Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
SUVs Mazda CX-9 Honda Pilot vs Mazda CX-9 vs Toyota Highlander
472 messages, Last post on Nov 21, 2009 at 5:09 PM
You are in the Mazda CX-9 Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester
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)
|
Replying to: aviboy97 (Aug 27, 2008 2:04 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: ceric (Aug 27, 2008 10:11 am) 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 don’t 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 haven’t isolated if they are car parts or content yet (there are so many storage spaces with loose items and car seat tethers, etc.). I’m sure the Pilot’s electronics won’t be perfect, certainly not in every car (and the same could be said of any car), but it doesn’t sound like there is evidence of systemic issues yet either… |
|
|
In the interest of closure from the back-and-forth I’ve 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 wasn’t 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. It’s 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. That’s 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 can’t 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 isn’t a full seat. You can’t fit most combos of three car seats across the way you can with the others, and you definitely can’t 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 6’1”. (I ended up seriously reconsidering the Acura again with the deals so good on the ‘08’s (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-9’s RES had this problem too, but neither the Pilot or the CX-9’s 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 aren’t 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 don’t have to in the Pilot just because its so fun (I’m 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 it’s 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 don’t expect to become one of those cheerleaders who can only defend and pitch my car in these comparisons. Good luck for those who haven’t settled or closed a deal yet… |
|
|
Replying to: aviboy97 (Aug 27, 2008 2:04 pm) 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...
|
|
|
Replying to: nxs138 (Aug 27, 2008 7:27 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: citivas (Aug 27, 2008 5:31 pm) 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. |
|
|
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...
|
|
|
Replying to: citivas (Aug 28, 2008 8:14 am) Oversights like that are part of the reasons we didn't buy the Highlander (no split 3rd row) or the Acadia (no bluetooth).
|
|
|
Replying to: nxs138 (Aug 28, 2008 5:17 pm) 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).
|
|
|
Replying to: qs933 (Sep 01, 2008 4:02 pm)
|
|
You are here:
Forums
SUVs Mazda CX-9 Honda Pilot vs Mazda CX-9 vs Toyota Highlander
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Mazda CX-9
2010 Honda Pilot
2010 Toyota Highlander
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
