Honda Pilot vs Mazda CX-9 vs Toyota Highlander

442 messages, Last post on Oct 24, 2009 at 8:44 PM

You are in the Mazda CX-9 Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester

What is this discussion about? Mazda CX-9, Honda Pilot, Toyota Highlander, Car Comparisons, SUV

2009 Honda Pilot vs. 2008 Mazda CX-9 vs. 2008 Toyota Highlander - Although we've been hearing about a mad dash to get out of sport-utility vehicles and into fuel-efficient compacts, the reality is that seven- and eight-passenger crossover SUVs like the 2008 Mazda CX-9, 2008 Toyota Highlander and 2009 Honda Pilot aren't going away anytime soon. (more)

Outline

Messages Page 45 of 45: 1; ...; 39; 40; 41; 42; 43; 44; 45; Prev; Next; Last

#433 of 442 Re: Pilot just slightly edges Pilot [ceric] by vg33e power Oct 22, 2009 (3:52 pm)
Replying to: ceric (Oct 22, 2009 3:10 pm) CX-9: Base Number of Cylinders: 6 Base Engine Size: 3.7 liters Base Engine Type: V6 Horsepower: 273 hp Max Horsepower: 6250 rpm Torque: 270 ft-lbs. Max Torque: 4250 rpm Curb Weight: 4546 lbs PILOT: Base Number of Cylinders: 6 Base Engine Size: 3.5 liters Base Engine Type: V6 Horsepower: 250 hp Max Horsepower: 5700 rpm Torque: 253 ft-lbs. Max Torque: 4800 rpm Curb Weight: 4608 lbs Numbers don't lie...I hardly believe that the Pilot feels peppier or feels torquier then the CX-9. Less power and more weight do not equal to a quicker, peppier, torquier vehicle, but as said before "to each it's own" I will take my CX-9 over the Pilot anyday, thank you!
#434 of 442 Re: Pilot just slightly edges Pilot [ceric] by mirrodie1 Oct 22, 2009 (6:51 pm)
Replying to: ceric (Oct 22, 2009 3:10 pm) Oh, I know. I knew the stats as well. ( I thought I had mentioned that). Mea culpa if I didnt. But as ceric notes, my feeling is likely based on several factors other than what I noted. They really are all great options.
#435 of 442 Re: CX9 vs Pilot [ceric] by thegraduate Oct 22, 2009 (7:54 pm)
Replying to: ceric (Oct 21, 2009 10:28 pm) May have more to do with throttle-pedal calibration than engine tuning. My '06 Accord 2.4L feels easily as quick as my folks' 263 horse Taurus in the first 40% of the throttle. Despite being only a 5-speed auto vs. the 6-speed in the Ford, the transmission is quicker to respond, snappy when it does, and isn't afraid to crank out a few revs to get you moving if your foot asks it to. The Taurus takes more boot to scoot, but once it gets towards the floor, it really flies, leaving my 166 horse Accord in the dust. Throttle calibration can make or break a driving experience. Neither of the two cars I'm talking about are bad, just very different. Perhaps the CX-9 and Pilot are also quite different? Maybe the Mazda's transmission and electronic throttle are tuned less aggressively than the Pilot. I've driven a Pilot, didn't find it as peppy as my Accord, but haven't driven a CX-9 to compare. It was still perfectly adequate for merging and typical use expected of an 8-passenger "family truckster." Replies to this message: ceric (Oct 23, 2009 9:57 am) thegraduate (Oct 24, 2009 8:44 pm) tripl3threat (Oct 23, 2009 10:43 am)
#436 of 442 Re: CX9 vs Pilot [thegraduate] by ceric Oct 23, 2009 (9:57 am)
Replying to: thegraduate (Oct 22, 2009 7:54 pm) Modern transmission learns your driving style. Period. Its called grade logic. If you are an aggressive driver, your transmission would try to please you by shifting faster, and retaining higher revs. There are things you can't tell from a simple test-drive with modern vehicles, unfortunately. Trust me, it is healthy for your vehicles to once in a while rev it to the near red lines. Ask any mechanics, it helps to flush out bad stuff in the power-train. Do it safely, of course. Let us not forget that the transmission of CX9 is from Aisin, who supplies transmissions to Lexus/Toyota. The standard gear shifting time is 0.5 second (not very fast), but it was set to feel seamless and comfortable. (source: CX9 WorkShop manual). If you really care about this, there is an auto-manual mode on CX9 which can't be found on Pilot. Replies to this message: thegraduate (Oct 24, 2009 8:44 pm)
#437 of 442 No one here is knocking your cx-9, sheesh. by mirrodie1 Oct 23, 2009 (10:09 am)
Numbers don't lie...I hardly believe that the Pilot feels peppier or feels torquier then the CX-9. Less power and more weight do not equal to a quicker, peppier, torquier vehicle, but as said before "to each it's own" I will take my CX-9 over the Pilot anyday, thank you! Hey, its alright. I know the stats but stats don't change perception. Even my wife said he liked the CX9 over the Pilot b/c she felt the cx9 didnt want to take off when she tapped the pedal vs the Pilot and my Altima, which leap forward. So 2 difference drivers had a similar take on the same car. To use you parlance, you can take your cx9. No one is suggesting otherwise. All factors considered and knowing ourselves, there is a good chance we'll sell the auto in 5 years, so considering the total cost difference to us today is $1000 but the depreciation is less on a Honda, it just makes sense for us.
#438 of 442 Re: WOW! [ceric] by lithnights Oct 23, 2009 (10:22 am)
Replying to: ceric (Oct 21, 2009 8:47 am) Ceric, Good point about the 20 not 8 ft. Like I said I was just guessing, good to know you have the actual figures. Even knowing this, which I DID know when I made the purchase (the brain forgets much after 6 months), it was not enough to sway me away from all the other great features of the Pilot. Evidently the same goes for the many other Pilot buyers. I imagine it all comes down to HOW important the braking issue is. For me and my family, who rarely travel highways anyway, it just wasn't enough.
#439 of 442 good point by mirrodie1 Oct 23, 2009 (10:35 am)
I agree. Its a great point and a number to go by. But its also why I had to test drive it again and warn the salesman that I would purposely be slamming in the brakes, God forbid a kid ran out in front, to simulate scenarios. One note though....we still take defensive driving although we dont need the point reduction. It does pay to drive defensively, as you never know what that 'idiot' may do!
#440 of 442 Re: CX9 vs Pilot [thegraduate] by tripl3threat Oct 23, 2009 (10:43 am)
Replying to: thegraduate (Oct 22, 2009 7:54 pm) My wife and I both were in need of new cars this year - she driving a 9 year old Sienna, and me a 10 year old Saab 9-3. We tested and liked both the Pilot and CX-9 - each for different reasons. Me, cold and analytical stat comparison; she, emotion and feel. Upshot - we got one of each. Her the Pilot, me the CX-9. $ for $, I think the CX-9 was the better buy, but ultimately we'll see what the residual values are for 3-year ownership. On paper they look like a tie for annual cost of ownership for both - with a higher OTD price for the Pilot, but probably a little higher residual value. Given that, we both are driving safe, reliable (and in my case FUN) cars - with a TCO of about $10K per year. TCO is a great way to analyze a buying decision, and so is being happy with what you drive. If cars didn't make us happy, we'd probably all drive something a lot cheaper. A mid-range Ford Focus costs about $6k per year.
#441 of 442 Re: CX9 vs Pilot [ceric] by thegraduate Oct 24, 2009 (8:44 pm)
Replying to: ceric (Oct 23, 2009 9:57 am) Modern transmission learns your driving style. Period. Not all. My Accord does not, and is a 2006 model. It doesn't have an adaptive transmission. Period. Have a great day, TheGrad