I personally really like the new Pilot and appreciate the utilitarian exterior.
And I feel for Honda because I am sure when they started designing it, they did not think it likely gas prices would be as high as they are.
Currently there is $3500 dealer support on 2008 Pilots. Granted it is an outgoing model but you have to wonder how long it will be before "soft" incentives kick in on the 2009 Pilot.
There will always be those who need such a vehicle, but to convince the rest of us to act on a "want" rather than a "need" for a vehicle that while efficient for its class, admitedly uses a good bit of fuel, price is going to have to set aggresively.
You may also consider the KIA Borrego that is a proper off-road vehicle with body similar to the Pilot and the car will have amber turning lights front and rear.
This car will hit showrooms at July this year and prices I guess will be $2000 less than the Pilot. Specifications are not given yet and information about this car is almost absent. Photos of the vehicle is given at:
If you buy a Hyundai or Kia, the resales values will be so low that you will probably cry. People buy Honda/Toyota for resale values on top of reliability. It takes time for us to have that trust in Korean-brand vehicles. If you lease it, that is another story.
>> the EPA has new testing standards for MY2008. They no longer used 48mph as a highway speed. According to the EPA, they test cars at "faster speeds & acceleration, air conditioner use and colder outside temperatures". The 2009 Pilot was tested under these conditions and only rated 16/22.
So EPA no longer vary speeds around a "higher speed"? That was my point on VCM. When speed varies, VCM cannot maintain. It has to wake up the rest of cylinders.
I got that info from www.fueleconomy.gov. It does not say what speed they test at, nor if they vary from that speed. They don't even post their old testing method. I was under the assumption that the highway speed they tested was 55, not 48. I don't think even the EPA is stupid enough to think that an average highway speed is 48. Lets be real here.
Korean car perception of unreliable cars I think is over nowadays. Could you source your claim of Kia/Hyundai cars being unreliable? If it is just people perception then perhaps is not bad thing to buy a Borrego and keep it until the 100,000 miles warranty end, and then change it for another Borrego in the same Kia dealership and in addition to be offered $2000 rebate for loyalty stuff.
But seriously, those were the standards that the EPA was using to calculate hwy mileage. That's our government for you. That is why most vehicles mpg went down in MY2008. They started using more real world conditions.
Thanks to upstatedoc for answering aviboy97 for me. The outdated testing method has been well-known. Go to wikipedia.org for such info. You are the one that call our beloved government stupid, not me. I would call them "slow to respond", though. Why 48mph? Because the testing standard was established when the highway speed limit was 55mph. Our government thought that you should be driving at 48mph. It is reasonable, if you ask me. My bet is that, today, EPA is testing around 60mph, but I have no source to support that.
batman47, it is your choice whether you want to buy Korean brands or not. It is just an advice from me based on my observation. You can take it or leave it. Maybe in 10 years, Hyundai will be like what Lexus is, but not today. (Kia is owned by Hyundai in case you don't know that already as a cheaper brand in Asia.) For reliability data, Consumer Reports should be the best source. My post was more about resale value, and less about reliability of Korean-made vehicles. I know that some Korean models have been good in initial quality survey. However, I own vehicles for at least 7 years. "Initial Quality" (3 months) does not mean much to me.
True, but the initial cost of a Hyundai should lower as well. A VC may be worth $5k less than a Highlander in 5 years, but it [should have] cost $5k less at purchase. Maybe more. It will be interesting how Hyundai's improved products affect resale in the future.
I heard that the EPA now tests at 70mph. But, just like you, I have no evidence to support that. I really wish they would be a little more clear on their testing methods.
BTY, I did not mean to come across as an a-hole in my previous post. I didn't proof read my post. My apologies.
It seems there are so may MPG testing labs, one cannot be sure of accuracy. really like the 09 and I am considering it for my next vehicle. With gas at $ 4.59 I would like to be sure of the mileage. Will wait till the real world shares their expierance and what you all report on this site of what you are actually getting.
The price of fuel is artificial because of the foreign policies of the present administration. This will change hopefully, next year.
The fuel consumes 16/22 is average for V6 3.6 and above for any SUV. The Outlander 3.0L V6 is just 19/24 and the RAV4 V6 3.6 is 19/25. However, the robustness construction of the Pilot has added almost 1000 lbs more than the Outlander and RAV. The heavier the vehicle, the greater the fuel consumes is.
I wouldn’t single out on the Pilot fuel consume when there are many goodies in the Pilot to talk about, e.g. the air intake that allows the Pilot a 19 inches of water deepness. Another thing I would like to discuss, for example, how to light amber rear lens instead of the red turning lights presently in the new Pilot. I think there are ways to do this swap without changing at all the rear combination lens. Equally for people that would like to have a rear fog lens/lamp as in many European vehicles imported into the USA. USA traffic legislation encourage this rear fog light although it is not mandatory.
I agree somewhat with you because that is what I want and even found the car. However, I am looking for a 7-8 seats SUV with the same layout that the 2009 Pilot, that I think look great. However, more power in the Pilot does not mean necessarily towing something. If you want to adventure a bit off road you need the V6 power to take you out of feasible problems especially when you hit sand, gravel, rocky tracks, snow or deep mud? That why I am buying a 2009 Pilot, i.e. its cargo area layout, and enough power for short off road adventure and also its 20 gal of fuel tank, which may mean get out of road for at least 150 miles.
Perhaps you should look into the RAV4 4-cyl with seven seats, 4-speed automatic. This car with all the options will cost about $28K-$30K .
Why not cut out the politics? Next year if you get your wish it may double in price with more limited supply and increased taxes to drive the price even higher.
The main reason for the greater weight of the Pilot compared with the Outlander and the RAV4 is the greater size of the Pilot. Of course, with this larger size, you get a 8-passenger SUV. The RAV4 seats 5 or 7. The Outlander seats 5.
The 7-passenger Highlander would be a direct competitor to the Pilot.
The 2009 Pilot is built of high-strength steel and this implies more weight for a car of similar dimensions. This give the Pilot more rigid foundations than other SUV as it were build using a body-on-frame construction that is good for off road.
I meant if you built the Outlander and the RAV4 with the type of construction the Pilot has undergone their petrol consume will equalize the Pilot petrol figures.
The price of fuel is artificial because of the foreign policies of the present administration. This will change hopefully, next year.
Your statement is not true. Europe pays $8 to $9 per gallon. The USA only pays $3.75 per gallon. The real reason oil is $110 per barrel, and our gas prices are up, is because China and India have a very high growth rate, and they are consuming more oil. Its supply and demand.
Eight years ago price of petrol were reasonably cheap in the USA, because we had a relatively economical stability in the world before intervention by ours in other countries affairs. There is plenty of petrol nowadays but the flow of petrol is controlled by an organization called OPEC. The dollar has lost value in the world market and because regulations in the World Trade Organization any deal in the buying and sale of oil must be done in dollars. OPEC countries offset this difference by increasing the value of each gallon of petrol. Why countries in the OPEC must subsidize the USA economy?
About Europe where the petrol is twice the price of the USA the majority European countries have imposed to their population high taxes in the petrol consume to pay for free education, free health care (medicine, consultation, and surgery), free social benefits, and help to the unemployed. 4/5th of the petrol price is taxes.
China and India the demand of petrol has increased, this is true but because the poor exchange rate of the dollars China and India have not have other alternative to pay world oil price. However nobody can blame the Chinese or Indians direct responsible of the high price of oil. Half the oil to these two countries comes from Iran, and Russia or boundaries countries anyway where the trade is made in other currencies but the dollars.
You may be all right to get use to $6.0 per gallon in the USA because the economical mess where we are at the moment most probably will take us another 50 years to sort out the mess.
Lets now continue talking about the goodies of our 2009 Pilot.
Any theories why Pilot's EPA highway numbers are lower compared to Ody numbers when they have identical engine, transmission, weight, etc? Only difference that comes to mind is Ody has a bit more aerodynamic front end and Pilot has boxy frontal area. Otherwise, they have same VCM too. Could real world highway mileage be close compared to EPA?
The fuel consumes 16/22 is average for V6 3.6 and above for any SUV. The Outlander 3.0L V6 is just 19/24 and the RAV4 V6 3.6 is 19/25. However, the robustness construction of the Pilot has added almost 1000 lbs more than the Outlander and RAV. The heavier the vehicle, the greater the fuel consumes is.
I think it is a bit unfair to compare the Pilot to the RAV-4 and Outlander. The Pilot is in a totally different class of CUV. The Outlander and RAV are considered "small suv's". The Pilot is considered a "mid-sized suv". This being said, the Pilot compares to the Highlander, CX-9, GM triplets, Veracruz etc., which are all considered "mid-sized suv's" that seat 7-8 passengers.
I think where people have an issue with the Pilot's fuel economy is because of the power it puts out. Mazda (273/270), GM(275/248), Hyundai(260/257) and Toyota (270/248) all put out much more powerful engines then Honda, while being on par with fuel economy. Also, the 09 Pilot has a curb weight between 4321-4600lbs, which places it in the middle of the pack. Lightest being Hyundai (4266) and GM being the heaviest (4936). This is an issue because Honda promotes how fuel efficient their cars are, and they also pat themselves on the back with their engine technology which they claim is superior to other mfgr's (i-VTEC, VCM etc.). Since the 09 Pilot is equipped with this equipment, one would think with a 250hp V6 engine, Honda would exceed 22mpg highway. Something along the lines of 25mpg was widely expected, and it now seems as if 22mpg is a failure.
Honda says the Pilot has 240 lb.-ft of torque @ 4,500 rpm. The Odyssey comes in at 240 lb.-ft at 5,000 rpm. So the gearing/ECU settings may be a factor.
When I was aware of the petrol figures for the 2009 Plot, about 16/22 and for my surprise the majority of 7-8 seats SUVs also give the same figure of petrol consume. So my question is why, therefore, is the VCM in the Honda for? So without this feature the Honda will have embarrassing petrol consume.
Equally, the specification of the new Honda establishes that now all the 2WD and the 4WD will have this VCM engine which is different of what was with model 2007 year. This is a worry situation because I was told in his forum that the problem of ghost vibration reported by owners of the previous model usually complaint about, was the 2WD with engine VCM on it. Even a member recommend me to buy the 4WD instead of the 2WD.to prevent possible ghost vibrations.
"The 2009 Pilot is built of high-strength steel and this implies more weight for a car of similar dimensions."
Your statement is only partially correct.
High strength steel is only used in 52% of the Pilot body/chassis. This does not necessarily add more weight. The strength in the steel comes from the production or manufacturing process.
Honda will use this steel at very strategic points in the chassis i.e. the front, A-pillars and rear frame joints.
Despite Honda's cylinder de activation system,the V6 Pilot we tested got slightly worse fuel economy than the previous one.C.R.states.Not saying this is accurate by all other testing org.But I would be somewhat of a skeptic!
Honda has decided to use a hood made of Aluminum. Reason: Aluminum is light and reduces the weight of the vehicle. But it also creates a safety issue since Aluminum is not strong i.e. it is not steel. Think how easily you can crush a soda can made of Aluminum? (I am using this as an analogy. I expect the Pilot hood to be stronger than a soda can)
By using a Aluminum hood, Honda is negating the gains made by using high strength steel in parts of the chassis.
I certainly dont want my hood crumpled in a mild frontal collision.
Now thats something to think about!!! maybe they want us to recycle?.I believe they did not have to make the Pilot bigger and add to the weight. got a feeling this potential hot seller just might fall flat.. Nice bigger gas tank $100.00 to filler up.
Saves weight and thus saves gas. The Buick Enclave, Caddy CTS, Chrysler T&C all have (or had) aluminum hoods. Mazda uses them in Japan to help meet pedestrian collision safety requirements. Used to be paint problems on them with old Fords.
"In spite of a forty percent reduction in hood assembly weight, the aluminum hood shows an acceptable level of behavior in most cases." Springer
In my opinion and from what I have learned over the years on automobiles, I can say that you are wrong. The hood contribute nothing to frontal crash safety. In fact, it only add weights. You also would love the hood to crumple so that it does not intrude into the passenger space thru windshield. Check again. All BMW sedans (and most high-end vehicles) have aluminum hood and trunk lids. The new M3 even has carbon fiber roof. The hood of 5-series is so light that you can easily lift it with 1 finger. It actually costs more to use aluminum than steel. Honda is not trying to save cost here. Honda is trying to reduce weight (therefore, fuel economy).
This is the Russia version of the American 2009 Honda Pilot. Please, take not of the rear and front lights. The rear taillights (lens) has amber turning lights (?), which it may mean that Honda America has in stock taillights to be installed in the Pilots to be exported to Russia.
It is law in many European countries that the turn signals be amber. US market cars that go over there have updated taillamps that meet this regulation.
Personally, I wish all turn signals were amber, but it didn't stop me from buying my 2006 Accord. My 1996 has them though!
If Odyssey history was any indication, all you need to do is to wait for 2-3 years down the road. At the MMC (mid model change), Honda will change the rear red signal light to amber like they did in 2002 to the Odyssey.
The side-step looks great. I wish Mazda offer that on my CX-9. :mad:
While I don't think Honda has released the GVWR yet for the new Pilot, but I do have the data from CX-9 (which is at comparable size and curb weight (4300~4500lb) with 7-seating) Just for your reference: GVWR (gross vehicle weight rating) 5831lb (FWD) 6049lb (AWD) Let me know if you need GAWR data. You may also get data from 2008 Pilot to interpolate.
Comments
And I feel for Honda because I am sure when they started designing it, they did not think it likely gas prices would be as high as they are.
Currently there is $3500 dealer support on 2008 Pilots. Granted it is an outgoing model but you have to wonder how long it will be before "soft" incentives kick in on the 2009 Pilot.
There will always be those who need such a vehicle, but to convince the rest of us to act on a "want" rather than a "need" for a vehicle that while efficient for its class, admitedly uses a good bit of fuel, price is going to have to set aggresively.
This car will hit showrooms at July this year and prices I guess will be $2000 less than the Pilot. Specifications are not given yet and information about this car is almost absent. Photos of the vehicle is given at:
http://www.kiamedia.com/secure/borrego-photos.html
So EPA no longer vary speeds around a "higher speed"? That was my point on VCM. When speed varies, VCM cannot maintain. It has to wake up the rest of cylinders.
The outdated testing method has been well-known. Go to wikipedia.org for such info. You are the one that call our beloved government stupid, not me. I would call them "slow to respond", though.
Why 48mph? Because the testing standard was established when the highway speed limit was 55mph. Our government thought that you should be driving at 48mph. It is reasonable, if you ask me.
My bet is that, today, EPA is testing around 60mph, but I have no source to support that.
Cheers.
it is your choice whether you want to buy Korean brands or not. It is just an advice from me based on my observation. You can take it or leave it. Maybe in 10 years, Hyundai will be like what Lexus is, but not today. (Kia is owned by Hyundai in case you don't know that already as a cheaper brand in Asia.) For reliability data, Consumer Reports should be the best source. My post was more about resale value, and less about reliability of Korean-made vehicles. I know that some Korean models have been good in initial quality survey. However, I own vehicles for at least 7 years. "Initial Quality" (3 months) does not mean much to me.
25 NX 450h+ / 24 Sienna Plat AWD / 23 Civic Type-R / 21 Boxster GTS 4.0
'08 Pilot 2WD 16/22
'08 Pilot AWD 15/20
'09 Pilot 2WD 17/23
'09 Pilot AWD 16/22
For those interested in how EPA does testing, see here (middle of the page)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_automobiles#Current_EPA_testing_pro- cedure_through_2007
BTY, I did not mean to come across as an a-hole in my previous post. I didn't proof read my post. My apologies.
Are you buying, jet fuel? Did you mean to say $3.59?
The fuel consumes 16/22 is average for V6 3.6 and above for any SUV. The Outlander 3.0L V6 is just 19/24 and the RAV4 V6 3.6 is 19/25. However, the robustness construction of the Pilot has added almost 1000 lbs more than the Outlander and RAV. The heavier the vehicle, the greater the fuel consumes is.
I wouldn’t single out on the Pilot fuel consume when there are many goodies in the Pilot to talk about, e.g. the air intake that allows the Pilot a 19 inches of water deepness. Another thing I would like to discuss, for example, how to light amber rear lens instead of the red turning lights presently in the new Pilot. I think there are ways to do this swap without changing at all the rear combination lens. Equally for people that would like to have a rear fog lens/lamp as in many European vehicles imported into the USA. USA traffic legislation encourage this rear fog light although it is not mandatory.
I dont tow or haul anything. A V4 engine with 180 HP would be more than adequate for my needs.
Think about how much gas you would save on an annual basis if you step down to a V4 engine.
Perhaps you should look into the RAV4 4-cyl with seven seats, 4-speed automatic. This car with all the options will cost about $28K-$30K .
Great question! Anyone interested in discussing politics may want to consider the Politics topic.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
Resale values on anything Korean is horrible.
The 7-passenger Highlander would be a direct competitor to the Pilot.
Length
2009 Pilot: 190.9"
RAV4: 181.1"
Outlander: 182.7"
Highlander: 188.4"
Width:
2009 Pilot: 78.5"
RAV4: 71.5"
Outlander: 70.9"
Highlander: 75.2"
Height:
2009 Pilot: 71.0" - 72.7"
RAV4: 66.3"
Outlander: 67.7"
Highlander: 68.1"
The 2009 Pilot is built of high-strength steel and this implies more weight for a car of similar dimensions. This give the Pilot more rigid foundations than other SUV as it were build using a body-on-frame construction that is good for off road.
I meant if you built the Outlander and the RAV4 with the type of construction the Pilot has undergone their petrol consume will equalize the Pilot petrol figures.
Your statement is not true.
Europe pays $8 to $9 per gallon. The USA only pays $3.75 per gallon.
The real reason oil is $110 per barrel, and our gas prices are up, is because China and India have a very high growth rate, and they are consuming more oil.
Its supply and demand.
Get used to $4 and $5 a gallon this summer
About Europe where the petrol is twice the price of the USA the majority European countries have imposed to their population high taxes in the petrol consume to pay for free education, free health care (medicine, consultation, and surgery), free social benefits, and help to the unemployed. 4/5th of the petrol price is taxes.
China and India the demand of petrol has increased, this is true but because the poor exchange rate of the dollars China and India have not have other alternative to pay world oil price. However nobody can blame the Chinese or Indians direct responsible of the high price of oil. Half the oil to these two countries comes from Iran, and Russia or boundaries countries anyway where the trade is made in other currencies but the dollars.
You may be all right to get use to $6.0 per gallon in the USA because the economical mess where we are at the moment most probably will take us another 50 years to sort out the mess.
Lets now continue talking about the goodies of our 2009 Pilot.
My wife's RDX has this and it is just too awesome.....I was close to buying and MDX but decided not to.
Also any mileage numbers yet....I am hoping for 19/23 city/hwy. My 2004 HL gets an average of 22 around town and 25/26+ on longer hwy trips.
Thanks for the input.
With regards to DVD surround sound, I had that in my TL, I just couldn't find any DVD's for it. Maybe now there are more available.
I don't know for sure, but I bet Honda will reserve that feature for it's more upscale models (Acura).
Pilot: (2WD) 17/23
Pilot: (4WD) 16/22
Ody: 17/25
I think it is a bit unfair to compare the Pilot to the RAV-4 and Outlander. The Pilot is in a totally different class of CUV. The Outlander and RAV are considered "small suv's". The Pilot is considered a "mid-sized suv". This being said, the Pilot compares to the Highlander, CX-9, GM triplets, Veracruz etc., which are all considered "mid-sized suv's" that seat 7-8 passengers.
I think where people have an issue with the Pilot's fuel economy is because of the power it puts out. Mazda (273/270), GM(275/248), Hyundai(260/257) and Toyota (270/248) all put out much more powerful engines then Honda, while being on par with fuel economy. Also, the 09 Pilot has a curb weight between 4321-4600lbs, which places it in the middle of the pack. Lightest being Hyundai (4266) and GM being the heaviest (4936). This is an issue because Honda promotes how fuel efficient their cars are, and they also pat themselves on the back with their engine technology which they claim is superior to other mfgr's (i-VTEC, VCM etc.). Since the 09 Pilot is equipped with this equipment, one would think with a 250hp V6 engine, Honda would exceed 22mpg highway. Something along the lines of 25mpg was widely expected, and it now seems as if 22mpg is a failure.
Equally, the specification of the new Honda establishes that now all the 2WD and the 4WD will have this VCM engine which is different of what was with model 2007 year. This is a worry situation because I was told in his forum that the problem of ghost vibration reported by owners of the previous model usually complaint about, was the 2WD with engine VCM on it. Even a member recommend me to buy the 4WD instead of the 2WD.to prevent possible ghost vibrations.
Aerodynamics and gearing are probably the two main factors, skinnier tires, less weight also contributing.
Your statement is only partially correct.
High strength steel is only used in 52% of the Pilot body/chassis. This does not necessarily add more weight. The strength in the steel comes from the production or manufacturing process.
Honda will use this steel at very strategic points in the chassis i.e. the front, A-pillars and rear frame joints.
By using a Aluminum hood, Honda is negating the gains made by using high strength steel in parts of the chassis.
I certainly dont want my hood crumpled in a mild frontal collision.
"In spite of a forty percent reduction in hood assembly weight, the aluminum hood shows an acceptable level of behavior in most cases." Springer
Or would you rather have it shoved through your windshield?
You don't achieve 5 star safety ratings by building unsafe cars!
Check again. All BMW sedans (and most high-end vehicles) have aluminum hood and trunk lids. The new M3 even has carbon fiber roof. The hood of 5-series is so light that you can easily lift it with 1 finger.
It actually costs more to use aluminum than steel. Honda is not trying to save cost here. Honda is trying to reduce weight (therefore, fuel economy).
So, you have misunderstood Honda.
Personally, I wish all turn signals were amber, but it didn't stop me from buying my 2006 Accord. My 1996 has them though!
The side-step looks great. I wish Mazda offer that on my CX-9. :mad:
Just for your reference:
GVWR (gross vehicle weight rating) 5831lb (FWD) 6049lb (AWD)
Let me know if you need GAWR data.
You may also get data from 2008 Pilot to interpolate.