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)
|
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)
|
|
|
Replying to: citivas (Sep 01, 2008 4:24 pm) 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.
|
|
|
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. I’ve had this conversation with several Toyota dealers and they all take it as a given too that this is simply Toyota’s 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, it’s 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. It’s 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 won’t 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.
|
|
|
Replying to: citivas (Sep 02, 2008 6:44 am) 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. |
|
|
Replying to: citivas (Sep 02, 2008 6:44 am) 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." |
|
|
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. |
|
|
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 |
|
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
