is equal, the vehicle with more HP and torque will always be my preference.
- 5.7 Seq - 381hp, 401 ft lbs
- 6.0 Chevy - 352hp, 383 Ft Lbs
A load leveling rear suspension that always maintains a level frame on the tow vehicle, regardless of tongue weight. Adjustable suspension is a very nice option to stiffen the suspension for heavier loads.
- Adjustable suspension available on Plat Seq
- Adjustable suspension not available on Suburban
The vehicle with the larger brakes and more caliper pistons will generally have a braking advantage.
- Seq. - 13.9" front ventilated rotors with 4 opposing caliper pistons, 13.6" rear ventilated brakes
- 1500 & 2500 Sub - 13" fr vent rotors with 2 caliper pistons, 13.5 rear vent rotors
The tow vehicle with a tighter turning radius will generally have an advantage, particularly when dealing with tight spaces on boat ramps
- Seq. - 39ft
- 1500 Sub - 43ft
- 2500 Sub - 45.3ft
class IV hitches top out at 5000 pounds weight-carrying and will go up to your vehicles max tow rating but only with the use of a weight-distributing (sometimes called equalizing) hitch. look right on you hitch. you will see it clearly stated on the hitch rating label. most everyone thinks towing is all engine but that is a trivial view. look at the Escalade. 403 hp, 417 lb-ft yet they only rate it at 8000 pound towing. Again an aluminum engine. FORD and GM are very conservative in their ratings but are very serious about it. each have complex complete towing guides at their websites along with very complete printed guides. Absolutely nothing at the Toyota site. i am interested in the advantages of IRS for towing. their are no heavy tow vehicle examples of it that i know of. you are absolutely right about the surge brakes although the use of surge brakes has been challenged leagally for over 10 years. personally i would never use surge. i also tow a large boat with electric hydraulics. huge advantage since the brake controller does the calculation and brake application. but more than anything else, it's downright irresponsible to tow 8K, 9K 10K trailers without a weight distributing hitch. you are also correct about the change in the frame from the Tundra to Sequoia. strange though that the pickup truck has a weaker frame. actually it is now well documented that the Tundra frame is actually weak for a truck - many entertaining videos on youtube demonstrating this. but here again there is just no match for the increased frame size and hydroformed rails. and lastly i agree about the boat launch manuverability. but on the road with long tarilers in big winds, you want the long wheelbase. but i think after all of this we have different expectations. hopefully the originator of this thread got their answer. hopefully everyone else that reads this will have a better understanding fo what it takes to tow safely. more and more people are towing heavier and larger trailers. and many people think it's just about the engine. and the marketing hype is getting down right dangerous. it would be interesting to revisit this thread in a year after people have attempted the claimed loads.
class IV hitches top out at 5000 pounds weight-carrying and will go up to your vehicles max tow rating but only with the use of a weight-distributing (sometimes called equalizing) hitch. look right on you hitch. you will see it clearly stated on the hitch rating label. most everyone thinks towing is all engine but that is a trivial view. look at the Escalade. 403 hp, 417 lb-ft yet they only rate it at 8000 pound towing. Again an aluminum engine. FORD and GM are very conservative in their ratings but are very serious about it. each have complex complete towing guides at their websites along with very complete printed guides. Absolutely nothing at the Toyota site. i am interested in the advantages of IRS for towing. their are no heavy tow vehicle examples of it that i know of. you are absolutely right about the surge brakes although the use of surge brakes has been challenged leagally for over 10 years. personally i would never use surge. i also tow a large boat with electric hydraulics. huge advantage since the brake controller does the calculation and brake application. but more than anything else, it's downright irresponsible to tow 8K, 9K 10K trailers without a weight distributing hitch. you are also correct about the change in the frame from the Tundra to Sequoia. strange though that the pickup truck has a weaker frame. actually it is now well documented that the Tundra frame is actually weak for a truck - many entertaining videos on youtube demonstrating this. but here again there is just no match for the increased frame size and hydroformed rails. and lastly i agree about the boat launch manuverability. but on the road with long tarilers in big winds, you want the long wheelbase. but i think after all of this we have different expectations. hopefully the originator of this thread got their answer. hopefully everyone else that reads this will have a better understanding fo what it takes to tow safely. more and more people are towing heavier and larger trailers. and many people think it's just about the engine. and the marketing hype is getting down right dangerous. it would be interesting to revisit this thread in a year after people have attempted the claimed loads.
With all due respect, a class IV hitch is rated for 10,000lbs. A weight-distributing hitch is a good thing and would be a requirement for a heavy camper or bike trailer, but it is not a requirement and not recommended for trailers with surge brakes.
While there is one model of boat trailer (EZ Loader) with electric brakes, I would estimate that 99% of all boat trailers with brakes have surge brakes. My guess is there are more boat trailers than any other type of non-commercial trailer on the road. I've been boating for 30 years with various boats and trailers and I've never seen a boat trailer with a weight-distributing hitch because it would be considered unsafe given the interference with the surge brakes.
I would never trust electric brakes when boating in salt water as my guess is they wouldn't last more than a few submersions and at best a few seasons. I know there are some trailer builders looking at electric brakes but very few have made the plunge given the proven record of surge brakes. All that being said, I've never seen or operated a boat on a trailer with a weight distributing hitch for the reasons above.
I do have to agree with you that the engine is only one part of the formula that makes for a good tow vehicle. The rest of the formula I outlined above, however I think you would agree that if everything else is equal more HP and torque is better than less.
I also agree that IRS gives no towing advantage over a solid axle, other than a more comfortable ride for the passengers. I also don't think there is any disadvantage to a modern designed IRS vs a solid axle when used for recreational towing. In the end, an IRS is designed to ensure a more consistent weight distribution to both rear drive tires, unlike a solid axle where a pothole or rough surface can translate across the axle into reduced traction on the oppositie side since the axle moves as a single unit.
In the end, IMO, I would prefer the IRS rear suspension since the life of a tow vehicle, even one towing a heavy load, is still probably 95% spent not towing. The 2500's I've owned with leaf spring suspensions have been less than pleasant driving experiences compared to spring/shock/air bag suspensions. Having driven 2 2500's, I wouldn't want to go back to a "leaf-spring" suspension vehicle ever again, at least as a daily driver.
I also agree that GM in general provides much greater information on towing and even have a separate towing guide brochure they offer at their dealerships. Maybe Toyota has such a guide, however I've not seen it at any dealer's or on-line. In fact I haven't even seen a real brochure for the new Sequoia at the dealerships. Hands-down... GM provides more towing information to their vehicle owners than Toyota.
you have to look at the ratings plate on your hitch. take a look - you will absollutely see the 5000 pound limit. regarding the surge brakes. if you are really into boating you have to try the electro hydraulic units. many people make them. mine is by Dexter. it's something like this model (Dexter K71-651-00 E/H1600 (Disc Brakes) - came on the trailer. here is a link Dexter Axle - Trailer Axles and Running Gear Components - K71-651-00 E/H1600 (Disc Brakes) nothing electric gets wet. it is a hydraulic system that is simply driven by and servo which is controlled by the in vehicle brake controller. they are very popular out here. no jerking very smooth and progressive. you will be very impressed after coming off of a surge set up. as i said i think we are coming from different places on this thing. our 2500 is used exclusively for towing. nothing else. if i did not have such large trailers to tow, i would not own it. but it really is built for that set up. the old Excursion was better. basically an F-250 but it was available with the PowerStroke Diesel. i am just amazed at the 10,000 pound Toyota claim. if you try the brake actuator let me know what you think.
you have to look at the ratings plate on your hitch. take a look - you will absollutely see the 5000 pound limit. regarding the surge brakes. if you are really into boating you have to try the electro hydraulic units. many people make them. mine is by Dexter. it's something like this model (Dexter K71-651-00 E/H1600 (Disc Brakes) - came on the trailer. here is a link Dexter Axle - Trailer Axles and Running Gear Components - K71-651-00 E/H1600 (Disc Brakes) nothing electric gets wet. it is a hydraulic system that is simply driven by and servo which is controlled by the in vehicle brake controller. they are very popular out here. no jerking very smooth and progressive. you will be very impressed after coming off of a surge set up. as i said i think we are coming from different places on this thing. our 2500 is used exclusively for towing. nothing else. if i did not have such large trailers to tow, i would not own it. but it really is built for that set up. the old Excursion was better. basically an F-250 but it was available with the PowerStroke Diesel. i am just amazed at the 10,000 pound Toyota claim. if you try the brake actuator let me know what you think.
Are you running in freshwater or salt? Its rare to see brake lights survive more than 3-4 seasons when doing lots of in/outs on saltwater ramps, let alone the extra wiring for the servo from the truck to the trailer. I'm guessing you are probably also towing a painted steel trailer which wouldn't last a couple seasons before beginning to rust on the East Coast. They're not even sold within 150 miles of the Atlantic coastline.
I understand that the brakes are hydraulic however the servo/controller has wiring to it and its got to be located somewhere on the trailer. Just can't imagine it functioning for any length of time in a corrosive salt water environment which would explain why I've never seen boat trailers with electric brakes at the NY Boat show or the Atlantic City boat show.
I also agree that if the Sequoia (or for that matter the GM 2500's) came with a SC diesel you'd have the ideal tow vehicle.
BTW, what type of boat are you running? HP?
I'm currently towing a 28' ft Baja running a Bravo XR/Supercharged 502EFI (650hp/650 ft lbs). I'm replacing a Denali XL with the Plat Seq and will be using it for towing and a daily driver.
FYI, I checked my tow bar & ball setups. I have 3 of them. I have 2 older Class IV's. One with a rating of 5000lbs tow weight and 500 lbs tongue weight. the second has a tow weight rating of 6000 lbs and tongue weight rating of 600lbs.
My 3rd tow bar & ball is the one I currently use and it is stamped with a Class V rating with a 10,000lbs tow weight rating and a 2000 lb tongue weight rating. It fits in my Denali's 2" receiver.
Would it be correct to assume that a load distributing hitch could transfer enough force to exceed the tongue weight or vehicle payload even though it appears the load is "leveled" or distrubuted off the rear of the tow vehicle.
The advantage with the new 2500 - it has the best in class payload, and comes with a smooth heavy duty 6 speed. The regular burbans only have a 4 speed.
__________________
1988 Nissan 300zx 5sd 71,000 miles
1995 Nissan Pathfinder 4x4 5spd 90,000 miles (sold, frame gone)
2001 Sequoia Limited 4x4 119,000 miles (some electronic issues, manifolds, otherwise solid and not a single rattle woot)
The advantage with the new 2500 - it has the best in class payload, and comes with a smooth heavy duty 6 speed. The regular burbans only have a 4 speed.
The 2500 series GM's are the unquestioned leaders in payload ratings. This can be a definite advantage if you have a full load of passengers, gear and a trailer that's near the rated limited. The trade-off is that the 2500's get that rating by having a leaf spring rear suspension.
This is an important consideration if you are also planning on using the Burb for everyday driving in addition to tow duty. Trust me...20,000 miles of everyday driving with leaf springs will have you looking to find another vehicle.
If the Burb is a dedicated tow vehicle with only limited everday use, its a definite consideration. Then you'll have to weigh the very small 2nd row leg room and a 3rd row that has to be man-handled to get it out if its not needed VS the significantly greater 2nd row legroom and fold-flat 3rd row seats of the Sequoia.
you just nailed the biggest advantage of the independent rear suspension. more than anything else you get a bunch of space for seat storage and legroom. if you have not tried it, jump in the 3rd row of the new Navigator (which has IRS). it is actually comfortable for tall adults (feet, legs, knees and head). i have not yet tried the back of the seqouia but it sounds like it's the same. but you can't get super excited, because if you put 6 adults (or as they advertise 8 adults) and take a trip, you'll be lookin like the Beverly Hillbillies with all your luggage tied on the roof. cause ther's no room behind that 3rd row. take your buddies snow skiing in a suburban and the only thing on the roof is the ski's. but as you say, make sure your in the 1500 version with that long wheelbase, coil spring, smooth ride.
Re: 2008 Sequoia payload looks too low
Linear Mode
