Honda Pilot vs Mazda CX-9 vs Toyota Highlander

4kids3dogs2cat · November 2008

For us, it was different. We had lots of kids (4) and no grandparents, so we much prefer the captains chairs in the 2nd row instead of the bench seat. For two reasons. First, with the captains chairs it was much easier to get access to the third row. You didn't have to slide any seats or do anything. No pinched fingers or any hassle. Once the kids are big enough to not need car seats, they can just walk between the captains chairs on the way to the third row as long as the minivan or crossover doesn't have a console storage thing in between the captains chairs that can't be removed.

The other thing is that with the captains chairs, the kids are seperated in the middle row and can't fight over little things such as touching each other or inane childish activity.

tourguide · November 2008

seperated in the middle row and can't fight over little things such as touching each other or inane childish activity.

This is really a false sense of assurance that this type of activity will not occur simply due to the captain's chairs. If you feel better about your choice this way, fine, but there is no difference in vehicle dimensions between the two options of bench or bucket seats back there and the last time I checked, sibling arms do not magically shrink when entering the vehicle. Of course your vehicle may have certain magical properties I am not aware of.

4kids3dogs2cat · November 2008

You're mistaken. It's not a false sense of anything. Our previous minivan had a middle bench and we had infighting problems that were alleviated when we bought the new minivan with the captains chairs. For example, favorite toys or stuffed animals that slid across the bench seat to the other kid while the car made a turn magically don't slide anymore when there are captains chairs instead. It was a fact for us, not false anything.

Of course, that was equalled in importance by the much easier access to the third row. Two important reasons to get the captains chairs, IMO.

tourguide · November 2008

OK - anything you say.

In our experience any horsing around was in no way prevented by captains chairs but then our kids do get along really well. The separation of a few inches may be just the trick some families need to accomplish vehicular eutopia.

guy1974 · November 2008

No real navigation screens on the higher specs and as an option. I like that on the base Traverse (and no doubt the other lambda's in due course) (<$29K) you have voice navigation which is better than nothing. To get Nav in a Honda or others you need to spend well over $30K (MSRP in all cases).

I have three children so am weighing up captains chairs vs bench. One advantage with the bench is you get the full trunk with the third row fully folded down. Whereas if one child in marooned back there the trunk shrinks significantly and double strollers, pack and plays etc take up a lot of space (never mind home depot trips)

thegraduate · November 2008

One advantage with the bench is you get the full trunk with the third row fully folded down. Whereas if one child in marooned back there the trunk shrinks significantly and double strollers, pack and plays etc take up a lot of space (never mind home depot trips)

You can fold down half the seat in vehicles like the Pilot. Do the GM sisters not have a split-fold rear seat?

guy1974 · November 2008

Of course the GM vehicles have split fold seats just like the Honda/Acura sisters. Why wouldn`t they?
But you still lose half the expanded trunk if you have someon ein the third row - just a fact. The lambdas have 64cu ft with the third row folded down, 24 cu ft with them up, so I expect somewhere in the middle (say 45 cuf t) with one seat up. Just stating the obvious, no need to argue.

citivas · November 2008

You can fold down half the seat in vehicles like the Pilot. Do the GM sisters not have a split-fold rear seat?

Actually, its even better. You can chose to fold down either 60% or 40% of the third row in the Pilot, rather than just 50/50 like the CX-9 and others with 7 seat capacity. This has two advantages over 50/50: 1) If you only need one person in the third row you end up with more storage capacity; 2) It mirrors the second row, which is less awkward and more efficient than the 60/40-50/50 fold-down combo. I believe the GM line is like the Pilot in this regard.

thegraduate · November 2008

Of course the GM vehicles have split fold seats just like the Honda/Acura sisters. Why wouldn`t they?

Not all the vehicles in this discussion offer that feature (Toyota doesn't, for one). Why don't they? Ask the manufacturers, not me!

guy1974 · November 2008

I took from your comment an anti-GM bias. I may be mistaken and apologise if that is the case. The lambda's have a full range of equipment and option availability.

thegraduate · November 2008

Ah, looking back, I should've worded it differently. I'm not really anti-anything except Chrysler, admittedly. Products today from most manufacturers are all quite good.

Personally, I don't have a horse in this race - I drive a Honda Accord, and wanted to like the Pilot a lot, but found it slow and feeling a bit too big. I started monitoring this thread when my folks were car shopping and had no idea what they wanted (looking at vehicles like the Hyundai VeraCruz); they've since ended up in the new Ford Taurus, with Sync. Neat car!

guy1974 · November 2008

I understand. I really wanted to like the Pilot too, but the front end styling and the quality of the cloth were off putting.

citivas · November 2008

I ended up with the Pilot despite the look and my initial lack of enthusiasm for the drive, so I sympathize. I test drive it early and walked away pretty sure I wouldn't get it. But the more I test drove other cars (Toyota, Mazda, Acura, BMW, Audi, Volvo, GM models, Fords Flex), the more I was amazed that none of them, even the luxury models, had the same range of features as the Pilot (only the Ford with MS Sync came close on features). The luxury lines all had nearly useless third rows and uncomfortable middles seats in the second rows. And even most of them didnt have the same degree of cabin tech the Honda did. Even its Acura cousin doesnt have fully-integrated iPod control from the nav screen or voice command. That may be a trivial feature to some but our family LOVES it. We use it every day, more than radio.

So in the end we went with the model that had all the features we wanted. Everyone is different  we prioritized features and space in the end over look or drive. I still dont like the look, but interestingly I completely changed my mind about the drive and really like it now. I think the problem was I was used to the 6-gear cars that just have a different feel for acceleration. When I test drove it, it seems sluggish on acceleration; it felt heavy. But once I drove it enough after buying it I found its groove (i.e. the right way to accelerate) and now find it quite responsive. In fact I have tested its 0-60 times and done well better than what was reported in numerous reviews, so I wonder if the testers needed a similar learning curve. And while I have not tried the emergency braking test, I definitely find its typical use braking superior in feel to the Toyota Sienna we own or the Highlander my in-laws own

For what its worth, the Pilot has sold itself to my friends, without even trying. I have had two people so far who spent time driving with me in mine who subsequently got one. I wasnt trying to sell them on it and in fact pointed out that their situations were different than mine (in terms of family size, etc.). But they were both in the SUV market and became so impressed with it after spending long drives in it that they changed their minds. One of them was about to get the Volvo and could have leased it for exactly the same terms (actually slightly better terms) as the Pilot and went with the Pilot. They hadnt even had it on their radar prior to driving with me.

aviboy97 · November 2008

I test drive it early and walked away pretty sure I wouldn't get it. But the more I test drove other cars (Toyota, Mazda, Acura, BMW, Audi, Volvo, GM models, Fords Flex), the more I was amazed that none of them, even the luxury models, had the same range of features as the Pilot

Such as??

citivas · November 2008

At the time (in August) there were no other CUV's with 8 seat capacity, integrated iPod (as in you control it through the car, not just an aux port), a great nav system that could be programmed (by a passenger) while driving, integrated sat radio, integrated Bluetooth, the ability to control the radio, sat, iPod and climate control through voice commands in addition to nav and phone control, etc. Various vehicles had some of these things but not all. The Flex came close but was 7 seat, had limited tow capacity and was not useful off-road (and I didnt like how low it sat or the drive). I loved the CX-9 but for the inability to have integrated iPod and sat radio in a workable solution, lack of a trip computer, lack of control of rear climate from the front and the smaller third row. I've read the '09 addresses some of this. The GM's amazingly didn't have Bluetooth even as an option at the time (though they do for '09), which was a non-starter for me  I use it every day. The Toyota isn't even in the ballpark with no split-third row, no memory seat, a useless nav while driving, and a limited second row. The Acura, BMW and Audi all had uselessly small third rows (even my 7 and 10 years olds didnt like how cramped there were) and poor middle seats in the second rows, and all had worse mileage and required premium fuel to boot. Etc.

Again, these were my criteria. Others value different things. If I was picking primarily on the best drive or look, I would have ended up with the Pilot. In the end, only the CX-9 seriously tempted me other than the Pilot and if the 09 had been out and really fixed full iPod integrated with sat radio and a decent trip computer I might have gone for it, though I would have missed the 8th seat which weve had to use surprisingly often.

golic · November 2008

Hello group-

My '05 Pilot is coming off lease in the next 75 days. When I last shopped the market, I had 2 kids in car seats and 2 kids in booster seats. Our family car is a minivan - but of course our second car is a family car as well and I just can't bring myself to own 2 mini's.

Back in '05 the Pilot was the car (and only) car where I could put two boosters in the back seat and the kids could buckle themselves. Although, I did have to modify one of the boosters due to the 40% split.

My main concern these days is the room behind the 3rd row. I am down to 1 car seat and 1 booster seat...but my needs today are to travel with baseball bags, soccer gear and hockey bags. I can "just" barely get a hockey bag and a stick in the back of the Pilot.

Do any of these cars have superior behind the 3rd row space, without giving up too much in either width or 2nd/3rd row seating?

Thanks for your thoughts.

citivas · November 2008

golic, of the cars I tested, the Pilot and the GM vehicles had the most space behind the third row, though not as much as a mini-van. Both of those also have the 60/40 split for the third row which gives you more storage/passenger flexibility than the 50/50 split the 7-seaters have. The '09 Pilot is a little larger than the previous model Pilot so it should exceed what your current situation is. That said, I wouldn't consider it easy to have 2 boosters side-by-side on the 60% bench with the 40% down, if that's what you're describing. I have done it, but it was hard to buckle the seats when they were that jammed together. It is super easy for the kids to buckle them for themselves when they were sitting on either end of the third row.

aviboy97 · November 2008

Picky, are we?? J/K!! :shades:

I do like how the Pilot has intuitive driver control over various things such what you mentioned. Honda did a great job with that.

For 09, the CX-9 now has an updated more user friendly nav system, as well as a fully integrated iPod control from the touch screen with sat radio and Bluetooth audio! They also added the long over due fuel computer. You still do not have full control over the nav system while driving. You can only use pre set information from your address book or memory points.

The driver does have control over the rear climate, however, it is only done via the driver climate settings, and the driver cannot change ther rear climate that would differ from the driver.

golic · November 2008

Thanks citvas. One other question. Out of all the GM vehicles you looked at, which would you say is worth taking a look at?

citivas · November 2008

Good to hear about the CX-9. Nice improvements to an already great car. Mazda does seem more responsive to consumer feedback than, say, Toyota, which still hasn't corrected the single-piece third row bench despite it being a top complaint from people for years. How hard could it be?

On the "fuel computer," what is its range of functionality and how is it physically integrated into the car (i.e. is it in the dash, the center console, overhead, etc)? The Mazda site doesn't seem to have been updated to detail the '09 improvements yet, beyond a press release (that you have to search for) which describes them only generally. Does it show discrete pressure for each tire or give any maintenance feedback or is it just trip/fuel? I like how my Honda will tell me when and what type of service and that I dont have any need to worry about it until it chimes in. Its also nice how it doesnt simply determine an oil change by time or miles but by more comprehensive criteria. Some people have gone over 10,000 miles before it determined they needed an oil change and Honda considers that appropriate and more accurate. I also like how the computer allows discrete user settings tied to the individual keys, so my wife any I can have different preferences for things like when the doors auto-lock/unlock, how long the interior and exterior lights stay on after turning the car off, etc., though even more control over things like radio station presets and default climate control settings as some of the luxury brands have would have been even better.

Its unfortunate that it still defeats user control of the nav when driving 5 MPH or greater (which my Mazda dealer didn't even realize until I showed him on the test drive), though the core problem is that Mazda, Toyota (and I think GM) all license their navs from the same Australian-based company that does it this way. I understand the legal reasons why, but I don't accept them. Honda/Acura, Garmin, Tom Tom, Navtec, etc. all accomplish the same protection with a simple disclaimer screen the driver has to accept at the beginning of each session. I understand the idea of not tempting the driver with a dangerous behavior, but that completely undermines the potential for a passenger to manage the navigation, as we do in our household on longer trips.

Oh well, I learned a long tie ago you really cant have it all. There are always trade-offs. The CX-9 gets pretty close though

citivas · November 2008

I spent less time with the GM vehicles than some others so I wouldn't consider myself a good authority. Of the three (Buick Enclave, GMC Arcadia, Saturn something-or-other) my gut reaction is to focus on the Buick for one simple reason: If GM and/or Chrysler are forced to go through restructuring they are likely to discontinue some of their brands and focus on those that are the most successful. Of those three, Buick is the most successful, particularly overseas (it is a popular brand in China believe it or not). I wouldn't put money on either the GMC or Saturn brand surviving long term (or if GMC does survive it may only be for trucks). The other benefit of the Buick brand is it is considered premium (like Hondas Acura) and often the dealers provide better service benefits like free loaner cars and car washes after servicing, etc. Despite this, they are priced almost identically for the top trims so there is very little disincentive to get their luxury brand, assuming you were in the market for the "loaded" version like I was. If you want a more economical trim, I didnt look into it but my guess is youd be better off with the GMC or Saturn.

If those issues don't concern you, you should decide based totally on styling preference. All are essentially the same car mechanically but they have very different trims. Oddly enough, I kind of liked the GMC a little better than the Buick myself. The Buick had choices I thought were designed to appeal to my parents more than me (like a large part of the center console being designed to feature an old fashioned analog clock) but that is totally subjective. Though I did like the cool blue ambient lighting in the Buick

If youre going for the GM line, do a lot of pricing research here first (these boards, not the Edmunds real world pricing tool which is rarely aggressive enough). I found GM dealers and marketing less than straight-forward on pricing. When they last did their huge employee pricing promotion in the summer the discount was less competitive than I knew from here that people were already getting and well less than the comparable discounts on the Hondas or Mazdas, for example. If you are paying above dealer invoice on these vehicles at this time you probably can do better Good luck.

ceric · November 2008

When it comes to gadgetry, to each one's own preferences. I love CX9's Smart Key Start and Entry, HID, Blind Spot Monitor (BSM) System. None of them can be found on Pilot. There are always some gadgetry available on one model that is not on the other.

Among all, the $200 BSM is an outstanding value. Own one and you will understand.
(especially useful in dark rainy nights) What a great invention from Volvo (to Ford then to Mazda).

guy1974 · November 2008

Interesting comments, now there is the Chevy version and Chevy will survive. Regarding Buick, they are doing very well in China but they, along with GMC and Pontiac (who are all one division for sales purposes), could disappear from North America.

nxs138 · November 2008

The Traverse is likely the way to go if you want GM. Since Chevy actually does sell small cars, it's a better bet on surviving than GMC, for example, but for me I just like the look of the Traverse better (but I did buy the CX-9 over all the GM products, couldn't get over the hesitant transmission and lack of bluetooth. The Traverse just seems like a nice fresh start, with direct injection and a nice bump in horsepower).

guy1974 · November 2008

I am looking at the Traverse and will get to sit in and test drive the CX9 in a few days time. Interested to know why you chose the CX9 over the Traverse. I agree with you the Traverse is good looking and a clean design. Bluetooth is a feature in the Traverse, although I won`t be using it. My main concern is the transmission, I know 07 and 08 models of the lambda had some issues but wondered if that had been solved by the bump in HP and more reprogramming.

aviboy97 · November 2008

The fuel computer display is integrated into the LCD screen in the center of the dash. There is an "info" button on the right side of the nav screen the you push, and the fuel computer will display in place of the clock. You can cycle through your current MPG in real time, average MPG since system was last reset and how many miles until empty.

Mazda does not have a system that alerts the driver as to when service is needed. My 1991 Accord had a system like that, amazingly. There was a little green square in the gauge cluster, and when service was needed, it turned to red.

4kids3dogs2cat · November 2008

Can someone tell me about the typical integrated Nav system in one of these cars? How useful are they? If I go with the CX-9 and want the power rear gate, I must buy the Nav system too. So I wonder if I will use it instead of mapquest.

Whenever we go on long trips to an unfamiliar destination or just to a local kids birthday party, we just go to mapquest on our home computer and print out the directions and take them with us before we leave. What extra advantages does an in-car Nav system get you? Thanks!

citivas · November 2008

I tested the navs quite a bit becaue it was one of the main decision criteria for me. And I use the one in the Pilot I eventually got often...

The nav in the CX-9 and Toyota are basically the same because each of them source it from the same company. The UI is a little different (I prefer the Toyota's) but that's about it. It is pretty good. It found even reasonably new streets in my test. It is as good as the typical Garmin or Tom Tom at the point it was released for comprehensiveness and accuracy, but those portables have the advantages of easy online updates which the integrated systems do not -- you can get the dealer to update the DVD every year or two but that's not quite the same... All of them integrated systems accept voice commands and in my experience do so even better than the portable units. I was able to get the Toyota to successfully and accurately navigate from the dealership to my house entirely with voice commands, never touching the display, after some trial and error. That's good because the downside of the nav in the Toyota, Mazda and GM, etc. is that it refuses to accept new input while the car is moving 5 MPH or faster, as a safety precaution, and there is no way to legally override this (there are some hacks described online that aren't pretty and invalidate your warranty), even if you have a passenger who could safely operate it. That is not a problem on the portable units. The higher-end portable units also are starting to have great extras line real-time traffic navigation, real-time updates based on conditions reported by other users on the road, real time info from the Internet, etc.

The Honda uses the same system in the Acura which is considered one of the best integrated systems available. The only feature the Honda drops from the Acura is real-time traffic, otherwise they are identical. I have owned a Garmin and Tom Tom portable and greatly prefer my Honda system over both, in terms of accuracy, UI, control, voice command, etc. It is the best system I have used from any car or portable in terms of effectively and rapidly re-routing if you go off-route, by accident or on-purpose. And it has a very effective "active lane guidance" system which visually helps you at complete interchanges, etc. know exactly which lane to be in. Works very well. We bought it from a dealer in a part of the state we had never been to before and my wife returned home in our other car using our Garmin. I got home no-problem and she didn't, all because of the lane guidance. It also llists the streets and turns by name, not just "at the next street" etc. which helps. Overall I am very happy with it. Oh, and it works while you drive, unlike the others...

Again, none of them are better than the portables for updatability or real-time data (except the Ford cars with Sync, which hopefully will come to Mazda eventually). But they are all way, way better than printing off of MapQuest.

Good luck.

golic · December 2008

I was impressed by pictures of the cargo space in the enclave...however this whole GM bailout thing has me at caution. Does anyone have thoughts or experience with looking at the enclave?

Thanks -

G.

aviboy97 · December 2008

I had the opportunity to sit in one at the New York Auto show. That was the extent of my experience. I did spend a good amount of time in it though.

At first glance, the car is B-E-A-UTIFUL!! It's also huge. Inside in nicely appointed. I liked the look of the wood grain interior, however, touch it and you quickly realize it's thin plastic. I was not overly impressed with the quality of materials, however, they are put together very well.

One down side to buying one is that GM does not lease them, and the are expensive compared to the competition.

6 months ago, you could not find one at your local dealer. Now, they are begging you to take one. Actually, we can say that about many of these 7 passenger CUV's right now.

First year reliability has not been great, but all issues seem to be the same with everyone. I've seen plenty of issues with squeaks and rattles as well as consistent problems with the steering system. Outside of that, they seem to be ok.

whatugiv · December 2008

G.
the enclave is a wonderful vehicle! I'd b happy to talk to you about all of the features and benefits.
talk to you soon.
John

ceric · December 2008

1st: Highlander: 6980 (+907 hybrids)
2nd: Pilot: 5601
3rd: CX-9: 1716

nxs138 · December 2008

Test drove the Enclave before buying the CX-9. Very nice vehicle inside and out, quiet ride, although it felt more sluggish and had more body roll than the Acadia and the the CX-9, and is definitely tuned for comfort and not for "sporty" driving. If you're into more of a "floaty" ride as opposed to a sports sedan feel, I'd recommend the Buick over the CX-9. At the time the Enclave had the transmission issue (hesitation, etc) and no bluetooth, and Buick wanted too much money for it, so it fell off our list. But with the new engines and features going in, I would definitely consider it if I was in the market.

Buick is here to stay,imo. Sells very well in Japan/China. I think the Chevy Traverse is also worth a look, it starts out cheaper than the Buick but has a nice interior. But the CX-9 trumps both of those, imo, I still can't get over how well I can carve the twisties with it! (as you can see, I prefer a somewhat more aggressive "tune" in a vehicle).

golic · December 2008

Thanks nxs, for that comparison. That does help. I do need to look at the cx-9, as well.

Which car would you say has the larger cabin? And what about the cargo space behind the 3rd row? Basically, I need something where I could put a hockey bag, baseball equipment bag behind it. Does one vehicle have a significant advantage over the other in behind the 3rd row storage?

nxs138 · December 2008

The Lambdas have more space behind the 3rd row than the CX-9. Of the Lambdas, the Buick seemed to have less room because of the interior panels, I believe, but you don't lose that much (you lose a bit in width, I believe, but again, not all that much).

With the 3rd row up in the CX-9, you'd barely be fitting a hockey bag back there, so the extra few inches of room in the Lambdas might help you. As a practical example, when the 3rd is up I can fit 2 rows of grocery bags nicely on the cargo floor. In the Lambdas, you might be able to fit 3 rows.

If storage space behind the 3rd row is critical, I hate to admit it but you'd be better off with a Lambda than the CX-9. The worse contender is the Highlander, you wouldn't be able to fit an umbrella stroller behind that 3rd row!

4kids3dogs2cat · December 2008

That's the great thing about the Sienna, it has the "storage well" behind the third seat which increases your storage space quite a bit because it is deep down and you can pile stuff up. I can't see why these crossovers can't have the same kind of setup. Advantage to the minivan in this regard..

nxs138 · December 2008

My dad bought a Sienna last year, and to tell the truth, it's very nice. Tons of space behind the 3rd row, much more than the Lambdas. It has a lot of pickup, might be just as fast or faster than all these crossovers. And ease of entry with the sliding doors is nice with the kids. Crossovers have nothing on the interior space of minivans, I can see why larger families should flock to minivans as compared to SUVs, if not only for all that space behind the 3rd row. Since we only have 2 kids, the CX-9 was more than enough.

If crossovers had that well, they would lose their "stylish" back end look (i.e. I guess you would really have bring the rear bumper down more to accomodate the longer door, and I guess the rear wheels would have to come forward a bit). But then again, there's no reason why they couldn't tweak a minivan to make it look more cross-overish, i.e. lose the sliding doors, and angle the back end a little more.....

ceric · January 2009

Highlander: 7761 (or 7781 - not sure) - including hybrids
Pilot: 6735
CX9: 2103

citivas · January 2009

We own a Sienna, just a few years old (still current model) and still in great shape with low mileage, and now an '09 Pilot. The entire family now prefers the Pilot and the Sienna is only getting used when when both cars in in use at the same time. Don't get me wrong, we love our Sienna too.

Overall, you definitely can fit more storage in the Sienna and definitely more if you have the full third row up for seating. And it is easier to access the third row and the rolling doors are very convenient. The downsides: You can't get an 8 seat version like our Pilot with the high end features and finishes (the second row bench is only available on the base model). As a related issue, the lack of a second row bench is also very limiting in terms of seating options for larger families. One of our three kids still has to be strapped into a 5-point harness in a child seat, requiring him to pragmatically be in the second row. In the Sienna this left only one seat available for an adult, requiring both grandparents to climb into the rear and be squished. In the Pilot they can both sit in the second row with more room than the Sienna third row. It has no factor-installed towing package and even the expensive after-market ones are limited by how low the back sits to the ground; The seating comfort for adults in the third row is much better in our Pilot than our Sienna. This surprised us, but my in-laws spend a lot of time there and said it was no contest. The AWD is not as good in the Sienna as the Pilot and it has no option to force it on as the Pilot does. The Sienna (no Toyotas yet) also doesn't offer iPod intergration, a critical feature for us. There are some other things we prefer about our Pilot over our Sienna but that's the top of mind. They get very similar gas mileage -- the Pilot does about 1 MPG better than the Sienna.

lithnights · February 2009

Citivas,
Still hanging around this board? I've read all your posts about the Pilot..very helpful. I wanted to ask how you manage to fit two car seats in the 2nd row AND manage to get someone in the 3rd row. We test drove the Pilot the other day and were wondering how this would be done assuming you have a car seat on the left end and one on the right end of the 2nd row.

OR would one put the car seats right next to each other (taking up an end seat and the middle seat)?

I noticed only the CX9 would allow one to even move the 2nd row all the way up to touching the back of the front seats, without moving car seats.

Thanks!

citivas · February 2009

In my experience you can have up-to three car seats side-by-side in the second row, but you can't have more than one that requires tethering if your goal is still to access the third row by pushing the second row seat forward. Others have allegedly tethered two seats in the second row, side-by-side on the drivers side and middle seat but it would have to be a couple of untypically narrow seats to do this and still allow adequate clearance for the 40 percent passenger side to slide forward without interfering with the middle seat.

This hasn't been a problem for us for two reasons: 1) We rarely need to move the second row seat to access the third row. By default our third row is used for our 7-year old who LOVES to access it from the tailgate. Same with her friends when we carpool them. With our setup we could easily move the second row but they neither find this as fun nor have the patience to wait for our help. 2) Our oldest now just uses an booster which is small enough to still slide the 40 percent side forward or if hes sitting on the passenger side it is easy to temporarily move since its light and not tethered

Good luck with your decision and negotiation.

lithnights · February 2009

So for my situation (a 16 month old and a newborn) where I am going to need two carseats for the next 3-4 years, is it reasonable/practical to even get a car with a 3rd row? If I can't easily acccess the 3rd row without accessing from the tailgate, I'm wondering if it's worth having.

If I had older kids, I could see them crawling from the back, but I guess I envision my parents (in their 60s) to use the 3rd row (trips to church etc.) and they sure aren't climbing in from the back.

So is a 3rd row vehicle really necessary/useful for my situation? I guess I'm trying to figure out how much importance to put on the 3rd row (vs. other aspects) of the cars I'm looking at.

Thanks!

citivas · February 2009

Your call. My best advise is to take your actual car seats and go try it out at a dealership. When we were shopping I took all three of our car seats/boosters for every test drive, even when I didnt have all the kids with me, and made them wait for me to try installing them in the car and trying them out. Whenever possible I took the kids too to get their opinion of the cars. Of course they sometimes got caught up in the bells-and-whistles features but they surprisingly were opinionated about practical things like the comfort of the seats and visibility. Thats one of the factors (among others) that ruled out the Highlander for us  even my 7 year old felt crammed in the third row.

In terms of your specific situation, how often will your parents be driving with you? If almost daily, yeah, I would say that will be a challenge and maybe a mini-van is the right call for you right now. As I posted previously, in terms of easy of access to the third row, that is still advantage mini-vans. But you should try out your seats and see. This a newborn, youre definitely looking at a rear facing seat for the next year and possibly one that clicks in/out of a smaller base that is tethered. That changes the dynamic because the wider point of the seat is facing forward instead of competing with other seats against the back of the second row. You may find it is possible to place the rear-facing newborn seat in the middle of the second row (the safest place for it anyway), with the forward-facing seat on the drivers side (the second safest place, statistically due to drivers instinctive tendency to turn away from an on-coming crash) and still have room to slide the passenger side second row forward.

The other question is how long do you plan to own? Your kids are pretty young. If you see this as a 3-4 year lease or tenure of ownership you may want to do mini-van now, CUV next (unless you find a CUV that works perfectly for you now). But if you plan to own it a while, consider the long term. Certainly in 3.5 years your older child will be downright excited to be crawling into the third row without moving the seats. My 3 year old is jealous of my 7 year old on that front even now and constantly asking to be seated back there.

Good luck.

p.s. For what it is worth, we're almost 6 months into ownership now and I will say I have been entirely pleased. We may have been pleased in the CX-9 as well, or at least the '09 that supposedly fixes the iPod and Sat radio problems, too but if we're happy there's no point in speculating on that. We all like our Pilot way more than our Sienna.

golic · February 2009

I have 4 kids ages 8-3. And nothing beats a mini-van for versatility, ease of mom jumping into back area to pick up dropped toy, stop a fight, etc and CARGO space.

If you are going to keep this car until or through booster seat age, then I would get the third row - you can always keep the seats down for extra storage on those family vacations or camping weekends.

Since I refused to own 2 - minivans. Our second car is a 3-row SUV. I have had great success with the Pilot for the following reasons:

1. The middle row seats lean and slide forward to access the 3rd row. Which does allow for a booster seat to stay in place. Not the best for a car seat.

2. The third row on the Pilot - is the only car I know which is wide enough for either two car seats or two booster seats and kids can buckle themselves.

3. I can also get 2 booster seats and 1 car seat in the second row.

4. I would recommend a 3rd row, for the instances you take grandma and grandpa with you to the ball game, recital, etc...It also allows you to take kids friends on car pools etc.

5. I did not look at the cx-9, but the buick and flex failed the Hockey bag and stick test behind the 3rd row. Cargo area is vital!!!

lithnights · February 2009

Will the parents be driving with us daily? No, more like a couple times a year, if that. Now that you've asked me that, and I've answered, it makes me realize that it's not an important aspect of the purchase. Now that I think about it, I think it's feasible to say that if we got a 3rd row vehicle, for now, it would be folded flat most of the time. And I guess if we needed to take a bunch of us in the car, my wife and I could scoot through the tailgate and have my parents drive up front.

It would be interesting to see if the backward facing infant base and seat would fit next to the forward car seat, and leave the passenger side open to slide. That would be awesome. Maybe I will bring the seat with me when we test drive again.

My wife is anti-minivan so they are not on the possibility list.

How long will we keep it? Could be 3 years, could be 5-8 years. Who knows? I have always kept our cars a long time (2000 Maxima, 2001 Altima) but if we realize our needs don't match a car we have, I could see us swapping more often. I think that's realistic as kids get older and requirements change. Agree? I told my wife that as time goes on, we will realize things that we like or don't like but hadn't thought about when buying. Simply b/c we've never had kids and don't know what we'll need.

It's funny you mention the kids loving the 3rd row..I've heard that from a couple people now. It must be the place to be for a kid!

One last thing..what was the ipod issues with the CX9? Was it just the 2008 model? That is one big thing I like about the Pilot and CX9..the aux in capability and where they placed it.

Thanks for all your feedback.

citivas · February 2009

I have not seen the '09 CX-9 personally so I don't know its setup but have heard it fixes the iPod issue.

First, by way of explanation (you may know but for those that don't) there are two different things: 1) An AUX port that allows you to plug in any input device and have it play through the speakers. The limitations are you are getting no power/charge through this method and you still have to control the device locally rather than through the car audio system (other than volume); 2) true iPod "integration." This is what the Pilot has built-in (in the Touring). It uses USB and both charges the iPod and allows full two-way communication with the device. As a result, you can control the iPod from the car audio system and in the case of the Pilot even by voice control and see all the info from the nav screen.

The Pilot has both of these. The 08 CX-9 had only an AUX, no iPod integration. You could order and after-market product from Mazda to add iPod-integration but it was awkward and had two problems: 1) The audio system had capacity for only one aux device so if you used the iPod integration you could not also have sat radio (some people got around this with an even more awkward A/B switch); 2) It still didnt charge the iPod so you had to use the lighter port, but that sometimes resulted in an feedback loop that messed up the sound.

lithnights · February 2009

Wow 4 between 3 and 8. You and citivas are the real life examples I was looking for!

You mention carseats in the 3rd row. Is this practical? Or did you need to put a carseat back there? I guess I figured it would be tough to get a kid in and out as compared to the 2nd row.

I am now sold on getting something with a 3rd row. I may not use it all that often in the next year or two but I think after that, it would come in way handy. And in the meantime, the cargo space that the CX9 and Pilot offer with the 3rd row down will be great.

How did the buick and flex fail the hockey stick test? Are you saying you can fit a hockey bag and hockey stick (I assume youth size) behind the 3rd row?

lithnights · February 2009

Ahhh.. I was wondering what true ipod integration is. I guess I thought it was cool enough just to be able to play the ipod directly (without a bunch of wires going into the stereo) but charging would be nice.

So are you saying only the Touring has that USB port to charge it? I believe you are right from what I read in the brochure. I really didn't want to get the Touring (don't want the nav or RES for the amount of money they charge) so I guess I'll be stuck with having to charge the ipod outside of the car. It'll be my wife's car so we'll probably only use MY ipod when we go on longer trips.

I assume you have the Touring? Do you find it worth the extra $3200 it costs just to have Nav, RES, USB, window shades, memory driver seat, premium audio? That's about the only difference according to my research. I'm having a hard time justifying that..especially when you can't even change the Nav while moving (and I could buy a $400 Garmin).

citivas · February 2009

You can still charge without the touring by using the lighter port...

I love the Touring for a few reasons. I love the NAV and use it all the time. With our last car I had the same thought as you and figured I would get an after-market nav. I got the top of the line Garmin. But there is no substitute for an integrated nav and the Honda has one of the best factory navs on the market. It is night-and-day better than our portable nav and much more convenient. We also use the iPod integration all the time, more than over-the-air radio. Charging is nice but the real benefit is the intergation with the nav screen -- being able to use the joystick or voice command to navigate playlists, etc. without having to mess with the iPod itself or take your eyes off the road. The nav screen is also great for getting much more data on audio and radio in general and has a nice, big rear view camera.

But everyone has different priorities. These were just ours.

golic · February 2009

Yes, we utitlize the 3rd row for both car seats and boosters. When they were younger, we would get them in the car, then just open the hatch and buckle them that way.

Now the older kids can buckle themselves or they will buckle the 3 year old in the car seat if she is back there. As a previous poster said and I can attest - the kids do love the back row.

The Hockey test:

Test one - was to see if I could lay the stick flat with the third row seats up. This failed on the flex and barely made it in the enclave. My son is 8 and his stick is only going to get bigger over the next few years.

Test two - was can I get the hockey bag behind the 3rd row. The problem with the flex was the body molding narrows - and it was just not going to fit.

I didn't have the bag with me for the enclave test, but I am pretty sure it would have been like getting a 10bls of potatoes into an 8lb bag.

The Pilot storage area behind the 3rd row, does not narrow in, it is square with the car and now it has a small well. The stick lays flat and the bag fits in like a glove.

I will say this, the Flex was very impressive but just not practical for a sports family with 4 kids. The Buick is nice as well, but I think you can get just as much car for a lot less money with the Pilot, Flex or CX9.

Honda Pilot vs Mazda CX-9 vs Toyota Highlander

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles