Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Nissan Murano vs Toyota Highlander vs Subaru B9 Tribeca vs Honda Pilot



  • morey000morey000 Posts: 384
    And to top it off, Murano really nailed the styling. Way better curb appeal than the Highlander. (with the acknowledgement that this is subjective)
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Tribeca prices have come down, it was still new then. found a bargain semi-used model, so that's great. Congrats.

  • Bought an 06 Murano SL AWD with Touring Package.

    Tribeca was too stiff (seats and suspension). Transmission lagged with AC on. Turned off by dealer also. Two test drives.

    Tribeca also had less 2nd row room, and the 3rd row is a joke Limited didn't have as many options as the Touring Package Murano.

    Rented the S Murano twice through Hertz and drove it up and down Hwy 1. Very impressed with power and transmission through all the dips, climbs and curves.

    Highlander wasn't option due to styling.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Tribeca also had less 2nd row room
    They go back in two stages. 4" back with the regular knob. Then you hit a release and it goes back another 4". So it slides back a full 8", but most people can't locate the release.

    When you do slide it all the way back, the 2nd row touches the 3rd row, so it cannot be used at all, but there is *plenty* of 2nd row leg room.

    Just an FYI. Most of the press missed that, even.

  • I just bought an '07 Tribeca, and I have memory seats, auto up/down windows, and a back-up camera. These are all new to the '07 tribeca, so be sure you look at a new model. I drove the murano and the highlander, and thought the tribeca was the peppiest and most fun to drive. I didn't like the feel of the murano's cvt transmission, it felt sluggish. The clincher for me, though was the option of a 3rd row in the tribeca which the Murano doesn't offer. The gas mileage on all 3 is pretty bad, unless you go with the hybrid highlander, but those have a hefty mark-up.
  • turbozturboz Posts: 11
    That would never work for exact calculations since you can never drive the car till it's completely empty. You never know how much fuel is left in the tank when it's "almost" empty.
  • morey000morey000 Posts: 384
    Well Turboz, actually it works perfectly. You don't need to drive the car until it's completely empty, but you do need to fill it up all the way each time.

    Think about it, if I fill the car up to the brim. Then drive 300 miles. Then go to fill it up again and put in exactly 15 gallons, I know that I've used exactly 15 gallons and therefore have gotten 300mi/15gal = 20mpg. I don't need to use all 16.9 gallons in the tank to know that I used just 15 of them. In fact, it doesn't matter how big the tank is, nor do you need to know. You only need to know how many gallons you used.

    Think about it... I hope this helps.
  • occkingoccking Posts: 346
    Just curious, why do so many people have such a difficult time determing their actual miles per gallon? Just fill it to the brim as best you can, drive the miles you intend to drive until approaching empty, fill it again. Take the miles traveled divided by number of gallons used and, presto, you have actual miles per gallon.

    Now, I agree one should not stand at a gas station & squeeze every last ounce of gas in the tank (as I do) For the next few fill-ups do the same thing. After a few tank fill ups even if not filled to the brim, you will still have a a pretty good idea of actual mileage.

    Usually, when the auto pump shuts off first time at a gas station, there is usually "room" to put in upwards of another 1.5 gallons.

    Alternatively, just put gas in until auto shut off. After a few fill ups what you have determined is actual gas mileage will be fairly accurate.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    That method works fine, in fact that's what I use, but it is nice to have a trip computer that gives you real-time readouts. Even if those are not totally accurate, they should still be proportional to fuel consumption, and you can adjust your driving habits to maximize fuel economy with constant feedback.

  • jeffmcjeffmc Posts: 1,742
    I keep the MPG readout on in my car, and it really does help me drive more efficiently.
  • occkingoccking Posts: 346
    I also keep a sharp eye on fuel consumption, feel better when it goes up, not as well when it goes down. The highest I have seen on a long highway trip is just about 24 or 24.3

    Like I said before, going on 6000 miles now and have not reset the trip computer and the recorded mpg is exactly 22.2. I have driven so many miles now I will probably reset it and start over. It would only go up to the next level (22.5) or down next level (21.9) if I went on a long highway trip of a few thousand mile in which I averaged more like 23, or might go down a notch if I did nothing but city driving for at least a month or so.

    Like I said before, the actual mileage per gas usage probably more like 21 to 21.5. In fact, later tonight I will report back exact mileage calculated by miles driven divided by actual consumption
  • occkingoccking Posts: 346
    For anyone that cares...

    I took the time to add up all the miles since I got demo at 10,000 miles. Have put on exactly 6788 miles (since first week in August) and have put in exactly 314.6 gallons. That comes out to an average of 21.57 mpg. Considering that the trip computer on the car, which I have not reset since I bagan says 22.2 mpg, I am pleased. The computer goes up and down in increments of .3 mpg as some of you are probably aware. I have driven over 2000 miles since it last budged up or down, so I assume the 22.2 is not going to change for a while.

    So, the trip computer is only imflating the mpg by approx 3%

    Probably at least 75% of my miles are "highway" back & forth to Montreal from Prov RI area, the rest a lot of short stuff dropping kids, etc. It is my estimate if that was the only kind of driving I did, mixed in with a small amount of highway driving, average would be around 18.
  • turbozturboz Posts: 11
    morey000 I guess that would work never thought of it that way ;)
  • Karen_SKaren_S Posts: 5,094
    A reporter from a national newspaper is looking to speak current or previous large SUV owners that are looking to or have downsized to smaller SUVs or crossover vehicles. Please provide your daytime contact info to no later than Friday, October 20, 2006.

    Edmunds Manager UGC Click on my screen name to send a personal message. Need help navigating? Check out Getting Started in Edmunds Forums.
    Need help picking out a make/model, finding inventory, or advice on pricing? Talk to an Edmunds Car Shopping Advisor

  • anyone here care to share if they compared the MDX with the Pilot? I've seen some prices out there where the MDX base model is in the Pilot range.

    thx for sharing
  • terry92270terry92270 Posts: 1,247
    Well they are the same vehicle, Accura being Honda, the same as Lexus to the Toyota.

    The loaded Pilot is roughly the same as the stripper MDX. Nicer finishes available on the MDX, better styling and options, IMO.
  • this comparison is not exactly accurate in my opinion. i think that we need to nix the pilot, because it is just a midsize, not a premium midsize and bring in the x5. i own an x5 and a beca and the subie is much nicer in quality than the x5 and does much better in the snow (i live in co). we test drove a near top-line pilot, and it just felt cheap. the mdx is pretty similar, but it is a little bit too klunky. my friend has a murano and the interior just feels soo cheap. the touraeg is a worthy competitor (we used to have an 03), but it was very unreliable.
  • terry92270terry92270 Posts: 1,247
    Odd. I own both a Subaru and a Nissan. I don't find much difference in the "quality" of the interiors, Tribecca or Murano......

    Depends on if we're talking base, or leather, etc. ;)
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Older Pilots had a smallish 5" NAV screen, the new one is bigger and there have been a lot of other upgrades as well. Given the extra room it offers, I'm sure folks are willing to accept some of the trade-offs.

  • terry92270terry92270 Posts: 1,247
    Well that is the way of products. Most had smallish screens, and have gotten bigger.
  • x5killerx5killer Posts: 368
    what about the new MDX. i guess they will make a new Pilot that will be based on t he new mdx? if so then it is relevant to the discussion. also many who have one of the topic vehicles might be interested in 07 MDX like myself who has an 06 Tribeca.

    Therefore would like to evaluate the differences. For one thing the 07 MDX is not a touchscreen NAV which has been a complaint for some though before they used it and i'm sure Acura who has the best tech did it for a reason and supposedly well according to salesman at dealership he doesn't miss the touchscreen at all though he also was skeptical at first but now loves and wouldnt' go back saying that its very intuitive. so maybe acuras is good but i know other non touchscreen navs like audi were pretty bad using knobs for everything.

    supposedly touchscreen breaks down sooner and obviously gets lots of fingerprints.

    can't compare 07 mdx to b9 tribeca in mdx threads because many dont know the tribeca there.

    speaking of nav screen size though getting bigger in some of these models in topic...
    i am wondering though if the 07 mdx nav screen is larger then the Tribeca as the one i test drove didn't have nav and dealership didnt' have any yet with nav.

    from pictures it doesnt' seem as big as the Acura TL nav scree which is also closer and lower down in position as well as being touchscreen.

    from pics the 07 mdx which is at top of dash and has a little ledge/roof over it i guess to block glare seems kind of small. i really like the larger nav screen of the TL and wish the Tribecas was larger.

    Also speakin of tech like nav and the screens,, i saw in a magazine the new Chrysler Sebring has an all in one NAV unit with 20gb hard drive and usb connection so you can put mp3s and i assume movies and pictures as well. I am very interested in something like that i know Pioneer has some amazing all in one touch screen voice activated nav units some of whic i think have some hd space.

    i would get an Acura just for the superior voice activated nav which the new ones also have live traffic but if aftermarket units like the Pioneer might be better anyway then....

    this would prob be more for a Tribeca thread but i think i already asked if one of the Pioneer head units with larger screen then B9's nav would fit where the nav screen is on the tribeca. of course then you might lose the other menus of the nav system like the mpg, temp etc. which wouldn't be too preferable.
  • The Pilot may offer more interior space overall than the Murano, but the front and second row seats have significantly less leg room than the Murano because they've been squeezed to accommodate the third seat that is useless for adults. Same problem with the Santa Fe, even if you don't get the optional third seat.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Different priorities, I guess.

    The Murano doesn't have that much cargo space, and visibility isn't as good. They put the emphasis on the rear seat leg room.

    I can't imagine having to carry 8 adults. For use it's the 5 of us plus a friend of one of the kids. A small 3rd row is fine.

  • Yes, different priorities. But someone looking for a vehicle that will seat four six-foot adults in comfort--and who has no need to fit kids in a kids-only third seat--would be better served by the Murano.

    Different people can in fact have different priorities--"I guess." The Murano's visibility is fine, by the way. And the back-up camera and screen that are standard in the Murano SL and SE are only available with a navigation system on the Pilot. That's a significant "visibility" advantage for the Murano.
  • Highlander is too narrow, Murano is not an suv - its a car with big tires, and the tribeca is the second most ugly car on the road. (Aztec is the first.)
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Why would the Murano better serve those people?

    I felt the Tribeca handled better. It has more cargo room, too. Slide the 2nd row back the full 8" and the 40/20/40 split seat is quite comfy. The 20 portion is the perfect divider.

  • ">awsaulnier said:

    "Highlander is too narrow, Murano is not an suv - its a car with big tires, and the tribeca is the second most ugly car on the road. (Aztec is the first.) "

    You must be driving the Pontiac Aztec!!!

    And the beauty of the Tribeca is one of the main reasons people buy this car!
  • "Why would the Murano better serve those people?"

    Because it has much more room in the first and second row seats than Highlander, Tribeca, or Pilot.

    Why? Because they didn't have to squeeze those two rows of seats in order to fit in a third row (whether standard or optional, it still impacts placement of rows one and two) in which adults or teenagers can't fit. Murano has three to six inches longer wheelbase than the others and as a result has three or four more inches of combined legroom in the first and second rows of seats. Plus, Tribeca's swoopy dash cuts into legroom, especially for the driver's right leg. I couldn't drive it. And in the Pilot my legs are bent like pretzels. Murano has 2.5 more inches of front seat legroom than Pilot.
  • "Murano is not an suv - its a car with big tires..."

    None of them are SUVs. They're all "cars with big tires." If you want an SUV get a Land Cruiser or Range Rover or big Jeep.
  • Get a Range Rover. The 2007's look awesome and they have made great interior enhancements.
This discussion has been closed.