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
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
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: gypsi80 (Oct 13, 2008 2:37 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: badself (Oct 09, 2008 2:56 pm) The customer wanted $13,000 on trade, because he said it was "a Honda, and they are worth it" |
|
Tuesday means Mazda chat night! Mazda ownership is not a requirement!  Just bring yourself and your love of cars and the desire to discuss anything and everything automotive and you're good to go! The chat opens at 8:45 pm ET and runs until 10 pm ET. I hope you're able to join us tonight to meet and greet with your fellow CarSpace members! See you there! |
|
|
Replying to: aviboy97 (Oct 02, 2008 1:59 pm) #3 -- Higlander #2 -- CX-9 #1 -- Pilot The Pilot got its vote primarily because it blew the others away when actually using it off-road. They also liked the steering and feel of the brakes. They acknowledged it had less one less gear and slightly less power. The CX-9 was a close second and they implied it probably would have won if they only did a highway test instead of mixed driving.
|
|
|
Replying to: citivas (Oct 14, 2008 6:46 pm) Consumer Reports, the biggest Honda advocates, have rated the Pilot #11 for 3 row SUV's. 11th!! That does not boast well for them... The whole purpose of a CUV is for on road use, not off road. People desire a people mover that drives like a car, not a truck. If people want to go off road, they buy a real SUV, not a Pilot, CX-9 or Highlander.
|
|
|
I don't get why people need to be such advocates for one vehicle over others and respond to every post that doesn't specifically enforce their position. Of course I already knew about the CR ranking (as would anyone else reading this discussion), because that is the post I was replying to. Why the need to repeat it in reference to the C&R review? I made a point to try and summarize the C&R review without putting any endorsement or spin on it, even listing the pros and cons and narrowly selective reasons for their ranking. Do we now have to get into a contest over which magazine is better to align ourselves with whatever one supports our preferred vehicle? Personally I stopped using CR reviews a long time ago because I can usually find more specialized sources for any given product category, be it cars or electronics or appliances, etc., that go into more detail or reflect the more specific criteria important to me. Others still like it. More power to them – to each their own. It's all silly. There is no one reason why people buy one car over its competition. There is such a broad market in CUV models because there are so many different reasons people buy and therefore different models to suit each of their priorities. No ranking will be topical to all or even most buyers, be it CR or C&R or any other source. So on the one hand its all just noise. That said, it’s probably helpful to some people to post about these reviews as information, but when we start selectively holding them up as some sort of validation of one choice over another, and defending that only those that reach a certain conclusion matter, it ceases being relevant to most potential buyers. I’ve posted repeatedly over the months that I think all three of these vehicles are strong. I would have been happy with a CX-9 and wish they had the tech I wanted sorted out. I am very happy with the Pilot that I surprisingly ended up with, since it was the last one I expected to choose of the bunch. And I am disappointed I couldn’t make myself love the Toyota given my loyalty to that brand. For me it came down to the cabin tech (principally a great nav and iPod integration) and the seating capacity, and it’s hard to argue the Honda wins there of these three CUV’s. My only fear was that it would prove out that I didn’t take advantage of either enough and I would regret not getting the CX-9. As it happens, the integrated iPod has already become my family’s preferred music option and we use it extensively. It’s been like when we first got TiVo (8 years ago) for my wife – she didn’t care about it beforehand and now can’t believe how she lived without a DVR. And we’ve already used all 8 seats on multiple occasions and use the 3rd row split every day (which would have made the Toyota a disaster for us if we had gone with it)… If it had been about the drive first (or in our opinion the appearance), I would definitely have picked the CX-9. If it had been about the fuel economy or familiarity first, it would have been the Highlander. BTW, I predict within 2 years all of these vehicles will have true iPod integration. There was just a report released that said 50% of all vehicles will by the end of 2009 (though it wasn’t clear whether they simply meant AUX ports versus true USB-based integration). It will become a standard feature, just like Bluetooth will. That’s one of the reasons I hedged my bet in the end and converted my sale price to a 3-year lease. I love my car so far, but I like the idea of knowing I can revisit where everyone has landed on features and fuel economy in three years. In the meantime I am a satisfied customer. |
|
|
Replying to: citivas (Oct 14, 2008 6:46 pm) "An average marriage in California lasts for 5 years. An average California owns a vehicle for 7 years. Shouldn't you choose your vehicle more carefully than your spouse?" You should choose a vehicle that best suit your needs, and, yes, very carefully. Other than taking my CX9 to snowy sierra mountains, I don't think my CX9 is ever going to ford rivers or plow through muddy trails. |
|
|
Replying to: aviboy97 (Oct 15, 2008 7:47 am) The whole purpose of a CUV is for on road use, not off road. People desire a people mover that drives like a car, not a truck. If people want to go off road, they buy a real SUV, not a Pilot, CX-9 or Highlander. BTW, that's an overstatement. For a lot of people the "purpose" of a CUV is to try and have it all with minimum compromises. They like the somewhat better fuel economy and feel of a CUV on the road but still want the option to comfortably take their vehicle occasionally off-road for camping, boating or whatever, and to be able to occasionally tow without having to get the larger, much more thirsty big SUV's. Again, you can't generalize what people want or expect from these vehicles because the market is so broad. Your priorities may not be someone else's. Your statement is imposing your view onto others. Why not just say, "off-roading wasn't a priority for me, so the CX-9 made more sense" instead of insisting it doesn't make sense for any buyer.
|
|
|
Replying to: citivas (Oct 15, 2008 8:49 am) No where is my statement, or any post of mine, will you see me stating that the CX-9 is my vehicle of choice. In fact, I did say, for the person who desires a real off road vehicle, they would not buy a CX-9!! Why would they? It's not designed for it! Also, how did I impose my view??? Where?? please tell me!! What is my view? Since you know, I would like for you to tell me??
|
|
|
Replying to: aviboy97 (Oct 15, 2008 9:06 am) Since you asked, though I thought it was obvious, the above quote is assigning your view to others You are declaring broadly on behalf of "people" your opinion, rather than just stating it as your own, or even providing some factual reference for why this is the universal view "people" or even just the vast majority of "people." BTW, I totally agree one of the key benefits of a CUV is it drives more like a car. I stated as much. Where we disagree is whether that automatically translates to "people" having no interest in a vehicle that can go off-road when needed or desired too. My point is SOME "people" (I would never try to "overstate" all people for anything as that's my point...) want to have it both ways, a car-live drive and suspension, with some off-road and towing ability. Those "people" don't want to have to chose between a truck-like SUV or a strictly on-road vehicle. As a class, it is a "crossover utility vehicle" not just a car with a vaguely SUV-like shell. In terms of your posts, they speak for themselves. It's easy for anyone to do a search and see how often you chime in specifically to support the CX-9. Everyone's going to have their favorite in the end. I just don't see why a few people need to redundantly hammer home anything perceived as favorable to their choice if it doesn't add to the discussion. What exactly was new about your CR remarks that hadn't already been posted in the two previous pages of comments? What was the point of responding to new infomation about a C&R review by repeating the still fresh CR information as if to imply it automatically trumps the C&R review. Why not just let the information stand on its own and let people decide for themselves?
|
|
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
