Last post on May 17, 2013 at 1:14 PM
You are in the SUVs
What is this discussion about?
GMC Acadia, Hyundai Santa Fe, Ford Taurus X, Toyota RAV4, Nissan Rogue, Honda Accord Crosstour, Dodge Journey, Car Buying, Car Comparisons, SUV
#6624 of 7326 Re: 2009 Honda Pilot Test Drive [biscuit_xls]
Jun 21, 2008 (8:56 pm)
The VCM activates at light load, cutting out half the cylinders, so that cruising easy on the highway at 55 or 60 it may activate more, while cruising at 70-80 mph it will need all 6 cylinders. Hills and passing, the VCM will be off as well, as the load is higher and all 6 are needed. In the city, every time you idle at a stoplight or hit the brakes to stop, VCM will activate. I'd say it does it more in the city during coast down and stop time.
However, the EPA highway rating for the Mazda CX-9, at 22 MPG (no VCM) is the same as the Pilot's 22 MPG. And their city MPGs are the same at 16. Why doesn't VCM have much affect anywhere? Very odd.
In fact, the Acadia, Dodge Journey, and Taurus X, all with similar sized V6 engines get better MPG than the Pilot, although the Pilot is the only one with VCM. The Odyssey, with the same engine/tranny as the Pilot, does seem to benefit from its VCM, besting all the above mentioned vehicles in MPG by 1 at least. Maybe the answer is in the extremely poor aerodynamics of the Pilot, while the Odyssey has better aero, and it shows up in the MPG numbers. Certainly the ugly box/weird shapes on the Pilot must be creating a high drag coefficient.
#6625 of 7326 Re: 2009 Honda Pilot Test Drive [coldcranker]
Jun 21, 2008 (9:01 pm)
Considering the same engine in last-year's non VCM Pilot got 15/20 and that the current Pilot WITH vcm gets 16/22, I'd say the vcm DOES help it get better economy in that particular engine.
#6626 of 7326 Re: 2009 Honda Pilot Test Drive [thegraduate]
Jun 21, 2008 (9:14 pm)
No. You are looking at the 4WD Pilot from last year getting 15/20, not the 2WD versions compared above. The 4WD system reduces MPG, but that is another story. See www.fueleconomy.gov for info. I was comparing only 2WD versions of all these vehicles just to stay consistent for comparison purposes across the board.
#6627 of 7326 Re: 2009 Honda Pilot Test Drive [coldcranker]
Jun 21, 2008 (10:44 pm)
The 2WD Pilot has a rating of 17/23. The 4WD has a rating of 16/22.
The old 4WD one has a rating of 15/20, so the VCM (among other tweaks possibly) has improved mileage from 15/20 to 16/22.
I'm afraid you got it mixed up.
#6628 of 7326 Re: 2009 Honda Pilot Test Drive [thegraduate]
Jun 22, 2008 (5:12 pm)
I was comparing 2WD-only versions, while you were talking about 4WD-only versions. And, yes, the jump from the 2008 4WD 15/20 rating to the 2009 4WD 16/22 is only about half due to the introduction of cylinder deactivation (VCM) in the 2009 4WD model. Note the 2WD version, from '08 to '09, also gained 1 MPG in both city & highway, and the 2WD version has had VCM for several years now, so it is due to tuning and possible gear ratio changes in the 5-speed automatic. Now Honda has a Pilot that makes up for not having a 6-speed automatic (or CVT) by using cylinder deactivation. Adding direct injection and a 6-speed would give about 3 MPG more, if Honda would just do it.
Jun 23, 2008 (5:58 pm)
I own a CX9 AWD for 5600 miles.
Great vehicle in terms of space, design, tranquility, and driving dynamics.
The one thing that I dislike is the lack of accessories.
One can't find many accessories from Mazda or on aftermarket.
For example, one can hardly find any sidestep (maybe because CX9 is lower than most others) or running board even at its 2nd year in USA. In contrast, the new Pilot offers FOUR different side steps/running boards from Honda when it was just released. For those who are thinking of buying, please take this into consideration it this is important to you.
That said, I still love my CX-9. It drives like a sports sedan that can haul 7 people + cargo. Give Mazda a chance when cross-shopping. Mazda is selling them at $1500 BELOW INVOICE. Be an informed shopper!
#6630 of 7326 Re: Gas prices killing the crossover too? [ateixeira]
Jun 24, 2008 (1:23 pm)
You already picked a Forrester, a good choice, but a better choice would have been the TaurusX. It uses a Volvo-derived XC90, S80, VC70, Land Rover LR3 body, a structurally optimized platform costing less than the Volvo or Land Rover versions. Good MPG, too. The Forrester is OK, except for Subaru's odd lagging behind almost everybody else by using a 4-speed old-style slushbox tranny instead of a more modern 6-speed or CVT.
#6631 of 7326 Re: Gas prices killing the crossover too? [coldcranker]
Jun 24, 2008 (1:29 pm)
It's kind of hard to tell someone that they bought the wrong choice, I'd think. They bought the car they were most comfortable with, and with a brand they have had good service with, and trust.
A Taurus X is bigger and uses more gas, and may be more car than they wanted. They aren't that cheap, either.
Jun 24, 2008 (8:02 pm)
Anyone around here bought one of these yet?
#6633 of 7326 Re: Ford Flex [mattandi]
Jun 24, 2008 (8:06 pm)
I didn't think these were out yet. My local dealer sure doesn't have any, and I know - my folks are buying a Ford this weekend so I've been there a lot.