Ask the Car People.SM


2009 Honda Pilot vs. 2008 Mazda CX-9 vs. 2008 Toyota Highlander

549 messages,  Last post on Feb 11, 2013 at 8:48 PM

You are in the Honda Pilot Forum.

What is this discussion about? Mazda CX-9, Honda Pilot, Toyota Highlander, Car Comparisons, SUV

Messages Page 53 of 56

#517 of 549 Re: If CX-9 is so great, how come.. [aviboy97] by citivas

Jul 06, 2011 (7:27 am)

Replying to: aviboy97 (Jul 05, 2011 1:05 pm)
As I said, I'm not planning to sell this year despite the high offers. I couldn't find anything worth moving away from my Pilot on yet so I'm waiting for major model re-designs. I get that new model scarcity would jack up the used prices, but then how could Honda offer to put me in a comparably equipped new model year Pilot lease with no down and no payment change if I turned in my 2009 vehicle instead of buying it?
 
What I need to excite me into a change from the Pilot is a more luxury or better driving CUV that doesn't have a crappy GPS with a nanny lock out and has at least 7 truly usable seats, preferably 8 (like the Pilot). Hybrid would be nice but I won’t pay a 30% premium that would take 18 years of ownership to make-up like with the Highlander. The GPS limitation currently rules out a lot of the contenders, including the Mazda and Toyota. And the lack of decent seating rules out Honda’s cousin, the Acura, which really only has 4 usable seats, plus 3 pathetic ones (including the middle second row seat). I’m optimistic that waiting for the new major model re-designs will help expand the field but one can hope. I might even be able to give a little on the quality of the secondary seating but I will never give in on getting another vehicle without a built-in GPS or with one that is useless but for lame voice commands when in motion. If Mazda ever solved that severe shortcoming I would seriously consider it.

#518 of 549 Re: If CX-9 is so great, how come.. [luckyseven] by citivas

Jul 06, 2011 (7:47 am)

Replying to: luckyseven (Jul 05, 2011 7:56 pm)
I've always been curious how they do those 0-60 tests because I have tested my Pilot (we have plenty of low traffic country roads around where I live) multiple times and have handily beat it. I'm not defending the Pilot's drive which is just ok. But it's just not true that it takes that long to accelerate. Perhaps if all you did was immediately floor and stick the accelerator but I figured out early on that Pilot acceleration requires a little bit of subtle art to pump the gas at the right rev-up spot. Then it jumps handily. If you don’t do this it seems to get caught up in mid-acceleration before getting over the hump. You can say that’s poor engineering but whatever the reason you can accelerate faster if you adapt to the car.
 
I’ve also never had any complaints about braking on the Pilot, though I have read the tests and unlike the 0-60 test I haven’t wanted to abuse my car testing the distance. We’ve always owned at least one Toyota or Lexus as our other vehicle (though if we were buying today we’d get the Odyssey over the Sienna) and my wife and I both prefer the braking experience of the Pilot, perhaps not on paper but in daily use. The Toyotas tend to have overly tight braking when the brakes have first been adjusted and then they get softer and softer between servicing. This is definitely the experience with our Sienna and previous Lexus RX300. And these cars were bought on opposite sides of the country and serviced at at least 8 dealerships in 3 states, so it’s not just about how they were serviced. The Pilot feels neither overly firm or soft and is consistent. It’s easy to judge what you need. Which is not to say it may not be a little worse in a worst-case crash condition. I defer to the testing. Just sharing our experience.
 
As far the “sportiness” of the drive, it’s not all about statistics. I own neither the Highlander or CX-9 but test drove both at least half-a-dozen times and have driven the Highlander often since my in-laws own one and I’ve had it as rentals several times. It “feels” light and accelerates well. But the CX-9 is in an entirely different league over the Highlander in terms of the feel and handling. The Highlander has soft steering (something almost every review notes) and it just doesn’t take turns like the Mazda. The Mazda has come out ahead in so many professional car reviews in terms of drive and handling that it is silly to pretend the Highlander is its equal in that category. It may be for your particular needs, which is fine, but it’s not the “drivers vehicle” the way the CX-9 is.
 
I respect all of these vehicles as having advantages for people with different priorities. For us overall function (including tech) and utility was the top priority so the Pilot made sense. If you want a 3-row hybrid, or even the best conventional mileage of the three, the Toyota is the way to go. If you want a great drive, the Mazda wins.

#519 of 549 Re: If CX-9 is so great, how come.. [luckyseven] by davicho

Jul 06, 2011 (7:55 am)

Replying to: luckyseven (Jul 05, 2011 7:56 pm)
1. Yes it is sporty looking, put a CX9 and an HL side by side covering up the badges (Toyota, Mazda) and I guarantee you the CX9 would render more attention.
 
2. Your 0-60 numbers are meaningless in this category because the last time I checked no one is using these vehicles to drag race, they are family cross-overs. And even if we (you and I) wanted to drag race, my 0.7 deficit (according to you) is hardly anything substantial to make a difference. The 0.7 difference can be void if you have a slow reaction at take-off.
 
3. Your claim that HL is superior in handling to the CX9, is solely your opinion and I disagree. Do some research to back up your statement. CX-9 ran the slalom at 61.4 MPH with minimal body roll, your superior in handling HL ran it at 59 MPH with moderate body roll. Let me know when you want to meet me at the canyons and we can find out for ourselves...
 
4. If you can care less for the 3rd row seating, then why did you pay extra for it? I was in the market for a 3 row 7-8 passenger cross-over and CX-9 took the trophy hands down for accesibility and comfort of the 3rd row, and yes it was one of my deciding factors among all other great things about my CX-9.

#520 of 549 Re: If CX-9 is so great, how come.. [davicho] by citivas

Jul 06, 2011 (8:02 am)

Replying to: davicho (Jul 06, 2011 7:55 am)
Yeah, if I didn't need the third row there are a whole lot of other CUV's I would consider... I get that some people don't need it though, which I guess is the market the Highlander is targeting since their middle second row and third row are pretty bad. For me, I use it literally every day so it is essential.

#521 of 549 Re: If CX-9 is so great, how come.. [davicho] by luckyseven

Jul 06, 2011 (9:09 am)

Replying to: davicho (Jul 06, 2011 7:55 am)
1. I've owned Hondas and Toyotas for long time and can tell you a dirty secret - no one buys these cars for looks.
 
2. 0-60 number tells a lot, if you live in busy city try to merge on the freeway on slower vehicle. 0.7 sec makes a big difference.
 
3. In spite of its sporty persona, the 2008 Mazda CX-9 ends up with the slowest slalom speed (58.4 mph) due to its undefeatable stability control system's relatively low threshold of intervention.
http://www.insideline.com/mazda/cx-9/2008/2009-honda-pilot-vs-2008-mazda-cx-9-vs- - -2008-toyota-highlander.html
 
4. I got a third row in HL since it is nice to have and I used it few times. I have family of 4 and wanted to have third row to carry my kid's friends when needed. If I'd need to carry more then 5 people on regular basis I'd get a minivan, would be much more comfortable then any CUV on the market. Even now I think that HL is bigger then I'd need, I liked first gen HL size more.

#522 of 549 Re: If CX-9 is so great, how come.. [citivas] by luckyseven

Jul 06, 2011 (9:15 am)

Replying to: citivas (Jul 06, 2011 8:02 am)
this is something new to me, what's bad with HL second row? Do you own a HL?

#523 of 549 Re: If CX-9 is so great, how come.. [luckyseven] by citivas

Jul 06, 2011 (9:16 am)

Replying to: luckyseven (Jul 06, 2011 9:09 am)
Our other car is a minivan. But whenever the whole family is traveling anywhere together or on trips, we universaly all prefer the Pilot as the main family vehicle. And we could care less about being seen in a minvan or not, so we don't avoid it for stigma. So I would say it is an opinion that a minivan is more comfortable. That's certainly not our experience.

#524 of 549 Re: If CX-9 is so great, how come.. [luckyseven] by citivas

Jul 06, 2011 (9:26 am)

Replying to: luckyseven (Jul 06, 2011 9:15 am)
I don't own a HL because I didn't like the seating or the nav system. But I test drove one 5 times three years ago, I test drove the current model 2 times this year, my in-laws own one and I have driven it over 1,000 miles, and I have had one twice in the last three years as a rental vehicle.
 
My problem with the middle second row seat (I specified middle seat only in that row) is it’s only half a seat. It's not comfortable for an adult and it is too small for a full car seat and too hard for a little kid to reach under the seat to buckle the seatbelt. In the interest of mimicking a minivan and letting people remove it they sacrificed the quality of the seat (if I had needed that feature I could have gotten another minivan). So it really only becomes useful for a kid who is out of a car seat but not full grown. And because you can only fit full tethered car seats on one of the two side second row seats (too hard to constantly take them in/out of the third row or put the kids in them there and buckle them), that means the middle second row seat is an important location for adults. In our Pilo, we probably have an adult sitting in the middle second row at least twice a week on average plus on long car trips that are hundreds of miles. Just not realistic in the HL.
 
Some people only need limited seating so this is not an issue for them. But for those that need more, the HL seating is much less versatile than the Pilot which can literally seat 8 adults – the third row is night-and-day more roomy than the HL.

#525 of 549 Re: If CX-9 is so great, how come.. [citivas] by luckyseven

Jul 06, 2011 (10:02 am)

Replying to: citivas (Jul 06, 2011 9:26 am)
That's why we have all these choices, get the car that suits your needs the best. Nobody ever complained to me about middle seat on the middle row. Plenty of times I had 3 people seating on the middle row for long duration. Middle seat makes something close to the bench seat out of middle row. I'd say it depends on adult size. 3 normal size adults fit there without a problem or discomfort, pretty much the same as family size sedan second row, even a bit wider.

#526 of 549 Re: If CX-9 is so great, how come.. [luckyseven] by aviboy97

Jul 06, 2011 (10:20 am)

Replying to: luckyseven (Jul 05, 2011 7:56 pm)
HL is also superior in handling to other 2 because it is a bit lighter so I wouldn't call it boring brick on wheels.
 
While the Highlander is slightly faster to 60, it is equal to the CX-9 in the quarter mile. It gets destroyed in the corners. With every media outlet that has tested the road manners of any 3 row crossover, the CX-9 repeatedly beats the Highlander, and every other non luxury 3 row CUV on the market. Nothing has changes in the 4 years the car has been on the market.
 
Here is a quote from a March 2011 comparo from Motor Trend in regards to the Highlanders handling: "The faster you go, the more this thing wobbles."
 
In contrast, the same article praised the CX-9: "As a high speed, canyon-carving seven-seater, the CX-9 is severely gifted. It actually inspires confidence when you push, quite unlike the rest of the field"
 
I'm not trying to bash the Highlander in any way. It is a really good car, but lets not call it what it's not...which is a better handler than the CX-9.

Messages Page 53 of 56

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement