Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Honda Pilot vs Mazda CX-9 vs Toyota Highlander

1567911

Comments

  • cericceric Member Posts: 1,092
    Great idea. After all, GM quadruplets sell as many units as the other three combined. How about
    "GM Lambda vs Honda Pilot vs Toyota Highlander vs CX-9"
    (Lambda=> Arcadia,Traverse,Outlook,Enclave"

    CUV includes many 5-seaters. This thread should focus on 7/8 seaters only. :)
  • mirrodie1mirrodie1 Member Posts: 25
    First off, let me say I took better part of an hour yesterday reading throught his 41 page thread and I learned a lot. Citivas, I have to say a million thanks for all your input over time. It seems my vetting purchase for buying $30+ worth of sheet metal is the same as yours! Ive got a 3yr old and 6 month old and may have a 3rd in a few years.

    I initally wanted to lease, in the hopes of buying a more fuel efficient hybrid like CUV in a few years but I can't bank on that risk and I'd like to take advantage of the tax bennie this year.

    That said, my wife needs car and the Pilot was the top contender (after looking at all the others noted in this thread EXCEPT the CX9. We never even thought about the CX9 based on the 4/09 consumers reports, with reliability being a concern. My second concern with the CX9 is resale. But with the incentives available right now, 1.9%, its a huge consideration.

    What is now being said about their long term reliability of the CX9?

    Also, this is my only gripe, having read it on edmunds....
    "All I can say is in normal world use (not crashes), the Pilot brakes great. ... we don’t have issues with it not stopping quickly enough"

    How about stopping short? That is what is setting a fear of Honda in me. If she stops short, is that a problem? Has anyone with a Pilot noted ANY braking problems? I mean, in all consideration, that may be my dealbreaker on the Pilot.

    About cx9 vs pilot interior space, braking distances, How did you find the interior space of the CX9 compared to the Pilot? I've read Pilot has better use/more places to stash stuff but have also heard the cx9 is roomy.

    fitting 3 car seats across in the second row. the Pilot boasts this, but can the CX9 swing it?

    new consumers reports on resales- is there any new info on this that is different from the 4/09 issue?

    "In any event, I know we bought it because our prioritizes were safety first"

    That is my main and again, I am concerned with these braking distance reports.

    As I pulled into my office this morning, I saw a 10 Pilot across the street. I dont love the look either but I have to say, being a HUGE fan of the really retro Toyota FJ Cruiser (totally impractical for us), perhaps that is why I do like its look?

    So my biggest concerns are brakes and resale value Thoughts please? going to look at CX9 car tonight and the Pilot AGAIN.
  • jcpharmjcpharm Member Posts: 92
    mirrodie,
    i can't speak to the braking on the Pilot (leave that to others).

    with regards to:
    "fitting 3 car seats across in the second row. the Pilot boasts this, but can the CX9 swing it?"
    - no, you cannot put 3 LATCH-system carseats in the 2nd-row of the CX-9 (nor ANY LATCH carseats in the 3rd-row). you possibly could do two carseats and a booster (nonLATCH) in the middle, but not sure they would all fit.

    as far as roominess, you can look the specs up on each car to see the cubic feet, but ultimately you need to look at both cars and determine for yourself what feels roomiest to you. i hardly think that will be the deal breaker though...

    i do remember a long-distance road test review of the CX-9 from edmunds or car&driver noting that after ~40k miles they had no extra costs than regular maintenance....not sure you will get a report on much longer reliability testing than that considering the model has only been out since 2007.

    good luck!
  • 4kids3dogs2cat4kids3dogs2cat Member Posts: 18
    If you have a bunch of little kids, I think a minivan is the only way to go. We had 4 kids in 4 years and that's the only way I'd go. Much more storage room for the playpens, strollers, diaper bag, and many other accoutrements of babydom.

    It never ceases to amaze me when I see people shortchange themselves because of vanity. So many women (and men) won't dare to be seen in a minivan because of some ridiculous image problem they will have with themselves if they buy one.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Or even if you don't have kids. Maybe if they renamed them to something else. But we digress:

    SUV vs Minivans
  • jcpharmjcpharm Member Posts: 92
    i think you are being a bit presumptuous to assume all CUV buyers are "vain" in their avoidance of minivans. For example, since we live in the Northeast, traction during the winter is very important to us and so we prefer AWD vehicles. There is no AWD option on the Odyssey and the Sienna AWD is not much of a bargain compared to large CUVs either. i have friends who own an Odyssey who say on icy days their minivan is slipping and sliding all over the place.

    I do admit that once you are at 3+ kids, it takes some creativity to comfortably seat them in a CUV and retain cargo space...
  • mirrodie1mirrodie1 Member Posts: 25
    I too think you are a bit presumptuous. If I bang out another pair of kids, we'll see what happens. But while you accuse others of image problems, it seems perhaps you have popped out of no where to defend your image issues? None were mentioned here.

    Since you have 4 children, why didn't you get a Ford Econoline van? I would suspect its perhaps too LARGE for your needs? But have you shortchanged yourself? Perhaps.

    What I find incredible is the "thought compartmentalization" that minivan drivers seem to have. Such as the neighbors I have that say that with 2 kids, I NEED a minivan. I love how they are in my shoes and know MY needs.

    Funny but I know grown up families of 3-5 kids who did well with station wagons and sedans prior to 1990. Man has evolved with large families prior to the 1990s minivan.

    Then again, we are savvy travelers. I've also boarded a aircraft with wifey, toddler and infant, and only carry-on luggage aside from one 1 piece of checked luggage for 4 people for a week long transcon trip. Obviously, we know how to pack necessities. Perhaps MV drivers do not. I dunno.

    I would ask thought that you please remain on topic. I do moderate another forum and it seems the thread is being hijacked. Please remain to the questions I asked.

    Thank you.
  • lithnightslithnights Member Posts: 25
    Mirrodie, I too was in your situation about 6 months ago and got a lot out of this thread and citivas's comments. I believe he said you can fit three carseats although I don't know what kind he uses. I ended up buying a Pilot.

    I can tell you that I have an 08 (which is a bit narrower than the 10s) and I have fit three carseats in the 2nd row. But let me be clear that they were TWO toddler seats and ONE infant base/seat (which is a bit narrower than a toddler seat). I put the two toddler seats next to each other and the infant seat on the end and they fit..snuggly, but they fit. I don't think many CUVs would do even this. I can't comment on getting THREE toddler seats next to each other. Hopefully citivas can weigh in on that.

    I have had no problems with braking. I think the only issues with braking were in the one test done by Consumer Reports. I am a huge fan of CR but that didn't stop me from getting the Pilot just because it went an extra 8 ft or so (just guessing) during a braking test. If it was that bad (and a true everyday threat), CR would redflag the situation and basically say "don't buy this", which is what they do with truly dangerous products. Just my 2 cents on the safety aspect.

    Good luck!
  • cericceric Member Posts: 1,092
    >> I am a huge fan of CR but that didn't stop me from getting the Pilot just because it went an extra 8 ft or so (just guessing) during a braking test.

    Personally, I won't trust CR on testing cars other than their reliability data.
    There are other "guys" doing better jobs on testing automobiles.

    For stopping distances, the following data is from edmunds.com's fair and square test (meaning, same day, same track)
    CX9: 129ft
    Highlander: 131ft
    Pilot: 149ft
    The difference is not 8ft, but 20ft. Usually the distance would increase super-linearly if one looks at the data from 70mph-0 due to brake fading.
    I won't be concerned about 2ft difference, but I will when it is 20ft.
    A similar conclusion can be found on C&D, Road & Track, and Motor Trend,
    and Automobile magazines.

    10 years ago, a 149ft stopping distance might be considered as 'good', but nowadays, it is below average. A 129ft stopping distance is as good as any sports cars 10 years ago. :)
    I owned a '01 Odyssey for 8 yrs. I know about poor braking of Honda vehicles. I also owned an '91 Integra, and two Accords ('85 and '95). Not a Honda basher here. Just fact. And, Honda transmission is not as smooth as others'.
    Noisy interior also bothered me a lot.

    As to interior room, the Pilot is taller, hence more head room. CX9 is longer, hence more leg rooms (especially 3rd row). You have to sit in them to feel for yourself.

    Reliability-wise, I think Honda/Toyota have Mazda beat. CX9 reliability is not top-notch, but above average. I have mine for 2 yrs with 22K miles on it. I only had 1 minor window issue due to assembly (made in Japan, remind you).
    From reading this and other forums of CX9, most problems owners have are minor issues (suspension clicking, mirror glass shaking, electronic integration, etc). There have been very few powertrain issues. For CX9, engine is from Ford Duratec, and transmission is from Aisin (supplier of Lexus and Toyota).
  • mirrodie1mirrodie1 Member Posts: 25
    Honestly, the brakes concern me as this will be primary in my wife's hands. But a Pilot PRO is that 3 child seats in mid row are possible. The con is brakes.

    The CX9 Pro is brakes with con of no 3 seats in mid row and perhaps reliability long term.

    And since I have great credit, now comes the financial question. I will qualify easily for the new incentives at Mazda, which Honda doesnt have. I can get 1.9% APR on a Maxda vs the going best rate of 5.89% on a new car loan. That might be the big PRO that might push us to Mazda. Even if Honda could match that, the brakes bug me.

    Citivas, where are you? Car 54.... ;) In all seriousness, I love all the forethought and sharing in this thread. We are so Torn.
  • jcpharmjcpharm Member Posts: 92
    as far your situation, if i read your previous post correctly, you stated you have a 3yo and a 6mo and "possibly another in a few years". That means your 3yo will be 5-6yo and your 6mo will be 2-3 yo when your 3rd arrives.

    Your 5-6yo will be perfectly fine in the 3rd-row seat with a booster (there are 3-point seat belts back there)...in fact, my almost-4-year old fits fine in a booster back there when i do have the 3rd row up.

    i don't think it's as big a deal unless you need immediate access to your oldest child in which case i guess the having all 3 kids in the 2nd row would be easier.

    just food for thought as i considered your particular situation.
  • mirrodie1mirrodie1 Member Posts: 25
    In about an hour, I'll be in a CX9, working it out, looking at the room. (edmunds notes a difference of .8 cubic feet. That is nothing.) While Hondas are typically less reliable, you need reliable brakes. And considering Mazdas incentives, it may be a better vlue as well.

    Then I will test drive the Pilot again and work the brakes... bigtime.
    Im giving that salesman fair warning that he is in for a ride. But I gotta take it up to 60 and slam and see what transpires.

    Thank you for the thoughts.
  • cericceric Member Posts: 1,092
    Personally, I think the whole reliability concern is blown out of proportion.
    First, a Pilot might have 0 problem for the initial 5 years, CX9 might have 1 or 2 minor issues. So what? Nothing that a 7yr/100K ext warranty can't cover and fix. Can you guarantee that a Pilot will be problem-free for 7yr/100K miles? I can't. My '01 Odyssey transmission was shot at 89K. That is why I got my CX9 to replace it. As I said, I had been a total Honda-fan before CX9. Now, I am just more open to all brands.

    To remind you, a 7yr/100K MAZDA coverage costs only about $1500. CX9 is having $4500 rebate from factory. i.e. You can easily get a CX9 for $7500/$8500 below MSRP! That is several thousands below a comparable Pilot or Highlander. Enough money to get you the ext warranty plus some changes for investment (or covering the "resale value" loss that one may be concerned with).

    Just my opinion.
    If you were like me owning vehicles for 7/8 years, resale value does not really matter that much since they will worth about $8/9000 by then, plus/minus a couple thousands.
  • mirrodie1mirrodie1 Member Posts: 25
    Where did you see the $4500 rebate on the 2010 CX9? Just checked edmunds and all I see is 1.9 APR for 60 mo. Please let me know. grazie!
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    To some, not having to take the car in for nagging issues is worth more money; having issues early on doesn't bode well for a car later in its life (some of us drive the wheels off of them! :shades: , only to put them back on and drive 'em even more!)

    I have a Honda (not a Pilot), but recommended two alternate brands to people very close to me. Both are happy with their choices; the parents' '08 Taurus had one recall, and my girlfriend's '07 Santa Fe has a drippy sunroof in the car wash, but neither of them has had anything major happen. My Accord even needed a new CD Changer near warranty's-end. I wasn't happy, but you're right, life does go on!
  • mirrodie1mirrodie1 Member Posts: 25
    SO within an hour of each other, we drove the CX-9 and the Pilot:

    CX-9: My wife loved it, smooth ride she said. The interior to her seemed as roomy as Pilot but I thought Pilot had more space and certainly have more stowaway space. I didn't feel that the dashboard was 'upscale' compared to the Pilot. Its all plastic and the simulated wood grain on the cx9 was barely noticeable. I personally didnt care for the small armrest console on the cx9.

    The drive experience was hysterical. The dealer just gave my wife the keys and let her go alone. Then she returned and I took off by myself as well. I took the car out and did my own beating on it. I floored the pedal and felt that while it smoothly accelerated without the torque of the Pilot. I slammed on the brakes. Fine. Tight turning radius.

    I then made my way 30 minutes to the Honda dealer and called them in route with 40 minutes to closing.

    I took the Pilot out and the saleswoman came with me. I told her plainly that i was on a mission to put the car through the rigors. She said, "Oh, you mean you are really going to TEST test drive?"

    "Please buckle up. I need to work the brakes."

    We took the Pilot on some meadering roads. I floored the pedal and the Pilot was Not sluggish in my opinion. (Wife and I have a pair of Nissan Altimas. I am giving up the lease on my 2006 Altima 3.5, which I will miss dearly, while I ride the wheels off her 'young' 2000 Altima with 85K on it. The Pilot accelerated as well as the 3.5 Altima. It had MORE kick than the CX9, more torque.

    I slammed on the brakes a few times after hitting 50 to 60 MPH and the car responded.

    I got a quote and went home and crunched numbers.

    With the same options of leather sunroof and backup camera, the Cx9 is more $$ but with 1.5% financing, the CX9 ends up being ~1400 less than the Honda over a 6o month loan. However, according to kbb.com, the Pilots residuals are higher.

    We really liked the cars equally and so are still torn. But on numerical analysis, it seems we are going with the Pilot after all. We felt the features were very similar and it was simply a matter of styling taste.
  • cericceric Member Posts: 1,092
    $4500 rebate is for 2009 cash buy or external loan.
  • cericceric Member Posts: 1,092
    Looks like you are leaning toward Pilot. Congrats.

    So, you think Pilot's engine has more torque than CX9's? ;)
  • mms5mms5 Member Posts: 19
    We have been deciding between the CX9 and Pilot too. Thanks for your insight. I have decided on the Pilot too this week and this is why... I borrowed my friend's CX9 for the day and was surprised at how low I sat in it. When I looked out my side window, all I saw was the side mirror. That bothered me. I currently have a 2000 Odyssey and didn't realize how much I like sitting up instead of down. I thought the CX9 was very fun and peppy to drive. I test drove the pilot and liked the feel of the space up front. I felt much closer to the front windshield in the CX9. In your price comparison, did you factor in the $4500 incentive from Mazda?
  • jcpharmjcpharm Member Posts: 92
    i think you can only get the $4500 incentive if you finance externally from the dealer (eg. your local bank/credit union financing)...unless someone has had a different experience.
  • matmel04matmel04 Member Posts: 9
    "fitting 3 car seats across in the second row. the Pilot boasts this, but can the CX9 swing it?"

    We are expecting baby #3 any day now. When we went to test drive the CX9 & the Pilot, we took our 4-year-old son's skinny booster seat, our 2-year-old son's big toddler carseat and our Graco Snugride infant seat. We tried and tried to fit these in the 2nd row of the CX9, but couldn't get it to work. We then tried to just fit two of them and put the 3rd in the back, but we couldn't get the seat down to let our son in the back because the two carseats were in the way. It was frustrating for us and I didn't need that. SO...we drove straight over to the Honda dealership and tried the carseats in there. My husband actually started laughing as all three carseats were put in the 2nd row WITH ROOM TO SPARE! There was plenty of room for our oldest son to be able to buckle his seat belt between the other carseats. What a difference! Both cars are very nice, but we got the Pilot. We fell in love with it after testing both cars. Hope that helps with that question! ;)
  • mirrodie1mirrodie1 Member Posts: 25
    "So, you think Pilot's engine has more torque than CX9's?"

    --Oh, totally. In the 3.5 Altima I drive, it cranks. So jumping into the CX9 was a drop down in torque, huge dropdown I felt. In the Pilot, it moved. My wife put it this way, in all the CUV and SUVs we have test driven, the CX-9 didnt want to "take off" like the others did and like my Altima does.

    "and was surprised at how low I sat in it."

    -- I was too initially but I raised the seat up and that was fine. Did you do that on the test ride?

    "CX9 was very fun and peppy to drive"

    -Fun, yes, just as fun as the Pilot, but not peppy in my humble opinion.

    "Both cars are very nice, but we got the Pilot. We fell in love with it after testing both cars."

    --Yes, its a difficult decision. But on top of all the factors considered, I figured this: The resale on the Honda is significantly higher than the Mazda although over time the Cx9 purchase would save me $1500. However, I am partial to getting more mileage and the options out right now stink for 3 row SUVs. If the Pilot have a diesel or hybrid engine, I would have been sold ages ago.

    ****sighs**** I learned to drive on my mother's 1984 Buick Estate Wagon. And this past Sunday I saw a Buick Roadmaster go by. Those were roomy cars! Bring those back in a diesel. 3 people in Front, 3-4 in the mid ro and 3-4 in back. Those were the days! ;)
  • mirrodie1mirrodie1 Member Posts: 25
    PS congrats on the new arrival!
  • vg33e powervg33e power Member Posts: 314
    I learned to drive on my mother's 1984 Buick Estate Wagon. And this past Sunday I saw a Buick Roadmaster go by. Those were roomy cars! Bring those back in a diesel. 3 people in Front, 3-4 in the mid ro and 3-4 in back. Those were the days!

    They do have them...sort of... they are called Ford E-Series Vans and Dodge Sprinters.....LOL!!!
  • cericceric Member Posts: 1,092
    mirrodie1,
    For the record, CX9's engine has more torque than Pilot's.
    Many factors affect the off-line feel, engine torque is one of them, not all.

    Enjoy your purchase. Honda vehicles do not disappoint, either.
    All three are great buys. To each one's own.
  • vg33e powervg33e power Member Posts: 314
    CX-9:

    Base Number of Cylinders: 6
    Base Engine Size: 3.7 liters
    Base Engine Type: V6
    Horsepower: 273 hp
    Max Horsepower: 6250 rpm
    Torque: 270 ft-lbs.
    Max Torque: 4250 rpm
    Curb Weight: 4546 lbs

    PILOT:

    Base Number of Cylinders: 6
    Base Engine Size: 3.5 liters
    Base Engine Type: V6
    Horsepower: 250 hp
    Max Horsepower: 5700 rpm
    Torque: 253 ft-lbs.
    Max Torque: 4800 rpm
    Curb Weight: 4608 lbs

    Numbers don't lie...I hardly believe that the Pilot feels peppier or feels torquier then the CX-9. Less power and more weight do not equal to a quicker, peppier, torquier vehicle, but as said before "to each it's own" I will take my CX-9 over the Pilot anyday, thank you!
  • mirrodie1mirrodie1 Member Posts: 25
    Oh, I know. I knew the stats as well. ( I thought I had mentioned that). Mea culpa if I didnt.

    But as ceric notes, my feeling is likely based on several factors other than what I noted.

    They really are all great options.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    May have more to do with throttle-pedal calibration than engine tuning. My '06 Accord 2.4L feels easily as quick as my folks' 263 horse Taurus in the first 40% of the throttle. Despite being only a 5-speed auto vs. the 6-speed in the Ford, the transmission is quicker to respond, snappy when it does, and isn't afraid to crank out a few revs to get you moving if your foot asks it to. The Taurus takes more boot to scoot, but once it gets towards the floor, it really flies, leaving my 166 horse Accord in the dust. Throttle calibration can make or break a driving experience. Neither of the two cars I'm talking about are bad, just very different. Perhaps the CX-9 and Pilot are also quite different?

    Maybe the Mazda's transmission and electronic throttle are tuned less aggressively than the Pilot. I've driven a Pilot, didn't find it as peppy as my Accord, but haven't driven a CX-9 to compare. It was still perfectly adequate for merging and typical use expected of an 8-passenger "family truckster." :)
  • cericceric Member Posts: 1,092
    Modern transmission learns your driving style. Period.
    Its called grade logic. If you are an aggressive driver, your transmission would try to please you by shifting faster, and retaining higher revs. There are things you can't tell from a simple test-drive with modern vehicles, unfortunately.
    Trust me, it is healthy for your vehicles to once in a while rev it to the near red lines. Ask any mechanics, it helps to flush out bad stuff in the power-train.
    Do it safely, of course.

    Let us not forget that the transmission of CX9 is from Aisin, who supplies transmissions to Lexus/Toyota. The standard gear shifting time is 0.5 second (not very fast), but it was set to feel seamless and comfortable. (source: CX9 WorkShop manual). If you really care about this, there is an auto-manual mode on CX9 which can't be found on Pilot.
  • mirrodie1mirrodie1 Member Posts: 25
    Numbers don't lie...I hardly believe that the Pilot feels peppier or feels torquier then the CX-9. Less power and more weight do not equal to a quicker, peppier, torquier vehicle, but as said before "to each it's own" I will take my CX-9 over the Pilot anyday, thank you!

    Hey, its alright. I know the stats but stats don't change perception. Even my wife said he liked the CX9 over the Pilot b/c she felt the cx9 didnt want to take off when she tapped the pedal vs the Pilot and my Altima, which leap forward. So 2 difference drivers had a similar take on the same car. To use you parlance, you can take your cx9. No one is suggesting otherwise. :confuse:

    All factors considered and knowing ourselves, there is a good chance we'll sell the auto in 5 years, so considering the total cost difference to us today is $1000 but the depreciation is less on a Honda, it just makes sense for us.
  • lithnightslithnights Member Posts: 25
    Ceric,
    Good point about the 20 not 8 ft. Like I said I was just guessing, good to know you have the actual figures. Even knowing this, which I DID know when I made the purchase (the brain forgets much after 6 months), it was not enough to sway me away from all the other great features of the Pilot. Evidently the same goes for the many other Pilot buyers.

    I imagine it all comes down to HOW important the braking issue is. For me and my family, who rarely travel highways anyway, it just wasn't enough.
  • mirrodie1mirrodie1 Member Posts: 25
    I agree. Its a great point and a number to go by.

    But its also why I had to test drive it again and warn the salesman that I would purposely be slamming in the brakes, God forbid a kid ran out in front, to simulate scenarios.

    One note though....we still take defensive driving although we dont need the point reduction. It does pay to drive defensively, as you never know what that 'idiot' may do!
  • tripl3threattripl3threat Member Posts: 8
    My wife and I both were in need of new cars this year - she driving a 9 year old Sienna, and me a 10 year old Saab 9-3. We tested and liked both the Pilot and CX-9 - each for different reasons. Me, cold and analytical stat comparison; she, emotion and feel. Upshot - we got one of each. Her the Pilot, me the CX-9. $ for $, I think the CX-9 was the better buy, but ultimately we'll see what the residual values are for 3-year ownership. On paper they look like a tie for annual cost of ownership for both - with a higher OTD price for the Pilot, but probably a little higher residual value. Given that, we both are driving safe, reliable (and in my case FUN) cars - with a TCO of about $10K per year. TCO is a great way to analyze a buying decision, and so is being happy with what you drive. If cars didn't make us happy, we'd probably all drive something a lot cheaper. A mid-range Ford Focus costs about $6k per year.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Modern transmission learns your driving style. Period.

    Not all. My Accord does not, and is a 2006 model. It doesn't have an adaptive transmission. Period. :)

    Have a great day,

    TheGrad
  • cericceric Member Posts: 1,092
    A warning to those who plan to buy Highlanders....
    Highlander (V6) uses a very special tire size
    245/55R19.
    Check tirerack.com if you don't believe me.
    There is only ONE tire available for that size, which is the OE tire from Bridgestone Dueller as well (same as CX9).
    http://www.tirerack.com/tires/TireSearchResults.jsp?skipOver=true&width=245%2F&r- - - - - - atio=55&diameter=19&x=12&y=8

    However, CX9 uses 245/50R20 or 245/60R18. Both sizes have many other alternatives.
    Why does this matter?
    The price for Bridgestone Dueler is about $175, which is a ripoff ('cause it is bad!) In comparision, Yokohama's Parada Spec-X is a much better all-around tire for only $159. (review scores of 4.8 vs 8.4!!!) Spec-X is available for CX9's 20" or 18" wheels.

    Check any owners of Highlanders and CX9s, they will tell you that this tire, Dueler, performs extremely poorly on snow (even light one), and is so-so in rain and on dry pavements. Check tirerack.com for owners' reviews on it.

    If you go with Highlander, you will have ZERO choice but to replace it again with the same lousy tires and they are not cheap either for their performance.
    My friend replaced his for $1000+ for a new set. I got my Spec-X for only about $800+. Price difference may be small, but you will be getting lousy tires for that kind of money and you have no other alternatives (unless you change sizes).

    Please take that into consideration.
    Make an educated decision to buy Highlander is why I am posting this info for you. :)
  • steveayzsteveayz Member Posts: 28
    Base Highlanders use 245/65R17 that pretty common.
  • pjcrousepjcrouse Member Posts: 2
    I disagree with you. A lot of Highlander owners are successfully changing to 255-55-19 tire sizes for the 19" rims. I successfully changed to a 17" rim from Discount tire and have many tires to choose from, too. We are not stuck with 245-55-19.
  • cericceric Member Posts: 1,092
    to stevayz:
    >> Base Highlanders use 245/65R17 that pretty common.
    I thought I mentioned "Highlander V6", didn't I?

    to pjcrouse:
    Yes, one can always up size or down size your tires. I do that many times in the past. However, how many people dare to do that? Most owners are naive about automobiles. If you read the manual completely, I am sure you will find a statement like "Toyota recommend the same tire size ....." (to that effect).
    Besides, places like Costco "refuses" to replace tires of a different size for you.
    Also, your odometer will be off slightly, which may be small in your case.

    Anyway, just a piece of useful information whether you like it or not.
    The fact remains true.
    Toyota uses a strange size tire as OE tires. I wonder why?
  • steveayzsteveayz Member Posts: 28
    to ceric:

    It might be a revelation for you but Base Highlanders come in many flavors:

    V6 FWD
    V6 AWD
    I4 FWD
    I4 AWD

    as a matter of fact all 2008 and 2009 Highlanders trims were available only with V6. I4 was introduced only for 2010 model year. I personally own 2008 HL Base V6 AWD that I purchased in summer of 2007 and couldn't be happier with it. Since it uses 245/65R17 tire size I don't see any issue with tires when time comes to replace them.
  • cericceric Member Posts: 1,092
    Sorry. I stand corrected. Not a Highlander expert here.

    You're right. In that case, I was referring to all Highlander with 19" wheels.
    (Highlander Sports/Limited/Hybrid)
    From my previous post, I guess it was very clear that I was talking about the 19" tires, base V6 or not. Any Highlander with 19" wheels comes with tires of strange size that only Mchelin carries.
  • mdhuttonmdhutton Member Posts: 195
    Wrong. Any HL with 19" wheels came with 245 / 55 R 19 tires. Michelin does not make this size at this time.
  • cericceric Member Posts: 1,092
    Typo. Not Michelin, but Bridgestone.
    245/55R19 is a very unique tire size, which was the main point.
  • jayriderjayrider Member Posts: 3,602
    mdx 255-55-18 lots of choices starting at $118

    pilot 245-65-17 lots starting at $127

    go figure.
  • cericceric Member Posts: 1,092
    Exactly.
    Make you wonder why an automaker chose a special wheel/tire combo so that there is only 1 replacement choice but to change sizes of your tires, which the automaker highly does not recommend. Sounds like a "conspiracy"?!
    Think: Printer-Ink business model.
  • jayriderjayrider Member Posts: 3,602
    I love a good conspiracy. Let's see -- Some toyota executives loser nephew has the sole distribution rights for that exact size tire. He lives on a beach in the caribbean and has direct deposit for the money he makes for doing nothing. ;)
  • cericceric Member Posts: 1,092
    You certainly had quite an interesting conspiracy theory... :)

    Facts are simple:
    - The OE tires are expensive to replace
    - The OE tires are lousy performers
    - The OE tires have few alternatives on the market
    (especially in case of Highlander 19" wheels)
    If anyone can tell me why Toyota/Mazda chose that tire, I will rest my case.
    ;)
  • steveayzsteveayz Member Posts: 28
    I guess Toyota wants to sell more Highlander base models that come with common size tire.
  • koho955koho955 Member Posts: 97
    I also test drove the 2010 pilot Vs the CX-9 back to back.
    Loved the CX-9, Hated the Pilot. When driving the Pilot on 30- 40mph roads the engine keeps shutting down cylinders to save fuel. I noticed this immediately when coasting to a stop sign. If I had to drive this SUV for 3 years it would make me crazy!
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    You didn't say why you noticed it. Was the VCM system making noise, or vibrating, or anything like that? Or were you just going off of the ECO light? I'd love for my car to use half the cylinders when coasting.

    I've driven a Pilot; it was nice but its not a vehicle I'd buy. Neither was the CX-9 though, so I don't really have a horse in the race - I'm just curious!

    :)
  • citivascitivas Member Posts: 144
    Yeah, I wondered the same thing. Personally I love seeing the light for the VCM come on and it has absolutely zero noticeable impact on the engine. I presumed the real issue is what some others have posted which is the perception that the engine is sluggish in that range. It has one fewer gears than much of the competition. I had the same experience when I test drove it, which is why I almost didn't get it (until a month later after having test drove most of the competition I decided nothing else had all the features I wanted). So I was resigned to just an "ok" drive. The upside is I was pleasantly surprised. Once I figured out the "feel" of the Honda drive and response I didn't have any sluggishness issues at all and now find it quite responsive and certainly more than adequate for any need I have in a family SUV. It is definitely not as nice a drive as the CX-9 was when I tested it, with the CX-9 far-and-away being the best in class in that department (at least as of my survey 1.5 years ago).
Sign In or Register to comment.