Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Most popular vehicles
Popular New Cars
- New Acura MDX
- New Acura RDX
- New Audi Q5
- New BMW 3 Series
- New BMW X3
- New Buick Enclave
- New Cadillac Escalade
- New Chevrolet Equinox
- New Chrysler 300
- New Dodge Challenger
- New Ford Edge
- New Ford Escape
- New Ford Expedition
- New Ford Explorer
- New Ford F-150
- New Ford Focus
- New Ford Mustang
- New Honda Accord
- New Honda Civic
- New Honda CR-V
- New Honda Fit
- New Honda Odyssey
- New Honda Pilot
- New Hyundai Elantra
- New Hyundai Santa Fe
- New Hyundai Sonata
- New Hyundai Tucson
- New Jeep Compass
- New Jeep Grand Cherokee
- New Jeep Wrangler
- New Mazda 3
- New Mazda 6
- New Mazda CX-5
- New Nissan Altima
- New Nissan Maxima
- New Nissan Rogue
- New Porsche Cayenne
- New Ram 1500
- New Subaru Crosstrek
- New Subaru Forester
- New Subaru Impreza
- New Subaru Outback
- New Tesla Model S
- New Tesla Model X
- New Toyota 4Runner
- New Toyota Camry
- New Toyota Corolla
- New Toyota Highlander
- New Toyota Prius
- New Toyota RAV4
- New Toyota Sienna
- New Toyota Tacoma
- New Volkswagen Jetta
- New Volvo XC60
- New Volvo XC90
Popular Used Sedans
- Used BMW 5 Series
- Used Chevrolet Impala
- Used Chevrolet Malibu
- Used Chrysler 200
- Used Dodge Charger
- Used Ford Fusion
- Used Ford Taurus
- Used Honda Accord
- Used Honda Civic
- Used Hyundai Elantra
- Used Hyundai Sonata
- Used Tesla Model S
- Used Toyota Camry
- Used Toyota Corolla
- Used Volkswagen Jetta
Popular Used SUVs
- Used Acura MDX
- Used Acura RDX
- Used Ford Edge
- Used Ford Explorer
- Used Honda CR-V
- Used Honda Pilot
- Used Hyundai Santa Fe
- Used Jeep Compass
- Used Lincoln Navigator
- Used Mazda CX-5
- Used Nissan Rogue
- Used Subaru Crosstrek
- Used Subaru Forester
- Used Tesla Model X
- Used Volvo XC90
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
I think the deal-killer for me is going to be the interior. The EX-L's dash looks cheap. Hopefully the materials are of relatively high quality, though it looks like a lot of hard plastic.
What I don't like:
- too many empty spots on the dash. It's almost like the designers thought, "What should we put here in this empty spot...let's make it another open storage compartment." There's a big gaping hole in the center stack under the A/C controls, and empty bin to the right of the steering column, the empty bins above the glove compartment, and a bin under the multi-information display. It looks like the kind of dash you'd find in an economy car, not a $30K SUV.
- gauges look cheap; I thought we moved away from the white-background-look of the 90s.
- too many small buttons with small labels for the radio (just like the Accord)
- rear view camera without nav is a good feature; however, I wonder how useful it'll actually be on the rear view mirror
- center seat belt in the second and third rows come down from the ceiling. If left connected, it looks ugly. If left disconnected, that's one more step for the center passenger must do to buckle up. The Highlander's center belt is anchored to the seat itself. Much cleaner looking.
- power rear door on the Touring model only
- Bluetooth on the Touring model only
- fuel economy doesn't look like it's anything special, even with VCM; slightly worse than the Highlander (but not by much), though with less HP and slightly more torque than the Highlander's 3.5L engine.
What I do like:
- dark carpet, even with light seat upholstery; the contrast is nice and it should be easier to keep clean
- USB port in the center console; not sure if that allows you to control an iPod, or if it's to load or play music from a USB flash drive, or something totally different. Also not sure if that's Touring and/or navigation only.
- the Pilot's cargo room behind the third row actually looks usable. Plus, it's split, unlike the Highlander.
On paper, it doesn't seem like there's anything special enough about the '09 Pilot that would make me seriously consider it. I'll give it a once-over when they arrive at the dealerships, but I'm not very impressed so far.
http://www.vtec.net/news/news-item?news_item_id=755269
Look is subjective. You make your own judgement.
I have owned MAZDA CX-9 (GT AWD) for two months
and I did research into it. So, I made this
comparison for those who are thinking about buying CX-9 or the new Pilot.
Pros: Pilot
- active head restraint system - front seats
- VCM (1mpg advantage over CX-9)
- rear glass hatch (if you like it, I don't.)
- ultrasound sensors - front/back
- double-paned windshield
- rear-differential lock (electronic)
- hill start assist
- towing 4500lb standard (1500/3500lb without/with tow package on CX-9)
- door-integrated sunshade - 2nd row
- larger moonroof (than CX-9)
- better NAVI system (I owned an Odyssey - Honda's NAVI is the best)
Pros: CX-9
- 3.7L engine 273hp/270ft-lb (3.5L 250/253 on Pilot)
- 18"/20" wheels (17" on Pilot)
- ventilated rear disk brake (solid on Pilot)
- rain-sensing wipers
- 6-speed transmission (5-speed on Pilot)
- smart-key entry system
- blind-spot warning system
- turning circle 37.4ft (38.6 on Pilot - even being shorter and on shorter wheelbase)
- gated gear shifter (dash-mounted straight shifter)
- HID headlights
- seat-on-rail system - easy to move seats fore/back (not sure about Pilot?)
- longer roof rack (2/3 on Pilot)
- auto up/down front windows (not sure about Pilot)
- 1-piece 2nd row windows
Too many parameters in space data. I will skip them here.
BTW, I found CX-9 to have very few accessories provided by MAZDA and the market. So, adding accessories should be easier with Honda Pilot. Case in point,
I have been trying to find a side step for CX-9 (for kids and older parents) and can't find any at all.
Anyway, hope this help you make an educated decision.
All I can say: Honda Engineers overlooked one really important feature.....
Amber turn signals on the rear lamp cluster.
This one fact alone, demonstrates to me, that Honda Engineers are sub-par.
Equally it is important to road test the Pilot. Videos showing the Pilot on gravel, snow, sand, mud and water are a must. Better pictures of the Pilot facia, of the front nose, of the rear, spare wheel storage.
So I scanned through the Honda Pilot mini-site. Was so looking forward to this car and when I saw the redesign I just could not get into the Pathfinder look, I feel they took a huge step back in the styling department and I love Honda's. We ended up buying a Saturn Outlook after test driving the usual crossovers (CX-9, 2007 Pilot, Highlander) and we really are pleased, looks great, drives well, is quiet/comfortable and has every option we could want. In fact seeing this info on the Honda Pilot has re-affirmed my purchase decision. I was thinking the Pilot would just blow away the Saturn interior and have much improved mileage, but in fact it does not. The mileage with all the tricks the great Honda engine has is not any better and the interior while solid does not blow me away.
Somethings I like which I do not have is the USB port and the blinds on the side windows (which I think should be available on all cars IMO, especially sedans that do not have tint). But I would not trade those options for the dual sunroof in my Saturn which is an awesome and a huge selling point and the onstar which we have already used for unlocking the doors for our keys in our car. I can't believe the Pilot does not offer at least the dual sunroof. The split tailgate is nice but honestly I do not see ever using it when you have an auto liftgate.
Will the Honda Pilot be a solid vehicle, absolutely. But honestly I do not think it was a huge leap over the previous generation. I mean I think when they first introduced the Pilot what 6 years ago, it was leaps and bounds over everything else. Unfortunately, this Pilot does not make that jump, they really could have done something special and done some ground breaking stuff, including having some tricks to truly get some good mileage.
Just my thoughts,
B.
Equally the approach and departure angle of the Pilot, i.e. 29/23o is greater than the 18/23o of the Outlook. The workmanship of the Pilot has no comparison. So although there are a few advantages of the Outlook, e.g. better horse power for the same size of engine and rear ventilated disc, I don’t see other advantages. A better ride is provided by the Pilot thanks to its Locking Differential Rear (low speed wheeling) and its sophisticated 4WD mechanism that make the Pilot the winner for 5-6 years. All these factors have encouraged me that I should buy a 2009 Pilot instead of an Outlook.
As far as the Nissan Pathfinder is concerned, I think that the Pilot looks much better than the Nissan. The rear of the Pilot could have some resemblance with the rear of the Nissan but that is all. You could say the same with the shape of the Kia Borrego but the general shape of the Pilot is unique. If you like the shape of the Outlook you could buy a Hyundai Veracruz. The Veracruz I think is a pretty vehicle but for me it looks a wimp SUV. If I would buy a SUV that it is not the Pilot I would buy the GMC Acadia. That look a proper SUV.
After reading three to four reviews on the new Pilot, I (actually they) disagree with two things you mentioned.
- The workmanship of the Pilot has no comparison:
Actually they found the fit and finish of the new Pilot to be lacking. The center dash is too busy (personally opinion, of course)
- its sophisticated 4WD mechanism:
In fact, VTM-4 is one of the simple 4WD/AWD system on the road. It is beauty is actually its simplicity (unlike SH-AWD on MDX).
Read the reviews here:
http://www.vtec.net/news/news-item?news_item_id=755269
There is no 6-speed automatic from Honda/Acura in production today.
Not to mention, a manumatic one.
>> Pricing?
$28,000 to $40,000 MSRP (plus extra options on all packages)
>> available date?
June at your dealerships.
Much info on
http://automobiles.honda.com/2009-pilot/
including what is standard on what package...
read on.
Personally, several things missing on the new Pilot are a deal-killer for me
- smart-key entry and start system
Once you had it, you will not buy another car w/o it. 8-)
- amber signal lights.
I will also not buy a vehicle w/o amber signal light.
- HID headlights
It is much brighter, save energy and last longer.
Gone are the days when Honda/Acura can charge beyond MSRP for their vehicles.
Deals are everywhere. For example, MAZDA CX-9 can be had for $2000 BELOW INVOICE now (being near model year-end). Competition is good for everyone. So are more choices.
As an engineer, I consider the fact that not using amber to denote the turn function is a major safety violation.
US auto manufacturers do it because, well, lets face it, Ford and Chey and Dodge are junk.
For a Japanese car manufacturer to implement red turn signals is a crime. I have always purchased Japanese cars due to their excelence in engineering and attention to detail.
So for me, the 2009 Pilot is a no go. As I have said many times before. If Honda engineers can't get the turn signals right (which is such an easy thing to do) what other significant engineering feature have they overlooked?.
It also puzzles me that the Accord now has amber turn signals, yet the pilot doesn't.
Probably attributed to the fact that the Pilot was designed in the USA by US based engineers who have become lazy. What Honda needs to do, is send the Pilot Design team back to Japan to get whipped into shape.
Thank heaven for Toyota. At least they use amber turn signals.
The signal mirror not being amber, it appears from the production model (photos) that the glass (flashing) is transparent and perhaps is a question of changing the signal mirror bulb to something amber. The Pilot concept seems to have red flashing signal mirror.
The HID front lights are also a debatable item. Good working HID are hard to maintain. HID involves two mechanism and one of these are prone to deteriorate making oscillate the light. The replacement costs a lot of money and I could justify HID if you have the money to keep the lights in good working order
It appears from the photo that the signal mirror is just transparent. It is quite different than the Concept where the signal mirror, indeed looks as red.
Are you not overreacting (like for example red is a criminal act, and so on)?
He was talking about the signal lights in the back.
Remember the 1999/2000/2001 Odysseys? They all have red signal lights.
Starting from 2002, Honda changed them to amber. Why?
It appears to me that Honda never learned the lesson from it (styling over function?)
Maybe 2-3 years later, they will somehow change the signal lights to amber again.
Yes, there is always the MMC (mid-model change) 2-3 years into the future.
Smart key is costly. Not every Acura model has it. Keep the key in your pocket or purse, and you can do whatever you need with the vehicle. No looking for keys with your hands full. Smart-key is also much more secured (encryption and code rolling).
Imagine that your vehicle "recognizes" you as long as you have the Smart-key near you.
HID: All my vehicles with HID lights have no issues at all after 7 years. The only downside is that some thieves are targeting HID headlights to steal... :mad:
Nice big empty in back:
using red rear turn signals has been proven to confuse drivers following behind.
there have been numerous caes studies comparing use of separate colors to denote brake vs turn. Test subjects were presented flashing red (turn) and momentary on red lights. They were asked to determine if the signal was braking or turn. Another set of test subjects were shown separate amber flashing and momentary on red lights. The second set of subjects (amber turn) were able to differentiate brake vs turn much faster than the first set of subjects.
In a real world situation, fractions of a second at highway speeds could be a matter of life or death.
Presently, almost all countries outside North America require that all front, side and rear turn signals produce amber light. In North America the rear signals may be amber or red.
Honda must have some compelling reasons to persist in using the red turning signal instead of the amber. I don’t believe is an oversight of Honda engineers. I think that the main reason (I might be wrong) is to prevent the Pilot being exported overseas. What other reasons could be? Just that the Honda engineers are all stupid?
Majority of overseas country have to comply with the amber turning lights (front and rear), although I have seen in Europe (e.g. UK) that some cars especially old ones (Imported American cars) with red signal lights. I don’t see that European regulations will allow red instead of amber turning lights.
Why Honda uses red? IMHO, it's because this vehicle is designed for for the North American market and is not expected to be exported overseas by Honda hence no need for the increased costs to manufacture a multi-color lens. Further, it allows Honda to perhaps introduce them mid cycle as an upgrade.
HID lights? Not needed on Hondas as the market doesn't demand it. Once the competition starts offering HID's, then it'll be needed. But until then, most people aren't willing to pay the extra price. Same with Smart Key. Again, they might offer it on the Touring at mid cycle but until the competition offers it and the market clamors for it, it's not going to happen.
Motorists, appreciate the improved night-time’s visibility from HID headlamps but object to the glare they can cause. Internationalized European vehicle regulations require such headlamps to be equipped with lens cleaners and an automatic self-leveling system to keep the beams aimed correctly regardless of vehicle load and attitude (increasing costs and maintenance), but no such devices are required in North America, where inherently more glaring beam patterns are also permitted. Retrofitting HID bulbs in headlamps not originally designed to accept those results in extremely high levels of glare, and is illegal throughout most of the world.
A standard headlight bulb costs a few dollars while a HID may cost hundredth of dollars.
It appears to me that not having HID in the Pilot was a wise decision by Honda.
I would like to see a more aggressive dual exhaust pipe tip in the Pilot. The tips just look as water pipes end. There is not style. The Tucson and Sportage have better exhaust tips than the Pilot.
The Outlook, VUE, and CX-9 have good looking dual exhaust tips.
After seeing the interior of the new Pilot, with its acres of plastic and while realizing all of the competitors are using soft-touch surfaces, there is no way I am buying a Pilot this time.
The exterior of the 09 is brutal and uninspiring. This is a redesign? It's a throwback to what could be rebadged Isuzu product of the past.
I've got my ticket to either Veracruz or Acadia and it ain't on a Honda Jet either.
Perhaps you would be interested in the Politics discussion so we can continue to talk about the cars here without distraction.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
A soft-touch surface will do nothing when your car suddenly stops with no apparent reasons in the middle of nowhere because reliability matters. If you do not expect to adventure off-road from time to time and you not care about approach/departure angle, and differential drive train stuff then the Veracruz or the Acadia is a good choice.
A hard-touch surface will not deter me of buying a 2009 Pilot. If you do not like the traditional look of SUV (Boxy), then a CX-90, Audi Q7 or Infinity (7-seats) could give you a SUV without the Isuzu shape. If you do not care about ground clearance, then any 7-passanger van will do the job.
There are a lot of other very worthy vehicles out there. Also, with leasing being more popular, especially with these expensive $30K + vehicles that many don't have the money to finance, having the car last past 100,000 miles in not a big deal because people bring them back to the dealer with 40,000 on them. Studies have shown that people are more likely to keep a small to mid sized sedan past 100,000, rather then a bigger SUV.
So, with all of that being said, there are little features, like these you personally don't find a need for, but others do. Why make your potential customer buy an Acura at over $45,000 for these simple features when other mfgr's are offering them for way less. Does it make sence.? Not really. But, who am I to talk, I'm only a potential customer that does value these things, and that takes Honda out of the market for me.
That said, I am very interested in finding how easy it will be to enter the 3rd row seat. On CX-9, you pull a lever and the seatback of the 2nd row lean forward and slide forward by at least 5 inches. The rear door of CX-9 is BIG. Therefore, it allows 8 inches of gap (seatback to C-pillar) to enter the 3rd. While I dislike the HUGE rear doors of CX-9, I appreciate the ease of entering and exit. From the article, it seems like the 2nd row seat can be moved fore/back by 3 inches.
On the HID, most factory HID has clean cut-off on top-edge and auto-leveling mechanism in place. It is the after-market ones that are annoying. All my vehicles have it, and I haven't never been flashed at by on-coming drivers.
The Highlander's steering was great - electric, literally - and it drove like a go-cart, but I've had it with Toyota's cavalier attitude about safety. I'm currently driving a Sequoia, that's only gotten 4-stars on the passenger's side, and the latest Highlander and Sequoia are only 4-stars on the passenger's side. The Highlander had a huge amount of deformation at the B-pillar in its side impact test, which is no doubt part of the reason for the 4 stars on the passenger's side, and the brand new Sequoia suffers the same fate. I was so disappointed with the new Sequoia redesign, I've been in the automotive wilder-zone since, first with the Veracruz (until I discovered the problem for tall drivers), then I rejected the Highlander and Sequoia, and finally Toyota altogether (the SE region is a Kafka-esque nightmare as far as getting what you want), so I'm now serious about the new Pilot.l
As far as exterior looks, it's so subjective -- but I think Honda did o.k., and coming from a Sequoia, I want something big and tough looking, not swoopy and curvy. The interior is another story, and I'm really picky, like most of you. My current Sequoia, everyone screamed about how awful the interior was when it came out in 2001. I waited forever for the redesign, secure in the knowledge that Toyota couldn't possibly make it worse, and yet they did make it worse (I'm talking about the appearance of the dash). Total deal-killer.
I'm getting really mixed signals on the Pilot's interior. It looks o.k. to me, in a busy MDX sort of way, but then I read about the poor fit and finish, and the cheap materials, I know I'm just going to have to see it in person to know if it's acceptable. Note to designers: can't you tell by now that screwing up the dash is a huge mistake? GM lost countless sales for years because they dashboards were stuck in 1978 for about 25 years.
Finally, what I was really concerned about, it seems like Honda's finally licked. With every Honda I've researched, invariably it's: "ROAD NOISE." And I really like a quiet car. But several of the mini-reviews have mentioned how quiet and contained the new Pilot is, so that's a good sign.
Can't wait to drive it and decide what to do. This wouldn't be my first Honda, as I purchased a 1983 Prelude new and loved it.
Question for other would-be purchasers: are you going to go 2wd or 4wd? Dealers I've talked to in Florida strongly urge me not to get 4wd, but I think it's a good thing because doesn't it increase stability if there's lots of water on the road, like after a severe rain (forgetting for the moment we're in severe drought). Anyway, dealers I've been to give me the "Why do you want 4wd? It just adds weight and you lose mileage" Is 4wd only for the snowy regions?
Thanks all,
Jim
http://www.mbz.org/articles/lighting/parking/
It tells you why the Honda engineers and I expect that all the engineers of other car manufacturers have decided to implement the dreadful red light as rear turning lights.
Amber rear turn signals are an utterly basic component of a proper automotive lighting system, it's shameful to treat safety devices as stylistic toys, but having just returned the other day from a large automotive lighting technology congress in France, I can say you haven't got the whole story. I spoke with the BMW exterior lighting chief, and he told me they wanted to use the same type of amber rear signal on their US-market E90 3er as they use everywhere else in the world, but the US DOT objected. This type of "hidden" amber rear signal uses a clear bulb with a green plastic balloon over it, all behind a rose-red (dark pink) lens. The result is a lamp that looks red when off, but shines amber when on. It's subtractive color mixing. The technique has been in use for about 13 years or so -- no problem, such signals work fine and don't notably degrade with age or use. But, the DOT said the green plastic for the balloon was not on the list of approved plastic materials for use in car lights, and they kept saying "no!" or simply stalling and not answering at all regardless of how much test data BMW submitted. Finally DOT said "OK", but by then it was too late; in order to meet production schedules, BMW had to make an alternate choice for the US market. They could've gone to a plain amber lens, or a clear lens with amber bulb, but for whatever reason (probably related to tooling cost), the red lens was their emergency "Plan B". This is the same reason why the first-year Audi A8 had these green-ballon/pink-lens/amber-light rear turn signals, but subsequent years had red lenses: DOT bitched about the green balloons being made out of an unapproved plastic
Equally,
Chrysler for example plays with it, back and forth, red to amber and back to red, as a stylistic toy. The newest Jeeps all have red, after many years of using amber, for instance.
Furthermore,
Red ones would be almost marginally tolerable if they were all the combination brake/turn type, but immediately-adjacent, colorimetrically- and photometrically-identical separate red brake and turn lights duelling with each other make it very difficult to acquire the vehicle's signalling messages quickly and accurately in traffic. It's known that following drivers react significantly more quickly and accurately to a vehicles *brake* lamps if the vehicle's turn signals are amber rather than red, but nobody's bothered doing a study in actual traffic, so while all the regulators know red ones are dumb and amber ones are good, the automakers' lobbyists prevent legislating for amber rear signals in North America. "Show us the pile of dead bodies!" (the Ford guy actually said "It's the only light that flashes on the back of the car, why does it need to be a different color?".)
Also the 2009 MPG ratings are BETTER than the 2008.
Perhaps other members could know better than me but i still think that 4WD is only with the VTM-4 (i.e. 4WD). The VCM is only with the 2WD.
Varying speed is not ideal for VCM.
Anyway, EPA numbers does not reflect the advantage of VCM.
Varying speed is not ideal for VCM.
That is the old VCM that is no longer used, also, the EPA has new testing standards for MY2008. They no longer used 48mph as a highway speed. According to the EPA, they test cars at "faster speeds & acceleration, air conditioner use and colder outside temperatures". The 2009 Pilot was tested under these conditions and only rated 16/22.