I personally don't understand why anyone would get any of these vehicles if they didn't need the third row. There are other SUV and crossover options with much better mileage if you don't need the third row like I do. But to each their own...
The Highlander straddles the third row midsize CUV market (Pilot, Veracruz) and the smaller midsize CUV market (Murano, Edge). because of its midrange size. Therefore, it would be just fine for someone who doesn't need a third row. What I don't understand is why you would get one if you need a third row.
My favorite in atoumobile packaging is when MDX includes "power lift gate" in the "entertainment package". Folks, that is what power lift gate is for!!! Entertainment! Sorry for side-tracking.
I personally don't understand why anyone would get any of these vehicles if they didn't need the third row. There are other SUV and crossover options with much better mileage if you don't need the third row like I do. But to each their own...
Some people just need the extra cargo room. Unlike traditional BOF SUVs these CUVs (or at least most of them) do not let you omit the 3rd row from the option sheet.
I don't have an issue but then I don't drive fast and keep my distance.. I'm just a safe driver I guess...
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder... I love the look of the new Pilot, but that is just me... and my husband and all of our friends so far.. even a random guy at a shopping center that stopped us to ask about the car since he had never seen it before and loved how it looks. Seems to me that it might be a love it, hate or it might grow on you thing.. :P
Keeping your distance has nothing to do with dismal stopping distances, if you need to stop on the dime because someone cuts you off or pulls out in front of you, keeping your distance will NOT help you in those events, same with someone stopping short infront, you have no "keeping your distance" control over that.
CR is just as reliable a source as any other magazine. Okay, that's a little much. Maybe they are not quite as good as MT or C&D. But you have to take their ratings at the same amount- with a grain of salt. You can only figure out what you like for yourself. If everyone listened to CR GM wouldn't be here right now.
I personally don't understand why anyone would get any of these vehicles if they didn't need the third row. There are other SUV and crossover options with much better mileage if you don't need the third row like I do.
Personally, I don't understand why anyone who needs a third row would choose any of these CUVs/SUVs over a minivan. But, like you stated, to each their own.
I've heard horror stories about Toyota distributors and packaged options in other areas. I guess I'm just lucky -- the way my distributor packages options is the way I'd want it. At least there was the chance that I'd get what I want. With Honda, there is zero chance of getting an EX-L with factory Bluetooth, for example.
CX9 did have issues with electronics related to stereo interface (Bose, bluetooth, and iPod etc.) There was a recall on the door hinge (your typical 1st year thing). After 7000 miles, I am very happy with the build quality of my 2nd-year CX9. Way better than the '01 Odyssey I traded in for it. The Odyssey was noisy, and the driver-side door sounded like a tin can when it closed. The sliding doors jammed from time to time. The A/C nob fell off. All minor issues, but what is reliability, really?
I define "Reliability" as problems that could get me stranded or give me a hard time on the roads. What is a reliability concern to me? Failed A/C in Las Vegas summer? Yes. Failed Bose stereo? No. Failed cam position sensors? Yes. Failed iPod iterface? No.
Ask this question. How does CR gather reliability data? From readers' inputs. Do all its readers know how to rate each issue? Is there a standard? How to compared a failed iPod interface against a failed cam position sensor? CR has lots of room to improve in that sense, IMHO. To me, a failed cam position sensor is 10X worse than a failed iPod interface. I still can listen to FM, CD, you name it. With a failed cam position sensor, you are not going anywhere.
Personally, I don't understand why anyone who needs a third row would choose any of these CUVs/SUVs over a minivan. But, like you stated, to each their own.
I've heard horror stories about Toyota distributors and packaged options in other areas. I guess I'm just lucky -- the way my distributor packages options is the way I'd want it. At least there was the chance that I'd get what I want. With Honda, there is zero chance of getting an EX-L with factory Bluetooth, for example.
I wasn't referring to the regional distributors. Toyota corporate is the problem. They are the ones that define it so you have to have the Limited to get nav and you have to get the nav and moonroof to get the rear entertainment, etc. Just check out the brochures to see this. Or try using Edmunds -- if you select an entertainment center they will pop up and tell you to get the moonroof, etc. They are the ones that remove AC from standard equipment on the Hyrbid Limited then make almost no cars without it but charge several thousand for it as an "option" As for the things like floor mats, etc., I have consistently found in at least 5 states that everyone supplies these with the car and a built-in "option" and when I have spone to dealers or national services like CarsDirect they have said "Toyota always ships with those, so you don't really have a choice." Again, I think it just worked out for your particular set of options. I certainly wouldn't consider Toyota flexible in general.
First of all, there are plenty of people who would prefer a 3 -ow SUV/CUV over a mini-van, which is why the market segment has been so successful (current SUV MPG stigma aside). Second, we already own a mini-van. We don't want two, but we constantly run into logistics of needing to trade-off cars, often driving to places to do the trade-off because of needing the extra seats (he curse of having 3 kids (and all their car pooling friends in various sports, scouts and other activities at once). Having an SUV where the 3rd row is down by default for hauling stuff in the cargo area but can be used on-demand is very useful.
But if I didn't need a third row I would get something like the Ford Hybrid with over 30 MPG.
I did not think that CR was worse than some. C&D - Car & Driver. But, what is MT?
Also, as I had said earlier I was seeing a website called www.truedelta.com, that gathers repair histories and it seems like there are a few problems that are reported (rattling sound in the center console requiring replacement of the console in at least 2 cases!!). That is why I was worried. I have owned a Mazda before and I was very happy with my vehicle at that time.
Keeping your distance has nothing to do with dismal stopping distances, if you need to stop on the dime because someone cuts you off or pulls out in front of you, keeping your distance will NOT help you in those events, same with someone stopping short infront, you have no "keeping your distance" control over that.
I will have to agree to the statement about stopping distances. I guess I will keep looking...
I haven't been in this situation... yet.. with this car, in high velocities. I have had to hard break once last wk because a neighborhood kid jumped out of his driveway towards the street (there are a couple of kids, brothers, that do that all the time so I'm in the lookout for it) and had no problem doing so in time (thank God!). But I don't know the distance it took me and it was in my street so I was only doing about 25. I guess that doesn't count. So far, I am happy with the car, very happy
Thanks for the TrueDelta reminder - that site always falls off my radar. It has an interesting article about CR. Looks like he's added too many pain points to want to try to look at the rest of the data there though.
Personally, I don't understand why anyone who needs a third row would choose any of these CUVs/SUVs over a minivan. But, like you stated, to each their own.
I'm not fan of SUV's - I've always been a sports car guy. But one good reasons to buy a 3-row SUV over a minivan is AWD. We have a Caravan (best American car I've ever owned) for our four kids. We recently moved into a new house with a steep driveway - and neither our van, nor my BMW will go up it with 1/2" of snow on it.
We've decided we must trade both cars for AWD. Easy for me - there are a lot of AWD sports sedans out there. Impossible for my wife. The only AWD minivan sold in America is the Toyota Siena. While the literature and website say AWD is offered on the LE model, try finding anything less than a fully loaded XLE ($38,000+) on the lot - and then there is only one, in a color you don't like, and they want full sticker. Not to mention the fact that you have to deal with the Toyota "got you by the b***s" arrogance.
So, we're stuck getting an SUV to get three rows and AWD. I have to say, though, the CX-9 is a pretty good compromise. It is nearly as roomy as our regular-length Caravan, and it drives as much like an X5 as any SUV I've ever driven. In fact, it's better than an X5, because the new X5 third row is a carnival novelty seat.
In fact, if my wife decides she just has to bend over for Toyota to get an AWD van (probably a used one, if we can find one), I may just get the CX-9 to replace my 325i. I liked it that much, and it wouldn't hurt if we both had three rows of seats.
Good car. Unbelievable gaffe by Toyota to not split the third row seat. This is a dealbreaker for us, since we cannot go on vacation (or to out of town baseball tournaments) without folding down half of the back row. As my previous post indicates, I'm not much of a Toyota / Honda fan, anyway. It's not the cars, it's the dealers.
Positive impressions of the 2008 highlander: Great ride. Beautiful interior materials/dash design. Nice exterior design. Good stereo.
Negatives: The afformentioned third row seat. A little disconnected from the road. Steering/road feel nowhere near as precise and linear as the Mazda. Hate the fact that within five minutes of your arrival on the lot, the salesmen start "preparing" you that "they don't move on the Toyotas (price)".
I have driven many BMW X3's and X5's as loaners when my 325 has been in for service (it's got 86,000 miles on it, so it hasn't been unreliable). BMW proved you can make an SUV that handles in the turns. I've never driven a CX-7, but the CX-9 is only the second SUV I've driven that can compare with the BMW (the others are the two Infinity models). I told my wife right after the test drive, this is a poor man's X5, and we can stop looking, now.
It's the little things that are holding me back on the CX-9. After years of waiting to replace my car (we have gone through 3 for my wife in that time), I really want great electronics. I am a electronics power user and early adopter in general. But the electronics system on the Mazda is the weakest of the bunch and the source of the "reliability" issues. Their nav is as useless as the Toyota's, but with a much weaker UI. Toyota (more) and Honda’s (somewhat) nav screen’s truly control the rest of the cars as well, including climate, audio, preferences, trip, etc. Mazda’s doesn’t. Toyota’s screen is easy to navigation satellite radio. Mazda not so much. Toyota you can pick your sat radio provider. Honda you can actually control your iPod from the nav screen – frankly this should be a standard in EVERY car these days. Mazda let’s you plug it in but doesn’t control it, and, oh wait you want sat radio AND an iPod, sorry can’t do it. Dumb.
The real world mileage people are reporting is very disappointing as well.
Other than that, it seems like a great car. Definitely drives the best in the group. Way better in fact.
I guess for some people the electronics aren’t that big a deal, I’m just not one of them.
To citivas - The real world mpg reported for the Mazda CX9 on average seems to be as one would expect.
Not sure what this means. If you mean for a heavy, 3-row SUV in general, I guess I don't understand since the non-Hybrid Highlander is comparable (within 5%) but has meaningfully better real world mileage (about 20%).
Lemme get this straight, you say the Highlander (non-Hybrid) gets 20% BETTER real world FE then the CX-9??? I'm really curious as to what math did you use to calculate that? According to this article by Edmunds, the Highlander averages 20mpg and the CX-9 got 18.4. 1.6mpg's does not constitute 20% better efficiency.
We have owned a CX-9 GT AWD for about 5000 miles now, and gas mileage has come down to a best of nearly 22 mpg on the highway (all highway driving on a road trip), and 18 mpg in mixed driving. In the winter, the mixed driving was around 16-17 mpg, not sure if it's the cold or the different gas formulation. So gas mileage isn't outstanding by any means, but right there with all other SUVs (if you read the forums). If you have a lead foot, you'll get much worse than what I've posted.
The CX-9 drives like a European sedan, which is why we chose it over the GM Lambdas. It also drives "smaller" than the Lambdas. The Highlander was also a nice option, but lack of 3rd row split seat was a dealbreaker. Toyota goofed on that one. The new Pilot looked versatile, but boy, we just didn't like the look, especially the front end. That's mostly due to my wife, who doesn't like the "trucky" look.
My wife is the main driver of the CX-9, and she loves it. I've taken it out on the twisties, and Mazda really did a good job with minimizing body roll and feeling connected to the road. It would be even better if it had a bit more low-end torque (it seems to shine above 2500 rpm), but you can really throw the car around and still feel confident in the way it responds. I didn't get that feeling with the Highlander or the Acadia.
From reading the forum, you will find that is not right where the Highlander comes out, and it is just as heavy.
I didn't just go off the Edmunds review, which only was dealing with a very limited test period, but I built a spreadsheet and read through page after page of the real-world MPG posts on this forum from users (I don't think there were enough for the 2009 Pilot yet to be adequate for comparison). If you do that for these three cars, the gap between the Highlander and the CX-9 increases from the approximately 10% reported in Edmunds test to approximately 20%. I also checked out the comments on the reviews and the posts on some other sites. Even 10% is more than it should be. That works out to a lot annually.
I haven't ruled out the CX-9; that is just one of the "cons" that is weighing on the decision. All I was pointing out is some people keep justifying the low MPG as inevitable for these CUV's but the Highlander proves they could be better. The Highlander is far from a perfect car, but it proves there is more to be done by most manufacturers in fuel efficiency. And even with all that, it has the largest towing capacity of the group.
You have to weigh in the other things as well, starting off with a considerably smaller third row and just less space. They're reasons why it's lighter, being smaller is one of them. I had a CX-9 AWD and got an amazing 22mpg on the highway and 18mixed. The MPG gets better as the engine is broken in and I got those numbers with 10K on the odo.
As far as I can see - one of the places being truedelta:
2008 Toyota Highlander AWD averages 16.8 miles/gallon in mostly city driving 2008 Mazda CX9 AWD averages ~15.1 miles/gallon in mostly city driving
It is clear that the Mazda's economy is not as good as the Toyota's but it is in the ball park. As a buyer, this slightly better fuel economy alone certainly will not influence me in going towards the Toyota.
EDIT: Looks like by the time I posted a number of relevant posts have been posted making my post kinda redundant.
As far as I can see - one of the places being truedelta:
2008 Toyota Highlander AWD averages 16.8 miles/gallon in mostly city driving 2008 Mazda CX9 AWD averages ~15.1 miles/gallon in mostly city driving
Turedelta.com only had 5 points of data versus my spreadsheet from the extensive # of postings on this site. I added the 5 and it brought the Toyota down slightly, but not enough to make a big difference -- the Toyota is still close to 20% better on average.
One thing to keep in mind is that the MSRP of the Highlander Limited AWD is nearly the same as the Mazda GT AWD, yet the Mazda has more room behind the 3rd row, a split 3rd row seat, no cheap felt lining on the roof, more responsive steering, and generally handles better. Sure, the Highlander is rated to have 2 mpg better in highway and city, but then again the Highlander weighs 200 lbs less.
What you must have figured out in your research is that none of these SUVs have achieved anything dramatic in improving mpg, it's all about weight. If you really want to have good gas mileage and need an occasional 3rd row seat, then I would suggest looking into the Volvo V70 wagon, which might still have the 3rd row seats as a dealer-installed option (I believe they were jumpeats).
And you can get a big discount on the Mazda, most Toyota Dealers will never discount any of their cars as heavily as a Mazda dealer. Add in the excellent financing available through Mazda Credit, you're saving a bundle right there.
That's right, you can get CX-9s at invoice if you haggle a little. Although June 2008 Highlander sales were way below that of June 2007 (something like 30% less), so maybe Toyota dealers might be getting desperate.
I am selective in whose MPG figures I accept. Watching people drive, it seems that some people are always tapping the brake pedal (following too close) or racing to the next stop light (to get there before it turns green). And it seems that the complainers with poor gas mileage are the ones who often post on these forums. On my last two vehicles average mpg has been higher than the EPA estimated highway mileage. Thus, when considering a new car, I consider reported MPG with some reservation.
Just saw the newspaper today on CX9 - $6000 off MSRP (about $2500 BELOW INVOICE) for 2008 or - 0% APR for 36months
On MPG, I just did a round trip to Sacramento from Fremont with my CX9 GT AWD, (220 miles, 98% freeways mainly #5, some traffic, some hilly area) averaging 75mph. Average 3 persons and 1 luggage for both ways.
Average MPG is 21MPG (actually 20.91mpg) measured by top-off at the same pump at the same gas station. That ain't bad at all.
There is a $3,000 "dealer engagement" offer on the 2008 CX-9's right now. It is technically not a rebate, hence that is why the offer appears to be below invoice, and you also do not see it on Mazda's web site. Either way, it's a great offer. You can take the "engagement cash" or take Mazda up on their 1.9% financing for 60 months, or 0% for 36. Cannot combine both.
With today's gas prices heading in only one direction MPG should be one of the main decision criteria if cars come close on your list. On my 2008HL AWD I consistently get 21.5MPG in mixed driving. On HWY it is not hard to get 24-25 if you don't go over 70MPH and use cruise control. This is for summer time with no ethanol added. In winter it is not as good, I think I loose at list 1MPG. I blame cold weather and winter gas mix. As far as third row.. My kids used it couple of times at most and it serves the purpose just fine.
Yeah maybe if you're poor or shortsighted (shopping by MPG is the worst thing anyone could do) but the MPG difference is offset greatly and in the favor of the CX-9 due to discounts and financing deals. The third row in the CX-9 can fit real albeit not huge adults. The Highlander can't.
Learn to read buddy. I said "MPG should be one of the main decision criteria if cars come close on your list". I never said that MPG should be main criteria overall. CX-9 discounts and financing deals you mentioned will be offset by HL resell value in a future. Besides that 3rd row is only usefull if you haul more then 5 people in the car. I used it twice for the whole time of car ownership and it serves the purpose. And yes, you can fit adults there too if you move middle row forward. Is not this ironic that 2008HL takes less gas then car of your choice CX-7 (figured by your name cx7lover)
I found "mixed driving" a very confusing term. I am sure a mixed driving in Texas is very different from one in NY city.
Anyway, driving slowly can great improve MPG on highway. This is no secret at all. Today, I made another trip to Sacramento, and got 26mpg (based on my ScanGuageII) for a 40mile strip with steady but slower traffic (roughly 50-55). Overall, I averaged about 70mph and got 22.5mpg for the entire 220miles round trip. No cruise control, just not heavy-footed.
Today, I saw a couple of new Pilots on my trip. It certainly is bigger than I expected (cross-section wise). Still, it looks boxy and the front end just does not grow on me.
Personnally, all three are great choices. To each, one's own.
P.S. Since CX9 has no trip computer, I found my new ScanGuageII very helpful and informative.
There is no huge price advantage for the CX-9 in real-world shopping right now. You can get the Highlander Limited (not Hybrid) below dealer invoice if you work it right now. By the time you do this the price is within $1K of the similarly equipped Mazda.
Also, if you do he math on all the real-world MPG results posted in these forums you will see areal-world MPG difference of over 3 MPG, which is close to 20%.
For the poster who said the Highlander 3rd row does just fine, they must only have two kids still too young for the front seat. We have three and the middle seat is not really a full seat, nor can the second row handle three car seats side-by-side... The Highlander seating is its most significant flaw, offset by the class leading MPG. It really is only a 4 seater most of the time with an optional kid row that is only useful on short trips with no luggage.
I believe Highlander has the best MPG from all information I gathered, but I don't believe the 3mpg difference you talked about (Highlander over CX9). That is exaggerating. No offense, but I just don't believe it. There is major difference in FWD and AWD mpgs. EPA estimated 1mpg difference, but in real world it is more like 2mpg on highway, 3mpg in city driving. So, when talking about statistics, one needs to separate FWD and AWD and compare them.
My best guess is maybe 1mpg better (at most 2mpg combined) for Highlander over CX9 (or Pilots). The CX9 has short 1st gear and 200lb extra pounds to hual around. Highlander gear ratios may be better spreaded for MPG purpose. I know CX9 did them for zoom-zoom feel so MPG was secondary.
Price? Highlander below INVOICE?! Try $3000 BELOW INVOICE now for a CX9. How much gas can $3000 buy? That is 750 gallons (@$4) for 15000 miles(@20mpg). Enough for one to drive 1+ year! For 2mpg difference? $3000 is enough to compensate for 10 years of ownership, not counting the interest the $3000 generates.
Look, I explained my methodology in a previous post. There are extensive posts in this forum (and some others) for each of these cars where people list their real-world MPG. There wasn’t much data yet for the 2009 Pilot. but there is a ton for the Highlander and a decent amount for the CX-9. I was only interested in the AWD Highlander, not the FWD. I created a spreadsheet and entered everyone's reported mileage. Now you can question the accuracy of the underlying data. But what is there to “exaggerate”? That data showed what the data showed. One could argue that people only tend to report the low MPG because complainers post most. Perhaps. But I saw a lot of people bragging about their MPG too or indicating they we’re at least satisfied that it was appropriate to the car type, so I’m not sure I would agree with that criticism. Also, as we all know actual MPG will vary greatly based on the driver. But when you have enough points of data this should balance out. I am confident there are some very careful drivers who can get better MPG from their Pilot or CX-9 than a really aggressive driver in a Highlander. But the issue should be apples-to-apples what is “typical.” I personally believe in a lot of data over any one person’s personal experience or what they “think” it is based on their own gut. And the data I had showed about 3 MPG. Even if you ignored all this data and went with what is consistently reported in comparison reviews on this and other sites, it would still be about close to a 10% difference (1.6 MPG) in MPG versus less than a 5% weight difference. So I think it’s fair to say Toyota has engineered a more fuel efficient vehicle.
If you read my first post, I was the first I have seen here (in this thread anyway) to report about the $3,000 dealer incentive for the Mazda, so I am well aware of it. However, you incorrectly quote $3,000 below dealer invoice versus MSRP. If you go to the Mazda forum post for real-world prices paid recently, I have not seen many people reporting they walked away for $3K below dealer invoice. There are plenty who got MORE than $3K off MSRP though and certainly well below dealer invoice. But, again, since you can also get the Toyota below invoice right now, the real world delta between then is not $3K. Go check out the prices paid posts yourself if you don’t believe me. Plus I have been negotiating on all three of these cars. The real world difference works out to about $1K, give or take. This is certainly not true of the Hybrid Highlander, but Toyota is being uncharacteristically agreeable in trying to get rid of regular Highlanders right now.
To me all of this is academic. All of these prices and MPG’s are close enough that it doesn’t make sense for price or MPG to be the sole deciding factors between these three vehicles right now.
I won't get into any discussion over MPG as you appear to have your own process which makes sense based on the limited data available. As for the CX-9 price, I can comment. In lieu of low rate financing Mazda incentifies dealers $3000 per CX-9. Based on that I purchased mine last week for $7750 below MSRP or $4500 BELOW invoice. Mazda dealers here in the Midwest appear ready & willing to move their vehicles as each one I checked with was below invoice AND provided the full $3000 off of that. None of the local Toyota dealers are going anywhere close to a CX-9 on just price - my neighbor is currently shopping for a Highlander Limited FWD comparably equipped to my CX-9 AWD and the price difference is between $3200 and $3900 - plenty to pay for the extra gas I'll use...but who can put a price on all that fun I'll be having while I ZOOM ZOOM.
BTW I found financing through Costco.com (via Capital One) for 4.67% for 60 mos. with 0 down.
So I think it’s fair to say Toyota has engineered a more fuel efficient vehicle.
The Highlander weighs 200 lbs less: there's most of your gain over the CX-9 right there, it has nothing to do with design, it's just a smaller vehicle. Generally, for each 100 lbs less of weight, you gain about 1 mpg**. So 200 lbs less for the Highlander should give you about 2 mpg better. **(also see here for a calculation)
The rest of the data is just noise, i.e. driving habits (maybe CX-9 owners are more heavy footed than the Highlander crowd), what extra cargo is carried in the vehicles, etc. etc.
The CX-9 is rumored to get a direct injection engine, which should increase HP and increase mpg...we'll see!
Good points you made. I found that the short 1st gear (4.15) costs MPG of CX9 in city driving as well as the extra 200lbs. I own a Prius, so I have nothing against Toyota. It is just that I can't live with that lousy 3rd bench and floaty driving feel (and lousy electric steering, too). I know electric steering 'cause Prius has it also. Toyota apparently use electric steering for less drag on the engine (better MPG also). It is a design choice.
I recently installed ScanGuageII on my CX-9, and get to monitor instant MPGs (plus per day, trip, tank, etc.) I have been getting 17.5mpg (from 16.5mpg) on my same daily commute trip with a bit adjustment in driving style (the right amount of acceleration - not too fast, not too slow).
Direct injection would improve engine efficiency by about 5% or more. I would also recommend Mazda to use a aluminum hood. It might save about 20lb. A heavy hood serve no purpose at all. MAZDA, are you listening.....
Sure you may feel you could zoom zoom better in CX-9, but NOT faster than Highlander. Anything over 8 seconds zoom-zoom to 60, is prolly trying lawn-mower race cart.
Not many dealers sit their vehicles in lots, but rather in preperation areas (call it their warehouse). If anything is any indication, in our hood I see normal amount of stock in Toyota warehouse, lesser-than-usual @ Honda warehouse (mostly due to fast setting Civics), and tons-and-tons of non-moving Mazda ducks. It may be local phenomenon, but sure doesn't bode well observing this thing for the past 4-6 months.
Has anybody gotten monthly sales figures for CX-9 compared to Highlanders vs Pilots to see how well each brand/model is doing ?
By the way, anybody compiled, how many on-going recalls/silent-recalls, dealer-fixes and :lemon: law suits that are files against CX-9 and other models?
If you really want to figure where many Americans are plunking down thier hard-earned money, just look at sales numbers.
If you got money to spare, yeah - you can zoom zoom better, try a BMW X5 or a Mercedes or a Lexus - they may take you to your destination in Style too!
Regarding Electrical steering: it takes some getting used to, sure even BMW introduced electric steering in their family, and took decent flak. Guess, its one of the things folks would have to start getting used to. After a while of driving with it, it doesn't feel that much different, and my friends actually like electric steering.
Folks miss other critical advantages with electrical steering: Better insulation/firewall, better NVH, and better crash performance. In addition, some Engineering folks advice that Electrical steering is better integrated with VDIM/VSC (vehicle stability control), making it work better to save lives! According to consumer advocate Clark Howard: ".. electronic stability control .. expected to save more lives than any other gadget, except for maybe a seatbelt" ** (and he didn't include Anti-lock brakes, airbags, and other boondabgles in this list, because VSC/ESC is no pretender, but REAL-DEAL !!).
Do you always buy the most popular vehicles? I don't. I made my own choice considering my own needs and criteria.
If sales numbers determine which vehicle is better, then all auto-magazines can stop their comparison test. Just collect the sales numbers and declare winners. By the way, which major award has Highlander or Pilot obtained yet?
Hers is a list of MAJOR awards that CX9 has roped... Mototrend: Sports Utility of the Year 2008 Automobile Magazine: All-Star 2008 Car And Driver: 5 Best Truck 2008
P.S. Highlander was a contender in all three of them. Yes, awarding winning is a big factor of mine when it comes to choosing vehicles.
Has anybody gotten monthly sales figures for CX-9 compared to Highlanders vs Pilots to see how well each brand/model is doing ?
Overall Toyota sales are down 11.5% as compared to this time last year, while Mazda is up 3.7% (both based on a daily selling rate for June). Highlander sales are down 31%, while CX-9 sales are down only 6.4%.
As far as absolute numbers, Toyota has always outsold Mazda in terms of shear volume. Mazda caters to a more sport-minded crowd, and have always had less models to offer. But as you can see, the Highlander is taking a beating, while the CX-9 is doing a nice, steady job.
Some folks may be saying Mazda is offering more discount (over $3K-4K under invoice!!), if CX-9 roped in that many awards, why does it need that /rebate/ push ? All we are hearing is one is lucky if Highlander can be had for under 1K below invoice.
What little I know, Toyota does what it calls - product mix changes, and during such shifts, its expected one model sells more than the others. MAZDA is pushed to being a a niche player (note: sidelined), considered one or two trick pony. Come 10 years now, would you believe Mazda, which is under controlling stake of Ford, is going to be steadfast and honor its commitment to its product line(s), parts and service and continue to make and support CX-9 model?
Some of you guys can have CX-9, it may not be a bad vehicle on first year or two of ownership. Wait till those lease-returns start trickling in .. By all means - I also enjoy driving sportsy vehicle occationally say 'stang, but do I want to own one knowing its reliability, and how stiff driving hurt backs on long-trips history ? pass,
No doubt, Highlander is not sports tuned, and may feel slightly wobbly to somebody's tastes, thats a choice folks gotta make.
What award did Highlander win? "Peoples Choice Award" - just check sales numbers. Where did CX9 rank among 'sumer 'rports rankings? mid-pack fourth !!
Where did I heard the quote "The CX-9's sales are a drop in the bucket compared with Toyota's Highlander" ? No wonder CX-9 is a one trick pony.
By the way its smaller brother CX-7 dropper well over 50% in June. So, you can't really compare company to company sales volume ..
By all means - nobody saying CX-9 is a bad vehicle, only time will determine the truth, and its re-sale value., until that time zoom fast for what may be a short-lived fun! (CX-9 is based on stretched Ford Edge, we know resale values of Ford Edge !!)
What did 'sumer 'rports have to say on CX-9? -- "First-year reliability has been below average" "Braking distances .. long in our tests on both dry and wet pavements (compared to all 6 competitors)" "Low Fuel economy"
Sure Highlander has some low points as well, but it seems more people are willing to make a choice with safe, reliable vehicle more than a niche-market player.
I don't. I made my own choice considering my own needs and criteria. ... Yes, awarding winning is a big factor of mine when it comes to choosing vehicles.
Interesting. You based your choice on your own criteria, of which winning an award based on someone else's criteria was a big factor.
In all seriousness, I doubt anyone will regret purchasing any of these CUVs. Each is a little different. Everyone's motivation for choosing one over the other will be different too. Nothing wrong with that.
I took a look at an '09 Pilot Touring this afternoon. Maybe it was the black interior, but the plastics used were an immediate turn-off. Like the Highlander, the dash and upper door panels are hard plastic. Unlike the Highlander, the texture and grain look and feel out of place for a $38K vehicle.
The only advantage was the headliner, but since I don't spend much time staring at the ceiling, that's a minor plus.
I also don't like the center seating position's ceiling-mounted seat belt. When installed, it looks terrible. When stowed, you have to remember to set it up whenever you plan on having a passenger in that position. It's a minor detail, but the Highlander has a seat-mounted center shoulder belt.
Comments
The Highlander straddles the third row midsize CUV market (Pilot, Veracruz) and the smaller midsize CUV market (Murano, Edge). because of its midrange size. Therefore, it would be just fine for someone who doesn't need a third row. What I don't understand is why you would get one if you need a third row.
Sorry for side-tracking.
Some people just need the extra cargo room. Unlike traditional BOF SUVs these CUVs (or at least most of them) do not let you omit the 3rd row from the option sheet.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder... I love the look of the new Pilot, but that is just me... and my husband and all of our friends so far.. even a random guy at a shopping center that stopped us to ask about the car since he had never seen it before and loved how it looks. Seems to me that it might be a love it, hate or it might grow on you thing.. :P
CR is a JOKE, take it from other owners that you meet on the street, and on a forum. the CX-9 is a reliable vehicle so far.
Interesting. So how do they rate Bose audio systems in general? I know how I rate them. :lemon:
CR is just as reliable a source as any other magazine. Okay, that's a little much. Maybe they are not quite as good as MT or C&D. But you have to take their ratings at the same amount- with a grain of salt. You can only figure out what you like for yourself. If everyone listened to CR GM wouldn't be here right now.
You should do so no matter what kind of car you are driving. Better brake give you better chance to survive, though.
Personally, I don't understand why anyone who needs a third row would choose any of these CUVs/SUVs over a minivan. But, like you stated, to each their own.
I've heard horror stories about Toyota distributors and packaged options in other areas. I guess I'm just lucky -- the way my distributor packages options is the way I'd want it. At least there was the chance that I'd get what I want. With Honda, there is zero chance of getting an EX-L with factory Bluetooth, for example.
After 7000 miles, I am very happy with the build quality of my 2nd-year CX9. Way better than the '01 Odyssey I traded in for it. The Odyssey was noisy, and the driver-side door sounded like a tin can when it closed. The sliding doors jammed from time to time. The A/C nob fell off. All minor issues, but what is reliability, really?
I define "Reliability" as problems that could get me stranded or give me a hard time on the roads. What is a reliability concern to me?
Failed A/C in Las Vegas summer? Yes.
Failed Bose stereo? No.
Failed cam position sensors? Yes.
Failed iPod iterface? No.
Ask this question. How does CR gather reliability data?
From readers' inputs. Do all its readers know how to rate each issue? Is there
a standard? How to compared a failed iPod interface against a failed cam position
sensor? CR has lots of room to improve in that sense, IMHO.
To me, a failed cam position sensor is 10X worse than a failed iPod interface.
I still can listen to FM, CD, you name it. With a failed cam position sensor, you are not going anywhere.
I've heard horror stories about Toyota distributors and packaged options in other areas. I guess I'm just lucky -- the way my distributor packages options is the way I'd want it. At least there was the chance that I'd get what I want. With Honda, there is zero chance of getting an EX-L with factory Bluetooth, for example.
I wasn't referring to the regional distributors. Toyota corporate is the problem. They are the ones that define it so you have to have the Limited to get nav and you have to get the nav and moonroof to get the rear entertainment, etc. Just check out the brochures to see this. Or try using Edmunds -- if you select an entertainment center they will pop up and tell you to get the moonroof, etc. They are the ones that remove AC from standard equipment on the Hyrbid Limited then make almost no cars without it but charge several thousand for it as an "option" As for the things like floor mats, etc., I have consistently found in at least 5 states that everyone supplies these with the car and a built-in "option" and when I have spone to dealers or national services like CarsDirect they have said "Toyota always ships with those, so you don't really have a choice." Again, I think it just worked out for your particular set of options. I certainly wouldn't consider Toyota flexible in general.
First of all, there are plenty of people who would prefer a 3 -ow SUV/CUV over a mini-van, which is why the market segment has been so successful (current SUV MPG stigma aside). Second, we already own a mini-van. We don't want two, but we constantly run into logistics of needing to trade-off cars, often driving to places to do the trade-off because of needing the extra seats (he curse of having 3 kids (and all their car pooling friends in various sports, scouts and other activities at once). Having an SUV where the 3rd row is down by default for hauling stuff in the cargo area but can be used on-demand is very useful.
But if I didn't need a third row I would get something like the Ford Hybrid with over 30 MPG.
Also, as I had said earlier I was seeing a website called www.truedelta.com, that gathers repair histories and it seems like there are a few problems that are reported (rattling sound in the center console requiring replacement of the console in at least 2 cases!!). That is why I was worried. I have owned a Mazda before and I was very happy with my vehicle at that time.
I will have to agree to the statement about stopping distances. I guess I will keep looking...
MT is Motor Trend btw.
I'm not fan of SUV's - I've always been a sports car guy. But one good reasons to buy a 3-row SUV over a minivan is AWD. We have a Caravan (best American car I've ever owned) for our four kids. We recently moved into a new house with a steep driveway - and neither our van, nor my BMW will go up it with 1/2" of snow on it.
We've decided we must trade both cars for AWD. Easy for me - there are a lot of AWD sports sedans out there. Impossible for my wife. The only AWD minivan sold in America is the Toyota Siena. While the literature and website say AWD is offered on the LE model, try finding anything less than a fully loaded XLE ($38,000+) on the lot - and then there is only one, in a color you don't like, and they want full sticker. Not to mention the fact that you have to deal with the Toyota "got you by the b***s" arrogance.
So, we're stuck getting an SUV to get three rows and AWD. I have to say, though, the CX-9 is a pretty good compromise. It is nearly as roomy as our regular-length Caravan, and it drives as much like an X5 as any SUV I've ever driven. In fact, it's better than an X5, because the new X5 third row is a carnival novelty seat.
In fact, if my wife decides she just has to bend over for Toyota to get an AWD van (probably a used one, if we can find one), I may just get the CX-9 to replace my 325i. I liked it that much, and it wouldn't hurt if we both had three rows of seats.
Positive impressions of the 2008 highlander: Great ride. Beautiful interior materials/dash design. Nice exterior design. Good stereo.
Negatives: The afformentioned third row seat. A little disconnected from the road. Steering/road feel nowhere near as precise and linear as the Mazda. Hate the fact that within five minutes of your arrival on the lot, the salesmen start "preparing" you that "they don't move on the Toyotas (price)".
I have driven many BMW X3's and X5's as loaners when my 325 has been in for service (it's got 86,000 miles on it, so it hasn't been unreliable). BMW proved you can make an SUV that handles in the turns. I've never driven a CX-7, but the CX-9 is only the second SUV I've driven that can compare with the BMW (the others are the two Infinity models). I told my wife right after the test drive, this is a poor man's X5, and we can stop looking, now.
The real world mileage people are reporting is very disappointing as well.
Other than that, it seems like a great car. Definitely drives the best in the group. Way better in fact.
I guess for some people the electronics aren’t that big a deal, I’m just not one of them.
To citivas - The real world mpg reported for the Mazda CX9 on average seems to be as one would expect.
Not sure what this means. If you mean for a heavy, 3-row SUV in general, I guess I don't understand since the non-Hybrid Highlander is comparable (within 5%) but has meaningfully better real world mileage (about 20%).
http://www.neocaraudio.com/product_info.php?products_id=5044
That allows control from the steering wheel, and the NAVI screen, if you want SAT and iPod, you get the Mazda Switch box. done. What else is there?
Review from a CX-7 owner.
http://www.mcx7.com/showpost.php?p=19535&postcount=5
The CX-9 drives like a European sedan, which is why we chose it over the GM Lambdas. It also drives "smaller" than the Lambdas. The Highlander was also a nice option, but lack of 3rd row split seat was a dealbreaker. Toyota goofed on that one. The new Pilot looked versatile, but boy, we just didn't like the look, especially the front end. That's mostly due to my wife, who doesn't like the "trucky" look.
My wife is the main driver of the CX-9, and she loves it. I've taken it out on the twisties, and Mazda really did a good job with minimizing body roll and feeling connected to the road. It would be even better if it had a bit more low-end torque (it seems to shine above 2500 rpm), but you can really throw the car around and still feel confident in the way it responds. I didn't get that feeling with the Highlander or the Acadia.
I didn't just go off the Edmunds review, which only was dealing with a very limited test period, but I built a spreadsheet and read through page after page of the real-world MPG posts on this forum from users (I don't think there were enough for the 2009 Pilot yet to be adequate for comparison). If you do that for these three cars, the gap between the Highlander and the CX-9 increases from the approximately 10% reported in Edmunds test to approximately 20%. I also checked out the comments on the reviews and the posts on some other sites. Even 10% is more than it should be. That works out to a lot annually.
I haven't ruled out the CX-9; that is just one of the "cons" that is weighing on the decision. All I was pointing out is some people keep justifying the low MPG as inevitable for these CUV's but the Highlander proves they could be better. The Highlander is far from a perfect car, but it proves there is more to be done by most manufacturers in fuel efficiency. And even with all that, it has the largest towing capacity of the group.
2008 Toyota Highlander AWD averages 16.8 miles/gallon in mostly city driving
2008 Mazda CX9 AWD averages ~15.1 miles/gallon in mostly city driving
It is clear that the Mazda's economy is not as good as the Toyota's but it is in the ball park. As a buyer, this slightly better fuel economy alone certainly will not influence me in going towards the Toyota.
EDIT: Looks like by the time I posted a number of relevant posts have been posted making my post kinda redundant.
2008 Toyota Highlander AWD averages 16.8 miles/gallon in mostly city driving
2008 Mazda CX9 AWD averages ~15.1 miles/gallon in mostly city driving
Turedelta.com only had 5 points of data versus my spreadsheet from the extensive # of postings on this site. I added the 5 and it brought the Toyota down slightly, but not enough to make a big difference -- the Toyota is still close to 20% better on average.
What you must have figured out in your research is that none of these SUVs have achieved anything dramatic in improving mpg, it's all about weight. If you really want to have good gas mileage and need an occasional 3rd row seat, then I would suggest looking into the Volvo V70 wagon, which might still have the 3rd row seats as a dealer-installed option (I believe they were jumpeats).
- $6000 off MSRP (about $2500 BELOW INVOICE) for 2008
or
- 0% APR for 36months
On MPG, I just did a round trip to Sacramento from Fremont with my CX9 GT AWD, (220 miles, 98% freeways mainly #5, some traffic, some hilly area) averaging 75mph. Average 3 persons and 1 luggage for both ways.
Average MPG is 21MPG (actually 20.91mpg) measured by top-off at the same pump at the same gas station. That ain't bad at all.
Anyway, driving slowly can great improve MPG on highway. This is no secret at all.
Today, I made another trip to Sacramento, and got 26mpg (based on my ScanGuageII) for a 40mile strip with steady but slower traffic (roughly 50-55). Overall, I averaged about 70mph and got 22.5mpg for the entire 220miles round trip.
No cruise control, just not heavy-footed.
Today, I saw a couple of new Pilots on my trip. It certainly is bigger than I expected (cross-section wise). Still, it looks boxy and the front end just does not grow on me.
Personnally, all three are great choices. To each, one's own.
P.S. Since CX9 has no trip computer, I found my new ScanGuageII very helpful and informative.
Also, if you do he math on all the real-world MPG results posted in these forums you will see areal-world MPG difference of over 3 MPG, which is close to 20%.
For the poster who said the Highlander 3rd row does just fine, they must only have two kids still too young for the front seat. We have three and the middle seat is not really a full seat, nor can the second row handle three car seats side-by-side... The Highlander seating is its most significant flaw, offset by the class leading MPG. It really is only a 4 seater most of the time with an optional kid row that is only useful on short trips with no luggage.
My best guess is maybe 1mpg better (at most 2mpg combined) for Highlander over CX9 (or Pilots). The CX9 has short 1st gear and 200lb extra pounds to hual around. Highlander gear ratios may be better spreaded for MPG purpose. I know CX9 did them for zoom-zoom feel so MPG was secondary.
Price? Highlander below INVOICE?! Try $3000 BELOW INVOICE now for a CX9. How much gas can $3000 buy? That is 750 gallons (@$4) for 15000 miles(@20mpg). Enough for one to drive 1+ year! For 2mpg difference? $3000 is enough to compensate for 10 years of ownership, not counting the interest the $3000 generates.
If you read my first post, I was the first I have seen here (in this thread anyway) to report about the $3,000 dealer incentive for the Mazda, so I am well aware of it. However, you incorrectly quote $3,000 below dealer invoice versus MSRP. If you go to the Mazda forum post for real-world prices paid recently, I have not seen many people reporting they walked away for $3K below dealer invoice. There are plenty who got MORE than $3K off MSRP though and certainly well below dealer invoice. But, again, since you can also get the Toyota below invoice right now, the real world delta between then is not $3K. Go check out the prices paid posts yourself if you don’t believe me. Plus I have been negotiating on all three of these cars. The real world difference works out to about $1K, give or take. This is certainly not true of the Hybrid Highlander, but Toyota is being uncharacteristically agreeable in trying to get rid of regular Highlanders right now.
To me all of this is academic. All of these prices and MPG’s are close enough that it doesn’t make sense for price or MPG to be the sole deciding factors between these three vehicles right now.
BTW I found financing through Costco.com (via Capital One) for 4.67% for 60 mos.
with 0 down.
The Highlander weighs 200 lbs less: there's most of your gain over the CX-9 right there, it has nothing to do with design, it's just a smaller vehicle. Generally, for each 100 lbs less of weight, you gain about 1 mpg**. So 200 lbs less for the Highlander should give you about 2 mpg better. **(also see here for a calculation)
The rest of the data is just noise, i.e. driving habits (maybe CX-9 owners are more heavy footed than the Highlander crowd), what extra cargo is carried in the vehicles, etc. etc.
The CX-9 is rumored to get a direct injection engine, which should increase HP and increase mpg...we'll see!
Good points you made. I found that the short 1st gear (4.15) costs MPG of CX9 in city driving as well as the extra 200lbs. I own a Prius, so I have nothing against Toyota. It is just that I can't live with that lousy 3rd bench and floaty driving feel (and lousy electric steering, too). I know electric steering 'cause Prius has it also. Toyota apparently use electric steering for less drag on the engine (better MPG also). It is a design choice.
I recently installed ScanGuageII on my CX-9, and get to monitor instant MPGs (plus per day, trip, tank, etc.) I have been getting 17.5mpg (from 16.5mpg) on my same daily commute trip with a bit adjustment in driving style (the right amount of acceleration - not too fast, not too slow).
Direct injection would improve engine efficiency by about 5% or more. I would also recommend Mazda to use a aluminum hood. It might save about 20lb. A heavy hood serve no purpose at all. MAZDA, are you listening.....
Not many dealers sit their vehicles in lots, but rather in preperation areas (call it their warehouse). If anything is any indication, in our hood I see normal amount of stock in Toyota warehouse, lesser-than-usual @ Honda warehouse (mostly due to fast setting Civics), and tons-and-tons of non-moving Mazda ducks. It may be local phenomenon, but sure doesn't bode well observing this thing for the past 4-6 months.
Has anybody gotten monthly sales figures for CX-9 compared to Highlanders vs Pilots to see how well each brand/model is doing ?
By the way, anybody compiled, how many on-going recalls/silent-recalls, dealer-fixes and :lemon: law suits that are files against CX-9 and other models?
If you really want to figure where many Americans are plunking down thier hard-earned money, just look at sales numbers.
If you got money to spare, yeah - you can zoom zoom better, try a BMW X5 or a Mercedes or a Lexus - they may take you to your destination in Style too!
Regarding Electrical steering: it takes some getting used to, sure even BMW introduced electric steering in their family, and took decent flak. Guess, its one of the things folks would have to start getting used to. After a while of driving with it, it doesn't feel that much different, and my friends actually like electric steering.
Folks miss other critical advantages with electrical steering: Better insulation/firewall, better NVH, and better crash performance. In addition, some Engineering folks advice that Electrical steering is better integrated with VDIM/VSC (vehicle stability control), making it work better to save lives! According to consumer advocate Clark Howard: ".. electronic stability control .. expected to save more lives than any other gadget, except for maybe a seatbelt" ** (and he didn't include Anti-lock brakes, airbags, and other boondabgles in this list, because VSC/ESC is no pretender, but REAL-DEAL !!).
Now, do I want VSC/VDIM? See how VDIM in action in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giHp_AahMhA
(though I sure wouldn't recommend doing crazy stunts on a icy road!)
** REF ** http://clarkhoward.com/liveweb/shownotes/2007/04/12/12129/
I don't. I made my own choice considering my own needs and criteria.
If sales numbers determine which vehicle is better, then all auto-magazines can stop their comparison test. Just collect the sales numbers and declare winners.
By the way, which major award has Highlander or Pilot obtained yet?
Hers is a list of MAJOR awards that CX9 has roped...
Mototrend: Sports Utility of the Year 2008
Automobile Magazine: All-Star 2008
Car And Driver: 5 Best Truck 2008
P.S. Highlander was a contender in all three of them.
Yes, awarding winning is a big factor of mine when it comes to choosing vehicles.
Overall Toyota sales are down 11.5% as compared to this time last year, while Mazda is up 3.7% (both based on a daily selling rate for June). Highlander sales are down 31%, while CX-9 sales are down only 6.4%.
As far as absolute numbers, Toyota has always outsold Mazda in terms of shear volume. Mazda caters to a more sport-minded crowd, and have always had less models to offer. But as you can see, the Highlander is taking a beating, while the CX-9 is doing a nice, steady job.
What little I know, Toyota does what it calls - product mix changes, and during such shifts, its expected one model sells more than the others. MAZDA is pushed to being a a niche player (note: sidelined), considered one or two trick pony. Come 10 years now, would you believe Mazda, which is under controlling stake of Ford, is going to be steadfast and honor its commitment to its product line(s), parts and service and continue to make and support CX-9 model?
Some of you guys can have CX-9, it may not be a bad vehicle on first year or two of ownership. Wait till those lease-returns start trickling in .. By all means - I also enjoy driving sportsy vehicle occationally say 'stang, but do I want to own one knowing its reliability, and how stiff driving hurt backs on long-trips history ? pass,
No doubt, Highlander is not sports tuned, and may feel slightly wobbly to somebody's tastes, thats a choice folks gotta make.
What award did Highlander win? "Peoples Choice Award" - just check sales numbers. Where did CX9 rank among 'sumer 'rports rankings? mid-pack fourth !!
Where did I heard the quote "The CX-9's sales are a drop in the bucket compared with Toyota's Highlander" ? No wonder CX-9 is a one trick pony.
By the way its smaller brother CX-7 dropper well over 50% in June. So, you can't really compare company to company sales volume ..
By all means - nobody saying CX-9 is a bad vehicle, only time will determine the truth, and its re-sale value., until that time zoom fast for what may be a short-lived fun! (CX-9 is based on stretched Ford Edge, we know resale values of Ford Edge !!)
What did 'sumer 'rports have to say on CX-9? -- "First-year reliability has been below average" "Braking distances .. long in our tests on both dry and wet pavements (compared to all 6 competitors)" "Low Fuel economy"
Sure Highlander has some low points as well, but it seems more people are willing to make a choice with safe, reliable vehicle more than a niche-market player.
...
Yes, awarding winning is a big factor of mine when it comes to choosing vehicles.
Interesting. You based your choice on your own criteria, of which winning an award based on someone else's criteria was a big factor.
In all seriousness, I doubt anyone will regret purchasing any of these CUVs. Each is a little different. Everyone's motivation for choosing one over the other will be different too. Nothing wrong with that.
I took a look at an '09 Pilot Touring this afternoon. Maybe it was the black interior, but the plastics used were an immediate turn-off. Like the Highlander, the dash and upper door panels are hard plastic. Unlike the Highlander, the texture and grain look and feel out of place for a $38K vehicle.
The only advantage was the headliner, but since I don't spend much time staring at the ceiling, that's a minor plus.
I also don't like the center seating position's ceiling-mounted seat belt. When installed, it looks terrible. When stowed, you have to remember to set it up whenever you plan on having a passenger in that position. It's a minor detail, but the Highlander has a seat-mounted center shoulder belt.