Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Nissan Murano vs Toyota Highlander vs Subaru B9 Tribeca vs Honda Pilot
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Funny thing is people usually cross-shop XTerra with the 4Runner, FJ Cruiser, and even Jeeps.
-juice
Otherwise, the Pilot has been pretty reliable and is a good value. I am not saying the Pilot is not without faults (as are most of the SUVs in this segment, probably moreso) but I am happy with my purchase. Do your homework and make an informed decision. There is a HondaPilot forum where you could get even more info. You can get a Pilot for invoice or below in most areas now.
The Highlander is solid and would be a good choice, bit I didn't think it was quieter than an 06 Pilot. the Pilot certainly has more room.
Murano is nice (handles better and is more stylish) but has more problems than a Pilot IMO and is less practical (and maybe more expensive equipped similarly).
Yes, I do think that the Murano is not as reliable but is still a good choice like you said
I would be more concerned about issues that arise after delivery.
-juice
A typical tire shop will not have one of these machines, but many dealers do.
I am a long-time Honda owner. I appreciate the Pilot's interior space and Honda's reliability, but the styling is bland. I like the Ridgeline's styling and space. Would this truck be suitable for a family of 3, maybe 4 in the future? I like the RX 330, but am concerned about the mid-grade/premium fuel it needs.
Given these three choices, I would appreciate any advise/comments.
On the flip side, the Ridgline's long 122" wheelbase means a large turning circle, much larger than that of the Pilot or Highlander. A large turning circle comes with all pickups with long wheelbases.
Bob
I believe the Lexus will be very expensive to repair (if it ever needs repair) simply because it's a Lexus. Still, it's a sweet ride.
Or maybe the stylish 2007 Mazda CX-7?
I think a sealed (interior) cargo area makes more sense when you have kids, because it's not often that the cargo is "dirty" and needs to be seperated from the passenger cabin.
For things like port-a-cribs, strollers, and diaper bags, you want those inside, dry and warm.
-juice
Does anyone know what fuel these will be running on?
I'd be a little more wary of the RDX/CRV, since Edmunds says it's Honda's first production turbo engine. You know Honda's got great reliability, but it'd still be a risk. I assume it'll require premium like other turbos.
You didn't mention it in your first post, but have you checked out a Subaru B9 Tribeca? A little pricey, but you can get a very nice 5-pass in the upper $20k range. Extremely safe and reliable with a strong 3.0 6-cyl which doesn't require premium, plus one of the best AWD systems out there. That engine has been in use in top-of-the-line Outbacks for a while, and has proven itself. Edmunds called the handling soft, but I think most would disagree with that assessment. The people who own them seem to really like them - they're rated a 9.0 out of 10 in Edmunds' Consumer Ratings. 2007s have some nice little improvements over '06, and should be out very soon.
-juice
Drive it fast and it will guzzle gas.
Drive it slowly and you will likely get mid 20s.
But not both, no way no how.
Out in the real world, roughly half of RAV4 V6 owners have reported mileage below 20 mpg. 20 is about the median, you could say.
-juice
I think the reference of "mid 20s" was to the price???
Cough, uh, yeah, of course he did!
-juice
On the down side, I couldn't live with the interior. both from a style, fit and finish, materials point of view. It just says 'cheap car' all over it. Compare that to, let's say, a Tribeca dash (and features)- what a difference.
I think the Rav4 is a great "inexpensive small 'ute" that's got power and size. But it just doesn't compete with the Tribeca/Murano and plain looking Highlander.
-juice
If people are looking more luxurious, I would also consider the RDX and the MDX. I am very happy with my MDX even though it's 5 years old. Probably doesn't handle quite as good as a Tribeca, but probably close, has more room and is a pretty good choice.
I have had my MDX on sand dunes (ORV sticker required) and off road trails (nothing major but probably equal to what most people will encounter and have always been pleasantly surprised. Ground clearance is certainly more of an issue than traction.
VDC is very capable and the Tribeca has more than 8" of clearance, plus it weighs 400 lbs or so less than an MDX, so it'll carry a slight advantage. It's still no rock crawler, of course.
-juice
BUT, approach angle is 28 degrees for MDX and only 18 for the Tribeca so that could be a relevant difference.
Anyway, either one is probably OK for light to medium duty but nothing more.
These days, it's a bit tougher, with an alphabet soup of traction control, stability control, electronic brake force distribution sytems, etc, it's hard to look at the specs and determine what will happen if you lose traction on a couple wheels.
The subie has an electronically controlled variable clutch that controls the center differential. Don't know about the new MDX.
8" is good enough for my roads. Interesting approach angle differences- I hadn't looked at that before. Good info.
I'm not buying until November- so I might have a shot at the new '07 MDX. On the downside- the price will be a premium when it first hits the showroom, and will probably be $43-$45K to get in one. The Subie will be dealing for $10K less.
Featuring a new rear differential with the worlds first electromagnetic operated clutch, torque is distributed not only between the front and rear wheels, but between the left and right wheels as well. Several sensors located throughout the car gather information about steering angle, speed, lateral Gs and other information, which is then fed to the cars on-board ECU. This information is relayed to the cars SH-AWD, which then alters the ratio of power delivered to each of its four wheels. The ratio between front and rear axles is between 30:70 and 70:30, with left and right power distribution ranging from 0:100 to 100:0. With this system, torque does double-duty, first by assisting maneuverability and next by propelling the vehicle forward."
The RDX looks like a fun vehicle, and might be another valid option for me. Acura has never wow'ed me on styling in the past (inside or out). The new ones are OK. No vehicle is perfect.
Ooops. Just checked on the RDX. Acura lists it's ground clearance at 6.25" and 5.12" under full load. So much for that idea.
Part Time AWD was the biggest drawback to the Pilot in my opinion. It was why I didn't fight harder against my wife when she said she wanted to go with the Tribeca. It was a toss up for me, but I believe Full Time is superior to Part Time. Full Time 4WD was a major reason we went with the Sequoia in 2001.
Now, expect many new redesigns to have electronic four wheel drive. It still should be adequete for most. Full time will be going away.
The Audi TT is not full-time, that's an exception. It has a Haldex.
-juice
A traditional truck 4WD system with a locking center differential is one that's strictly for off-road use. So, it is generally called "part-time". (i.e. you can only use it part of the time) In fact on Jeeps, a little light comes on the dash that says "part time 4WD" when one puts it in the off road 4wd configuration.
"Full time" AWD is one where you can have it in AWD all the time, and has a non-locking center differential (although it may have a viscous coupling, or electronic clutch or various other ways to do the job).
Typically AWD vehicles that can be in AWD all the time (Full Time) generally sacrifice a bit of gas milage, as you've got more friction and inertia of more parts moving to get the drive to all the wheels. It improves handling, but in the past they offered only limited off road capability. These days, with all the electronic monitoring of wheel spin, many of these full time AWD systems can be capable off-road, however the vehicles and tires that come with them are often not as suitable. Tires make a big difference!
They're just not engineering for full-time use. The systems would overheat. Most of them have a fail-safe that will disengage the rear axle if that condition occurs.
To me, AWD is full-time and requires a center differential or some sort of device that acts in the same way.
Audi was first, and their Quattro system uses a Torsen center differential to this day. That allows both axles to get power all the time, yet they can also spin at different speeds, so they can remain engaged on dry pavement going around a turn.
Since Audi pioneered AWD, that's how I define it. The one thing that set AWD apart from the 4WD vehicles available at the time (including Subaru back then), was that full-time nature.
If you look at a Ford Escape or Honda CR-V, those systems can't do that. I believe both use a Rotary Blade Coupling, and once the rear axle is engaged, the two axles are spinning at the same speed. So it's part-time, it *must* disengage to do a U-turn, for instance, on dry pavement.
Technology allows them to engage and disengage the rear axle with quick-acting clutches, and that's fine for most needs. But those systems don't really qualify under the original definition of AWD that Audi basically pioneered.
-juice
Subaru was known for 4WD passenger cars, back then they had the Loyale, BRAT, Justy, XT, but those were part-time and manually engaged.
The Legacy was their first model with true AWD, then came the Impreza, Outback, and later the Forester and Tribeca.
If you look at an Escape today, it's actually closer to a Subaru Loyale in theory, except that the engagement of the drive system is automated, via clutches, rather than manual.
That plus they don't have a low range (Subaru did back then), and the system isn't engineered for heavy duty use.
You'd be shocked, but the old Subaru system was. For fun, here's an old BRAT:
-juice
Here's the spec sheet from the current Forester sold in Australia. It has a dual-range tranny.
http://subaru.com.au/explore/forester/specifications.asp?body=Wagon&grade=X
Bob
The Tribeca's H6 idles/sounds a bit rougher but is plenty smooth especially at high RPM (like all H6's, I have a Boxster S as well). The Tribeca has a firmer suspension and much better braking dynamics which I think give a better feel and control. I think there is no question the Subaru AWD system is superior as well. It's a bit smaller than the MDX inside (they have very similar outside dimensions).
We like our MDX but love our Tribeca.
Cheers
By the way, the AWD system on the MDX DOES operate above 17 mph (under acceleration or upon slippage just like normal) it's just that you cannot LOCK the system over that speed (which I rarely use anyway). The MDX system is good enough that I almost never have resorted to the Locking system (save a few trips to the sand dunes or playing in the winter). So the MDX AWD is available at all speeds.
The MDX/Pilot are nice rides in many ways, but the AWD is lacking in my opinion.
The Pilot/MDX can still "anticipate" slippage at speeds above 18 mph (before slippage actually occurs). In this way, the system functions the same (exactly) below AND above 18 mph. It's ONLY the VTM LOCK that is not available beyond 18 mph.
"Honda carries over the Variable Torque Management four-wheel-drive (VTM-4) system from the MDX that it developed with BorgWarner (Chicago, IL). This infinitely variable system applies torque to the rear wheels based on electric signals from an ECU that monitors acceleration and wheel slippage. A unique feature of VTM-4 is that it drives the rear wheels whenever the vehicle accelerates, even on dry pavement. The advantages of this are: less torque steer, better traction from a standing start and increased vehicle stability."
Thus, it is different from the purely reactive system that's on the CRV for example and is "proactive" (at least to some degree). And I would not agree that the system is "lacking". It may not be the gold standard but it's better than most part-time systems and functions very well in the real world.
The Rav4 gets better gas mileage and takes regular vs. the Tribeca which needs premium and gets 23 mpg on the freeway. However, it does have 0-4.9% financing.
Any thoughts or opinions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
The RAV4 costs less, and since it's lighter it's quicker and more efficient. Operating costs should be low. AWD is part-time, and the rear door swings open the wrong way (it blocks the curb), so I'd be looking at an AWD Sienna.
-juice
We debate a lot here on the web, but buy whatever brings the bigger smile to your face. I think both are practical enough that you won't feel like you've downsized too much.
-juice