4Runner Owner: 1958 Test Drive Impressions

That’s another option I have seriously considered. Trade in the truck and buy a utility trailer. However that will shift my buying decision more in favor of a GX550 for the higher tow rating.

One really nice thing with a utility trailer is they last forever with maintenance, and the ramps make loading and unloading heavy cumbersome stuff miles easier and less risky than lifting into or out of a truck bed.
 
djnemo said:
I am on day 10 of the 1958. Agree with most of your comments. Compared to my old FJ Cruiser, the power train and the ride quality are way better. I would say my main complaint as of day 10 is the engine noise - the combination of the electric system and 4 cylinder is not a pleasant auditory experience. Might have to keep the radio up! Speaking of the radio, the speakers themselves are solid for a base model but with only 6 speakers, it is lacking that surround sound experience. Overall, I love it and happy with the trim I chose. From a straight value perspective, I agree the mid-trim without premium is the best value, but for me those headlights are a deal killer - looks like something from my wife's Highlander. I was also looking for a basic interior so I would yell at my kids and dog a little less due to the inevitable spills/mud/trash. Would be cool if the 1958 came without carpet on the floors for a super basic rubberized look that you could wash out.
Click to expand...

I don't mind the engine noises, specifically the turbo. Reminds me of the old Saab 9-3 I had!

Dealer tossed all-weather mats in my 1958 when I bought it, apart from the carpet deck in the back hatch.
 
stec06 said:
I don't mind the engine noises, specifically the turbo. Reminds me of the old Saab 9-3 I had!

Dealer tossed all-weather mats in my 1958 when I bought it, apart from the carpet deck in the back hatch.
Click to expand...
NIce, not often Dealers include freebees, other than a hat ....LOL
 
RUN-8 said:
That’s another option I have seriously considered. Trade in the truck and buy a utility trailer. However that will shift my buying decision more in favor of a GX550 for the higher tow rating.

One really nice thing with a utility trailer is they last forever with maintenance, and the ramps make loading and unloading heavy cumbersome stuff miles easier and less risky than lifting into or out of a truck bed.
Click to expand...
I went back and forth on this and couldn't convince myself that I was ever going to tow anything very heavy ... maybe a small pop-up camper or something ... and a utility trailer with a mower on it or something like that ...

I think the added tow rating of the GX is nice but if you actually need it, you might want to just get a half ton truck or Sequoia instead anyway
 
I test drove a Sequoia a month or so ago. The only thing I liked was the engine and transmission. The cargo area is deeply compromised, there is no full time 4 wheel drive with a Torsen center differential, and visibility was sub par. Hard pass on that and the Tundra.
 
thomez said:
I went back and forth on this and couldn't convince myself that I was ever going to tow anything very heavy ... maybe a small pop-up camper or something ... and a utility trailer with a mower on it or something like that ...

I think the added tow rating of the GX is nice but if you actually need it, you might want to just get a half ton truck or Sequoia instead anyway
Click to expand...

I towed a golf cart about 700 miles with mine the week after buying it. Pulled like a champ because of how much torque the motor has. And I LOVE how robust the hitch is. It's a massive chunk of steel. Only thing that sucked was the gas mileage on that journey, which plunged down to 16-17mpg or so. Now I'm back up to 23mpg on the normal commute. For reference, this was one of those 5x9 galvanized UHaul trailers and an Icon golf cart...guessing 2500lbs in total. Was going to do the same trek with a 2.7l PreRunner, which would have SUCKED in comparison.
 
I have used the air helper bags on a couple of vehicles in the past with good results. They slip inside the coil springs, the air lines need routing and that's it. I ran 1lb of air for no assist and I think it was 15lbs loaded. Kept the Sennia level while towing dual jetskis.

1718290601577.png
 
RUN-8 said:
I test drove a Sequoia a month or so ago. The only thing I liked was the engine and transmission. The cargo area is deeply compromised, there is no full time 4 wheel drive with a Torsen center differential, and visibility was sub par. Hard pass on that and the Tundra.
Click to expand...
The cargo situation is ... sort of unbelievable it made it to production.
 
thomez said:
The cargo situation is ... sort of unbelievable it made it to production.
Click to expand...
Not really. There literally isn’t anywhere for the 3rd row to go with SRA, BOF, hybrid, and a 3rd row. If you want those 4 things, there isn’t another vehicle that does it. Admittedly that is super niche, but I expect there are some that want to pull a boat or horse trailer and are swayed from the domestics that dropped the SRA. IMO, those that just want a big 2 row SUV should look into removing the 3rd row. It isn’t difficult and the cargo area becomes massive.
 
qberg said:
Not really. There literally isn’t anywhere for the 3rd row to go with SRA, BOF, hybrid, and a 3rd row. If you want those 4 things, there isn’t another vehicle that does it. Admittedly that is super niche, but I expect there are some that want to pull a boat or horse trailer and are swayed from the domestics that dropped the SRA. IMO, those that just want a big 2 row SUV should look into removing the 3rd row. It isn’t difficult and the cargo area becomes massive.
Click to expand...

Third Gen Sequoias don’t pull trailers.

They get pulled on trailers when the V35A-FTS under the hood eats a bearing.

What a shit show Toyota has on their hands right now. Hybrids avoided the recall, but my guess is only because the electric motor will provide enough motive power to limp to the shoulder. Plenty of examples of iForceMax Tundras and Sequoias having this problem.
 
RUN-8 said:
Third Gen Sequoias don’t pull trailers.

They get pulled on trailers when the V35A-FTS under the hood eats a bearing.

What a shit show Toyota has on their hands right now. Hybrids avoided the recall, but my guess is only because the electric motor will provide enough motive power to limp to the shoulder. Plenty of examples of iForceMax Tundras and Sequoias having this problem.
Click to expand...
Cool strawman.
 
Reliability problems should factor into a purchase decision. V35A-FTS equipped vehicles represent a significant risk in downtime requiring a lengthy repair process if Toyota persists with sending short blocks to be reassembled by dealer technicians into complete engines using cylinder heads and turbos (plus other parts) that were exposed to oil contaminated with metal particles. Check out the Tundra forums for examples of how this is going before the recall. Plenty of Lemon Law candidates.
 
solidbrix said:
I posted this on a LC Facebook group, but wanted to share it here with you guys:

Pros
+The hybrid system is quick, and nothing like the 4Runner, completely different acceleration, breaking, and feel, I loved it. SO MUCH TORQUE!

+Steering: also completely different from the 4Runner, night and day difference, felt like a premium sedan or something (not a bad thing in my book), little effort to turn the wheel, no shakes at all even at high speeds or gravel roads.

+Build quality was excellent, matching my 4Runner, I played around with every button, pulled off every panel I could, and knocked around with everything from the front to back, solid stuff. Made in Japan for ya.

+The look. Wow does it look good in person. Every angle.

+Space, I just came back from car camping in the 4Runner, I had to lay diagonally to sleep, not a problem inside the LC w/ seats down, I was impressed.

+That battery step up in the cargo space is smaller in person than it looks in photos or on camera, wasn’t an issue

+Interior height, wow was it tall inside, much more than the 4Runner

+Driving position was absolutely perfect, could see everything around me with minimal blind spots

+Quality materials: aside from the excess interior plastic on the 1958, the buttons, steering wheel, and shifter felt great and super sturdy, I can see this lasting a long time

+A/C: it was 90 degrees and the 3 climate zone is fantastic, the rear head vents are a game changer as a 4Runner owner (& proud Golden Retriever owner)

+Quiet interior even at 75mph on I-95, minimal wind noise and no hood flapping like the GX 550 has

+No joke, the cloth seats felt better and more comfortable than my softex 4Runner seats (yes I don’t believe it either), material was nice even for cloth.

+Easy to close the back tailgate, way less heavy than the 4Runner, upper trims this is automatic, manual on the 1958

+Minimal body roll on turns, it’s there, but way less than the 4Runner

Cons
-Unless your 6ft or taller (I’m 5’ 10), you’ll have a hard time getting in and out of the LC, it needs some type of running board or rock rail to step on getting in. Your significant other ain’t gonna be happy if she’s short haha (or kids will have issues as well)

-On the 1958 there is a bunch of hard plastic everywhere including the door handles themselves on the inside, it didn’t feel bad but for 56k I expected a little more cushion

-The design around the smaller 8 inch screen in the 1958 isn’t bad but still looks cheap and obvious that a bigger screen should’ve been there

-Pop out glass doesn’t seem that practical, no way to partially open it for say a surf board or for lumber to stick out, good for quick drop ins, that’s about it.

Conclusion
I will be purchasing a Land Cruiser shortly. I was already 95% the way there thinking this was the right vehicle for me, and now I’m 100% convinced. It was literally everything I wanted & more. The design both interior and exterior is amazing. The drive is truly impressive for a body on frame suv. It does feel like an upgrade from the 4Runner. If you have the money, it feels worth it. That being said, the amount of plastic inside on the door panels was enough to convince me that the mid-tier trim is the way to go, better materials and lot of other nice creature comforts. These haters saying we need a V6 or V8 engine haven’t drove this new hybrid system, I see why now Toyota is putting it in the new Tacoma, 4Runner, and Land Cruiser.

My Advice
Skip the 1958 & First Edition: If you’re not in a rush to get an LC soon, I think the Mid-Tier trim without the premium package is the sweet spot at 62k, I think it’s worth the upgrade cost, you get a lot of nice amenties and access to the full pallet of exterior colors. I’d stay away from First Editon or any LC over 75k, it’s not worth it once it gets to that high of a price. I would consider the 1958 if you can get it for 53k or below (knock off 2-3K)… and so far these are not selling (very fast)… so come the end of Summer, I won’t be surprised to see people getting good deals on the 1958. The most in-demand spec is the mid-tier, so don’t expect discounts anytime soon.

View attachment 2951
Click to expand...
What’s mpg like? Did the small tank bother you?
 
RUN-8 said:
Reliability problems should factor into a purchase decision. V35A-FTS equipped vehicles represent a significant risk in downtime requiring a lengthy repair process if Toyota persists with sending short blocks to be reassembled by dealer technicians into complete engines using cylinder heads and turbos (plus other parts) that were exposed to oil contaminated with metal particles. Check out the Tundra forums for examples of how this is going before the recall. Plenty of Lemon Law candidates.
Click to expand...
Thomez commented about the cargo area and I responded about the rear cargo space with why it was the way it was. Engine durability, recalls, etc have nothing to do with that discussion. Neither he nor I breathed a word about the engine or what factors should be considered when buying a vehicle.
 
qberg said:
Thomez commented about the cargo area and I responded about the rear cargo space with why it was the way it was. Engine durability, recalls, etc have nothing to do with that discussion. Neither he nor I breathed a word about the engine or what factors should be considered when buying a vehicle.
Click to expand...

Not to kick the hornets nest, but no one has breathed a word at any point on any topic on this forum. We type our words here. 🙃

Let’s all chill out. Sequoia cargo space is a bummer. Likely engine reliability is a huge bummer too.
 
The Sequoia represents a half baked product from a standpoint of addressing what customers in that segment actually want to buy.

They want a Toyota version of a Tahoe/Suburban with Toyota build quality and reliability. Toyota managed to fail to build a vehicle that is functional like a Tahoe/Suburban, and so far it also fails to live up to Toyota QDR standards.

Pretty big failure as far as I’m concerned. It’s a downgrade in almost every way that matters from the 2nd Gen Sequoia aside from the 2nd Gen’s hatred for dead liquified dinosaurs. That Gen Sequoia and Tundra really want to punish dead dinosaurs in the fiery hell of internal combustion LOL.
 
qberg said:
Not really. There literally isn’t anywhere for the 3rd row to go with SRA, BOF, hybrid, and a 3rd row. If you want those 4 things, there isn’t another vehicle that does it. Admittedly that is super niche, but I expect there are some that want to pull a boat or horse trailer and are swayed from the domestics that dropped the SRA. IMO, those that just want a big 2 row SUV should look into removing the 3rd row. It isn’t difficult and the cargo area becomes massive.
Click to expand...
You are right, there are a bunch of initial limitations of where they could go from a design perspective and that's worth considering. I'm just ... surprised that's what they ended up with. I poked around at the Sequoia idea a bit before ending up here; just couldn't see a way that the Sequoia cargo area would suffice for camping use, etc. But I do not need a third row ... and I suppose that's the compromise you have to live with if you do.
 
thomez said:
You are right, there are a bunch of initial limitations of where they could go from a design perspective and that's worth considering. I'm just ... surprised that's what they ended up with. I poked around at the Sequoia idea a bit before ending up here; just couldn't see a way that the Sequoia cargo area would suffice for camping use, etc. But I do not need a third row ... and I suppose that's the compromise you have to live with if you do.
Click to expand...
I pretty much landed in the same place. Without needing a 3rd row, the Sequoia seemed like too much car for everything else. An easily removable 3rd row would probably make the Sequoia more digestible* for those that could use the 3rd row on occasion but generally would prefer the cargo space.

I don't love the price of this, but it seems to fix a lot of the issues for the folks that just want 2 rows and a big cargo area.

www.goose-gear.com

Goose Gear Toyota - Sequioa - 2023-Present - 3rd Gen - Explore Series - Seat Delete Plate System - Third Row - 100% Delete Package

The Toyota Sequioa Third Row Delete Plate System allows the removal of the factory third row seating and the ability to replace it with a flat foundation for mounting your gear, Drawer Modules, Solo Fridge Slides etc. This kit requires the complete removal of the third-row seats. It features a...
www.goose-gear.com www.goose-gear.com

* RcvrdOutback, when I say "digestible", I don't mean that I'm literally going to eat the vehicle. It's a metaphor like "breath a word" used in context of message boards. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Atomic67
Test Drive 1958
Replies
2
Views
948
Ugly Margarita
U
S
My short test drive
Replies
3
Views
1K
Altitude
Altitude
T
Test drive, hybrid, lumpy floor, short wife
Replies
1
Views
382
Dualonymous
D
M
Power Train First Impressions
Replies
17
Views
3K
RUN-8
RUN-8
A
1958 folks.. regrets?
2 3
Replies
49
Views
3K
Newbee1958
N

Latest Discussions

Back
Top