Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Crossover SUV Comparison

1320321323325326355

Comments

  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    I drove the Pilot Touring 2WD today, with RES and NAV. I must say, I was impressed with the isolation of the ride and engine, very quiet for a Honda; my aunt, who was with me (and the one shopping), commented it was ahead of her 2005 Odyssey EX.

    The engine didn't make the car feel fast, but it was certainly just fine for its purpose. One thing I made sure to notice was the functionality of the "ECO" mode. It was on pretty often during our drive, which included city driving with speeds that eventually led to 60 MPH (a State Hwy in town). Very quiet, and honestly, HONESTLY, I felt no indication that the engine switched modes. It was completely impreceptable to me, and I even cut the A/C off so as to hear a difference. Overall, it is an impressive effort by Honda, in my opinion.

    One thing I couldn't get used to was the perceived size of the thing. I guess the big flat hood and extra width made it feel really large. It could also have to do with the fact that the previous car we had driven was a Honda Fit Sport (which I'll comment on in the proper forum). Quite a difference! Haha.

    In the end, I still don't love the styling (front-end), but the Pilot is worth a look anyway. I left impressed.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Cool, thanks for sharing.

    We spent 4 days with friends in Tucson that own an Ody and they let me drive it, I remember the ECO light but it only went on very seldom, basically when we were coasting to a stop at a traffic light.

    Maybe it's using the 4 cylinder mode more often than it used the old 3 cylinder mode.
  • Stever@EdmundsStever@Edmunds YooperlandPosts: 38,921
    And the spam is gone. :shades:
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    You're quick! I deleted the post to which your responded, since it was irrelevant. ;)
  • Stever@EdmundsStever@Edmunds YooperlandPosts: 38,921
    Gee, don't you enjoy plowing through a bunch of ads and spam to get to the real posts in here?
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Of course, doesn't everyone?!

    It's already "Acadia-Ville" in here today on my screen thanks to all the ads.
  • coldcrankercoldcranker Posts: 877
    thegraduate said: "In the end, I still don't love the styling (front-end), but the Pilot is worth a look anyway."

    I agree, Honda is evoking memories of the Pontiac Aztek with that thing... UGLY! Some will like it, but, then again, some people buy Pug dogs, too....

    You mentioned Variable Cylinder Management (VCM), where 3 out of the 6 cylinders sometimes shut down to save fuel. But do they save fuel? The Honda Pilot gets 16 MPG in the city, and the Mazda CX-9 also gets 16 MPG in the city, except the CX-9 does NOT have VCM. I don't understand that. Both vehicles are comparable in size, weight, and horsepower. That VCM doesn't appear to do much to save gas. Actually, I can brag because my Freestyle gets 27 MPG on the highway routinely, and 20 in city driving without the added expense and complexity of VCM ( for the Freestyle, its the CVT tranny that really causes the higher MPG compared to others).
  • biscuit_xlsbiscuit_xls Posts: 194
    VCM functions primarily on the freeway, you won't see much difference in the city.
  • coldcrankercoldcranker Posts: 877
    The VCM activates at light load, cutting out half the cylinders, so that cruising easy on the highway at 55 or 60 it may activate more, while cruising at 70-80 mph it will need all 6 cylinders. Hills and passing, the VCM will be off as well, as the load is higher and all 6 are needed. In the city, every time you idle at a stoplight or hit the brakes to stop, VCM will activate. I'd say it does it more in the city during coast down and stop time.

    However, the EPA highway rating for the Mazda CX-9, at 22 MPG (no VCM) is the same as the Pilot's 22 MPG. And their city MPGs are the same at 16. Why doesn't VCM have much affect anywhere? Very odd.

    In fact, the Acadia, Dodge Journey, and Taurus X, all with similar sized V6 engines get better MPG than the Pilot, although the Pilot is the only one with VCM. The Odyssey, with the same engine/tranny as the Pilot, does seem to benefit from its VCM, besting all the above mentioned vehicles in MPG by 1 at least. Maybe the answer is in the extremely poor aerodynamics of the Pilot, while the Odyssey has better aero, and it shows up in the MPG numbers. Certainly the ugly box/weird shapes on the Pilot must be creating a high drag coefficient.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Considering the same engine in last-year's non VCM Pilot got 15/20 and that the current Pilot WITH vcm gets 16/22, I'd say the vcm DOES help it get better economy in that particular engine.
  • coldcrankercoldcranker Posts: 877
    No. You are looking at the 4WD Pilot from last year getting 15/20, not the 2WD versions compared above. The 4WD system reduces MPG, but that is another story. See www.fueleconomy.gov for info. I was comparing only 2WD versions of all these vehicles just to stay consistent for comparison purposes across the board.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    The 2WD Pilot has a rating of 17/23. The 4WD has a rating of 16/22.

    The old 4WD one has a rating of 15/20, so the VCM (among other tweaks possibly) has improved mileage from 15/20 to 16/22.

    I'm afraid you got it mixed up. ;)
  • coldcrankercoldcranker Posts: 877
    I was comparing 2WD-only versions, while you were talking about 4WD-only versions. And, yes, the jump from the 2008 4WD 15/20 rating to the 2009 4WD 16/22 is only about half due to the introduction of cylinder deactivation (VCM) in the 2009 4WD model. Note the 2WD version, from '08 to '09, also gained 1 MPG in both city & highway, and the 2WD version has had VCM for several years now, so it is due to tuning and possible gear ratio changes in the 5-speed automatic. Now Honda has a Pilot that makes up for not having a 6-speed automatic (or CVT) by using cylinder deactivation. Adding direct injection and a 6-speed would give about 3 MPG more, if Honda would just do it.
  • cericceric Posts: 1,093
    I own a CX9 AWD for 5600 miles.
    Great vehicle in terms of space, design, tranquility, and driving dynamics.

    The one thing that I dislike is the lack of accessories.
    One can't find many accessories from Mazda or on aftermarket.
    For example, one can hardly find any sidestep (maybe because CX9 is lower than most others) or running board even at its 2nd year in USA. In contrast, the new Pilot offers FOUR different side steps/running boards from Honda when it was just released. For those who are thinking of buying, please take this into consideration it this is important to you.

    That said, I still love my CX-9. It drives like a sports sedan that can haul 7 people + cargo. Give Mazda a chance when cross-shopping. Mazda is selling them at $1500 BELOW INVOICE. Be an informed shopper!
  • coldcrankercoldcranker Posts: 877
    You already picked a Forrester, a good choice, but a better choice would have been the TaurusX. It uses a Volvo-derived XC90, S80, VC70, Land Rover LR3 body, a structurally optimized platform costing less than the Volvo or Land Rover versions. Good MPG, too. The Forrester is OK, except for Subaru's odd lagging behind almost everybody else by using a 4-speed old-style slushbox tranny instead of a more modern 6-speed or CVT.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    It's kind of hard to tell someone that they bought the wrong choice, I'd think. They bought the car they were most comfortable with, and with a brand they have had good service with, and trust.

    A Taurus X is bigger and uses more gas, and may be more car than they wanted. They aren't that cheap, either.
  • mattandimattandi Posts: 588
    Anyone around here bought one of these yet?
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    I didn't think these were out yet. My local dealer sure doesn't have any, and I know - my folks are buying a Ford this weekend so I've been there a lot.
  • mattandimattandi Posts: 588
    They arrived here last week. It's only been a few days. Figured they are not everywhere yet, but some places might have gotten them earlier. It will be nice to here from some owners when they are on the road. I haven't driven one yet, but I did swing into a dealer to take a quick look.
  • coldcrankercoldcranker Posts: 877
    thegraduate, I agree the Forester is a good choice. It weighs only 3200 lbs compared to a Freestyle's (and Taurus X) 4000 lbs, and an Acadia weighs 4500 lbs. I had to go look, but you're right the Forester is about $4000 cheaper than a TaurusX. I paid $22,500 3 years ago for a Freestyle (TaurusX ancestor), and am amazed at the high MPG with the CVT tranny and 3.0L V6, within 1 MPG of the current smaller Forester. The Forester's AWD and 4-speed reduce its MPG a little. Good crash tests on both models.

    Talk about going even bigger, the Acadia/Outlook has competition now with the huge Ford Flex some are talking about in this forum. Based on the Freestyle/TaurusX/Volvo platform, that Flex is one big slab-sided bus if there ever was one. Paint it yellow and take the neighborhood kids to school.
Sign In or Register to comment.