Honda Pilot vs Mazda CX-9 vs Toyota Highlander

478 messages, Last post on Nov 27, 2009 at 7:13 AM

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 6 of 48: 1; ...; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9; ...; 48; Prev; Next; Last

#48 of 478 by spi5 Jul 16, 2008 (1:28 pm)
Well, I don't hate boxy SUV. However, the 09 pilot is simply not a good looking boxy box. See the LandRover or 08 pilot. They are better. Honda designer must be replaced ASAP. Their new Accord and Pilot are one of ugliest car on the road. Unfortunately, you will see them a lot. I think Honda designer has more responsibility to make the street view prettier because the high volume of Accord and Pilot.
#49 of 478 by msam Jul 16, 2008 (4:59 pm)
It seems to me that there is a very diverse opinion on which is good. I was very interested in the Mazda CX-9 for a long time, but was afraid of the reliability. Consumer reports rated it to be below reliable for a new model. Also, I was tracking the repair reports on a different web-site and found a few problems reported. Then the 2009 Honda Pilot came out. I did not like the looks initially, but it grew on me every bit. I then fell in love with the number of standard features that came with the Honda. I was considering it very seriously, until I saw this report. Braking is a big issue. I have had some friends who have owned Accords and found their braking to be not as good as well. So, for me it is more worrisome. Can I get some comments on how people who have test driven the Honda feel about the braking of the Pilot? Thank you. Replies to this message: zorceres (Jul 17, 2008 1:26 pm) cx7lover (Jul 17, 2008 2:52 pm) msam (Jul 18, 2008 8:28 am) and 1 more... spi5 (Jul 17, 2008 9:33 pm)
#50 of 478 Re: part 2 [citivas] by qs933 Jul 16, 2008 (9:58 pm)
Replying to: citivas (Jul 14, 2008 7:05 pm) In terms of the perception of “value,” I like the Pilot the most and the Highlander the least. Honda keeps it simple. Even "value" will differ from person to person. I see it the opposite way with the Pilot and the Highlander. With the Highlander, I can get a Limited 2WD with exactly the options I want (power liftgate, JBL with Bluetooth, auto rear air, spoiler). I don't want a moonroof. With the Pilot, in order to get the power liftgate or Bluetooth, you have to get the Touring. If you get the Touring, you automatically get the moonroof and navigation, neither of which I want (even if it's "standard," it's still incorporated into the price of the vehicle). I pass a Honda dealer every morning on the way to work. The Pilot isn't as bad looking in person, though I think the Highlander looks better. I don't really care for the way the CX9 looks. For me, it's between the Highlander and the Murano. I don't need the third row. Replies to this message: citivas (Jul 17, 2008 7:41 am) albook (Jul 17, 2008 8:05 am) baggs32 (Jul 17, 2008 8:40 am) qs933 (Jul 17, 2008 10:43 pm) ceric (Jul 18, 2008 12:18 am) citivas (Jul 18, 2008 4:42 am) spi5 (Jul 17, 2008 7:50 am)
#51 of 478 Re: part 2 [qs933] by citivas Jul 17, 2008 (7:41 am)
Replying to: qs933 (Jul 16, 2008 9:58 pm) I personally don't understand why anyone would get any of these vehicles if they didn't need the third row. There are other SUV and crossover options with much better mileage if you don't need the third row like I do. But to each their own... Opinion on value is subjective of course. But I can't agree on your characterization of Toyota giving people more flexibility on options. Of the three, that would be the Mazda by far. It may have worked out for the particular options you picked, but in general Toyota is notorious for packaging options together. You can't get the nav without getting the high-end car, you can't get the RES without the moonroof, etc. I don't know any other competitor that makes you get a nav and moonroof to get a factory installed rear dvd screen. But what bugs me more about Toyota is that they aren't even sincere about what are "options" -- they like to list some things as “options” to disguise the actual price of a vehicle then basically make no cars without those “options.” Try actually finding a Highlander Hybrid for example without rear air conditioning. Good luck. According to CarsDirect and the dealers I spoke to Toyota doesn't ship any. It’s possible they may ship a handful somewhere every year just so they can claim it is an option but that's just for show. The reality is it is a several thousand dollar required add-on that you are going to have to accept but is packaged as an "option." For that matter, no one would want the car without it which is all the more reason it is insincere on Toyota's part. Similar with things like floor mats. They list them as options which is just tacky. But try finding a vehicle without them. Possible, but very rare. Even if you buy online and don’t select this “option” what usually happens is the site gets back to you with a modified quote that included them. Honda's approach is more honest IMHO. But if you like a large Chinese menu of options, at least Mazda gives a lot of flexibility in what you pick and choose without having to buy stuff you don’t want. Replies to this message: albook (Jul 17, 2008 8:05 am) baggs32 (Jul 17, 2008 8:40 am) qs933 (Jul 17, 2008 10:43 pm) ceric (Jul 18, 2008 12:18 am) citivas (Jul 18, 2008 4:42 am)
#52 of 478 Re: part 2 [qs933] by spi5 Jul 17, 2008 (7:50 am)
Replying to: qs933 (Jul 16, 2008 9:58 pm) Looks is just a matter of taste
#53 of 478 Re: part 2 [citivas] by albook Jul 17, 2008 (8:05 am)
Replying to: citivas (Jul 17, 2008 7:41 am) I personally don't understand why anyone would get any of these vehicles if they didn't need the third row. There are other SUV and crossover options with much better mileage if you don't need the third row like I do. But to each their own... The Highlander straddles the third row midsize CUV market (Pilot, Veracruz) and the smaller midsize CUV market (Murano, Edge). because of its midrange size. Therefore, it would be just fine for someone who doesn't need a third row. What I don't understand is why you would get one if you need a third row.
#54 of 478 about packaging by ceric Jul 17, 2008 (8:11 am)
My favorite in atoumobile packaging is when MDX includes "power lift gate" in the "entertainment package". Folks, that is what power lift gate is for!!! Entertainment! Sorry for side-tracking.
#55 of 478 Re: part 2 [citivas] by baggs32 Jul 17, 2008 (8:40 am)
Replying to: citivas (Jul 17, 2008 7:41 am) I personally don't understand why anyone would get any of these vehicles if they didn't need the third row. There are other SUV and crossover options with much better mileage if you don't need the third row like I do. But to each their own... Some people just need the extra cargo room. Unlike traditional BOF SUVs these CUVs (or at least most of them) do not let you omit the 3rd row from the option sheet.
#56 of 478 Re: [msam] by zorceres Jul 17, 2008 (1:26 pm)
Replying to: msam (Jul 16, 2008 4:59 pm) I don't have an issue but then I don't drive fast and keep my distance.. I'm just a safe driver I guess... Beauty is in the eye of the beholder... I love the look of the new Pilot, but that is just me... and my husband and all of our friends so far.. even a random guy at a shopping center that stopped us to ask about the car since he had never seen it before and loved how it looks. Seems to me that it might be a love it, hate or it might grow on you thing.. Replies to this message: cx7lover (Jul 17, 2008 2:52 pm) msam (Jul 18, 2008 8:28 am) zorceres (Jul 18, 2008 10:04 am) spi5 (Jul 17, 2008 9:33 pm)
#57 of 478 CR by cx7lover Jul 17, 2008 (2:44 pm)
As far as CR goes, the CX-9 was rated unreliable, because of Audio system issues(HAHAHA) since when does that make a car unreliable? CR is a JOKE, take it from other owners that you meet on the street, and on a forum. the CX-9 is a reliable vehicle so far. Replies to this message: baggs32 (Jul 17, 2008 6:08 pm) albook (Jul 17, 2008 8:12 pm) msam (Jul 18, 2008 8:24 am) steve_ (Jul 18, 2008 11:49 am) and 17 more...