By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
One concern he mentioned was the lack of towing capacity.
Bob
Length - 188.0 Inches
Height - 71.7 inches
Width - 77.3 inches
Interior Dimensions. Front/Middle/Rear (inches)
Headroom - 41.9/40.9/38.9
Legroom - 41.4/37.4/30.2
Shoulder Room - 61.6/61.4/58.8
Hiproom - 57.5/56.6/49.0
Cargo room. Behind 3rd seat/Behind 2nd seat/Behind Front Row
16.3/48.7/90.3 cubic feet
-mike
Compared to the MDX, the Pilot is ...
0.5" shorter. Since the wheelbase length is the same, the half-inch is probably just the length of the nose or the rear overhang.
0.3" wider. Wonder if this is just because of the mirrors, or perhaps there's more curve on the doors?
Slightly taller, at 71.7" for the EX, 70.6" for the LX (without roof rack?). The MDX is 68.7" without the roof rack, 71.3" with.
The LX is 4,416 lbs, EX is 4,439 lbs, vs 4,374 for the MDX Premium, 4,436 for the MDX Touring.
All in all, the vehicle is pretty much the same as the MDX in terms of exterior size. But it looks like there's more room in the interior.
Front headroom of 41.9/40.9/38.9 vs. 38.7/39.0/36.3. Part of this is the lack of a moonroof, part of it is probably the more upright greenhouse of the vehicle (tall all the way to the back). This should help the taller folks out there.
Legroom of 41.4/37.4/30.2 vs. 41.5/37.8/29.3. Looks like Honda did squeeze 0.9" for the rear seat passengers, which is a pretty critical need. It's tight but like on an airplane, you want that extra inch. The second row got shortened by 0.4" to help out. I'll be the extra 0.4" for the third row came from some modification of seat thickness and whatnot.
Shoulder room of 61.6/61.4/58.8 vs. 61.2/61.1/58.6 is very similar to the MDX with a bit more in the front row. Could this just be the shape of the doors or something? Note that third seat passengers do not have much more shoulder room.
Hiproom of 57.5/56.6/49.0 vs. 56.9/56.3/48.5 shows some gains in the Pilot. 0.6" in the front, just 0.3" in the second row, and 0.5" in the third row.
Cargo capacity of 16.3/48.7/90.3 vs. ???/49.6/82.0 is interesting. The Pilot is the clear winner when the second and third rows are folded down, but the MDX actually has a tiny bit more space with just the third row folded down. Though the Pilot's taller back means some more odd-shaped items can go in the back.
All in all, the dimensions are similar to the MDX with some significant differences. Unfortunately the third row is not really much bigger to get 8 passengers, since it was already tight. Though it should be okay for smaller children, three across is going to be a squeeze.
Overall, I'm impressed that the pre-spec information was pretty much on the mark, except for some speculation on the length/width of the vehicle.
Acura will definitely have to differentiate the 2003 MDX more. Anyone currently looking for a 2002 MDX should think otherwise, and wait for a 2003 MDX or look hard at a Pilot. There are definitely some extra comfort/convenience/appearance features on the 2002 MDX but quite a few of buyers will take the less expensive, regular-gas-burning Pilot.
http://www.hondasuv.com/
Most of the site is currently under contruction, but the Pilot link will take you to the article.
http://www.hondasuv.com/pilot/pilot_spy.htm
http://pilot.honda.com/home.asp
You must register with Honda to view this site.
is steep for me.$29k I could do...Whats the MPG?
Is moonroof standard?I was happy with my CRV till
Honda dealt a new card.Am I ever gonna be satisfied?
Compare this with 15/21 for the Chevy Trailblazer and 15/20 for the Ford Explorer.
-mike
My confusion is about emissions. The pamphlet I have states, LEV or ULEV rating. Why doesn't Honda know which? I could understand this kind of uncertainty during development, but we're way past that stage. Are they just being conservative with the LEV II standards coming into effect?
As it is, the MDX's MPG numbers are, like many MPG numbers are, fairly optimistic. If one drives a lot at 70mph, actual MPG drops. This has been fairly well-documented by MDX owners. The engine has terrific power, but there is a penalty for that power.
If the Pilot's MPG pattern is similar, many people will be getting real-world MPG of 16-22mpg depending on their mix.
http://www.acuramdx.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1665&highlight=mileage+survey
This links to that section, but you will have to register on the site to see it
http://pilot.honda.com/gallery.asp?Section=Exterior
You can zoom in to a fairly large size photo...I really like the color (granite (with a hint of green)???)...although that means I'd have to wait until August for it to come out (although may be worthwhile to wait and see how others like the Pilot after having it for a couple months)..
Emissions Rating (Federal/CARB) LEV/ULEV
You drive 1,000 miles.
At 22 mpg, you have used 45.4545 gallons of regular gas.
Let's assume the regular gas is $1.50. Your pricing may vary. Thus the 1,000 miles cost $68.18 in gasoline.
At 23 mpg, you have used 43.4783 gallons of gas.
Let's assume the premium gas is $1.70. Your pricing may vary. Thus the 1,000 miles cost $73.91 in gasoline.
So on the MDX, you pay $5.73 more for the 1,000 miles.
Therefore, the 1 mpg difference in the Pilot is more than offset by the use of regular gas.
Mind you, if one drives under these formulas, the total difference for 15,000 miles is $85.95 a year. Some will consider that significant, some won't. Some of this will depend on the delta between regular and premium in their area.
But either way, I am afraid that the 1mpg difference does not offset the requirement for premium gas.
Now trying to be realistic...in my opinion the cost of premium is nil if you getting slightly less performance. If you own the car for 50,000 miles the cost is $286 and 100,000 miles $573 dollars. Less than the cost of running boards. I think the "better" motor (I use better loosely) if cost justified in regards comparing regular to premium. It looks like a lot at the pump, but net it out and I think it is less significant.
The spare is full diameter (it has to be), but it is not full width. The larger picture illustrates that better. It's been a while since I climbed under an MDX, but it could be from the same parts bin.
The space-saver is tucked up there pretty well. better than many other vehicles and surprizing given the third row seats. I'm sure a full width replacement would fit.
I'm north of Boston and am willing to take a ride in order to take part in covert ops.
But some folks have been running regular gas on their MDX. It's been the subject of many debates. You're supposed to get reduced performance and perhaps reduced fuel economy. The primary debate centers on whether it damages the engine.
I've seen it debated endlessly, and I don't know who is really right. I'm playing it safe by using premium, as the extra $125 a year (in these parts, and for my mileage) isn't going to kill me and I'd rather have the peace of mind.
The fact that the Pilot uses regular gas will no doubt be a big plus for some folks.
-mike
Regards
Dunno what benefit the Pilot will get if you run it on premium.
-mike
Steve
Host
SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
Does the grey interior look extremely light to anyone else, or is it just me?
varmint, is there anyway your spycam could get a good shot, from different angles if posible, of a white one?
Did it fall short of my expectations: Nope.
There are areas where you can see Honda cutting costs, but I expected that. If they hadn't, it would be out of my price range. It doesn't look like they cut anything important. So what if the plastic "nets" in the storage pockets are cheap? It's not going to see much use. Even then, it might simply hold a kid's juice box while he/she pokes their sibling.
The important stuff is solid. The seats are comfortable. The controls are well placed and have a quality feel. The doors "thunk" with authority. It's basic and utilitarian (in a family hauler sort of way), but that's what I want.
I think it meets expectations. I expected an MDX with a number of comfort/convenience features removed to achieve a lower, along with some new features the current MDX doesn't have, and it's pretty much on par. Has that conservative Honda look to it. After all, Acura really doesn't differentiate their vehicles that radically (e.g. Accord EX V6 to the base TL). If the 2003 MDX gets the more powerful engine, that should make things about right.
I think as it is, the Pilot is Honda's very strong answer to the Highlander. The Highlander isn't cheap either (though there's always a 2WD one), and may labor somewhat under suspicions of oil sludge.
To me, there are two significant, objectionable aspects. The first is the lack of any moonroof option, which makes me feel claustrophic even in a vehicle that size. It probably bothers me more because I think it's a cheesey attempt by Honda/Acura to differentiate the Pilot and MDX, and I have a nagging feeling it'll be available in later Pilots, much to the chagrin of first and perhaps second year buyers.
The second is the lack of any stability control option, which is now becoming commonplace not only on luxury SUV's, but is available on the Highlander and even the Explorer. Sure, the wider-is-better helps, but note that the MDX did not score as well in more than one emergency handling test, partly because of the lack of stability control (CR has it rated below average, though it must be noted that the rating goes across all vehicle types, and most SUV's score either below average or average). The Pilot may suffer the same issue.
I can get over missing most of the other convenience features if the tradeoff is price; they had to keep the cost down, after all.
But let's not forget the positives. For those who prefer a more car-like, hybrid "SUV" (or whatever one prefers to label these, I think we get too hung up on these things), it has to be at least considered. It's got more passenger and cargo room than a Highlander, and even if the third row is tight, at least it's there as an option (after all, how many times have you in your life squeezed into the back of a 2+2?).
The reliability/build quality should be good. Maybe not as high as the Highlander's but better than most other SUV's.
Even more important to many in this segment, the crash test scores should be excellent, at least matching and probably beating the Highlander's (which even with stability control also scores "below average" in CR's test).
Up to the individual buyer to decide. Assuming the price is right, it should be a strong contender, and you'll see MSRP pricing through at least the first model year.
oFWD system, only kicking the rears in after slippage
oTrans has had problems in the Oddy/MDX
oDiffy fluid change interval
as for the moonroof lack of option, just find a local place that does good roof installs and you'll be set. Have them cut it in @ the same points as the MDX has it and you won't run into structural problems.
-mike
PS: SMV is a segment I created recently, the Soccer Mom Vehicle or Soccer & Mall Vehicle
Hate to have the wife enjoying her 6disc changer that came with her 2002 CRV-EX and the pilot not having one...although she has a moonroof also
His shop is used by all the local dealers for roofs, leather, and mobile video systems.
Is aftermarket really a good idea?
-mike
How much would such a thing cost, though? Is it a power roof, or just manual?
I guess if it costs too much, then some of the price advantage toward an MDX is lost (at least from an EX).
It should be doable for non-DVD-equipped Pilots. I'm not sure about DVD-equipped ones because I wonder if it sits too far forward (interfering with where the opening should be). But that could be an advantage of an installer because they could fiddle with the shape of the roof.