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

1679111216

Comments

  • suvtimesuvtime Member Posts: 58
    Well it just goes to show that beauty is really in the eye of the beholder. When i first saw a Tribeca my jaw just dropped. My god what were they thinking with the front end. Unbelievable brutal. The rear end and the sides are nice but the front, no way! I also really liked the cockpit design.

    The Tribeca may be a more exciting vehicle to some but for me my Pilot does me just fine. Even if it is dull ;)
  • suvtimesuvtime Member Posts: 58
    That really is surprising that you found the Highlander so uncomfortable especially since you were coming from a CR-V.
    When I test drove a new CR-V last year I found it alright for its class but in no way close to the Highlander. The one I was in was rather smooth and handled not bad although it was not really sporty.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    How do you like the 06 face-lift? To be honest I prefer the old Pilot. I don't like the new chrome grille much at all.

    -juice
  • css1css1 Member Posts: 247
    I would have bought the 06 pilot in 1995 - looks like what the Cherokee Laredo might have evolved into if AMC still had Jeep.

    The Pilot is boxy and the MDX is softer - they have to maintain this differentiation.

    Charlie
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    I'm with you, the 2003-2005 Pilot's were much better looking (classier is the word that comes to mind) than the redo. Now, the NEWER Pilot looks like the older between the two.
  • c_hackc_hack Member Posts: 20
    I had been looking at Pilots since they came out, but never understood why they didn't have side curtain air bags. Finally, they came standard in '06. For me, that is the biggest difference the '06 model made for my family.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    That is an important upgrade. I don't think they're designed to protect little tots, thought, aren't they intended to protect adults?

    -juice
  • typesixtypesix Member Posts: 321
    Maybe that's why Honda is finally making a FWD version of the Pilot. Not everyone needs or wants AWD. The Highlander has always been availble with FWD or AWD.
  • aka1aka1 Member Posts: 110
    Its not like the Pilot had a full time AWD system to begin with, like the Highlander. Both vehicles have a very rudimentary AWD system that helps with just off the line acceleration below 10mph. This system helps with better gas mileage as well. Having a full time AWD system is known to help in all conditions, especially times when least expected, emergency situations. Honda's decision to go with a FWD model is to reduce costs, so that people can "look" like they have an AWD, when in fact they boxier minivans.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I think that's because the whole segment is/will be down. It's tougher to justify a vehicle that gets 17mpg in the city with gas near $3.

    I was a little bummed that the Pilot could not match the Odyssey's EPA mileage given it also got VCM, but I guess it's not nearly as aerodynamic.

    -juice
  • jeffmcjeffmc Member Posts: 1,742
    You're right on. What's the point of a Pilot (or any "SUV") without AWD or 4WD? Purely image.
  • tidestertidester Member Posts: 10,059
    What's the point of a Pilot (or any "SUV") without AWD or 4WD? Purely image.

    There are good arguments - pro and con - but some do go for AWD or 4WD for image also. :)

    tidester, host
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I still think it has a little extra ground clearance, and swing-open doors rather than sliders, which some people prefer.

    -juice
  • typesixtypesix Member Posts: 321
    For the wagon style body. Many Highlander owners would buy a Camry wagon if they were still made and most know that it is based on Camry.
  • jeffmcjeffmc Member Posts: 1,742
    I guess I can buy that to some extent (though Pilot looks much more "trucky" than any wagon - today's wagons resemble minivans a lot to me.). It can't account for a whole lot of Highlander owners, though, 'cause if there was enough demand for a Camry wagon, Toyota wouldn't have stopped selling it in the first place.

    juice - in what conditions would you want ground clearance that you wouldn't want AWD or 4X4?
  • typesixtypesix Member Posts: 321
    The last Camry wagon was 92-96 with an ugly back end that many potential buyers couldn't stand and therefore low sales ended Camry wagons.
  • hannahjahannahja Member Posts: 6
    I've been trying to decide what kind of suv to buy this summer. All of the car websites recommend Honda Pilot and Toyota Highlander but I'm not crazy about driving suvs that look just like everyone else drives. I love the Murano but the murano message board has complaints about transmission problems. I am just wondering if you buy a murano from the dealer used (the murano that has a recall 03-05 from what I understand), will the transmission be replaced before you get it? Just wanting to know how reliable this suv is? I know it's all luck of the draw but I want to get a reliable suv. Anyone know of any STYLISH, Dependable suvs that you can get used for under 20,000? :confuse:
  • jeffmcjeffmc Member Posts: 1,742
    Depends on how you define "stylish" and "SUV". Seems to be different for everyone. :)

    I think a great value would be a used '05 Outback 2.5i. Highly rated, dependable, well-equipped, superior AWD vehicle with SUV-height ground clearance and a handsome Euro-feel interior. Pretty good gas mileage considering the AWD, too. Edmunds' TMV for an '05 2.5i Outback is around $19.5k.

    http://www.edmunds.com/used/2005/subaru/outback/100397584/photos.html
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Jeff - to be clear, I'd prefer AWD.

    However, a lot of people just want to have a suspension that can absorb potholes, i.e. more travel. Plus good angles of approach/departure for steep driveways and speed bumps, the ones that my Miata bottoms out on every time.

    That plus a raised suspension often gives them the much-desired higher hip point, for that commanding view.

    The latter is the key reason that SUVs (even 2WD ones) succeeded where wagons failed. I'm sure the Highlander sells far better than the Camry wagon every did, and at a much higher price point to boot.

    -juice
  • hannahjahannahja Member Posts: 6
    Hey! What do you think about the murano? Do you think it is as relaible as the honda pilot or the toyota highlander?
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Haven't heard much one way or the other. They seem to score well in CR, but that CVT is one of the first mated up to a powerful V6.

    -juice
  • robbyradzrobbyradz Member Posts: 4
    It's a good thing I started reading this forum.. particularly this thread.

    I current have an 03' pathfinder and the gas mileage is killing me.. getting about 15mpg combined..

    I'm trading it in and plan on getting either a Murano or a B9 Tribeca... but I don't know which. I like the Tribeca more than the Murano with many things. But the things the Murano has over the B9 is 1. gas mileage and 2. low end torque. I'm hearing mixed things on the MPG of the B9.. some say they are averaging over 20.. some say they don't get over 18.. so i dont know what to believe. The Murano i know for a fact has great mileage and a larger gas tank. I'll test drive both cars this weekend and test the power of both and see if there really is a power difference. If i wasn't hearing mixed ideas on the B9 mileage.. i would pick it over the Murano easily.. but thats the one thing holding me back.
  • c_hackc_hack Member Posts: 20
    I've owned Subarus since 1985 (my family has had 9 since then) and have come to the following conclusions:

    - For the most part build quality and reliability have been first rate once they overcame the rust issues in the '80s.

    - The engines are a mess. The number one problem I have had is with engines - 3 of the 9 I have owned have had serious engine problems before 100k miles to the point that I had to get rid of the cars. Engine performance and technology is a decade behind Honda/Toyota/Nissan etc.

    The only reason I am posting in this forum is that I just traded my last Outback for a Pilot (no more Subarus for me).
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Don't worry, whatever isn't galvanized steel on the Tribeca is aluminum (hood, hatch, bumper beams, roof rails, some suspension parts, block, and heads).

    I've observed mileage reports for the Tribeca, and a little more than half of them are above 20mpg.

    Maybe try a search on the Murano forums for "mpg" and just jot down how many are above/below that mark. I bet it's about the same.

    Keep in mind Edmunds' Tribute got just 16mpg, their bigger SUVs often get just 12. C&D's RAV4 got only 16mpg, while Edmunds managed just under 20 or so. It's all how you drive, YMMV is more true than ever with a heavy SUV.

    -juice
  • jeffmcjeffmc Member Posts: 1,742
    robbyradz - The variation in B9 gas mileage is probably 95% due to driving style and climate, but obviously that'll affect any car. I'd wait to see what changes Subaru will make for the '07 model, which will debut this week (Thursday morning, actually) at the Chicago auto show, and see if there's any changes or improvements you can't live without. If you still want an '06 and you're not in a hurry, wait a couple months for the '07s to go on sale, and you should have an easier time getting a great deal on an '06, with perhaps even the first customer rebates ever offered on the B9, though dealer inventory may be limited.

    Also, when testing the B9's performance, remember to try the sport mode on the transmission, entered by sliding the shifter to the left from the Drive position. Keep the shifter in that spot and it's in sport mode... bump it up or down from there and you enter manual shift mode. The performance will be more sprightly, but you'll see a decrease in mileage from it, of course. I'd keep it in the normal mode for daily driving, but it's nice to know you have that option for a bit more aggressive shifting from time to time.
  • jeffmcjeffmc Member Posts: 1,742
    c_hack, sorry to hear 'bout your Subie problems. I know they had some head gasket problems with the 2.5L engine which have been resolved for few years now. I've had the opposite experience you've had. I have a 15-year-old Legacy w/2.2L engine, 230k miles with no engine problems, and a newer Outback with no problems as we approach 30k.

    We had bad experiences with two of our three Hondas... seven years ago we traded in a '91 Civic we'd had a continual run of small problems with, and about 10 or 11 years ago I got rid of a low-mileage '83 Accord Special Edition after owning it for less than a year. All sorts of serious problems with that one, just too much of a drain on the pocketbook to fix constantly. On the other hand, I know Honda's reputation is good, so though they're not perfect, I still traded that Civic in on a '95 del Sol. We drive the del Sol much less often than either Subaru, and it's been good, but not flawless, reliability-wise. (In fact, it needs an oxygen sensor replaced right now, but I've been putting it off as long as it's not hindering performance or gas mileage.)

    Anyway, I'm being longwinded here, but my point is that I think both Honda and Subaru have great reliability and I wouldn't hesitate to purchase either brand, but I don't expect either one to be perfect. Congrats on the Pilot purchase... it's one of the best out there, with great room inside and good, usable cargo space. Did you get a 3rd-row seat?
  • c_hackc_hack Member Posts: 20
    The 3rd row seat and cavernous cargo room were the big reasons for the purchase. We also really liked all the side curtain airbags and the XM radio (I don't think Outbacks have either). I love the 3.5L engine. I used to have to wait to make sure the coast was clear before pulling out of my neighborhood. The Outback had terrible acceleration with the 2.5 liter. We had considered the Outback 3.0 liter, but by the time you factor in premium fuel the gas costs the same as a Pilot.

    Any idea why Subaru's 3.0 liter requires premium fuel, but delivers worse performance and mileage than Honda's 3.0 liter running on regular?

    The down side is that the Pilot is a gas hog (compared to the Outback at least). Its steering wheel blocks the top of the gauges for tall drivers, and the front passenger leg room is poor. But, no vehicle is perfect.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    The OB has had side curtain air bags standard since the '05 models came out. I think it actually got them a year before the Pilot did, FWIW.

    Satellite radio will arrive on the 07s, on all 07 Subies actually.

    The H6 can run fine on regular, that's the official word from the Product Manager of the Tribeca (H6 standard).

    -juice
  • jeffmcjeffmc Member Posts: 1,742
    If you're using that 3rd seat frequently, Pilot's probably the best choice in the class. :) My OB has the 2.5 and I agree, it's a little pokey. The word "adequate" describes it best for me. Not sure what year yours was... the '05s are a little better and the '06s a little better still as far as horsepower. The upper models have a 5-speed auto trans now, which I think also helps. I hope that tranny makes it to the 2.5i models this year. Still, not exactly a barnburner unless you go the turbo route (then, look out!).

    Subaru recommends using premium in the 3.0L, but doesn't require it. Their turbo models, on the other hand, do require it. The extra cost of using premium is only a couple hundred over the course of a year, and from what I've read, the folks who put regular in their H6s ended up getting a little worse gas mileage from it, so it was worth it to go back to using premium. I suppose Subaru could list it as requiring only regular grade and bump the mileage numbers down 1 or 2 MPG.

    I don't have the tech knowledge to know why the Subie and Honda engines do what they do... maybe someone else here can offer their 2¢ worth on that. On the Honda, which vehicle uses a 3.0L? Did you mean Pilot's 3.5L? Comparing the Subaru 3.0 with the Honda 3.5, the Subaru makes more horsepower, (250 vs. 244) and the Honda makes more torque (240 vs. 219). The Subaru is rated 1-2 MPG better. All in all, I think the Subaru engine does a nice job stacking up against Honda's, despite being at a half-liter displacement disadvantage. I do know Honda generally does a great job getting HP and mileage from their engines. (Toyota's great at that too - check out the numbers on the new Avalon some time!)
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Mainly you have the extra drag of a full-time AWD system (vs. on-demand), plus the extra weight. The 3.0l in the Accord is FWD, so there is no Subaru to compare it to.

    The Forester and CR-V have engines close in size and output, and the Forester is actually a little more efficient.

    Toyota does ace the EPA tests, but the RAV4 is EPA rated at 20/27, yet Edmunds got less than 20 mpg with theirs, and C&D managed a rather scary 16 mpg (premium fuel recommended, by the way).

    As they say, YMMV.

    -juice
  • hannahjahannahja Member Posts: 6
    I was also looking into buying a nissan murano and I asked the mechanic I go to some questions about them. He said to plan on spending at least $900 or more on your first set of tires because only one or two companies make the right tires. He also said it's not usually a good idea to buy one of the first 3 years of a new body style because it usually takes that long to "get all of the bugs out". I also have found out that the gas tank is easily punctured by noramal driving and people have had problems with the cvt(transmission) even after getting them replaced under recall. Most of these problems were in the murano boards for 03 to 05 Muranos. I haven't heard much about the new 06. I'm kind of cautious so I'm gonna wait a few more years-All of the stylish suvs seem to have problems. Even though the honda pilot isn't my favorite style it is on the top of the list on almost every website I have been on so far. I have to choose sleek and stylish or dependable and reliable. Hope this helped. :)
  • droodroo Member Posts: 35
    Let's see...

    It's true that the standard Murano tires have been a bit harder to find than, say, tires for your Accord, but they are becoming more readily available; in fact, this size is now available as OEM on the 2006 Ford Explorer. They're no more expensive than other tires of the same general size. Tirerack.com has the Goodyear direct replacements for $582 a set, including shipping and road hazard coverage. The Dunlops and Michelins are more expensive.

    "Gas tank is easily punctured by normal driving."

    Hmmm...NHTSA had a TOTAL of 4 complaints (out of ~190,000+ units on the road), and instituted a recall to install a fuel tank shield (which is already included on 06s after a certain build date that I don't recall offhand).

    "Transmission trouble even after replacement under RECALL."

    There is no transmission "recall," do you mean replacement under warranty?

    I'd be surprised if the tranny failure rate is any higher than any other particular vehicle. The only thing about the CVT is that, if it DOES fail, it's a total replacement rather than repair or rebuild of internal parts, ~$6000. It is covered under the 5/60 warranty.

    Given my experiences with tranny rebuild/replacement, I'd get the hell out of ANY vehicle ASAP after having it done.

    Note that Murano is a Consumer Reports "Recommended" vehicle. I'd imagine the Pilot is too.
  • droodroo Member Posts: 35
    Not buying a first-year vehicle (I agree with this) is one thing, but...

    3 years is halfway or more thru the life cycle of most vehicles. They'll get a refresh for year 3 or 4, which can introduce new issues. If you then wait a couple more years, you're right back to buying a completely new vehicle.

    Check the Problems & Fixes forum for Pilot (or Highlander, or RX330, etc.) on this website; if you take them completely to heart and let 'em scare you, you'll NEVER buy ANY new car.

    The problems for vehicles in this class seem to be different among the various models, but roughly equivalent: a few people have serious problems; more people have lesser, nit-picky issues; and by far the most people never post to internet message boards, because they're happy with their vehicles.

    There's no such thing as a "perfect" car, so there's no use waiting for one. Take some test drives, weigh the positives and negatives, buy what you like, and enjoy the ride.

    YMMV.

    :)
  • raymurraymur Member Posts: 29
    The Tribeca has to be one of the ugliest vehicles on the road. I have always considered Subarus overpriced and under-styled. The Tribeca is more proof of that conclusion. As far as the Murano is concerned, Nissan has a poor track record for reliability. That leaves the Highlander as the best choice for the money.
  • jeffmcjeffmc Member Posts: 1,742
    I think most who call Tribeca ugly consider it over-styled, not under-styled.

    Overpriced and understyled sounds more like a description of bland Toyota vehicles to me. I'm not saying Toyotas are not great cars, because they are among the most reliable and best-built out there, but you generally pay a premium for the Toyota name, and the styling is anything but exciting.

    If you compare similarly equipped models, Subarus usually come out near the top of the value equation. That includes B9 Tribeca. Plus they have the reliability of Toyota and, more recently, the build quality as well.

    Your post neglected to address Pilot, the other vehicle in this topic's title. Do you think Highlander is a better choice for the money than Pilot?

    Personally, I find Toyota, Honda and Subaru to be essentially equally good cars as far as quality and reliability go, so from there on it becomes a matter of each model's ranking in your other purchase priorities - safety, handling, performance, gas mileage, feature content, etc. That's what helps you pick the vehicle that best suits you.
  • master1master1 Member Posts: 340
    I actually like the styling of the Tribeca. It's simple, and clean-cut. The only thing I don't like is the red turn signal in the back. It blends in like crazy with the brack light, and others can't really notice the signal flashing in the back.
  • jeffmcjeffmc Member Posts: 1,742
    I'm right with you on that one, master1... turn signals should be yellow for safety!
  • anythngbutgmanythngbutgm Member Posts: 4,277
    The one thing I've noticed about the Tribeca... I've seen 3 of them and everyone had their headlights on, but the tail lights were not lit. Only the brake lights worked.

    Seemed kind of odd. Is this a DRL setup? :confuse:
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    Yes, they have DRLs, as do all new Subies.

    Bob
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    You must be the only person on the planet that actually thinks the Tribeca is under-styled. :D

    If a Subaru is under-styled, a Toyota Highlander has no style at all. Pure vanilla, good stuff mind you, but plain as can be, no toppings, nothing. Just a two-box shape.

    RAV4 is a bit better, though, at least it tries.

    -juice
  • nycb9nycb9 Member Posts: 30
    I completely agree. I think the Tribeca is the second best looking SUV out there right now. The Infiniti FX is the best IMHO but is just way too expensive when you consider what the Tribeca goes for feature for feature. I'm dumbfounded by the Beca's bashing in the looks dept. I considered a Murano but cannot get passed it's shark nose and super ugly chrome smile grill (Remember Jaws from "The Spy Who Loved Me?").

    Regards...Joe
  • fudd2befudd2be Member Posts: 50
    Hi Juice - its been a while ...

    With 91K on my 2K OB I am selling it tomorrow, trading it for a Pilot. I tried so hard to justify the B9 - so bad did I want that beautiful Subie! I could not live with its 3rd row, however - with one more child on the way, I cannot even fit my 3 year old or 5 year old back there without squishing her legs and feet, even with the 2nd row foward enough so that the 2nd row has room for everyone else.

    Honda's third row is so much more usable, I have to admit. I am going to miss my OB!
  • c_hackc_hack Member Posts: 20
    I agree. The Tribeca is definitely not understyled. I think its very very overstyled. I've owned many Subarus, but this has got to be one of the ugliest car I have ever seen - right up there with the Aztec.

    For Pete's sake, were talking about a $35k station wagon. A station wagon's primary purpose is utility - passenger and cargo room. The Tribeca is poor in both departments for what you are paying. That's why I bought a plain looking, understyled Pilot. It has more cargo and passenger room, easier on the gas (no premium!), and costs much less!

    When I want style I'll buy a convertible or sports coupe, not a wagon.
  • master1master1 Member Posts: 340
    They are Suvs, not lexus's. In my opinion, they look fine - a simple modern car. Some people are over-exagerating a bit with some of their comments. I think that the Pilot and Tribeca both look like dicent, simple cars.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    I think the Tribeca is the second best looking SUV out there right now.

    Wow, I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that about that car. You are entitled to your opinion, but to me, it has a sort of "dustbuster" nose to it. It reminds me of the ill-fated Edsel with its awkward front end. I DO think the interior is VERY nice looking, but the front needs help. I'd put it in the same catergory as the Pontiac Aztek. Sorry.
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    Well, here's #2. I too think it's about the second best-looking crossover SUV out there.

    Bob
  • b9bingob9bingo Member Posts: 46
    I say third best looking. Infinity, BMW X5, then the B9.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Fair enough though. I think the Tribeca has many truly good merits, but I think Subaru had a better thing going making more efficient wagons that compete with these very SUVs. Just my opinion, and I'm sure it differs with many here. I'm not looking to make waves, just give a fresh opinion.

    I'd personally have to give my top 3 to:

    Nissan Pathfinder
    Nissan Murano
    X5

    and I'm a Honda guy, generally! I don't care for most Nissan's interior quality, but I like what they do with SUV exteriors (save for Armada).
  • nycb9nycb9 Member Posts: 30
    I'm not looking to make waves either but I feel the Tribeca needs to be defended. I bought mine after reading all the unpopular "looks" reviews and bought it anyway because I thought it looked cool & original. Then you realize how much you're getting for your $ and it's even more enticing. The interior is truly staggering as is the smoothness of the engine and handling. The Pathfinder has become boxy and the X5 is kinda vanilla now that it's been out for so long and there are so many on the road. I did consider the Murano but it has that hideous shark nose with the gaudy chrome smile (remember Jaws from "The Spy Who Loved Me"?) and Nissan's pricing structure was very annoying. However, the Tribeca is obviously unpopular because, even living in the NYC metro area, I've seen only four of them. It's kinda cool to be driving around in a unique vehicle that not everybody has. If I see another RX300, X5 or Murano, I'm gonna gag! ;-)

    Regards...Joe
This discussion has been closed.

Your Privacy

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.