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
About the only new detail I noticed is the optional roof rack, which doesn't look too useful.
The Civic has wipers that are an opposed system, while most cars have a tandem system. He doesn't like the opposed system.
I never realized that the Civic was in the middle.(opposed)
Thanks for your opinions.
I can't understand why Honda used the Opposed System on the Civic. I just crossed it off my list for that reason (hey if people can do it for the CR-V because of the nose, I can do it for this
Inside the back cover, they have a pure front view with all the colors, and they all show the emphasized grille styling from that angle. The darker colors do mask it much more, but only in terms of the color; the shape/look is still very apparent.
I think he has mentioned that he does not want to move up in size to a larger, bulkier SUV, but wants the additional power and torque for towing, etc.
There is more to increased towing than Horse Power. Chassis design, brakes and so forth fit into the picture.
I suspect that if a V6 was offered with the increase in engine compartment size, heavier suspension, stronger drive train,and reinforced structure to accomodate heavier towing and other stuff, the price increase might not be worth it to most buyers.
Most buyers is what it is all about to manufactures.
We have both an 03 CR-V and 03 Pilot. They are very close in acceleration up to 60 or so. The biggest difference is passing at highway speeds. The Pilot definitely has the advantage. However the CR-V is a 4 speed auto compared to the 5 speed auto of the Pilot. The 5 speed auto CR-V with that additional 10 HP might close that gap.
Chances are good that a V6 would get near the same mileage on the road as the 4 cylinder does. Around town it may drop a bit, but probably not a lot.
The advantage of the CR-V is it's nimbleness around town which is in no small part to it's lighter weight, especially in the front end with the 4 banger. The CR-V is simply more fun to scoot around in, and even with our drive train it is more than adequate for the task.
For those wanting all the attributes of the CR-V but with better performance, a super/turbo charger might be beneficial.
Kip
The reason for this Q here is the fact that when a CRV is fully loaded up it starts to get close to the MDX payment, yes the MPG is not there but that is understood. Would the performance and safety features of the MDX put it into a consideration set if the mpg was not a critical factor?
As for styling, the MDX weakly shares a theme with the RDX, but both are significantly different than the CR-V. Acura is going for the angular chiseled look, while Honda is going more for curves and rounded edges.
When the Pilot came out, it was like a scaled up version of the Gen-1 CR-V in appearance. You can certainly extrapolate from that observation to guess at what the next Pilot might look like, but I wouldn't put a lot of weight on it.
It's weird, one side sort of has to wait for the other to move out of the way. Once it does, it swipes up and down in a hurry, call it "hyper mode", before the slow one can swing back down.
The funny thing is that in heavy rain ours would throw water towards the passenger side of the car.
-juice
Honda and Acura styling cues are different and they don't seem to come together anywhere except for the Csx which blend the two. Acura is more edgy, sporty and lively! Honda is more traditional, conservative and kinda lame (minus the odyssey and ). I don't think the next MDX and pilot will look alike.
The MDX has a sort of hatchback shape in the rear whilst the pilot definitely seems more truckish. I think the next pilot will look more like the odyssey but with all of the MDXs technology (Minus the 300hp v6 and SH-AWD) The MDX is where it always needed to be. The pilot should definite be bigger to make the "244hp 8 passenger honda pilot" phrase seem serious/ realistic.
The pilot needs to be bigger in length to put it with the tahoe/expedition/armada size wise. Thats the only way i see it using the 300hp v6. Otherwise it needs to be longer still but less wide to be with the explorer/pathfinder/trailblazer. I hate it when companies make "tweener" model like the pilot. The highlander is also a "tweener" but toyota offers a bigger and smaller model.
IMO, honda should bring back the Passport name (not isuzu twin) for a true midsize SUV that seats 7 and has a v6 and/or v8 engine that is capable offroad and fits in perfectly with the explorer and others crowd.
-Cj
I'd like to see them make it less truck-like than the current model. The interior package is spot-on IMO.
-juice
Now Honda is talking to me again! :mad:
Can't wait!
You could always use Rain X and eliminate about 90% of wiper use period.
Any how, 190hp and a manual trans would quiet a lot of criticisms about the lack of a V6.
-juice
Still, the one wiper hesitates, so the process just seems to take longer.
I use Rain X on all my cars. Works better the faster you go.
-juice
That's a good graphic, Thegraduate. When I lived up north, you'd see a lot of people driving around looking like that last illustration (a little head peering through a circle surrounded by frost!). :shades:
-juice
I always go to www.howstuffworks.com whenever I have a question, they almost always have a detailed response and plenty of cool graphics to help you understand, too. Check it out... I once went to learn how "blinkers" worked...pretty cool actually!
CK :mad:
Yep you are correct about the 14K in dif but given the upgrade in status size etc it seems to be worth it in safety. I am now very sure about the difference in the AWD technology between the two (honda crv/pilot and mdx).
I thought the MDX also has the VTM-4 like the pilot?
Does the MDX really need the premium fuel or can it make do with reg?
Not sure about the new 3.7l, but I'd expect it would need the octane, too. These engines come in a higher state-of-tune than similar Honda engines.
MDX will cost nearly double the starting price of a CR-V, and it's arguably worth it.
-juice
So, the bumper to bumper length is just about the same.
Not a big difference, we couldn't even tell a difference, and it didn't harm the car.
The current MDX specifications recommend premium (but you can run regular), has VTM-4, and is considerably larger than the CR-V.
The 2007 MDX appears to "require" premium, it uses SH-AWD, and is still considerably larger than the CR-V.
If you want to know more about it, I recommend the MDX threads. Lots of good info over there.
Yes, the windshield was clean and, yes, I followed directions!
This came up in another forum years ago. Some loved the stuff and the others felt as I do.
Not me. I'd rather them make it more truck-like, or at least offer a trim level that is more more like that.
Bob
Thats what I meant about the pilot. Its too wide and not long enough. 8 seats are ok but tight and the leg room back there is hard to find without sliding the seat. It should be longer and narrower making similar in size to the pathfinder/explorer. The pilot is a "tweener" and it loses on most counts. The explorer has a more usable 3rd row and has great cargo room. The pilot offers one or the other. The explorer can seat 7 6'0 adults. The pilot can seat how many 6'0 adults? Sure the odyssey can, and the odyssey has more power, and cargo room. But its no SUV. The odyssey is doing the pilots work..
I love it but honda kinda screwed it up a little. It has awd but isn't meant for offroad and its not like SH-awd for on road. Thats what I mean.
The mdx and cr-v have tandem wipers.
Honda was dumb for letting the CR-V's liftgate lift glass go. It should have both like ford does on the explorer, toyota does on the 4runner, jeep on the commander, ect. The hatch is good and would be better with the glass.
Should honda make a Passport replacement(With decent offroad use, 7 adult-usable seats, and good reliability) and help Isuzu out?
-Cj :confuse:
They said they are sill working out the final details of the pollution control design.
Wonder if they'll take advance orders (3 years early)? :shades:
Honda shows ultra-clean next-generation diesel (Straightline)
-juice
Why would anybody want a diesel?
Yes, they get better mileage but the extra expense will probably negate this.
Diesel fuel is more expensive thatn gas in my neck of the woods, it can be hard to find and it stinks!
So, what am I missing? Just curious.
Farther down towards Burbank I saw another truck load.
So they are definitely here in SoCal!
Joe
(Speaking of the proposed Honda Turbo-diesel)
Oh, I don't know; they run cleaner than gasoline engines, have no odor, put out 200 HP on only 2.2 liter engines, get 40 MPG, and put out maximum torque at very low RPMs.
Nope, nobody would want that combination!