Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Honda Pilot vs Mazda CX-9 vs Toyota Highlander

15681011

Comments

  • nxs138nxs138 Member Posts: 481
    We have the CX-9, and had the same dilemma as you did, since we only have 2 young kids (2 and 4 years old) in carseats: should we get vehicle with a 3rd row?

    Well, we use the 3rd row maybe 4 times a year, whenever grandparents come over and we want to take one car. Getting into that third row isn't the easiest for older folks, even though the seats in the second row fold down and push forward. This is mainly due to the height of stepping in and out. We end up sticking the kids in the 3rd row (our 4 year old actually doesn't like that one bit) so that the grandparents have an easier time getting in and out.

    Other than that, the 3rd row is always folded down, which gives you tons of space.

    Personally I would have been fine with a 2-row vehicle, something like a Murano, which would have likely been a bit smaller and lighter, thus better on gas. But to the CX-9's credit, it drives like a European sedan and I love taking it out on the twisties. So I guess it's a good compromise, in my case.
  • ewsncewsnc Member Posts: 14
    After reading through this thread, I got an impression that Highlander may have an edge of better resale value. So did a quick comparison of 2007 Highlander Limited vs. 07 CX-9 Grand Touring, both AWD with 30000 miles, and default equipment options on KBB.com. Here are the results:

    Highlander:
    Excellent: $21245
    Good: 20195
    Fair:$18745

    CX-9:
    Excellent: $22575
    Good: 21475
    Fair:$20025

    You may get slightly different numbers using your zip code. But the trend likely stay the same. With Mazda's aggressive incentives ($3k for 09 models), I think CX-9 represents tremendous values. I priced at local dealers 2009 CX-9 GT vs. Highlander LTD, similarly equipped, and consistently got at least $2K lower for the CX-9. I'm interested in both cars but lean toward CX-9 for this great look inside out and outstanding handling and ride. Welcome any thoughts.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Edmunds would give the edge to the Toyota for the '07 models in those styles, using a Houston zip code.

    CX-9 True Cost to Own is $45,251 over 5 years

    Highlander True Cost to Own is $44,075 over 5 years.

    You can run the numbers for new or used models and for different trims and zip codes.
  • mommy_of_twomommy_of_two Member Posts: 1
    We have two kids ages 4 and 5 and currently drive a Volvo S60 and have been looking for something with more room to carry additional passengers and more flexibility for the family - i.e. carrying larger items since we do not have a truck.

    We drove almost every three-row seat SUV and CUV on the market. Our decision came down to between the CX-9 and Pilot. I also like the highlander for the way it handled and smooth ride, but the interior material was not kid-friendly. Every used highlander I've seen didn't seem to "wear" well. I loved the look of the CX-9 and the way it handled on the highway. It was fun to drive. The only negative for me was the runners in the floors - I could just image how much junk would end up down in the runners with the kids. My husband who is tall felt that the CX-9 seats where too short and too cramped.

    We ended up getting a 09 Pilot. I don't like the look of the Pilot, but it was much more practical for us as a family. With the boxy design, it gives it much more room inside. We didn't feel cramped. Because of the type of tires (so my husband says) it doesn't drive as smooth on the road as the CX-9.

    I wished I could get more of the CX-9 look with the practical interior of the Pilot, but my husband is super happy with the Pilot and we got a good deal, so I think it was the best decision. We have a long road trip planned this summer and it will be nice to have some room for travel.

    I read through this whole discussion before buying and appreciate everyone's input. Thanks!
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Thanks for sharing, and be sure to stop in and tell us how your family is liking the Pilot after a few thousand miles!
  • cericceric Member Posts: 1,092
    Pilot: 6789
    Highlander: 5404
    CX9: 1795

    MDX: ~2200
    Veracruz: 1587
  • cericceric Member Posts: 1,092
    Pilot: 6569
    Highlander: 5595
    CX9: 1179
    Varecruz: 1206
    MDX: 2337
  • nxs138nxs138 Member Posts: 481
    I'm still amazed that Honda is selling so many Pilots: general reviews make it seem like an average SUV, even Consumer complains about lackluster interior fit and finish, poor acceleration, low mpg, and road noise (it rates below all the SUVs you have listed in May sales). I guess it does have good functionality, though.

    Then again, it is a Honda. Might be the reason why a few colleagues at work want to buy the new Honda Insight Hybrid, even though the new upcoming Prius is almost the same base price, bigger, quieter, and gets nearly 10 mpg more....ah well.
  • citivascitivas Member Posts: 144
    First, I think you hit on it with “good functionality.” The ’09 Pilot Touring is my first Honda, so I have no loyalty to them. I did have loyalty to Toyota and have owned a variety of brands. I tried pretty much every 3 row CUV on the market last summer before settling on the Honda, including most of the luxury brands, so price was not a primary factor (only in relation to relative value for the money). I test drove the Honda early in my test drive survey and wouldn’t have guessed it would end up on top. I hate the exterior look, even now, and am not in love in the interior either. I would agree with most of your listed criticisms, except MPG. It’s not as good as the Highlander but is on par with any and better than many three row CUV’s. And in real-world conditions, it’s beating our Toyota Sienna and our former Lexus RX300.

    But virtually every other model was eventually eliminated due to lack of features. We absolutely refused to get new car without integrated Bluetooth and it was shocking this was still missing from the GM line even at the high end, especially since it is illegal in many states including our own to use a cell phone while driving unless you have a hands-free solution. I use the Pilot as my cell phone mic and speakerphone almost every day. I just say “call office” or “call home” etc. and am good-to-go. The Toyota was ridiculous with its lack of memory seats, cramped 2-seat third row that couldn’t split and its middle second row seat that was useless. And we really wanted true iPod integration, not the silly AUX jack most of the cars settle for. Between Sat radio and our fully-integrated ipod, which we can control by voice or from the steering wheel and read on the large LCD screen and never worry about the battery on long trips because it is charging, we never need the CD or AM/FM radio. And the Pilot nav is simply excellent, the best I have used including high-end Garmin and Tom Tom’s. It lacks real-time traffic data re-routing but otherwise is awesome.

    And then there’s space and capacity. We have used all 8 seats surprisingly often. The ability to seat adults in all three rows, have that 8th seat and to splint the back row 60/40 has been priceless. The capacity is great too. I can take a ski trip with adult skis in the back, with the second row up and half the third row still in use – so all the equipment in the car (not on top) and 6 passengers, no problem.

    I don’t regret it to this day – I love this car, more than I expected to. It also drives great. I also initially didn’t like the acceleration on the test drive but once I owned it I figured out the trick and now find it very responsive. It also brakes much more naturally and smoothly than any of the Toyota/Lexus’ we have owned.

    On top of all that, our Honda dealers in the area were much more competitive with each other and eager to make a sale than the Toyota or Maxda dealers – the CX-9 was the only other CUV I would have been happy with in the end, but I couldn’t get passed the screwed up, limited cabin tech on the ’08 model.

    Bottom line, some people prioritize style, some people the “ride,” and some people prioritize feature and function. Toyota scored a home run in the latter – even its Acura cousin doesn’t have the iPood integration, lacks an 8th seat (and the 3rd row is virtually useless for passengers). I really wish the Toyota had gotten it right – and I realize it did for users with smaller families and different priorities. But no one else touched it for features…
  • citivascitivas Member Posts: 144
    Sorry, I meant "Honda scored a home run with the latter.." (I wish Toyota had)
  • cericceric Member Posts: 1,092
    Highlander deserves to lose in sales (even with the new I4 engine offering) due to its lousy and cheap 3rd row seat. Just my opinion. ;)
  • nxs138nxs138 Member Posts: 481
    I agree with all your assessments concerning the Pilot: in the end, it's a solid package that has a lot of good features. Honda did a good job packaging all the little features that people want right out of the box, even though the Pilot looks like that box. When it first came out, I would have bet that it wouldn't sell all that well since there was so many new, sleek CUVs, but man was I wrong. Functionality still sells, so it was a good move on Honda's part.
  • berriberri Member Posts: 10,165
    The poor tire choices Toyota is putting on the Highlander and Venza shows they are becoming the new GM. I don't think Toyota has the customer focus that Honda does.
  • nxs138nxs138 Member Posts: 481
    My wife and I really wanted to like the Highlander--nice acceleration, comfortable, not too big and bulky--but there were many little negatives that made you scratch your head: no split seats on the 3rd row, no memory seats, the Limited had really fake-looking wood (which is why I would have picked the Sports model), the steering felt really light (reminded me of my dad's 1981 Malibu that you could steer with your pinky), and worse of all the dealers around us were locking us into really expensive packages. And there were signs where they cheapened out, like that felt headliner that looks like it was already pilling...

    They say that as a company gets bigger, it gets more expensive to run...I guess Toyota has to make cuts somewhere, and unfortunately it's showing in their vehicles.
  • lithnightslithnights Member Posts: 25
    Agree about the importance of the split 3rd row. That is what sold me on the Pilot over the Highlander. We've had our 2008 for two months now and have already utilized the split 3rd row multiple times.

    We've had someone sit in the 3rd row and still be able to fold down part of it for groceries or a stroller. Also, it's especially cool for the kids (nieces, nephews for now..my kids in the future) to climb in through the lift, and climb into the split 3rd row since I have two car seats in the 2nd row. With the Highlander, that would be difficult to say the least.
  • cericceric Member Posts: 1,092
    Pilot: 8171
    Highlander: 6885 (inc. Hybrid and I4 version)
    CX9: 1568
  • carmamacarmama Member Posts: 3
    We recently purchased a Mazda CX-9 Grand Touring with moonroof and navigation after looking at/ test driving the following vehicles:

    Minivans: Honda Odyssey, Kia Sedona, Toyota Sienna, Mazda 5
    SUV/ CUVs: Mazda CX-9, Ford Flex, Toyota Highlander Hybrid, Honda Pilot, Saturn Outlook/ GMC Acadia, Lexus RX400h/ RX450h

    The CX-9 was the best fit for our family of 2 adults + 2.3 kids (3 year old, 2 month old, and 11 year old stepdaughter who lives with us in the summer). Passenger space and interior appearance are more important to us than towing or cargo capacity as we don't drive our own vehicles more than 600 miles from home. We fly and/or rent a vehicle for longer trips. We plan to have one or two more kids before we get another new car in eight to ten years, so seating for 6 to 7 was necessary. This eliminated the Lexus RX hybrids which I really liked otherwise.

    My husband is 6'-4" with long legs and the kids are taking after him, so legroom in all 3 rows is critical. He could not get comfortable in the driver's seat in the Mazda 5, Kia Sedona, or Ford Flex. I was surprised by the Flex, because the listed front legroom is similar to other vehicles that he liked. Sitting behind the driver, my 3 year old can kick the back of an all-the-way back driver's seat in every other vehicle we tried, but she had at least 8 inches to spare in Flex. If Ford had given the driver's seat a little more travel, the Flex would have been a stronger competitor.

    The Toyotas were overpriced compared to the other vehicles, and the dealers weren’t being flexible on price. So, we test drove an Outlook, an Odyssey, a Pilot and the CX-9. The best price we were quoted for an Odyssey EX-L RES/Nav was about $500 more than the best price we were quoted for the CX-9. The pricing on the Pilot, Outlook and Acadia was $3,000 to $5,000 more than the CX-9 for comparably equipped vehicles. Access to the 3rd row was easier in the CX-9 than in the Odyssey when all three seats in the middle row were in place. We thought the CX-9 interior was looked nicer than the Odyssey and Outlook, and the exterior looked nicer than the Pilot. With regard to the driving experience, the CX-9 drove much smaller than the Outlook (and I assume the Acadia). The CX-9 drove more like a car while the Pilot drove more like a truck. The acceleration and braking felt slightly more responsive in the CX-9 than in the Odyssey, but otherwise the ride was similar. In the end, we made the decision based on the vehicle that was the best value for our needs. Hopefully, our shopping experience will help others with their decision. I spent a lot of time reading these forums before we were ready to actually start vehicle shopping in person and found the information shared in them very helpful.
  • berriberri Member Posts: 10,165
    If Ford had given the driver's seat a little more travel, the Flex would have been a stronger competitor.

    I'm tall and also find that a frequent problem with Ford models. In fact, sometimes I wonder if they Ford family and their management team are all short people? Generally, GM seems to have better 6 footer accomodations, but not always. The problem with a lot of the Asian vehicles is short seat bottoms and backs which doesn't show up on your body until you've drive several hours so its hard to figure out on a test drive.
  • lithnightslithnights Member Posts: 25
    Hey carmama,
    Great review. Extremely helpful!
  • 4kids3dogs2cat4kids3dogs2cat Member Posts: 18
    Has anyone driven the Mercedes R class CUV? You can get a used 2007 with about 15K miles for the same price as a new CX-9. It's a 6-7 passenger vehicle. I now own a 2004 Sienna and it's time to get something new. I have mixed feelings about my Sienna now with 65K miles. I won't buy another. The interior has many design problems which annoy me.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    Has anyone driven the Mercedes R class CUV? You can get a used 2007 with about 15K miles for the same price as a new CX-9

    First off, finding a 2-3 year old family vehicle with only 15K on it is extremely tough. Second, a 2007 M-B will have extreme quality and reliability issues. Unless it is a CPO Mercedes-Benz, I would avoid it like the plague.
  • jcpharmjcpharm Member Posts: 92
    not only that, CPO will drive up the price to pay for the warranty.

    why an R-class? is interior comfort/luxury your most important priority? It has substantially less power (260hp for R350 and 210hp for R320), worse handling and only the R320 BlueTec gets better gas mileage (21mpg combined). I doubt it has more interior room than CX-9/Pilot/Highlander....and make sure it is not a rear-wheel drive R350 if you are in a snowy/wet area (R320s are all AWD i believe).
  • carmamacarmama Member Posts: 3
    I checked one out in the showroom about a year and a half ago, but did not test drive. It was a very comfortable vehicle and the R320 was intriguing. A new one was out of our price range by about $20K, so it never made the short list. I would be concerned about reliability on a used Mercedes unless you get a warranty that covers the entire period that you plan to own it. It will be much more expensive to fix than a Mazda, Honda, Toyota, GM, Ford, etc.
  • cericceric Member Posts: 1,092
    Anyone who had owned BMW/MB will tell you this...(and I did)
    unless your MB/BMW is covered under some sort of warranty (OE, CPO, EW, whatever), be prepared to budget money for expensive repairs and maintenance.

    Some folks will greatly tell you that, if you can't afford those expensive repairs (which actually happen quite often for German vehicles after 3-4 years), you are probably not "qualified" to own one. What I am saying is this.
    If you are thinking about owning a $50K German vehicles for long term, make sure that you can afford a $100K one financially. :(
    Otherwise, lease one (BMW covers all maintenance cost!) and return it at the end of lease. :)

    When I owned my BMW 540iA (1998-2007), I spent about $1000 average per year FIXING that bimmer. (after OE warranty expried)
    Brake pad/rotors per aisle costs about $1000 to replace, just so that you have a feeling of how much you are looking at. BTW, German use soft steel for rotors so that the pads and rotors HAVE TO be replaced simultaneously. ;)
  • newawdcx9newawdcx9 Member Posts: 7
    I am the recent buyer of a 2009 AWD Touring. I am a researcher and I test drove the following cars, Honda Pilot (2nd choice but too noisy and poor handling), Highlander (Yawn and too expensive), GMC Acadia/Chevy Traverse (too expensive harsh transmission), Sante Fe (good value but too small, poor handling), Veracruz (too expensive, poor handling), Flex (styling too weird).
    I choose the AWD Touring as I needed 3500 lb towing capacity and I am not a big gadget fan so I didn't want the Grand Touring. Also the CX-9 had the best handling. After 16 years with a Suburban I needed something close to a car and the CX-9 fit the bill. Mazda has great incentives and the CX-9 is likely the best value in this lineup.
  • gks1969gks1969 Member Posts: 1
    Just have to say that we recently purchased a 2009 CX-9 and we have 2 kids ages 22 and 36 months. With the car seats latched in (two boosters with harness - Graco 3 in 1) there is access to the roomy 3rd row. Both sides of 2nd row 40/60 split slide all the way forward with the carseats latched. We are thrilled with the car so far.
  • 4kids3dogs2cat4kids3dogs2cat Member Posts: 18
    Yes, a smooth, luxurious ride is now a top priority, My current 2004 Sienna is an AWD, which has a very harsh ride, especially when it had the run-flat tires. Now that I have regular tires, the ride is better, but not great. Now the car doesn't have a spare tire, so that will probably hurt me on trade-in. I have read in numerous places that many Sienna owners were dumping their run-flats and going with regular tires and keeping a air pump (car powered) and a can of fix-a-flat in their storage drawer. That's what I've done for the past few years, with no ill effects.

    I've very leery of the CX-9 with the 20 inch tires and it's "firm" ride. But I need features like powered rear liftgate, auto on-off headlights and other creature comforts that the Sienna has.

    You're right, I just checked Consumers reports and the R-Class has a bad reliability record. But I did find a 2007 with 15K miles for the low $30K area, but it is not a CPO, so that is a red flag. Maybe the 2010 CX-9 will have more options in the models w/o the 20 in. tires?
  • jcpharmjcpharm Member Posts: 92
    Other possibilities to consider then:
    1) Used Acura MDX (more luxurious and responsive ride and hopefully can get CPO)
    2) New 2010 CX-9 Touring loaded with options you might like (although Nav might only be available in GT as an option but you will get the "softer" 18" wheels)
  • cericceric Member Posts: 1,092
    I am sure your dealer will be more happy to swap out your 20" wheels with 18".
    People pay $$$ to go vice versa.
    CX9 GT has the features you listed: power-liftgate, auto-on/off headlight.
    What other creature comfort that your Sienna has that CX9 GT does not?
  • 4kids3dogs2cat4kids3dogs2cat Member Posts: 18
    That's an excellent idea of swapping the tires if the ride is overly harsh. I guess the features I need are all in the GT. And probably some I don't want. I need heated seats, power seats, auto headlights, power liftgate, good storage for CD's, AWD, roof rack, two power receptacles in dashboard, good AM radio reception and some decent power to the stereo. (Sienna stinks in the area of AM radio and music amp power), and perhaps a sunglasses holder that can actually hold a pair of sunglasses, and a gas gauge warning light that gives you warning well before you only have 10 miles left in the tank. I could go on about my Sienna, but my blood pressure is rising now.

    I don't want blue dashboard instrument lighting (have it now on my Sienna-dislike), no NAV system(got my own that I'll plop on the dash for the few times I need it), no LCD display on stereo (hard to read in daylight and can't read with polarized sunglasses-Sienna stinks again), no run-flat tires (really stinks, grrr!)

    Thanks for everyone's replies thus far.
  • milleniafanmilleniafan Member Posts: 1
    I drove my dad's R350 4matic for a few months last year. During that time, the battery died and blew the dash display fuse. All in all, I liked the 7 passenger wagon. The 3rd row is very easy to access. I even considered buying one myself a few weeks ago. However, when I drove the CX9, I felt that the MB R350 was not worth the extra 20K to me. My dad was able to be a very good deal on the MB R350, unfortunately, these deals are very hard to come by now.

    For last two weeks, I test drove the Highlander, MDX, and Pilot. I look for handling, 3rd row space and value when testing these CUVs. Here are my 2cents.

    Highlander: The handling was OK, the 3rd row was too small, and the sport model with leather was about 33K without bargaining.

    MDX: The handling was good, the 3rd row was small, and the base model was about 38K if the dealer could locate one for me.

    Pilot: The handling was OK, the 3rd row OK, and the EX-L was about 32K.

    In the end, I bought the CX9 last week. The dealer had the color I wanted. The CX9's handling is good, the 3rd row space is OK, but I was able to buy the touring at thousands less. Hands down, the CX9 with current pricing, offers the best value.

    Now, I am thinking to buying 20inch wheels and new tires to improve handling. I do not mind the harsh ride.
  • 4kids3dogs2cat4kids3dogs2cat Member Posts: 18
    And I don't want xenon headlights. We had one of the very first BMW X5's the first year they came out and those headlights were terrible. The line of demarcation between light and no light was much too low and, IMO, was dangerous because over and down hills you couldn't see the whole scene in front of you. For us in deer country, it was a bad choice. Have they improved the visible lighting area of xenon headlights since then?

    As to the Mazda loyalty program, do you have to own one now or do you merely had to have owned one in the past? We used to own a 626-four wheel steering car. That's right, all four wheels turned and it was quite helpful when parallel parking. It was amusing when we showed our friends the back wheels actually turned a little bit. Mazda was certainly innovative at the time.

    And another hot button for us is 3rd row access. Our Sienna has captain chairs for the middle row and it is so easy to go between them to get to the 3rd row. You don't have to touch anything. All of these CUV's I see, seem to have the requirement that you must touch and adjust the middle seat in some way, which is a hassle if someone is sitting in that seat at the time someone wants to get in the back. Kids fight over the silliest things.
  • cericceric Member Posts: 1,092
    You have to show a valid title to prove that you own a Mazda for the loyalty program rebate. One owned by your immediate family (husband/wife) members may also be allowed (check with the salesperson).
  • wdhytewdhyte Member Posts: 92
    man I *love* the xenon lamps...never had a vehicle w/them and they're great...course I haven't had a vehicle as low as the CX9 in over 10 years either (compared to an F150) so that may be influencing me a tad (brightness, vis to distance, etc)...but I like em. But what's this nonsense that I can't change them? that the dealer has to because they're HV??
  • cericceric Member Posts: 1,092
    >> But what's this nonsense that I can't change them?

    Certainly you can do it by yourself.
    The HID bulbs of CX9 is not extremely white (somewhere around 4500k only).
    Many have replaced it with other bulbs that are higher in K. It depends on whether you like them or not. For me, those OE are fine.
    HID needs to have clear cut-off at top edge to prevent blinding the on-coming traffic. Have you seen the non-HID vehicles with HID bulbs coming at you?!
    Their lights are blinding, therefore, dangerous to others.
    I believe it is DoT requirement to have clear cut-off at top edge. I am not entirely sure about this. One certainly can google the vehicle codes for it.

    Replacing HID (right hand side - from driver seat view) requires removing the coolant tank (reservoir). That is probably why some rumor (maybe started by dealers) that you need dealers to replace the bulb. Not true. If you are handy, you can do anything. Removing the coolant tank is actually a 5-minute job.
    :)
  • wdhytewdhyte Member Posts: 92
    cool..yep, my middle name is handy actually, house/cars/bikes/etc., if its elec or mech I'll tackle it...being as its still so new (<500 mi) I'll prob defer to the dealer until it starts costing me for stuff, then I'll take care of it. sounds like the bulbs wouldn't be all that big a deal...thanks for the rep ceric.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    You have to show a valid title to prove that you own a Mazda for the loyalty program rebate. One owned by your immediate family (husband/wife) members may also be allowed (check with the salesperson).

    Mazda employee here...close, but, not quite!

    To qualify for the Owner Loyalty Rebate you need to show a current registration for the Mazda that is already owned plus a valid drivers license. This rebate is transferable in household only. Only family members living under the same roof can benefit from this rebate.
  • cericceric Member Posts: 1,092
    That's why having you around here is nice. Thanks for clarifying.
    :)
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    That's why having you around here is nice. Thanks for clarifying

    Anytime ;)
  • 4kids3dogs2cat4kids3dogs2cat Member Posts: 18
    Has anyone done a comparison as to which of these cars (and the Lambda cars) can and can not fit a golf bag w/ clubs in the back of the car lengthwise? TIAFAR.
  • cericceric Member Posts: 1,092
    Toyota Highlander: 5216
    Honda Pilot: 5438
    Mazda CX9: 1390
  • legacygtlegacygt Member Posts: 599
    Considering that Toyota sells nearly 10 times as many vehicles as Mazda, I would imagine that Mazda is pretty happy with the way the CX9 is selling vs. the Highlander. I'm most surprised by the Pilot's success. This car has be universally panned by reviewers, most of whom agree that the current model is a step backwards. On top of that the car is expensive, ugly as can be, and somewhat truck-like in a market that is supposedly moving away from that image. I guess brand loyalty and a reputation for quality can go a long way.
  • citivascitivas Member Posts: 144
    It&#146;s not even remotely true that the new Pilot was &#147;almost universally panned&#148; by the reviewers. The reviews were actually unusually polarized &#150; usually there is a general consensus on a car in the professional community but in this case it got panned by some and lavishly lauded by others. Numerous prestigious sources gave it the top of its class or named it Car (or SUV) of the Year. So you must be reading a pretty selected subset of the major auto mags to come up with your conclusion.

    It&#146;s also not fair to dismiss it as brand loyalty or quality. Our family were die-hard Toyota/Lexus fans, having had several vehicles from them and liked them all. We started out specifically looking at the Highlander and only considered other cars when we couldn&#146;t bring ourselves to accept the significant compromises and limitations of that car. We test drive the Pilot early on and didn&#146;t expect to end up with it because we didn&#146;t like the look or finishes. But we did because in terms of features it was unmatched. Others who&#146;ve posted here and elsewhere have said the same. In our case we weren&#146;t even that price sensitive &#150; we looked at the BMV, Audi, Acura, etc. too and none of them had all the benefits of the new Pilot. So we ended up with it by process of elimination &#150; our first Honda ever. And it has become our favorite car ever. All five of my immediate family (including three kids), plus both set of grandparents love the pilot. One set of grandparents even has the Highlander Hybrid and now regret they didn&#146;t get the Pilot. Our other car is a high-end Toyota Sienna and no one ever wants to be in it if they have a choice between it and the Pilot. It gets slightly better gas mileage than the Sienna too, and the Honda navigation blows the Toyota&#146;s away. The full iPod integration is a favorite too &#150; I couldn&#146;t believe that they didn&#146;t offer than in the Acura MDX cousin of the Pilot.
  • legacygtlegacygt Member Posts: 599
    Reviews for the current Pilot were pretty poor, particularly in light of the praise showered on the prior version. Sure there were some decent reviews but Edmunds doesn't rank it too highly There are certainly plenty of good things you can say about it. This segment of the market has a lot of interesting cars and, unlike the minivan segment, they're not all marching to the beat of the same drummer. They all have strengths and there's something for everyone. The Pilot has great tech options and if you need 3 kids seats in the second row of your crossover, this is the one to get. But it has some major shortcomings as well:
    Fuel economy is no better than competition even though the car is neither extraordinarily powerful nor big.
    The styling is not particularly attractive although I guess some may like it.
    The brakes are pretty poor -- the Pilot may score well on crash tests but an additional 25 feet in 60-0 distance (vs. the CX-9) could mean the difference between a crash and a non-event.
    The price is relatively high and, if they're selling this well, dealers don't need to be as flexible in negotiations.
    Some may enjoy the Pilot. Is it better than the Highlander? I think so but that's faint praise. The Highlander (while also a strong seller) is not really a standout in this class either. It has a nice combination of power and fuel efficiency but there isn't too much else to distinguish it.
    We test drove many cars in this segment and, like I said, there's something for everyone. But for our family, the CX-9 and the GM Acadia/Enclave/Traverse stood out as being ahead of the pack. The Pilot and Highlander have some appeal but so do many others and I would say that if you take away the power of their brands, they are swimming in the same pool as the Hyundai Veracruz and Subaru Tribeca -- also good cars but not necessarily standouts.
  • vg33e powervg33e power Member Posts: 314
    Although this is all subjective, I have to fully agree with legacygt. I have been working for Honda for the past 9 years and I have owned a handful of their vehicles, mainly Civics and Accords and one CR-V. Honda may build exceptional quality vehicles but they have always been weak when it comes to brakes. Braking takes a lot of effort and durability of components (rotors and pads) have a very short lifespan..think, warped rotors and premature wear on pads, just take a look at the forums in the current generation Accord rear brake problems.

    When my wife and I decided to buy our CX-9 we also test drove and looked at the Highlander, Acadia, and Pilot. Clearly you know who the winner was!

    The Highlander was as expected from a Toyota product with nice quality fit and finish and good power and brakes. The highlander lost due to its expensive price, somewhat cramped interior and just boring styling (Toyota, in my opinion, has always made great quality vehicles but their styling is ho-hum boring and bland).

    The Acadia although very nice it is very expensive as well and it just felt to big for us, sort of clumsy in spirited driving, however, very spacious and nice standard equipment.

    The Pilot was also very nice in the inside, very refined in every aspect, nice options and standard equipment. The deal killer was its dumb looking, ugly front end styling. Which brings me back to the begining of my post.

    Honda, in my opinion, has dramatically deteriorated in their exterior styling department. The Pilot's front end as mentioned above is just plain ugly and does not flow nicely with the rest of the body. The current generation Accord is also not the nicest Accord Honda has produced. It has protruding frog like headlamps, the rear end is plain unflowy if you will and the side body lines are unorthodox with the body stance. The Element is unique to put it simple and nicely, unless you go with the SC model you may as well drive a Nissan Cube, Kia Soul, or Scion xB...all ugly in my book. Honda even managed to screw up possibly what would have been the nicest CR-V ever with an ugly looking two piece grille that resembles buck teeth. The Ridgeline...not a true truck in my book, but pasable. Definately would not be my first choice if looking for a truck. Also, if guys get a chance take a peek at the upcoming Accord Crosstour and tell me if you can find something nice about this whale looking montrousity. And last but not least, lets not even touch Honda's Acura division because all of their line up has been hit and abused with the "Decade's Ugly Stick"

    So all in all I believe that Honda has managed to continue its quality of refinement, fit and finish, and reliability but I hope they don't rely on their styling to get their units sold because they will be in deep trouble if they continue this trend.
  • citivascitivas Member Posts: 144
    The CX-9 is a nice car. We liked the ride and the look better than the Pilot or anything in the class. It was our second choice in the end when we bought the Pilot 14 months ago. The main things that stopped us were the truly terrible cabin tech (it really was terrible compared to the competition) at the time (perhaps they have improved this since) and the fact that the NJ dealers weren&#146;t very competitive &#150; the Pilot and it had comparable list prices but despite some people getting amazing deals elsewhere in the country in NY you could get the Pilot cheaper. In the end, though, I am glad we settled for the Pilot because we use that extra seating capacity so often, even though we didn&#146;t expect to. I also liked that the Pilot options were so much more straight forward &#150; Mazda made getting way too many of the bells-and-whistles options on the top model and it not only seemed like nickel-and-diming (plus you couldn&#146;t get the best entertainment package for example and a sunroof at the same time), but then it made it that much harder to find a vehicle equipped exactly as you wanted it.

    I&#146;ve read the brake reviews. All I can say is in normal world use (not crashes), the Pilot brakes great. They feel much smoother than our previous Toyota or Lexus vehicles and we don&#146;t have issues with it not stopping quickly enough. As for the fuel economy, in the 4WD model it was comparable to anything else in the class except the Highlander. So to ding it for that is really to ding the entire CUV segment except the Highlander. In practice, it gets better mileage than our Toyota Sienna mini-van ever has, and more than our previous and much smaller Lexus RX300.

    The Highlander was a major disappointment. First, the Hybrid is a joke. To get it comparably equipped as a Limited with all the options (including air conditioning which they brake out into three different add-ons and don&#146;t include standard!) made the price 25% higher than the non-Hybrid Limited, meaning even with $4 fuel (at the time) it would take about 15 years of serious driving to make up your cost. After that the car was just a collection of major compromises, including the useless non-split third row seating, the useless (and tiny) removable middle-row seating, the fact that adult males couldn&#146;t sit in the third row without permanently crocking your head sideways, the lack of a memory seat option for the driver (seriously, that&#146;s just pathetic in a $40K+ list price Limited model car), the fact that the rear screen entertainment blocks the rear view mirror view when down (this was true on the CX-9 too, but not the Pilot), the fact that the navigation system is useless while driving (true of the CX-9 too; whereas the Pilot continues to allow programming, preferably from the front row passenger, while on the road) or the lack of true iPod integration (an AUX port just doesn&#146;t cut it these days). The only thing I really liked about the Highlander, other than my good track record with Toyota, was the gas mileage. It looked nicer than the Pilot too.

    Believe it or not, some drivers pick their car based on features over look or drive. I suspect this is the reason for the success of the Pilot overall. Though looks are so subjective. We bought our Pilot despite the looks but I am constantly surprised when some people go out of their way to rave about its looks. Granted, they are in the minority overall, but it is a large minority. I ask them what they like about it and they go on about how it looks like a &#147;true&#148; SUV and is &#147;rugged&#148; &#147;truck-like&#148; (as a complement) and how they HATE how so many other SUV&#146;s are all &#147;curvy&#148; (meant as an insult), etc. To each their own. In any event, I know we bought it because our prioritizes were safety first (and they all were in the same class for that), features second, drive third and looks fourth, brand reputation or loyalty fifth. It destroyed the competition on features, especially for a family with three kids, a dog, a lot of grandparent shuttling and lots of kids carpooling, and the drive was fine. Obviously we&#146;re not alone in our assessment. The fact that Car and Driver, among others, named it SUV of the year, over the Highlander and CX-9 among others and after we already pulled the trigger, was nice but had no impact on the decision. I suspect most car buyers don't buy based on reviews in the end -- its too big a financial commitment to leave to someone else's subjective judgment.
  • cericceric Member Posts: 1,092
    Somehow the sales figures I posted re-ignited the discussion. Great.

    That title should really be changed to
    Highlander, Pilot and CX9, now that even 2010 CX9 is available at dealerships.

    Believe it or not, most people buy vehicles based on brand reliability reputation. Honda/Toyota obviously have the upper hands. Most people I know questioned my decision to go with Mazda. Their questions are all alike. "Is Mazda reliable?"
    I guess no one would ask such questions if I had purchased a Honda/Toyota.

    Well, IMHO, competition is good for everyone looking to buy a 7/8-seat CUV.
    Lots of CX9's electronics integration flukes have been addressed in 2009 and also 2010 already. My CX9 continues to impress me everyday. I love driving it.
    The brake is strong, on par with my ex-1998 BMW 540iA.

    Most of vehicles I owned before have been Hondas. Poor brakes? Definitely! They were scary under hard braking, if you ask me. Reliable? Definitely. None of the 5 Hondas I owned had any single problem after 7 years of ownership. That speaks volume. After 21K miles, my CX9 showed one window problem. Though a very minor assembly issue, it still counts as one in my book. :(

    A major downside with CX9 to me is the city-driving MPG. Expect 15mpg for AWD and 16-17mpg for FWD. I guess it comes with 3.7L engine, and wider tires (245mm) than competitors' offerings. With a 4500lb vehicle, 15mpg isn't too bad, but no where near good.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    title should really be changed to Highlander, Pilot and CX9

    Good idea!
  • vg33e powervg33e power Member Posts: 314
    You may want to add Acadia and Traverse in the mix as well because most people compare these 5 CUV's Just an idea!
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    In case you didnt know (not being a smart aleck, just trying to help :shades: ) there is a Crossover SUV forum as well, for a less specific discussion, besides these three.
Sign In or Register to comment.