Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
I am using a ScanGaugeII in place of the trip computer, which is missing on 07/08 CX9.
I just re-read the entire Pilot 2009 thread from the point in June when real users/owners were posting (versus the many pages before it actually was in the wild). I would say the only issues reported by multiple people so far has been the exterior noise, probably from the tires, and some rattling from various parts, such as the optional cross bars. I think there is some legitimacy to this. I hear some exterior noise if I don’t have the radio on and it does sound like the tires to me. And I have had some minor rattles when I hit rough road, though I haven’t isolated if they are car parts or content yet (there are so many storage spaces with loose items and car seat tethers, etc.).
I’m sure the Pilot’s electronics won’t be perfect, certainly not in every car (and the same could be said of any car), but it doesn’t sound like there is evidence of systemic issues yet either
I test drove the Highlander more than any of the others too. I kept coming back to it as our default since my wife loves her Sienna (and loved the Lexus RX300 before that) and liked the familiarity of the Highlander seating, drive and controls, not to mention reliability and the convenience of a nearby dealer. So I really wanted to like it. I suspect the problem in the end is that while the Highlander on paper is in a similar class as the Pilot and CX-9 it must really be aimed at a different group, for whom the third row seat is a cute extra for very occasional use. It’s designed for a family with two kids or less who usually will be hauling not more than 4 people and only need the convertible third row on rare, select occasions. For us with three kids and car seats, plus frequent guests in the car and the design to travel with all of them and luggage on road trips, the Highlander makes no sense. My default configuration on the Pilot already includes having the 40 of the 60/40 split in seat configuration and the 60 in cargo configuration. That’s not even possible with the Highlander. And there is a substantial difference in comfort and capacity in the thid row seating between the Highlander and most of the competition. I could not comfortably fit in the Highlander third row even on short trips but I can in the Pilot (and could have in the CX-9). This seat will have grandparents in it. The Highlander can’t handle that.
But what bugged me almost as much as the third row was the lack of a real 3-seat second row. Again, this must appeal to a certain market, just not us. If you want a pass-through, seriously, get the mini-van; it will get comparable or better MPG and have more cargo capacity and much more flexibility and ease of access. We already have one for all these reasons. The optional middle seat for the Highlander just isn’t a full seat. You can’t fit most combos of three car seats across the way you can with the others, and you definitely can’t have an adult sit there comfortably – we tried. So it is really a 6.5 seat vehicle, with only 4 real seats. I consider all 8 of the Pilot seats “real” by comparison, and I am 6’1”.
(I ended up seriously reconsidering the Acura again with the deals so good on the ‘08’s (really, it could be had for $5K more than the Pilot), but it was similarly the seating that kept us away. Like the Highlander, it really only has 6.5 seats of which only 4 can handle adults.)
The seating was the driving factor but after that the little things bothered me about the Highlander. The lack of memory seats on a Limited with a $40K MSRP should be criminal. By comparison the pilot not only has memory seats, but ties it to the side mirrors and a variety of user controls including dash display, lighting and door locking options that can vary by user (it would have been nice to control the radio and climate like some luxury brands do but alas ). I also was really bothered by the rear view visibility in the Highlander. If you put the RES screen down, combined with the rear headrests they create a perfect storm that cuts rear visibility to almost zero. Really poor design. The gimmicky pop-out/GBA version of the CX-9’s RES had this problem too, but neither the Pilot or the CX-9’s conventional RES did – they sat higher in the visibility and only slightly obstructed the view. The loose-y steering (it really drives identically to our Sienna, so been there done that), NAV motion lock-out and lack of iPod integration rounded out my main gripes. These aren’t deal breaker by themselves but it was just hard to get excited about the perks of the car without them. The nav would have been mostly useless whereas we are using it even when we don’t have to in the Pilot just because its so fun (I’m sure that will wear off).
The CX-9 versus the Pilot was a much closer call for us – styling and ride (CX-9) versus features, space, deal and confidence in the dealer. Honestly it could have gone either way. We ended up competitively quoting on all three from all kinds of dealers within a 50 minute radius. If the CX-9 dealers had been as aggressive as the Honda ones around here, who knows. Both are great cars. With the CX-9 my “excitement factor” would have been the drive itself. With the Honda it’s the built-in toys. If they fix the cabin tech for the ’09 CX-9 it may be my favorite
Anyway, that was our decision process. All are great vehicles and I can certainly see why each would be the choice for different drivers. I don’t expect to become one of those cheerleaders who can only defend and pitch my car in these comparisons. Good luck for those who haven’t settled or closed a deal yet
It should have been in the car in the first place, especially since this is essentially Mazda's flagship vehicle.
I guess I shouldn't complain too much, though, since the Acadia didn't even have bluetooth until the upcoming 2009 model. Now that's a huge oversight...
BTW, it really does seem that Mazda has listened. The Mazda6 tech features are much much better then the CX-9. By a long shot. I do believe that the full iPod integration will now show your play lists on the display screen, from what I understand.
Now if Mazda along with the AV enhancements could un-restrict the nav while driving and do like Honda/Acura with a user opt-in release of liability it would truly be the best in class in my opinion...
Oversights like that are part of the reasons we didn't buy the Highlander (no split 3rd row) or the Acadia (no bluetooth).
The dilemma for manufacturers is figuring out how to balance the individual needs/wants of consumers with building an economically-feasible, mass-produced product.
It is a very difficult "game" to play, as you'll inevitably disappoint those whose "must-have" features didn't make the cut.
For me, the Highlander hits most of my gadget wish-list: Bluetooth, power rear door, rear backup camera that's not dependent on Navigation, and Smart Key. I don't need memory seats and the 3rd row will remain stowed most of the time anyway, so I'm not too bothered by it not being split.
The more I see the CX-9 on the road, the more I like the way it looks. However, it's just too long (the extra 10 inches makes a difference), and I'm not as confident about reliability and resale as I am with the Highlander (which may be more perception than reality).
It's not an excuse. It's a simple rule of developing a mass-produced product.
I'm not arguing that it's not a deal-breaker for you. Memory seats are a requirement for you. The Highlander doesn't offer it. I'm guessing Toyota is betting there are more people like me who don't see it as a deal-breaker than there are folks like you who'll cross the Highlander off their shopping list.
If they guess wrong, then sales will suffer. If sales suffer, then it's likely those features contributing to the shortfall will be added in the future (if feasible). I hardly see that as "cynicism."
All manufacturers do this. They have to. You can't build a vehicle that has 100% of all the features that every person would want to have. It's impossible. We're all different.
GM is adding Bluetooth to its vehicles for 2009 after years of exclusively offering OnStar as a substitute. Why? Because I'm sure they found that they lost enough sales due to the lack of Bluetooth to make it worthwhile to rethink their strategy.
Similarly, Mazda is adding a trip computer to the CX-9. Why? It's probably come up as an omission that's impacted sales.
Toyota guessed that they could eliminate the 4-cylinder model for the '08 redesign. Obviously that hurt sales. So what comes out in 2009? An entry-level 4-cylinder model.
I just don't see this huge "Toyota conspiracy." Like any other manufacturer, they have to find the right mix of features at the right price that meets as many needs as possible. No matter what mix of features a manufacture chooses, they can't and won't please everyone.
I wager any amount of money that memory seats show up on the Highlander Limited within 2 years – it would have been sooner but the scale back in the ’09 production may have slowed it. This won’t be Toyota “responding to the customer.” This will be Toyota executing the next step in a plan that has been on the drawing board for years.
That is what is cynical about it.
Let us hope that Toyota, Honda, and Mazda (Ford) follow suit. Direct Injection is the technology that improve torque (therefore horsepower) of gas ICE by 5-10%. We will see DI as common as overhead cam today within 5 years.
It looks like your wish just got granted.
8-way power driver's seat is now available on Highlander 2009 model.
Also available is the 4-cylinder (2.7L) engine with 2-row of seats.
"The new engine will come standard on the Highlander grade two-wheel-drive model equipped with two rows of seats, contributing to its excellent value. A third row seat package will also be available for families requiring additional seating capacity. Other key optional equipment will include an eight-way power driver's seat, manual rear air conditioning, and an AM/FM/six-disc CD Changer with satellite radio capability, MP3/WMA capability and six speakers."
Any word on whether they fixed the third-row seat? That would truly make it more competitive.
2nd: Highlander: 8070 (1277 hybrids) = 6793 (excluding hybrids)
3rd: CX-9: 3173
For me that is better than looking down at your dash when viewing the camera while backing up.
Folks seems to have posted Aug sales figures. Nice doing Pilot .. I bet Pilot's numbers are mostly due to incentive/rebate pricing more than its real-world MPG .. but gas prices are slowly settling down, mebbe its not as big a concern anymore .?
Thoughts guys ..?
I've got a million questions, but my primary one right now is with the size difference between the Highlander and the Pilot. My assumption based on seeing them on the highways is that the Pilot is considerably larger. But after looking at the cubic feet of cargo room I'm perplexed - the Highlander shows a max of 95 cu. ft and the Pilot only 88. (I'm assuming "max cargo" means with all rear seats folded down)
Are these 2 suv's really in the same class? Are my eyes deceiving me?? Thanks!
Sorry; now I think I know what you were referring to: the cyclical (not "cynical") way that Toyota adds features. The product plan is probably set for the entire life cycle of the current design. I'm sure we'll see those memory seats in 2011, which should be the mid-cycle refresh.
I'd go back to my original statement, though: if the lack of memory seats was a huge factor for people not purchasing the Highlander, then it's pretty obvious that Toyota is missing the mark by not equipping its vehicles with them from the very start. I would be willing to wager that's not the case and that the feature just isn't as important relative to others. That's not to say it isn't important to you.
I guess the same "cyclical" criticism could be applied to all manufacturers and how they manage their products. Honda usually adds a "special edition" in the final year of a design to boost sales. Should owners during the early years of the design feel deprived that it wasn't offered from the very beginning?
If I had to make the choice all over again, I still would buy CX9. Highlander and Pilot simply don't have all the features that I wanted, besides the styling and driving dynamics.
You should go sit in them and check them out carefully.
I usually pick an autoshow (there should be one near you at certain time of the year) and sit in vehicles before my decision is made. Doing this can avoid pressure from salespersons.
You should also check out the CX9 while you are at that. It has 100.7cu.ft of cargo space.
My point remains the same -- to intentionally hold back Limited options Toyota has already developed for the same seat and that they know some of their customers will want just so they can use it as a selling point for a new model a few years later is cynical, or certainly not very respectful to their customers. I will grant you this -- clearly if Toyota believed it was a make-or-break for a huge portion of customers they wouldn't do this. But they know it is an issue for a subset of customers and they don't hold it back as you suggest for economic reasons (since they would profit from it) or because they can't prioritize it (since they've already developed it for the seats they are re-purposing from other models). Their sole reason is to have a marketing point for a new model year. They have it planned that way from before the first car of the first model year every sees the light of day.
Highlander: HID headlights, split 3rd row, power front seats (w/ memory)
Pilot: HID headlights, smart-key system, amber signal lights (dislike red ones),
also, 6-speed tranny with M-mode.
Yes, I've been following the posts. Thanks for asking. You may want to double check that post you're referring to (#217, I believe), as it mentions that an 8-way power driver's seat will be optional on the 4-cylinder model that's introduced in January. An 8-way power driver's seat is already standard on the Sport and Limited.
There's nothing about a memory option being added. If I'm looking in the wrong place, please share your source.
I'm curious where the Highlander's seats are being repurposed from? Which model shares the same seats?
Maybe you'd be happier if Toyota took the approach Chrysler did with their full size vans, where a mid-80s van was essentially the same as one bought 10 years later, with no new features or improvements over the vehicle's life cycle?
If there is one thing Toyota good about doing -- it brings Lexus engines/transmissions to common folks vehicles (Toyota) real fast. Talk about VVT-i, variable intake, variable exhaust, direct-injection, 6-speed transmissions, electric-steering, 50-state strict emissions, excellent MPG, and Hybrids. These are buzzwords talked-about by any other Luxo-makers, where as, Toyota brings'em to low-priced models real fast., more importantly, makes'em real affordable to you-and-me folks !! By the way, all these features work now, and will work 12 years from now (its not like a pricey 5-transistor radio is necessarily better than 1 transistor radio, 60's lore :-) )
What it can't offer is free/cheap-priced third-party/suppliers sourced parts., because real money goes-out for each such feature !!
If all you want is more bang-for-buck, but have questionable reliability/resale/warranty-support/dealer-network/reputation., try a korean-make/korean-sourced-vehicle or something ..
But to me you're responses seem unnecessarily defensive of them. My point is not that they don't make great cars, overall, or aren't a great engineering and marketing company. My point was that they have made a choice to consciously hold back features that would cost them virtually nothing to offer (due to the fact that they have already developed them and are already basically reusing previously designed parts) and generate a profit as user options on high end trims, for the sole purpose of being able to add it later. I have and still reject your notion that they left it out year one simply to prioritize what they develop or save money on the trim or because they didn’t believe their customer’s wanted it until they got feedback from the first couple years of production. None of these make logical sense given the facts (they have already developed it and are re-using seat designs that include it in other vehicles; it would only improve the profit margin of a Limited trim since it could be an option so the economic argument makes no sense; and they do this consistently with most of their higher-end vehicles in year 2-4, so the idea that each time they didn’t perceive a customer demand for it and only responded after the fact is ludicrous, especially given the lead time for development – they had to already have the memory sat in the ’09 plan before the re-designed ’08 even hit the showroom). Now we may disagree on whether Toyota consciously holding it back from customers for a couple years to introduce as a model upgrade later is cynical. I think it is but that’s just my opinion. But I am stumped that you can cling to the ideas that they held it back for economic, design priority or customer demand reasons. Again, I have no expectation of changing your opinion so I’m just moving on
1. Every feature costs something to offer.
2. None of the Toyota press documents regarding the 2009 Highlander mention the addition of a memory seat option for 2009.
3. Still waiting to find out which model shares the same seats as the Highlander.
4. This is all basic product management. There are trade-offs in every product that's developed; you simply can't offer every feature to satisfy every individual need.
5. If basic product management is considered a "cynical" way of doing business, then virtually every for-profit company doing business today is a "cynic."
I'll leave it at that. We can pick up this debate in 2011, when I'd expect the mid-cycle refresh to occur and those memory seats to become available.
So Mazda has to be happy with the numbers, probably not as happy with the incentives they have to give, but hey, they have to keep the lines working near capacity, I guess.
The Highlander and Pilot, while nice cars, were too "trucky" for my wife's taste. She loves the CX-9, so I guess I have no choice but to be happy...
My daughter who often sits in the 3rd row was not shy to inform me that there is
no A/C vent for the 3rd passengers. As an ex-minivan owner, I am very surprised by it. I hope Mazda fix that over-sight soon.
Toyota is not the only company with variable intake, variable exhaust, direct-injection, 6-speed transmissions, electric-steering, 50-state strict emissions, excellent MPG. I can think of a half dozen other mfgr's that offer that same technology.
I need to go check if they are blocked by the all-weather mats I installed.
I excluded the 2009 Pilot for the bus-like look and ride. Also '09 interior looked more like a bus rather than a family CUV. LOL, even 2008 Pilot interior looked much better than 2009, but when I was ready to buy most of the '08 Pilots were gone.
Highlander didn't excite me for the following reasons: a) Everyone and their mother drives one. Certain color combinations were sold at a premium( don't believe me? go find Pearl Highlander with Black leather). The 2nd and 3d row seats didn't pass a test with my 2 boys. They complained that the seats are not very comfortable and the third row space is joke. I hated the non-split 3d row bench too. And finally, the styling of Highlander didn't talk to me. It reminded me a Nissan Maxima 2002-2004: decent car with no character.
So in final running there were Acura MDX and CX-9. Given I was not looking for a Navi package, they came very close and I might've ended up with Acura if I was not offered a great deal for CX-9 Grand Touring that basically had exactly the options/ext color/interior color I wanted. I absolutely like the handling of CX-9, the silky smooth transmission (although would prefer the 1st gear a bit longer). The manual override on CX-9 is absolute best IMHO. The ebony interior looks fantastic with grey leather accents (much better than ebony interior on Acura). And of course, the exterior style is astonishing.
If you end up getting a CX-9, get Liquid Platinum Metallic Crystal White. IMHO the best colors for this car.
Use this link compare CX-9 with Highander or Pilot.
Well i got the Liquid Platinum Metallic but really liked the Crystal White Pearl Mica. I have yet to see a blend of the two colors but it sure sounds interesting.
After reading these Forums for the better part of the last month, I felt like I had to tell you about my deal in hopes of helping someone else out.
I decided to Lease a CX-9 GT, List Price $41K for $503 (including 9% PA Sales Tax) for 24 Months W/15K/Year. All I put down was 1st month and inception, which came to $8xx dollars.
While I might be giving up some more functionality from both Physical and Technical Aspects with the Pilot, I feel good knowing I am getting a 2nd Year Production Vehicle that meets 95% of my families day to day needs.
Also, I went with the 24 month lease because I have no idea where gas prices will be in the future and I do not want to be stuck to a long term commitment realizing that there will be a great deal more fuel efficient SUV's coming to market in the next few years.
Hope this information helps someone out in SE Pennsylvania.
Thanks and Good Luck.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
a couple of questions I have (any info. would be greatly appreciated)
1. do any/all of these cars require premium gas?
2. does the glass on the rear gate open independently of the gate itself (I know that it does for the Pilot, but not sure of the other two)
3. also, does the remote allow you to pop the rear gate open like a remote open trunk feature on some cars?
This is actually an important feature for me as me/wife are often approaching the car with both hands full of groceries, and a remote trunk/gate open is very handy
I know that there is a "powergate" option that allows you to close the gate remotely, but I'm asking about a more simple feature that just allows you to pop open the trunk/gate remotely (not close it remotely, which requires a piston/motor)
4. for the dvd systems, can the dvd player be controlled by the stereo/media controls on the front panel, or can it only be controlled by the remote control?
thxs again!
1) None of the three require premium gas.
2) As you said, the Pilot has this feature.
3) Yes, you can open the tailgate with the remote. You can close it with the remote too (at least with the Touring)
4) You can control the audio of the rear DVD from the front controls but not the DVD features itself (menu navigation, play, pause, etc.). However, the remote detaches from the DVD system itself (which is better than having to store it somewhere) and can then be controlled from the front or anywhere in the car. However the front nav screen does not play the video so it can be challenging to control from the front without seeing it. The Toyota can display the video from the front but only when parked. I believe the same is true of the CX-9, but I am just guessing (since the nav is provided by the same company as the Toyota).
Good luck.
1) It does not require premium gas.
2) Rear glass does open independently of the gate itself.
3) Not sure about just popping the gate open, mine is equipped with a power open/close that can be controlled from the driver's seat or from the fob, and I'm glad it goes all the way up. I too have been approaching the car with a cart full of groceries and the power open is awesome! If you open remotely, you can close manually and vice/versa.
4) Don't have the rear-seat DVD. Don't believe in kids.
Hope it helps!