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

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 10 of 48: 1; ...; 7; 8; 9; 10; 11; 12; 13; ...; 48; Prev; Next; Last

#89 of 472 Re: CR [cx7lover] by steveayz Jul 22, 2008 (5:57 pm)
Replying to: cx7lover (Jul 22, 2008 3:04 pm) Learn to read buddy. I said "MPG should be one of the main decision criteria if cars come close on your list". I never said that MPG should be main criteria overall. CX-9 discounts and financing deals you mentioned will be offset by HL resell value in a future. Besides that 3rd row is only usefull if you haul more then 5 people in the car. I used it twice for the whole time of car ownership and it serves the purpose. And yes, you can fit adults there too if you move middle row forward. Is not this ironic that 2008HL takes less gas then car of your choice CX-7 (figured by your name cx7lover)
#90 of 472 Re: CR [steveayz] by ceric Jul 22, 2008 (7:53 pm)
Replying to: steveayz (Jul 22, 2008 11:53 am) I found "mixed driving" a very confusing term. I am sure a mixed driving in Texas is very different from one in NY city. Anyway, driving slowly can great improve MPG on highway. This is no secret at all. Today, I made another trip to Sacramento, and got 26mpg (based on my ScanGuageII) for a 40mile strip with steady but slower traffic (roughly 50-55). Overall, I averaged about 70mph and got 22.5mpg for the entire 220miles round trip. No cruise control, just not heavy-footed. Today, I saw a couple of new Pilots on my trip. It certainly is bigger than I expected (cross-section wise). Still, it looks boxy and the front end just does not grow on me. Personnally, all three are great choices. To each, one's own. P.S. Since CX9 has no trip computer, I found my new ScanGuageII very helpful and informative.
#91 of 472 Re: CR [cx7lover] by citivas Jul 23, 2008 (6:34 am)
Replying to: cx7lover (Jul 22, 2008 3:04 pm) There is no huge price advantage for the CX-9 in real-world shopping right now. You can get the Highlander Limited (not Hybrid) below dealer invoice if you work it right now. By the time you do this the price is within $1K of the similarly equipped Mazda. Also, if you do he math on all the real-world MPG results posted in these forums you will see areal-world MPG difference of over 3 MPG, which is close to 20%. For the poster who said the Highlander 3rd row does just fine, they must only have two kids still too young for the front seat. We have three and the middle seat is not really a full seat, nor can the second row handle three car seats side-by-side... The Highlander seating is its most significant flaw, offset by the class leading MPG. It really is only a 4 seater most of the time with an optional kid row that is only useful on short trips with no luggage. Replies to this message: ceric (Jul 23, 2008 8:12 am)
#92 of 472 Re: CR [citivas] by ceric Jul 23, 2008 (8:12 am)
Replying to: citivas (Jul 23, 2008 6:34 am) I believe Highlander has the best MPG from all information I gathered, but I don't believe the 3mpg difference you talked about (Highlander over CX9). That is exaggerating. No offense, but I just don't believe it. There is major difference in FWD and AWD mpgs. EPA estimated 1mpg difference, but in real world it is more like 2mpg on highway, 3mpg in city driving. So, when talking about statistics, one needs to separate FWD and AWD and compare them. My best guess is maybe 1mpg better (at most 2mpg combined) for Highlander over CX9 (or Pilots). The CX9 has short 1st gear and 200lb extra pounds to hual around. Highlander gear ratios may be better spreaded for MPG purpose. I know CX9 did them for zoom-zoom feel so MPG was secondary. Price? Highlander below INVOICE?! Try $3000 BELOW INVOICE now for a CX9. How much gas can $3000 buy? That is 750 gallons ($4) for 15000 miles(20mpg). Enough for one to drive 1+ year! For 2mpg difference? $3000 is enough to compensate for 10 years of ownership, not counting the interest the $3000 generates.
#93 of 472 by citivas Jul 23, 2008 (8:40 am)
Look, I explained my methodology in a previous post. There are extensive posts in this forum (and some others) for each of these cars where people list their real-world MPG. There wasn’t much data yet for the 2009 Pilot. but there is a ton for the Highlander and a decent amount for the CX-9. I was only interested in the AWD Highlander, not the FWD. I created a spreadsheet and entered everyone's reported mileage. Now you can question the accuracy of the underlying data. But what is there to “exaggerate”? That data showed what the data showed. One could argue that people only tend to report the low MPG because complainers post most. Perhaps. But I saw a lot of people bragging about their MPG too or indicating they we’re at least satisfied that it was appropriate to the car type, so I’m not sure I would agree with that criticism. Also, as we all know actual MPG will vary greatly based on the driver. But when you have enough points of data this should balance out. I am confident there are some very careful drivers who can get better MPG from their Pilot or CX-9 than a really aggressive driver in a Highlander. But the issue should be apples-to-apples what is “typical.” I personally believe in a lot of data over any one person’s personal experience or what they “think” it is based on their own gut. And the data I had showed about 3 MPG. Even if you ignored all this data and went with what is consistently reported in comparison reviews on this and other sites, it would still be about close to a 10% difference (1.6 MPG) in MPG versus less than a 5% weight difference. So I think it’s fair to say Toyota has engineered a more fuel efficient vehicle. If you read my first post, I was the first I have seen here (in this thread anyway) to report about the $3,000 dealer incentive for the Mazda, so I am well aware of it. However, you incorrectly quote $3,000 below dealer invoice versus MSRP. If you go to the Mazda forum post for real-world prices paid recently, I have not seen many people reporting they walked away for $3K below dealer invoice. There are plenty who got MORE than $3K off MSRP though and certainly well below dealer invoice. But, again, since you can also get the Toyota below invoice right now, the real world delta between then is not $3K. Go check out the prices paid posts yourself if you don’t believe me. Plus I have been negotiating on all three of these cars. The real world difference works out to about $1K, give or take. This is certainly not true of the Hybrid Highlander, but Toyota is being uncharacteristically agreeable in trying to get rid of regular Highlanders right now. To me all of this is academic. All of these prices and MPG’s are close enough that it doesn’t make sense for price or MPG to be the sole deciding factors between these three vehicles right now. Replies to this message: pcz0925 (Jul 23, 2008 7:12 pm) nxs138 (Jul 24, 2008 2:34 pm) ceric (Jul 24, 2008 3:59 pm)
#94 of 472 Re: [citivas] by pcz0925 Jul 23, 2008 (7:12 pm)
Replying to: citivas (Jul 23, 2008 8:40 am) I won't get into any discussion over MPG as you appear to have your own process which makes sense based on the limited data available. As for the CX-9 price, I can comment. In lieu of low rate financing Mazda incentifies dealers $3000 per CX-9. Based on that I purchased mine last week for $7750 below MSRP or $4500 BELOW invoice. Mazda dealers here in the Midwest appear ready & willing to move their vehicles as each one I checked with was below invoice AND provided the full $3000 off of that. None of the local Toyota dealers are going anywhere close to a CX-9 on just price - my neighbor is currently shopping for a Highlander Limited FWD comparably equipped to my CX-9 AWD and the price difference is between $3200 and $3900 - plenty to pay for the extra gas I'll use...but who can put a price on all that fun I'll be having while I ZOOM ZOOM. BTW I found financing through Costco.com (via Capital One) for 4.67% for 60 mos. with 0 down.
#95 of 472 Re: [citivas] by nxs138 Jul 24, 2008 (2:34 pm)
Replying to: citivas (Jul 23, 2008 8:40 am) So I think it’s fair to say Toyota has engineered a more fuel efficient vehicle. The Highlander weighs 200 lbs less: there's most of your gain over the CX-9 right there, it has nothing to do with design, it's just a smaller vehicle. Generally, for each 100 lbs less of weight, you gain about 1 mpg. So 200 lbs less for the Highlander should give you about 2 mpg better. (also see here for a calculation) The rest of the data is just noise, i.e. driving habits (maybe CX-9 owners are more heavy footed than the Highlander crowd), what extra cargo is carried in the vehicles, etc. etc. The CX-9 is rumored to get a direct injection engine, which should increase HP and increase mpg...we'll see! Replies to this message: ceric (Jul 24, 2008 3:59 pm)
#96 of 472 Re: [nxs138] by ceric Jul 24, 2008 (3:59 pm)
Replying to: nxs138 (Jul 24, 2008 2:34 pm) nxs138, Good points you made. I found that the short 1st gear (4.15) costs MPG of CX9 in city driving as well as the extra 200lbs. I own a Prius, so I have nothing against Toyota. It is just that I can't live with that lousy 3rd bench and floaty driving feel (and lousy electric steering, too). I know electric steering 'cause Prius has it also. Toyota apparently use electric steering for less drag on the engine (better MPG also). It is a design choice. I recently installed ScanGuageII on my CX-9, and get to monitor instant MPGs (plus per day, trip, tank, etc.) I have been getting 17.5mpg (from 16.5mpg) on my same daily commute trip with a bit adjustment in driving style (the right amount of acceleration - not too fast, not too slow). Direct injection would improve engine efficiency by about 5% or more. I would also recommend Mazda to use a aluminum hood. It might save about 20lb. A heavy hood serve no purpose at all. MAZDA, are you listening.....
#97 of 472 You can ZOOM ZOOM better by ch1rravu Jul 25, 2008 (12:31 pm)
Sure you may feel you could zoom zoom better in CX-9, but NOT faster than Highlander. Anything over 8 seconds zoom-zoom to 60, is prolly trying lawn-mower race cart. Not many dealers sit their vehicles in lots, but rather in preperation areas (call it their warehouse). If anything is any indication, in our hood I see normal amount of stock in Toyota warehouse, lesser-than-usual Honda warehouse (mostly due to fast setting Civics), and tons-and-tons of non-moving Mazda ducks. It may be local phenomenon, but sure doesn't bode well observing this thing for the past 4-6 months. Has anybody gotten monthly sales figures for CX-9 compared to Highlanders vs Pilots to see how well each brand/model is doing ? By the way, anybody compiled, how many on-going recalls/silent-recalls, dealer-fixes and law suits that are files against CX-9 and other models? If you really want to figure where many Americans are plunking down thier hard-earned money, just look at sales numbers. If you got money to spare, yeah - you can zoom zoom better, try a BMW X5 or a Mercedes or a Lexus - they may take you to your destination in Style too! Regarding Electrical steering: it takes some getting used to, sure even BMW introduced electric steering in their family, and took decent flak. Guess, its one of the things folks would have to start getting used to. After a while of driving with it, it doesn't feel that much different, and my friends actually like electric steering. Folks miss other critical advantages with electrical steering: Better insulation/firewall, better NVH, and better crash performance. In addition, some Engineering folks advice that Electrical steering is better integrated with VDIM/VSC (vehicle stability control), making it work better to save lives! According to consumer advocate Clark Howard: ".. electronic stability control .. expected to save more lives than any other gadget, except for maybe a seatbelt" (and he didn't include Anti-lock brakes, airbags, and other boondabgles in this list, because VSC/ESC is no pretender, but REAL-DEAL !!). Now, do I want VSC/VDIM? See how VDIM in action in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giHp_AahMhA (though I sure wouldn't recommend doing crazy stunts on a icy road!) REF ** http://clarkhoward.com/liveweb/shownotes/2007/04/12/12129/ Replies to this message: ceric (Jul 25, 2008 3:18 pm) qs933 (Jul 25, 2008 11:43 pm) baggs32 (Jul 26, 2008 7:12 am) and 3 more... nxs138 (Jul 25, 2008 6:35 pm)
#98 of 472 Re: You can ZOOM ZOOM better [ch1rravu] by ceric Jul 25, 2008 (3:18 pm)
Replying to: ch1rravu (Jul 25, 2008 12:31 pm) Do you always buy the most popular vehicles? I don't. I made my own choice considering my own needs and criteria. If sales numbers determine which vehicle is better, then all auto-magazines can stop their comparison test. Just collect the sales numbers and declare winners. By the way, which major award has Highlander or Pilot obtained yet? Hers is a list of MAJOR awards that CX9 has roped... Mototrend: Sports Utility of the Year 2008 Automobile Magazine: All-Star 2008 Car And Driver: 5 Best Truck 2008 P.S. Highlander was a contender in all three of them. Yes, awarding winning is a big factor of mine when it comes to choosing vehicles. Replies to this message: qs933 (Jul 25, 2008 11:43 pm) baggs32 (Jul 26, 2008 7:12 am) qs933 (Jul 26, 2008 1:37 pm) and 2 more...