Honda Pilot vs Mazda CX-9 vs Toyota Highlander

ceric · August 2008

I hope that the NAVI upgrade of '09 can be had with future NAVI disk upgrade.
I am using a ScanGaugeII in place of the trip computer, which is missing on 07/08 CX9.

citivas · August 2008

The trip computer has been well reported but where did you get info about iPod integration? It's not in the Mazda press release and the local dealers I spoke with all said there was no change to allow true iPod integration for '09. The Mazda6 system sounds promising so that would be a welcome upgrade. Do you have a link to any details on this for the CX-9?

citivas · August 2008

I was one of the two, but I didn't have a functional problem with the Bluetooth -- I had questions about its capacities and how to use it, which I've since answered. It actually has been working fantastically -- one of my favorite new features. We have paired three phones so far, the two I carry and my wife's. It flawlessly prioritizes my main calling phone if all are in the car but seamlessly uses the others if it is not. We have never had to re-pair, never had to reset it, it just works. And we haven't had any failed calls or initial sound cut-offs of the beginning of calls (a problem I was reading about in the CX-9 forum). There was another poster who said they were having a specific problem with their LG Chocolate, but that's one person with one phone. I wouldn't draw any conclusions from that.

I just re-read the entire Pilot 2009 thread from the point in June when real users/owners were posting (versus the many pages before it actually was in the wild). I would say the only issues reported by multiple people so far has been the exterior noise, probably from the tires, and some rattling from various parts, such as the optional cross bars. I think there is some legitimacy to this. I hear some exterior noise if I dont have the radio on and it does sound like the tires to me. And I have had some minor rattles when I hit rough road, though I havent isolated if they are car parts or content yet (there are so many storage spaces with loose items and car seat tethers, etc.).

Im sure the Pilots electronics wont be perfect, certainly not in every car (and the same could be said of any car), but it doesnt sound like there is evidence of systemic issues yet either

citivas · August 2008

In the interest of closure from the back-and-forth Ive done on this thread about the three cars as we weighed our decision, I will say the more I test drove and examined each vehicle the less I liked the Highlander. If I could have gotten the Hybrid for some reasonable premium over the non-Hybrid (as in 10% instead of 33%) I probably still would have because of the MPG advantage, but it wasnt worth paying $15K+ more than I got the Pilot for or could have gotten the CX-9 for, especially when I liked those cars more but for the mileage advantage.

I test drove the Highlander more than any of the others too. I kept coming back to it as our default since my wife loves her Sienna (and loved the Lexus RX300 before that) and liked the familiarity of the Highlander seating, drive and controls, not to mention reliability and the convenience of a nearby dealer. So I really wanted to like it. I suspect the problem in the end is that while the Highlander on paper is in a similar class as the Pilot and CX-9 it must really be aimed at a different group, for whom the third row seat is a cute extra for very occasional use. Its designed for a family with two kids or less who usually will be hauling not more than 4 people and only need the convertible third row on rare, select occasions. For us with three kids and car seats, plus frequent guests in the car and the design to travel with all of them and luggage on road trips, the Highlander makes no sense. My default configuration on the Pilot already includes having the 40 of the 60/40 split in seat configuration and the 60 in cargo configuration. Thats not even possible with the Highlander. And there is a substantial difference in comfort and capacity in the thid row seating between the Highlander and most of the competition. I could not comfortably fit in the Highlander third row even on short trips but I can in the Pilot (and could have in the CX-9). This seat will have grandparents in it. The Highlander cant handle that.

But what bugged me almost as much as the third row was the lack of a real 3-seat second row. Again, this must appeal to a certain market, just not us. If you want a pass-through, seriously, get the mini-van; it will get comparable or better MPG and have more cargo capacity and much more flexibility and ease of access. We already have one for all these reasons. The optional middle seat for the Highlander just isnt a full seat. You cant fit most combos of three car seats across the way you can with the others, and you definitely cant have an adult sit there comfortably  we tried. So it is really a 6.5 seat vehicle, with only 4 real seats. I consider all 8 of the Pilot seats real by comparison, and I am 61.

(I ended up seriously reconsidering the Acura again with the deals so good on the 08s (really, it could be had for $5K more than the Pilot), but it was similarly the seating that kept us away. Like the Highlander, it really only has 6.5 seats of which only 4 can handle adults.)

The seating was the driving factor but after that the little things bothered me about the Highlander. The lack of memory seats on a Limited with a $40K MSRP should be criminal. By comparison the pilot not only has memory seats, but ties it to the side mirrors and a variety of user controls including dash display, lighting and door locking options that can vary by user (it would have been nice to control the radio and climate like some luxury brands do but alas). I also was really bothered by the rear view visibility in the Highlander. If you put the RES screen down, combined with the rear headrests they create a perfect storm that cuts rear visibility to almost zero. Really poor design. The gimmicky pop-out/GBA version of the CX-9s RES had this problem too, but neither the Pilot or the CX-9s conventional RES did  they sat higher in the visibility and only slightly obstructed the view. The loose-y steering (it really drives identically to our Sienna, so been there done that), NAV motion lock-out and lack of iPod integration rounded out my main gripes. These arent deal breaker by themselves but it was just hard to get excited about the perks of the car without them. The nav would have been mostly useless whereas we are using it even when we dont have to in the Pilot just because its so fun (Im sure that will wear off).

The CX-9 versus the Pilot was a much closer call for us  styling and ride (CX-9) versus features, space, deal and confidence in the dealer. Honestly it could have gone either way. We ended up competitively quoting on all three from all kinds of dealers within a 50 minute radius. If the CX-9 dealers had been as aggressive as the Honda ones around here, who knows. Both are great cars. With the CX-9 my excitement factor would have been the drive itself. With the Honda its the built-in toys. If they fix the cabin tech for the 09 CX-9 it may be my favorite

Anyway, that was our decision process. All are great vehicles and I can certainly see why each would be the choice for different drivers. I dont expect to become one of those cheerleaders who can only defend and pitch my car in these comparisons. Good luck for those who havent settled or closed a deal yet

nxs138 · August 2008

I hear that the trip computer for the 2009 CX-9 is not backward compatible with the 2008 (or 2007 for that matter). So I can't go to the dealer and ask for a software flash, which kinda sucks.

It should have been in the car in the first place, especially since this is essentially Mazda's flagship vehicle.

I guess I shouldn't complain too much, though, since the Acadia didn't even have bluetooth until the upcoming 2009 model. Now that's a huge oversight...

citivas · August 2008

When I asked, in pasisng (not remotely expecting the answer could be no) about the Bluetooth functionallity when I was testing the Enclave (Buick's version of the Arcadia) and was told it wasn't even an option, I seriously ended the test immediately after that. I told the dealer that I couldn't see myself getting any car without it (and am not interested in some third party after-market solution), let alone considering a car where the manufacture didn't see it as an essentail feature by 2008. He said it was being added fas an option or '09 but honestly it gave me a bad vibe about GMC. It I had loved the vehicle in every other regard I might have waited for the '09 but I didn't so I didn't...

aviboy97 · August 2008

I don't have any documentation. I was told that by a Mazda rep who came to educate us on the 09 Mazda6. Most of which was concentrated on tech features. According to Mazda, they really improved on the points where customers complained about the "user friendliness" and sophistication of the tech features. According to her, we should see these up grades in the CX-9.

BTW, it really does seem that Mazda has listened. The Mazda6 tech features are much much better then the CX-9. By a long shot. I do believe that the full iPod integration will now show your play lists on the display screen, from what I understand.

citivas · August 2008

That would be really great if they do more than just add a trip computer and fully integrate iPod and voice controls of audio, etc. into the CX-9 both because it would improve one of its few weaknesss and as you say demonstrate Mazda's commitment to meeting its consumers expectations. Toyota by contrast usually makes a great, reliable vehicle but always leaves important things out (sometimes on purpose I think) and is slow to address them. With memory seats, for example, I have noticed they always leave this out of new models for a few years then add them. I had the same problem with my Sienna. No memory seats on the limited, but they added them two years later. That wans't an oversight, it was a strategy for gradual release of "enhancements" over the previous model year.

Now if Mazda along with the AV enhancements could un-restrict the nav while driving and do like Honda/Acura with a user opt-in release of liability it would truly be the best in class in my opinion...

nxs138 · August 2008

I don't know why manufacturers still play the game of introducing important features a few years down the road (like memory seats, or even full power passenger seats). I know that they want to make the product interesting for many years, but in essence they are screwing the initial customers who buy the car. Unless they honestly believe that people who bought first year models will trade in 2-3 years down the line to get the upgraded features.

Oversights like that are part of the reasons we didn't buy the Highlander (no split 3rd row) or the Acadia (no bluetooth).

qs933 · September 2008

I don't know why manufacturers still play the game of introducing important features a few years down the road (like memory seats, or even full power passenger seats).

The dilemma for manufacturers is figuring out how to balance the individual needs/wants of consumers with building an economically-feasible, mass-produced product.

It is a very difficult "game" to play, as you'll inevitably disappoint those whose "must-have" features didn't make the cut.

For me, the Highlander hits most of my gadget wish-list: Bluetooth, power rear door, rear backup camera that's not dependent on Navigation, and Smart Key. I don't need memory seats and the 3rd row will remain stowed most of the time anyway, so I'm not too bothered by it not being split.

The more I see the CX-9 on the road, the more I like the way it looks. However, it's just too long (the extra 10 inches makes a difference), and I'm not as confident about reliability and resale as I am with the Highlander (which may be more perception than reality).

citivas · September 2008

I don't buy that excuse with Toyota. We're talking about a "Limited" with an MSRP over $40K. The whole point of the Limited's is to have a trim where people can get all the luxury options. The CUV class is crowded and yet every single other LImited (or Touring or equivilent) in the class has the memory seat option except the Highlander. And its not about economics either. Toyota uses the same seats in other models and they have memory seats and I know from my Sienna experience they will release a memory seat in a future year of the Highlander. They are 100% doing this to have a feature differentiator from year-to-year. That's cynical and not very loyal to the customer.

qs933 · September 2008

I don't buy that excuse with Toyota. We're talking about a "Limited" with an MSRP over $40K.

It's not an excuse. It's a simple rule of developing a mass-produced product.

I'm not arguing that it's not a deal-breaker for you. Memory seats are a requirement for you. The Highlander doesn't offer it. I'm guessing Toyota is betting there are more people like me who don't see it as a deal-breaker than there are folks like you who'll cross the Highlander off their shopping list.

If they guess wrong, then sales will suffer. If sales suffer, then it's likely those features contributing to the shortfall will be added in the future (if feasible). I hardly see that as "cynicism."

All manufacturers do this. They have to. You can't build a vehicle that has 100% of all the features that every person would want to have. It's impossible. We're all different.

GM is adding Bluetooth to its vehicles for 2009 after years of exclusively offering OnStar as a substitute. Why? Because I'm sure they found that they lost enough sales due to the lack of Bluetooth to make it worthwhile to rethink their strategy.

Similarly, Mazda is adding a trip computer to the CX-9. Why? It's probably come up as an omission that's impacted sales.

Toyota guessed that they could eliminate the 4-cylinder model for the '08 redesign. Obviously that hurt sales. So what comes out in 2009? An entry-level 4-cylinder model.

I just don't see this huge "Toyota conspiracy." Like any other manufacturer, they have to find the right mix of features at the right price that meets as many needs as possible. No matter what mix of features a manufacture chooses, they can't and won't please everyone.

citivas · September 2008

I disagree. You keep arguing that they had to make economic trade-offs and my point is I don't think that had anything to do with it. If you're logic were true, then a few other things would also be true: 1) That they made the exact same decision with virtually every other vehicle in its first 2-3 model years and in case-after-case the "market demanded they add it." If that were true, then they look pretty dumb for not eventually getting a clue that there is a pattern. This is their SOP with first year Limited's. They did the same with the Camry, the Sienna, the Sequoia, etc. And in case-after-case, gee surprise, memory seats show up as a new model year differentiator in the 3rd or 4th year. Consistently. Ive had this conversation with several Toyota dealers and they all take it as a given too that this is simply Toyotas way of holding back something to add to the model later, as part of their plan from the start. 2) That despite over a dozen models in the CUV class, Toyota alone believes the memory seat is not an important feature for their Limited customers. To your example, GMC was alone in leaving out Bluetooth and now is having to correct it. Generally if everyone is providing the feature except one, its pretty rare the one is right where everyone else is wrong. At least GMC had a reason for leaving out the Bluetooth  loyalty to their internal product offering. Its not likely that Toyota simply misjudged the marketplace on this  they know they have gotten dinged on lack of memory seats again and again in comparative reviews, etc. This was simply about release timing. 3) If it were about saving money there would have to be real savings for them. But they use basically the same seat with very minor tweaking on multiple vehicles, like the Sienna, and they have memory seats for it already. And since they can market it as an option, it actually can be profitable since options carry a better margin than the car itself in most cases.

I wager any amount of money that memory seats show up on the Highlander Limited within 2 years  it would have been sooner but the scale back in the 09 production may have slowed it. This wont be Toyota responding to the customer. This will be Toyota executing the next step in a plan that has been on the drawing board for years.

That is what is cynical about it.

ceric · September 2008

GM throws in the direct injection to their quadruplet (Acadia, Outlook, Enclave, and Traverse). All get a bump in horsepower, torque and MPG by 1 (both city/highway).

Let us hope that Toyota, Honda, and Mazda (Ford) follow suit. Direct Injection is the technology that improve torque (therefore horsepower) of gas ICE by 5-10%. We will see DI as common as overhead cam today within 5 years.

ceric · September 2008

citivas,
It looks like your wish just got granted.
8-way power driver's seat is now available on Highlander 2009 model.
Also available is the 4-cylinder (2.7L) engine with 2-row of seats.

"The new engine will come standard on the Highlander grade two-wheel-drive model equipped with two rows of seats, contributing to its excellent value. A third row seat package will also be available for families requiring additional seating capacity. Other key optional equipment will include an eight-way power driver's seat, manual rear air conditioning, and an AM/FM/six-disc CD Changer with satellite radio capability, MP3/WMA capability and six speakers."

citivas · September 2008

Too late for me since I pulled the trigger, but it does just reinforce what I predicted. Toyota always does this. They weren't saving money, they always planned to add it and held it back just to be able to makret changes year-over-year...

Any word on whether they fixed the third-row seat? That would truly make it more competitive.

ceric · September 2008

1st: Pilot: 11276 (some of them are probably older one - no way of knowing)
2nd: Highlander: 8070 (1277 hybrids) = 6793 (excluding hybrids)
3rd: CX-9: 3173

klam · September 2008

I would like to mention that the Pilot EX-L has a rear view backup camera without the need for Navi. The screen appears on the rear view mirror and takes up maybe 1/3 or less of it when it's on.

For me that is better than looking down at your dash when viewing the camera while backing up.

maltb · September 2008

The same is true with the CX-9. All three are buying the same mirror from the same company and offer it as an accessory.

ch1rravu · September 2008

Interesting we were just talking about V4/I4's need, and 'yota folks are thinking along the same lines. Guess the gas prices rope'em in .. they shoulda had this 4-cyl mode from the very beginning of Highlander's model beginning.

Folks seems to have posted Aug sales figures. Nice doing Pilot .. I bet Pilot's numbers are mostly due to incentive/rebate pricing more than its real-world MPG .. but gas prices are slowly settling down, mebbe its not as big a concern anymore .?

Thoughts guys ..?

aviboy97 · September 2008

I'm surprised with the Pilot sales being higher then the Highlander. The CX-9 sales seem right on par with what they (Mazda) expected.

eagle63 · September 2008

I'm in the market for a new SUV and both the Honda Pilot and Toyota Highlander are on my short list of rigs to check out. I currently own a 2001 Tahoe, and am looking for something a bit smaller. (but definitely not a compact suv - more like a medium sized suv)

I've got a million questions, but my primary one right now is with the size difference between the Highlander and the Pilot. My assumption based on seeing them on the highways is that the Pilot is considerably larger. But after looking at the cubic feet of cargo room I'm perplexed - the Highlander shows a max of 95 cu. ft and the Pilot only 88. (I'm assuming "max cargo" means with all rear seats folded down)

Are these 2 suv's really in the same class? Are my eyes deceiving me??

Thanks!

qs933 · September 2008

That is what is cynical about it.

Sorry; now I think I know what you were referring to: the cyclical (not "cynical") way that Toyota adds features. The product plan is probably set for the entire life cycle of the current design. I'm sure we'll see those memory seats in 2011, which should be the mid-cycle refresh.

I'd go back to my original statement, though: if the lack of memory seats was a huge factor for people not purchasing the Highlander, then it's pretty obvious that Toyota is missing the mark by not equipping its vehicles with them from the very start. I would be willing to wager that's not the case and that the feature just isn't as important relative to others. That's not to say it isn't important to you.

I guess the same "cyclical" criticism could be applied to all manufacturers and how they manage their products. Honda usually adds a "special edition" in the final year of a design to boost sales. Should owners during the early years of the design feel deprived that it wasn't offered from the very beginning?

ceric · September 2008

I believe Mazda is very happy with the sales of CX9, which used to be around 2000 units/month. Heavy incentive did help. With more CX9s on the road, people will start to pay attention and put CX9 on their shopping list. Sales will pick up slowly.

If I had to make the choice all over again, I still would buy CX9. Highlander and Pilot simply don't have all the features that I wanted, besides the styling and driving dynamics.

ceric · September 2008

All those numbers could be very misleading.
You should go sit in them and check them out carefully.
I usually pick an autoshow (there should be one near you at certain time of the year) and sit in vehicles before my decision is made. Doing this can avoid pressure from salespersons.

You should also check out the CX9 while you are at that. It has 100.7cu.ft of cargo space.

kanada · September 2008

do we know how many cx-9s have actually been put on the market? the volume might be less due to availability.

citivas · September 2008

No, I was referring to Toyota as CYNICAL not cyclical. And if you followed all the posts you'd see that memory seats have already been annoucned for the 2009.

My point remains the same -- to intentionally hold back Limited options Toyota has already developed for the same seat and that they know some of their customers will want just so they can use it as a selling point for a new model a few years later is cynical, or certainly not very respectful to their customers. I will grant you this -- clearly if Toyota believed it was a make-or-break for a huge portion of customers they wouldn't do this. But they know it is an issue for a subset of customers and they don't hold it back as you suggest for economic reasons (since they would profit from it) or because they can't prioritize it (since they've already developed it for the seats they are re-purposing from other models). Their sole reason is to have a marketing point for a new model year. They have it planned that way from before the first car of the first model year every sees the light of day.

citivas · September 2008

I don't think so. There are a LOT available. There is no shortage. Which is why Mazda is offering $3-4K incentives on them. Try searching inventories online. There are hundreds in-stock within 20 miles of me. I really like this car so this is not a dis, just refuting the idea that their sales figures are low due to limited availability.

citivas · September 2008

I'm curious what features, unrelated to drive and styling, you liked in the CX-9 but coudln't get in either of the other two?

ceric · September 2008

To me, what were missing..(in Jan, 2008)

Highlander: HID headlights, split 3rd row, power front seats (w/ memory)
Pilot: HID headlights, smart-key system, amber signal lights (dislike red ones),

also, 6-speed tranny with M-mode.

qs933 · September 2008

And if you followed all the posts you'd see that memory seats have already been annoucned for the 2009.

Yes, I've been following the posts. Thanks for asking. You may want to double check that post you're referring to (#217, I believe), as it mentions that an 8-way power driver's seat will be optional on the 4-cylinder model that's introduced in January. An 8-way power driver's seat is already standard on the Sport and Limited.

There's nothing about a memory option being added. If I'm looking in the wrong place, please share your source.

I'm curious where the Highlander's seats are being repurposed from? Which model shares the same seats?

Maybe you'd be happier if Toyota took the approach Chrysler did with their full size vans, where a mid-80s van was essentially the same as one bought 10 years later, with no new features or improvements over the vehicle's life cycle?

ch1rravu · September 2008

Everybody knows it costs more than a billion to launch a new model (with platform sharing, portions of costs be shared too, good for'em). Obviously, you can't give new model (which cost'em billion+), and all the possible features.

If there is one thing Toyota good about doing -- it brings Lexus engines/transmissions to common folks vehicles (Toyota) real fast. Talk about VVT-i, variable intake, variable exhaust, direct-injection, 6-speed transmissions, electric-steering, 50-state strict emissions, excellent MPG, and Hybrids. These are buzzwords talked-about by any other Luxo-makers, where as, Toyota brings'em to low-priced models real fast., more importantly, makes'em real affordable to you-and-me folks !! By the way, all these features work now, and will work 12 years from now (its not like a pricey 5-transistor radio is necessarily better than 1 transistor radio, 60's lore :-) )

What it can't offer is free/cheap-priced third-party/suppliers sourced parts., because real money goes-out for each such feature !!

If all you want is more bang-for-buck, but have questionable reliability/resale/warranty-support/dealer-network/reputation., try a korean-make/korean-sourced-vehicle or something ..

citivas · September 2008

This back and forth is getting nowhere. We will just have to agree to disagree and let others decide for themselves. Nothing I say will change your mind about how great Toyota is and so far nothing you have written has changed mine about why they hold back the memory seat features (among others). BTW, I think Toyota is, overall, the best car company in the world. So I'm no hater. I own a Toyota now and have had several Toyota/Lexus' in the past. I'm confident I will again.

But to me you're responses seem unnecessarily defensive of them. My point is not that they don't make great cars, overall, or aren't a great engineering and marketing company. My point was that they have made a choice to consciously hold back features that would cost them virtually nothing to offer (due to the fact that they have already developed them and are already basically reusing previously designed parts) and generate a profit as user options on high end trims, for the sole purpose of being able to add it later. I have and still reject your notion that they left it out year one simply to prioritize what they develop or save money on the trim or because they didnt believe their customers wanted it until they got feedback from the first couple years of production. None of these make logical sense given the facts (they have already developed it and are re-using seat designs that include it in other vehicles; it would only improve the profit margin of a Limited trim since it could be an option so the economic argument makes no sense; and they do this consistently with most of their higher-end vehicles in year 2-4, so the idea that each time they didnt perceive a customer demand for it and only responded after the fact is ludicrous, especially given the lead time for development  they had to already have the memory sat in the 09 plan before the re-designed 08 even hit the showroom). Now we may disagree on whether Toyota consciously holding it back from customers for a couple years to introduce as a model upgrade later is cynical. I think it is but thats just my opinion. But I am stumped that you can cling to the ideas that they held it back for economic, design priority or customer demand reasons. Again, I have no expectation of changing your opinion so Im just moving on

qs933 · September 2008

My point was that they have made a choice to consciously hold back features that would cost them virtually nothing to offer...

1. Every feature costs something to offer.
2. None of the Toyota press documents regarding the 2009 Highlander mention the addition of a memory seat option for 2009.
3. Still waiting to find out which model shares the same seats as the Highlander.
4. This is all basic product management. There are trade-offs in every product that's developed; you simply can't offer every feature to satisfy every individual need.
5. If basic product management is considered a "cynical" way of doing business, then virtually every for-profit company doing business today is a "cynic."

I'll leave it at that. We can pick up this debate in 2011, when I'd expect the mid-cycle refresh to occur and those memory seats to become available.

badself · September 2008

Enough already, to the both of you!

nxs138 · September 2008

That's not bad at all for the CX-9. If you compare sales as opposed to 2007, the CX-9 does very well in terms of not dropping off sharply month after month. And those 3000 plus CX-9 sales make up a substantial percentage of total Mazda sales--and total Mazda sales have never been anywhere near Honda and Toyota.

So Mazda has to be happy with the numbers, probably not as happy with the incentives they have to give, but hey, they have to keep the lines working near capacity, I guess.

The Highlander and Pilot, while nice cars, were too "trucky" for my wife's taste. She loves the CX-9, so I guess I have no choice but to be happy...

cx7lover · September 2008

The reason why Mazda adds in things is because owners complain about it, inorder to get people to upgrade. They did it with the CX-7, Mazda3, Mazda5, etc. They wait 2-3 years then introduce small upgrades owners requested.

ceric · September 2008

The mid-model change (MMC) usually involves face-lift and more significant upgrade.
My daughter who often sits in the 3rd row was not shy to inform me that there is
no A/C vent for the 3rd passengers.

As an ex-minivan owner, I am very surprised by it. I hope Mazda fix that over-sight soon.

elibruno · September 2008

look under the second row seats and you will see two large vents that supply the air/heat to the third row.

aviboy97 · September 2008

Let's not get crazy here and say Toyota's offers Lexus features in their vehicles and makes them "real affordable". When you get a Toyota with any kind of equipment, they are usually very expensive. Toyota is not a bargain company. Have you ever seen what they charge for the many stupid packages they put in their cars like their stupid $500 arm rest package they are known for doing

Toyota is not the only company with variable intake, variable exhaust, direct-injection, 6-speed transmissions, electric-steering, 50-state strict emissions, excellent MPG. I can think of a half dozen other mfgr's that offer that same technology.

ceric · September 2008

Thanks. I seem to remember seeing that in the manual.
I need to go check if they are blocked by the all-weather mats I installed.

sleepybubba · September 2008

I ended up buying the 2008 CX-9 GT. On my initial list also were Acura MDX, Highlander and Pilot.

I excluded the 2009 Pilot for the bus-like look and ride. Also '09 interior looked more like a bus rather than a family CUV. LOL, even 2008 Pilot interior looked much better than 2009, but when I was ready to buy most of the '08 Pilots were gone.

Highlander didn't excite me for the following reasons: a) Everyone and their mother drives one. Certain color combinations were sold at a premium( don't believe me? go find Pearl Highlander with Black leather). The 2nd and 3d row seats didn't pass a test with my 2 boys. They complained that the seats are not very comfortable and the third row space is joke. I hated the non-split 3d row bench too. And finally, the styling of Highlander didn't talk to me. It reminded me a Nissan Maxima 2002-2004: decent car with no character.

So in final running there were Acura MDX and CX-9. Given I was not looking for a Navi package, they came very close and I might've ended up with Acura if I was not offered a great deal for CX-9 Grand Touring that basically had exactly the options/ext color/interior color I wanted. I absolutely like the handling of CX-9, the silky smooth transmission (although would prefer the 1st gear a bit longer). The manual override on CX-9 is absolute best IMHO. The ebony interior looks fantastic with grey leather accents (much better than ebony interior on Acura). And of course, the exterior style is astonishing.

If you end up getting a CX-9, get Liquid Platinum Metallic Crystal White. IMHO the best colors for this car.

Use this link compare CX-9 with Highander or Pilot.

maltb · September 2008

"Liquid Platinum Metallic Crystal White"

Well i got the Liquid Platinum Metallic but really liked the Crystal White Pearl Mica. I have yet to see a blend of the two colors but it sure sounds interesting.

sleepybubba · September 2008

good catch: the last line should read: Liquid Platinum Metallic or Crystal White. Actually, their Stormy Blue and Black are looking good too.

klockboy · September 2008

Hi Everyone:

After reading these Forums for the better part of the last month, I felt like I had to tell you about my deal in hopes of helping someone else out.

I decided to Lease a CX-9 GT, List Price $41K for $503 (including 9% PA Sales Tax) for 24 Months W/15K/Year. All I put down was 1st month and inception, which came to $8xx dollars.

While I might be giving up some more functionality from both Physical and Technical Aspects with the Pilot, I feel good knowing I am getting a 2nd Year Production Vehicle that meets 95% of my families day to day needs.

Also, I went with the 24 month lease because I have no idea where gas prices will be in the future and I do not want to be stuck to a long term commitment realizing that there will be a great deal more fuel efficient SUV's coming to market in the next few years.

Hope this information helps someone out in SE Pennsylvania.

Thanks and Good Luck.

tidester · September 2008

You may want to follow up your earlier comments in Mazda CX-9 Lease Questions for the benefit of those who read that discussion.

tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper

kree · September 2008

Hi - I'm in the market for a CUV and considering all three

a couple of questions I have (any info. would be greatly appreciated)

1. do any/all of these cars require premium gas?

2. does the glass on the rear gate open independently of the gate itself (I know that it does for the Pilot, but not sure of the other two)

3. also, does the remote allow you to pop the rear gate open like a remote open trunk feature on some cars?
This is actually an important feature for me as me/wife are often approaching the car with both hands full of groceries, and a remote trunk/gate open is very handy
I know that there is a "powergate" option that allows you to close the gate remotely, but I'm asking about a more simple feature that just allows you to pop open the trunk/gate remotely (not close it remotely, which requires a piston/motor)

4. for the dvd systems, can the dvd player be controlled by the stereo/media controls on the front panel, or can it only be controlled by the remote control?

thxs again!

citivas · September 2008

I'll answer for the Pilot. I know some of the answers for the others but will mostly defer to their owners...

1) None of the three require premium gas.

2) As you said, the Pilot has this feature.

3) Yes, you can open the tailgate with the remote. You can close it with the remote too (at least with the Touring)

4) You can control the audio of the rear DVD from the front controls but not the DVD features itself (menu navigation, play, pause, etc.). However, the remote detaches from the DVD system itself (which is better than having to store it somewhere) and can then be controlled from the front or anywhere in the car. However the front nav screen does not play the video so it can be challenging to control from the front without seeing it. The Toyota can display the video from the front but only when parked. I believe the same is true of the CX-9, but I am just guessing (since the nav is provided by the same company as the Toyota).

Good luck.

mdhutton · September 2008

I own an '08 Highlander:

1) It does not require premium gas.

2) Rear glass does open independently of the gate itself.

3) Not sure about just popping the gate open, mine is equipped with a power open/close that can be controlled from the driver's seat or from the fob, and I'm glad it goes all the way up. I too have been approaching the car with a cart full of groceries and the power open is awesome! If you open remotely, you can close manually and vice/versa.

4) Don't have the rear-seat DVD. Don't believe in kids.

Hope it helps!

kree · September 2008

thanks so much for all the useful information everyone!

Honda Pilot vs Mazda CX-9 vs Toyota Highlander

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles