Nastacio: I can confirm. From the Aug 2007 CR (pg 60): "While the brake pedal felt firm and responsive, the CX-9's long stopping distances on both wet and dry surfaces weighed down its overall score."
Thanks for the reply. It seems a mixed bag of results. MT got the CX-9 virtually tied with an Acura MDX on 60-0 braking (123 vs. 119 ft,) but Car & Driver listed it at a longish 190+ ft for 70-0 braking.
In the Popular Mechanics comparison against other SUV's, it listed 147 ft (compare it to 130ft for the Pilot or 144 for the Veracruz.)
Speaking of Ford, just saw the latest pictures of the Flex at the Ford website. Not sure whether I like it or not, I get a different impression every time I look at it.
I don't know what to say about it either. I say Ford messed up. They just can't get it right. The last 7 years they can't do any thing but make bland cars. Then, recently they decide to go a little too bold wth this and the Edge.We'll let the Edge go, but this has too musch personality to appeal to the masses. All the while Europe is getting Ford's best. Right now i am thankful for Toyota and Honda continually upping Ford. Without them, Ford would be slacking. Now Ford will continue to screw up and struggle until they get it right. And Ford knows they don't have another 20 years to do it.
Agreed. Might have considered the Edge, but alas Ford decided that 3rd row seats were not necessary (probably not to cannabilize Freestyle sales), so it's out of the picture for me. And on top of that, the Edge gets mediocre ratings, especially from CR (which is the bible for many), who did not like fit and finish, engine noise, etc.
I'm sure they'll get their act together eventually.
"Right now you're thankful for Toyota and Honda"...well pal, just keep in mind that the net profits of these cars are going to a foreign country, and eventually there will be no more Auto industry here in America. A lot of Americans are out of jobs because people keep buying foreign cars...not to mention all the other items that are not made here! If you presure American auto makers to make a better car, then they'll do it. If you haven't tried an American car then you're really shortchanging yourself and the people who are working to produce a good car. Remember when YOU get laid off from your job, you only have yourself (and all the other "Americans") who kept on buying foreign goods. :mad:
"A lot of Americans are out of jobs because people keep buying foreign cars..."
Is that not pressure enough on automakers for you? Because management at the US firms is only out for themselves is not really our fault. American shareholders let them get appointed/promoted and build up big salaries and golden parachutes. I agree that the people in the plants are the ones really left hanging, but I refuse to take responsibility for the fact that the engineers can't engineer a better product, and that the designers can't make a better-looking product.
Usually, when people see their market share slipping, they see the writing on the wall and try and improve. It's the same with any savvy company. In this case, the American auto makers may be trying to improve, but it ain't enough. I'll leave the domestic "sympathy" purchases to those living in Michigan and the rust belt. I'm going to buy the best product for my money.
...well pal, just keep in mind that the net profits of these cars are going to a foreign country, and eventually there will be no more Auto industry here in America.
Toyota and Honda have opened several plans in US soil, generating jobs for Americans, while GM is horsing around with Chinese suppliers, moving plants to Canada, etc.
What do Honda and Toyota have to do with anything when GM puts an overpriced Aztec in the market or when Ford diverts its engineering efforts to build a limited series supercar at the same time it launches its flagship sedan, the 500, on the market with a 3.0 liter engine reminiscent from the 90's?
Go ahead and buy an American car out of patriotism, while GM gives away $2 billion (with a "B") to Fiat to bail itself out of a stupid deal started on 2000. Maybe buy a Ford to help them fund another venture capitalist craze during the next .dotcom bust, burning through another $10 billion in expenses unrelated to its core car-making business.
I think Chrysler is the only one who deserves your business, since it helped repatriate a few billion dollars through the bungled acquisition by Daimler.
We live in a capitalist society (whether you like it or not) and two key realities of that are: 1. Best product/price experience and good marketing will usually win. 2. Choosing a lesser product for patriotic reasons usually simply delays the reality for the failing manufacturer unless they can truly shape up.*
Also remember; many folks retirement funds and savings are invested -indirectly- in US businesses that could not generate the profits -or CXO pay- without relying on goods bought for a pittance from the developing economies.
I have just test driven the Saturn Outlook and the 08 CX9 back-to-back, and I have to say that whilst the CX9 has the edge (no not the Ford :-) on the dash, and one or two areas of fit-and-finish, it loses in some key areas for me:
Saturn Outlook XR AWD: 1. - Greater space in all rows -especially 3rd- where I can sit comfortable with headroom to spare, and a full window to look out of. And I could load more luggage with 3rd row up. It was also much easier to enter the 3rd row. 2. - Less body roll, less movement after hard stop! 3. - More space around me when sitting in drivers seat. 4. - More 'weighty' feeling steering (felt Mazda had a lifeless-too-light feeling wheel). 5. - More Masculine exterior styling 6. - Better load space when all seats folded (flat rather than slightly sloped at front in CX9).
I appreciate that these may not be every ones priorities but I thought it worth offering credit where credit is due! I have just sold one of our two Audi's and last 4 cars have all been premium German motors, so it is praise indeed that I am considering pulling the trigger on a Saturn Outlook.
For the record I am a Brit and therefore come from a country that was once one of the leaders in so many areas of technology and manufacturing, but let it slip just too much so lost almost all of it's auto/motorcycle industry.
"Every dog has it day" ..... but sometimes you can "teach an old dog new tricks"
in terms of space, the lambdas will always win out over the other CUVs, but on the other hand, if you have a group of CUVs that all meet your space requirements, then it would be interesting discussing the good and bad points of each without mentioning space.
Saw my co-worker's Edge last night, as we were leaving. He got that Electric Rust Metallic color, whatever it's called. Can't help but notice it.
I liked it but the lady I car-pooled with absolutely hated the color.
I only peeked inside. Haven't sat in one in a while. I'm not sure that shiny silver on the top of the dash is a good idea, though, as the reflection was pretty bad on the windshield.
Didn't ask him for a ride because I was driving the car-pooler home.
Hey, I was pleasantly surprised when I could fit a whole airplane in the back of my CX-9! Okay, I have to admit it's not full scale, but I was able to get the two 87" wings and the 7' fuselage in, along with all the field equipment I need to fly my R/C plane...
"Right now you're thankful for Toyota and Honda"...well pal, just keep in mind that the net profits of these cars are going to a foreign country, and eventually there will be no more Auto industry here in America.
I don't work for the auto industry- so I- and my job have no attachtment to it. If it goes under, It will have little affect on me for a while. And the competition is very good for the american industry. Ford and Chevy and Chrysler have all been slacking for the past decade and a half, and its because of Toyota that they in the past few years are finally getting it. So you have toyota to thank that the air isn't so poluted that you can't see. And what's with the little emotorcon? Makes your post seem as if a 15 year old typed it!
If you are comparing based on the criteria listed, have you evaluated the Taurus X? I'm a Freestyle owner, but the TX would have a similar powertrain and about the same fuel economy with a much better rear cargo area due to the semi-square back vs. the slope. Seating measurements would be similar and overall depending on comparable packages somewhere in the neighborhood of $4k less on list. More curious to see if you looked at the Freestyle or TX as I really don't have any opinion on the Mazda as where I live the nearest dealer would be like 75 miles away.
I drive a FS and I saw both another FS and TaurusX going down the highway. Pretty much identical looking to me except for the nose trip and that the 2nd row windows had a tint on them. In reality, the interior is the same and it's only the engine/tranny that have changed to give it more power at the expense of mpg.
The biggest thing I saw on Taurus X I looked at (it had the same basic colors combinations as my FS) they'd made the interior dash, console and doors a two-tone. One of the minor complaints with the FS with the tan interior was a slight reflection of the dash in the slope of the windshield. They've fixed this with the two-tone scheme by changing the tan dash to a charcoal. They also added a bit more "fake wood". I found the changes to be quite affective and it added some flair to the interior. The one I saw also had the power liftgate option. Still don't understand Ford's nameplate change on this vehicle or the fact it is something of a hidden secret. A number of years ago I had to move to something more economical after driving Suburbans for 7+ years. We kept the latest Suburban, which the wife now drives, but everytime I got in it, I found I had 'Burb envy. I never did like having to get into a car (24mpg) and with the FS (22mpg) I feel I've achieved a good medium between functionality/economy and comfort. Overall having only giving back slightly on the fuel economy I'm quite pleased. Having 2 teenage boys both over 6' they too like the seating in the FS and it has cut back even further on the miles with the Suburban. I still love the Suburban for towing and overall family comfort/safety.
I, too, thought it was a fine vehicle if you did not want something as large as a minivan. It's bigest problem is that Ford almost went out of it's way to bury it. Never saw an ad on TV for it, ever. I never saw it advertized in any way. They made it and decided not to tell anybody about it even when gas prices started to climb and spike. I never even knew it existed until it popped up on a search for minivans and minivan alternatives on this website. Went to the Ford dealer to look at one and the salesman seemed surprised we wanted to look at one. I don't understand the lack of support.
Might have been that they didn't know how to market it. I'm shocked at how many people say it's not a crossover. Lady I know who has one says "oh-it's just a wagon-nothing more". Ford has to play to those people. But It could have done better. It's an awesome vehicle for people who have 3 kids but really want a car. I guess Ford doesn't want to support it. Do they think it's a mistake?
I created the cute-ute comparison forum mainly to discuss about the smaller crossovers. However, it seems you guys are all here, and the cute-ute forum is not taking off. Let us know what you want. Continue cute-ute discussion or just discuss it all here?
Nothing they did or didn't do, short of a creative re-design, could have prevented the Explorer's freefall from the top of the heap. And since the Freestyle was styled after the current Explorer style blandness, there wasn't much to be done about getting people excited about either one.
Speaking of the mini- utes, where was Escape in the comparison??? That's the second or third biggest player in the market. And isn't Explorer no. 4 now? Still pretty high in my book. But the design is disappointing. Can't wait to see the crossover remake, but it's sure to call for the end of the TX as well as the current body on frame Explorer.
I just measured the 3rd row of my Freestyle. It has a 2nd row bench that doesn't move. It's 27" from the back of the 2nd row to the front of the 3rd row, measured at the top of the 3rd row seat. There's also 11" from the top of the seat to the floor in the 3rd row. And the seat is 40" across, but there's another 3" on either side of the seat that's plastic, but at the same level as the seat.
I was riding in the 3rd row of a Toyota Sequoia. I'm not sure if the 2nd row bench slide forward or backwards, but the 3rd row of my FS was more comfortable, mostly because my knees weren't up so high.
Any measurements from other vehicles. And measure with the 2nd row all the way back if it does slide to get a comparable measurement. My FS has 41" of 2nd row legroom with my non-moving 2nd row, so we want to make things fair. If you slide the 2nd row up on your CUV, then sure you'll have more 3rd row room but at the expense of the 2nd row.
I'm mostly curious as to the height of the 3rd row and the distance from the front of the 3rd row to the back of the 2nd row measured at the top of the seat.
I actually just checked the Sequoia specs, and it shows only 29" of 3rd row legroom, which felt about right when I sat in both.
No, Escape is definitely a CUV. And have you seen the comercial where the guy thinks his car (an Altima) is borng and wants the "fun and go anywhere utility" of an SUV, plus car gas mileage? That says CUV to me.
I actually just checked the Sequoia specs, and it shows only 29" of 3rd row legroom, which felt about right when I sat in both.
Yeah- the only SUVs that will give you more row 3 leg room than a CUV are the Suburban, Aspen/Durango, and Expedition. The Expy's is the only one that is minivan comfortable, and more comfortable than the huge Acadia's.
Calling it "leg room" is a bit misleading, because they are actually measureing space for your knees.
You bend your legs, and your feet want to go down in to a foot well of some sort. So depth matters as much as knee space does.
SUVs with a live axle have trouble here because they need room for the rear diff to move around, and that's precisely where the foot well would end up.
So hop in a 4Runner, for instance, where the 3rd seat basically lies on a flat floor, and you have no foot room at all, so you have to bend your knees up in to your chest.
I guess we should really look at both the distance to the 2nd row seat back and the depth of the footwell.
For fun, I measured from the bottom of my knees to the floor, when I sit with me knees at a 90 degree angle, arguably the optimal for comfort, and that was 19".
I bet the 4Runner has no more than 12" to the floor, if that.
The reason the Expedition does well here is it has a indy rear suspension, i.e. no pumpkin that it has to make room for, so you get a footwell.
where is the new pilot??? i've been waiting for something- for anything- a picture or drawig- for EVER. I really want to see it.I know Honda's been racking it's brains working on it. They know for the first time they really have some stiff competition in GM's lambdas, and if this is anything like the new Accord vs the Malibu, they are sweating bullets.
It looks to be keeping the same kind of boxy stature of the current model, and if recent intros are anything to draw from, might very well go from somewhat boring but appliance like, to slightly bizarre--i.e. the new Accord, in certain details.
The GM Lambdas hit and took mid-late in their redesign cycle, and they certainly saw the reaction, but we'll see how it turns out.
But this is a little different. This time Honda actually needs to up its ante- more than a nice exterior upgrade and interior refine. Crossovers of this size segment need to have comfortable third rows and nice cargo room behind the third row. Maybe even second row captains ( I bet new Pilot's got it!) The currewnt Pilot does work wonders for a vehicle its size (at least they were wonders, until the new Highlander came out) but decent for a small midsize SUV isn't good enough anymore. This is a segment that someone can lead, but that no one can set the standard for.
And the current Highlander straddles a couple different segments- midsize crossover, small crossover,Camry wagon- and it's been around a couple years longer than the Pilot, so I can see how Toyota outsells the Honda.
That's true only if you subscrive to a "bigger is better" mentality, so who knows what they will do. Rememeber, this is Honda, they often swim against the stream, and still don't have a V8 in the lineup despite the Ridgeline.
The Accord did get bigger, FWIW.
Another thing - the bigger, new entries may be doing well but isn't the Highlander still the volume leader? It's not that big.
Actually, the 2007 CR-V is larger than the previous gen 2. The "sloped rear" and having the spare inside the cargo (instead of on the outside of the door) means it is very similar in size to the previous model. I think it may be sightly smaller in terms of cargo space, but not much.
Honda also has the minivan Odyssey while for GM, the lambdas are it. That may be one reason that the Pilot is a foot shorter and not as roomy as the lambdas. People who are really interested in max space can get the Odyssey while those who don't can get the Pilot. So it's more critical for GM to have the lambdas cover both bases, while not necessarily for Honda.
Same for Toyota. They have the Sienna and Highlander, so for those who were thinking about the Highlander but need more space, they can just go to the Sienna, or to the Sequoia if they really need AWD and big towing.
Crossovers of this size segment need to have comfortable third rows and nice cargo room behind the third row.
I've been in the back of the new Highlander, and it doesn't have either of those things.
Maybe even second row captains ( I bet new Pilot's got it!) The currewnt Pilot does work wonders for a vehicle its size (at least they were wonders, until the new Highlander came out)
I think we sat in different vehicles. My personal feel was that the Highlander offered nothing functional over the current Pilot other than captain's chairs. If one needs seating for 7 they aren't a bonus either. It looks more upscale and less "trucky" but otherwise it didn't live up to the hype.
It's a quote from someone else, but the Highlander and Pilot being a foot shorter than the lambdas aren't in the same size segment.
Misunderstood your post then, thought you were including the Highlander in the same group. It is a nice 4 passenger vehicle (6-7 at a pinch only). As I said before, I found it quite a let-down. But then, these things are so subjective. Given my needs, I always start by looking at the third row and the cargo area when first seeing these vehicles in person. Then I climb in and sit in the back. Sitting in the drivers seat is the last thing I do. Probably atypical in that regard.
Comments
Otherwise a very complimentary article.
In the Popular Mechanics comparison against other SUV's, it listed 147 ft (compare it to 130ft for the Pilot or 144 for the Veracruz.)
I just don't think we should overlook the big picture.
Mazda still earned the win. Press cars are often abused so who knows if the brakes were OK.
I don't know what to say about it either. I say Ford messed up. They just can't get it right. The last 7 years they can't do any thing but make bland cars. Then, recently they decide to go a little too bold wth this and the Edge.We'll let the Edge go, but this has too musch personality to appeal to the masses. All the while Europe is getting Ford's best.
Right now i am thankful for Toyota and Honda continually upping Ford. Without them, Ford would be slacking. Now Ford will continue to screw up and struggle until they get it right. And Ford knows they don't have another 20 years to do it.
I'm sure they'll get their act together eventually.
Is that not pressure enough on automakers for you? Because management at the US firms is only out for themselves is not really our fault. American shareholders let them get appointed/promoted and build up big salaries and golden parachutes. I agree that the people in the plants are the ones really left hanging, but I refuse to take responsibility for the fact that the engineers can't engineer a better product, and that the designers can't make a better-looking product.
Usually, when people see their market share slipping, they see the writing on the wall and try and improve. It's the same with any savvy company. In this case, the American auto makers may be trying to improve, but it ain't enough. I'll leave the domestic "sympathy" purchases to those living in Michigan and the rust belt. I'm going to buy the best product for my money.
Toyota and Honda have opened several plans in US soil, generating jobs for Americans, while GM is horsing around with Chinese suppliers, moving plants to Canada, etc.
What do Honda and Toyota have to do with anything when GM puts an overpriced Aztec in the market or when Ford diverts its engineering efforts to build a limited series supercar at the same time it launches its flagship sedan, the 500, on the market with a 3.0 liter engine reminiscent from the 90's?
Go ahead and buy an American car out of patriotism, while GM gives away $2 billion (with a "B") to Fiat to bail itself out of a stupid deal started on 2000. Maybe buy a Ford to help them fund another venture capitalist craze during the next .dotcom bust, burning through another $10 billion in expenses unrelated to its core car-making business.
I think Chrysler is the only one who deserves your business, since it helped repatriate a few billion dollars through the bungled acquisition by Daimler.
I'll ask him how he likes it in a week or two.
Was that a diesel?
Also remember; many folks retirement funds and savings are invested -indirectly- in US businesses that could not generate the profits -or CXO pay- without relying on goods bought for a pittance from the developing economies.
I have just test driven the Saturn Outlook and the 08 CX9 back-to-back, and I have to say that whilst the CX9 has the edge (no not the Ford :-) on the dash, and one or two areas of fit-and-finish, it loses in some key areas for me:
Saturn Outlook XR AWD:
1. - Greater space in all rows -especially 3rd- where I can sit comfortable with headroom to spare, and a full window to look out of. And I could load more luggage with 3rd row up. It was also much easier to enter the 3rd row.
2. - Less body roll, less movement after hard stop!
3. - More space around me when sitting in drivers seat.
4. - More 'weighty' feeling steering (felt Mazda had a lifeless-too-light feeling wheel).
5. - More Masculine exterior styling
6. - Better load space when all seats folded (flat rather than slightly sloped at front in CX9).
I appreciate that these may not be every ones priorities but I thought it worth offering credit where credit is due! I have just sold one of our two Audi's and last 4 cars have all been premium German motors, so it is praise indeed that I am considering pulling the trigger on a Saturn Outlook.
For the record I am a Brit and therefore come from a country that was once one of the leaders in so many areas of technology and manufacturing, but let it slip just too much so lost almost all of it's auto/motorcycle industry.
"Every dog has it day" ..... but sometimes you can "teach an old dog new tricks"
Signed,
CX-9 owner in scorching So Cal
Buying an inferior product out of pity isn't going to help anyone in the long run, in fact it may even make things worse.
It's the product. Let them improve the product when sales start to sag. If they can't or won't then failure is just a matter of time.
I liked it but the lady I car-pooled with absolutely hated the color.
I only peeked inside. Haven't sat in one in a while. I'm not sure that shiny silver on the top of the dash is a good idea, though, as the reflection was pretty bad on the windshield.
Didn't ask him for a ride because I was driving the car-pooler home.
I don't work for the auto industry- so I- and my job have no attachtment to it. If it goes under, It will have little affect on me for a while. And the competition is very good for the american industry. Ford and Chevy and Chrysler have all been slacking for the past decade and a half, and its because of Toyota that they in the past few years are finally getting it.
So you have toyota to thank that the air isn't so poluted that you can't see.
And what's with the little emotorcon? Makes your post seem as if a 15 year old typed it!
I don't recall ever seeing an advertisement for the Freebie, so I agree with the lack of marketing support argument.
Ford probably would rather sell a higher-margin truck.
If they had supported the Freestyle properly, it might have hurt Explorer sales.
I was riding in the 3rd row of a Toyota Sequoia. I'm not sure if the 2nd row bench slide forward or backwards, but the 3rd row of my FS was more comfortable, mostly because my knees weren't up so high.
Any measurements from other vehicles. And measure with the 2nd row all the way back if it does slide to get a comparable measurement. My FS has 41" of 2nd row legroom with my non-moving 2nd row, so we want to make things fair. If you slide the 2nd row up on your CUV, then sure you'll have more 3rd row room but at the expense of the 2nd row.
I'm mostly curious as to the height of the 3rd row and the distance from the front of the 3rd row to the back of the 2nd row measured at the top of the seat.
I actually just checked the Sequoia specs, and it shows only 29" of 3rd row legroom, which felt about right when I sat in both.
Yeah- the only SUVs that will give you more row 3 leg room than a CUV are the Suburban, Aspen/Durango, and Expedition. The Expy's is the only one that is minivan comfortable, and more comfortable than the huge Acadia's.
You bend your legs, and your feet want to go down in to a foot well of some sort. So depth matters as much as knee space does.
SUVs with a live axle have trouble here because they need room for the rear diff to move around, and that's precisely where the foot well would end up.
So hop in a 4Runner, for instance, where the 3rd seat basically lies on a flat floor, and you have no foot room at all, so you have to bend your knees up in to your chest.
I guess we should really look at both the distance to the 2nd row seat back and the depth of the footwell.
For fun, I measured from the bottom of my knees to the floor, when I sit with me knees at a 90 degree angle, arguably the optimal for comfort, and that was 19".
I bet the 4Runner has no more than 12" to the floor, if that.
The reason the Expedition does well here is it has a indy rear suspension, i.e. no pumpkin that it has to make room for, so you get a footwell.
Honda CR-V, Toyota Rav4, Ford Escape, Mazda Tribute, Chevy Equinox, Saturn VUE, Dodge Nitro, Jeep Liberty, Hyundai Tucson, Nissan Rogue, Chrysler PT Cruiser, Subaru Forester, Mitsubishi Outlander, Suzuki Grand Vitara
i've been waiting for something- for anything- a picture or drawig- for EVER. I really want to see it.I know Honda's been racking it's brains working on it. They know for the first time they really have some stiff competition in GM's lambdas, and if this is anything like the new Accord vs the Malibu, they are sweating bullets.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=122307#4
It looks to be keeping the same kind of boxy stature of the current model, and if recent intros are anything to draw from, might very well go from somewhat boring but appliance like, to slightly bizarre--i.e. the new Accord, in certain details.
The GM Lambdas hit and took mid-late in their redesign cycle, and they certainly saw the reaction, but we'll see how it turns out.
They managed to improve CR-V sales by just making the new one more refined, with a nicer interior. It's not significantly bigger.
But this is a little different. This time Honda actually needs to up its ante- more than a nice exterior upgrade and interior refine. Crossovers of this size segment need to have comfortable third rows and nice cargo room behind the third row. Maybe even second row captains ( I bet new Pilot's got it!) The currewnt Pilot does work wonders for a vehicle its size (at least they were wonders, until the new Highlander came out) but decent for a small midsize SUV isn't good enough anymore. This is a segment that someone can lead, but that no one can set the standard for.
And the current Highlander straddles a couple different segments- midsize crossover, small crossover,Camry wagon- and it's been around a couple years longer than the Pilot, so I can see how Toyota outsells the Honda.
The Accord did get bigger, FWIW.
Another thing - the bigger, new entries may be doing well but isn't the Highlander still the volume leader? It's not that big.
Actually, the 2007 CR-V is larger than the previous gen 2. The "sloped rear" and having the spare inside the cargo (instead of on the outside of the door) means it is very similar in size to the previous model. I think it may be sightly smaller in terms of cargo space, but not much.
It is both wider and longer than the 2006 model.
Same for Toyota. They have the Sienna and Highlander, so for those who were thinking about the Highlander but need more space, they can just go to the Sienna, or to the Sequoia if they really need AWD and big towing.
I've been in the back of the new Highlander, and it doesn't have either of those things.
Maybe even second row captains ( I bet new Pilot's got it!) The currewnt Pilot does work wonders for a vehicle its size (at least they were wonders, until the new Highlander came out)
I think we sat in different vehicles. My personal feel was that the Highlander offered nothing functional over the current Pilot other than captain's chairs. If one needs seating for 7 they aren't a bonus either. It looks more upscale and less "trucky" but otherwise it didn't live up to the hype.
It's a quote from someone else, but the Highlander and Pilot being a foot shorter than the lambdas aren't in the same size segment.
They have price targets and CAFE standards to meet. They're not going to make high volume models all that much bigger.
I predict the Pilot will only offer about 5% more space than the current one, no major growth.
Misunderstood your post then, thought you were including the Highlander in the same group. It is a nice 4 passenger vehicle (6-7 at a pinch only). As I said before, I found it quite a let-down. But then, these things are so subjective. Given my needs, I always start by looking at the third row and the cargo area when first seeing these vehicles in person. Then I climb in and sit in the back. Sitting in the drivers seat is the last thing I do. Probably atypical in that regard.