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 33 of 45: 1; ...; 30; 31; 32; 33; 34; 35; 36; ...; 45; Prev; Next; Last

#319 of 442 Spacing behind the third row.. by golic Nov 26, 2008 (9:00 am)
Hello group- My '05 Pilot is coming off lease in the next 75 days. When I last shopped the market, I had 2 kids in car seats and 2 kids in booster seats. Our family car is a minivan - but of course our second car is a family car as well and I just can't bring myself to own 2 mini's. Back in '05 the Pilot was the car (and only) car where I could put two boosters in the back seat and the kids could buckle themselves. Although, I did have to modify one of the boosters due to the 40% split. My main concern these days is the room behind the 3rd row. I am down to 1 car seat and 1 booster seat...but my needs today are to travel with baseball bags, soccer gear and hockey bags. I can "just" barely get a hockey bag and a stick in the back of the Pilot. Do any of these cars have superior behind the 3rd row space, without giving up too much in either width or 2nd/3rd row seating? Thanks for your thoughts. Replies to this message: citivas (Nov 26, 2008 9:17 am) golic (Nov 26, 2008 1:00 pm) citivas (Nov 26, 2008 1:36 pm) and 3 more...
#320 of 442 Re: Spacing behind the third row.. [golic] by citivas Nov 26, 2008 (9:17 am)
Replying to: golic (Nov 26, 2008 9:00 am) golic, of the cars I tested, the Pilot and the GM vehicles had the most space behind the third row, though not as much as a mini-van. Both of those also have the 60/40 split for the third row which gives you more storage/passenger flexibility than the 50/50 split the 7-seaters have. The '09 Pilot is a little larger than the previous model Pilot so it should exceed what your current situation is. That said, I wouldn't consider it easy to have 2 boosters side-by-side on the 60% bench with the 40% down, if that's what you're describing. I have done it, but it was hard to buckle the seats when they were that jammed together. It is super easy for the kids to buckle them for themselves when they were sitting on either end of the third row. Replies to this message: golic (Nov 26, 2008 1:00 pm) citivas (Nov 26, 2008 1:36 pm) guy1974 (Nov 26, 2008 5:04 pm) and 2 more...
#321 of 442 Re: [citivas] by aviboy97 Nov 26, 2008 (11:07 am)
Replying to: citivas (Nov 26, 2008 8:50 am) Picky, are we?? J/K!! I do like how the Pilot has intuitive driver control over various things such what you mentioned. Honda did a great job with that. For 09, the CX-9 now has an updated more user friendly nav system, as well as a fully integrated iPod control from the touch screen with sat radio and Bluetooth audio! They also added the long over due fuel computer. You still do not have full control over the nav system while driving. You can only use pre set information from your address book or memory points. The driver does have control over the rear climate, however, it is only done via the driver climate settings, and the driver cannot change ther rear climate that would differ from the driver.
#322 of 442 Re: Spacing behind the third row.. [citivas] by golic Nov 26, 2008 (1:00 pm)
Replying to: citivas (Nov 26, 2008 9:17 am) Thanks citvas. One other question. Out of all the GM vehicles you looked at, which would you say is worth taking a look at? Replies to this message: citivas (Nov 26, 2008 1:36 pm) guy1974 (Nov 26, 2008 5:04 pm) nxs138 (Nov 26, 2008 9:42 pm) and 1 more...
#323 of 442 by citivas Nov 26, 2008 (1:17 pm)
Good to hear about the CX-9. Nice improvements to an already great car. Mazda does seem more responsive to consumer feedback than, say, Toyota, which still hasn't corrected the single-piece third row bench despite it being a top complaint from people for years. How hard could it be? On the "fuel computer," what is its range of functionality and how is it physically integrated into the car (i.e. is it in the dash, the center console, overhead, etc)? The Mazda site doesn't seem to have been updated to detail the '09 improvements yet, beyond a press release (that you have to search for) which describes them only generally. Does it show discrete pressure for each tire or give any maintenance feedback or is it just trip/fuel? I like how my Honda will tell me when and what type of service and that I don’t have any need to worry about it until it chimes in. It’s also nice how it doesn’t simply determine an oil change by time or miles but by more comprehensive criteria. Some people have gone over 10,000 miles before it determined they needed an oil change and Honda considers that appropriate and more accurate. I also like how the computer allows discrete user settings tied to the individual keys, so my wife any I can have different preferences for things like when the doors auto-lock/unlock, how long the interior and exterior lights stay on after turning the car off, etc., though even more control over things like radio station presets and default climate control settings as some of the luxury brands have would have been even better. It’s unfortunate that it still defeats user control of the nav when driving 5 MPH or greater (which my Mazda dealer didn't even realize until I showed him on the test drive), though the core problem is that Mazda, Toyota (and I think GM) all license their navs from the same Australian-based company that does it this way. I understand the legal reasons why, but I don't accept them. Honda/Acura, Garmin, Tom Tom, Navtec, etc. all accomplish the same protection with a simple disclaimer screen the driver has to accept at the beginning of each session. I understand the idea of not tempting the driver with a dangerous behavior, but that completely undermines the potential for a passenger to manage the navigation, as we do in our household on longer trips. Oh well, I learned a long tie ago you really can’t have it all. There are always trade-offs. The CX-9 gets pretty close though… Replies to this message: aviboy97 (Nov 28, 2008 8:45 am)
#324 of 442 Re: Spacing behind the third row.. [golic] by citivas Nov 26, 2008 (1:36 pm)
Replying to: golic (Nov 26, 2008 1:00 pm) I spent less time with the GM vehicles than some others so I wouldn't consider myself a good authority. Of the three (Buick Enclave, GMC Arcadia, Saturn something-or-other) my gut reaction is to focus on the Buick for one simple reason: If GM and/or Chrysler are forced to go through restructuring they are likely to discontinue some of their brands and focus on those that are the most successful. Of those three, Buick is the most successful, particularly overseas (it is a popular brand in China believe it or not). I wouldn't put money on either the GMC or Saturn brand surviving long term (or if GMC does survive it may only be for trucks). The other benefit of the Buick brand is it is considered premium (like Honda’s Acura) and often the dealers provide better service benefits like free loaner cars and car washes after servicing, etc. Despite this, they are priced almost identically for the top trims so there is very little disincentive to get their luxury brand, assuming you were in the market for the "loaded" version like I was. If you want a more economical trim, I didn’t look into it but my guess is you’d be better off with the GMC or Saturn. If those issues don't concern you, you should decide based totally on styling preference. All are essentially the same car mechanically but they have very different trims. Oddly enough, I kind of liked the GMC a little better than the Buick myself. The Buick had choices I thought were designed to appeal to my parents more than me (like a large part of the center console being designed to feature an old fashioned analog clock) but that is totally subjective. Though I did like the cool blue ambient lighting in the Buick… If you’re going for the GM line, do a lot of pricing research here first (these boards, not the Edmunds “real world pricing” tool which is rarely aggressive enough). I found GM dealers and marketing less than straight-forward on pricing. When they last did their huge “employee pricing” promotion in the summer the discount was less competitive than I knew from here that people were already getting and well less than the comparable discounts on the Hondas or Mazdas, for example. If you are paying above dealer invoice on these vehicles at this time you probably can do better… Good luck. Replies to this message: guy1974 (Nov 26, 2008 5:04 pm) nxs138 (Nov 26, 2008 9:42 pm) guy1974 (Nov 27, 2008 11:35 am)
#325 of 442 by ceric Nov 26, 2008 (4:18 pm)
When it comes to gadgetry, to each one's own preferences. I love CX9's Smart Key Start and Entry, HID, Blind Spot Monitor (BSM) System. None of them can be found on Pilot. There are always some gadgetry available on one model that is not on the other. Among all, the $200 BSM is an outstanding value. Own one and you will understand. (especially useful in dark rainy nights) What a great invention from Volvo (to Ford then to Mazda).
#326 of 442 Re: Spacing behind the third row.. [citivas] by guy1974 Nov 26, 2008 (5:04 pm)
Replying to: citivas (Nov 26, 2008 1:36 pm) Interesting comments, now there is the Chevy version and Chevy will survive. Regarding Buick, they are doing very well in China but they, along with GMC and Pontiac (who are all one division for sales purposes), could disappear from North America. Replies to this message: nxs138 (Nov 26, 2008 9:42 pm) guy1974 (Nov 27, 2008 11:35 am)
#328 of 442 Re: Spacing behind the third row.. [guy1974] by nxs138 Nov 26, 2008 (9:42 pm)
Replying to: guy1974 (Nov 26, 2008 5:04 pm) The Traverse is likely the way to go if you want GM. Since Chevy actually does sell small cars, it's a better bet on surviving than GMC, for example, but for me I just like the look of the Traverse better (but I did buy the CX-9 over all the GM products, couldn't get over the hesitant transmission and lack of bluetooth. The Traverse just seems like a nice fresh start, with direct injection and a nice bump in horsepower). Replies to this message: guy1974 (Nov 27, 2008 11:35 am)