| panamamike |
I recently read this comparison and was pretty surprised.
I actually bought the Pilot, '06, because I felt it did better than the HL in the handling department. I'm no expert, was based on my a test drive. Did I miss something?
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/d...rticleId=128367
How many agree with this article regarding the handling?
Mainly, I'm wondering how people feel about the current model year design Pilot 03'-08' as compared to the '08 HL and CX9.
All the comments I've read about '08 Pilot vs. the new '09 version point to the new version being superior to is predecessor in every way. Given that context it would suggest the 03' - 08' have poor handling when compared to the '08 HL. Strange thing is I felt the Pilot, an '06' handled better than a HL 08'. Maybe I just didn't have enough time with the car.
Mike |
|
|
| dgipalo |
quote:
Originally posted by panamamike
I recently read this comparison and was pretty surprised.
I actually bought the Pilot, '06, because I felt it did better than the HL in the handling department. I'm no expert, was based on my a test drive. Did I miss something?
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/d...rticleId=128367
How many agree with this article regarding the handling?
Mainly, I'm wondering how people feel about the current model year design Pilot 03'-08' as compared to the '08 HL and CX9.
All the comments I've read about '08 Pilot vs. the new '09 version point to the new version being superior to is predecessor in every way. Given that context it would suggest the 03' - 08' have poor handling when compared to the '08 HL. Strange thing is I felt the Pilot, an '06' handled better than a HL 08'. Maybe I just didn't have enough time with the car.
Mike
I looked at the Highlander, and had the Hybrid been available at a more moderate price point, it would have been my first choice. 18 MPG don't cut it in the days of $4+ gas. Honda's choice to stick with conventional drivetrains and the resulting fuel consumption took it off my shopping list. Of course, that also eliminated the Mazda. |
|
|
| whizmo |
The results of this test don't surprise me. Most of the magazines these days rate crossovers higher if they're "sportier" and the Pilot is probably the most "trucky" of the current batch. With the appearance of the CX9 and revised HL in the past couple years, both leap-frogged the Pilot in most of these ratings and while the 09 Pilot improved on some of the utility features, it really didn't make significant progress in chassis dynamics, power, braking, etc. So it remains behind in any test where chassis dynamics is the main rating criteria.
IMHO, numb handling has always been the Pilot's downfall. It has always been a SUV that drives even bigger than it is, which is not a good thing. The steering, while accurate, just gives no feel for what the tires are doing whatsoever. I might as well be turning a thumbwheel on a joysick.
But all are fine SUVs and it really just matters what has the best mix of features for you. Personally, I find the whole idea of a "sporty" SUV to be rather silly. If I wanted a sporty crossover, I'd just get a wagon like a Volvo V40 or Passat Wagon. Or if I had to have a SUV, then a MDX.
- Mark |
|
|
| rlapid |
| i agree with whizmo. the pilot wasn't designed to be sporty, so consequently, it did poorly in this comparison. unlike the mazda, the pilot is more utilitarian, focusing on interior space and functionality, with an aggresive and 'macho' truck-like appearace. the mazda and HL are more like wagons; the styling is sportier and less boxy, and they were designed to perform more like a car. thus, they did much better in the handling and chassis dynamics area. with most crossover SUVs going with this type of design, it is difficult to find a better comparison for the Pilot, which keeps its boxy, traditional SUV appearance. |
|
|
| panamamike |
O.K., I suppose those comments are fair. However, my main reason for bringing up the question has to do more with the general safety of the Pilot, not necessarily its sportiness.
I was a bit surprised at their findings of long stopping distance and weak passing power for maneuverability.
Just from my personal quick test drive of the HL, I had more confidence in the Pilot, passing power/control over the HL. Is this a false sense of confidence due to the other traits of the Pilot driving character? |
|
|
| citivas |
I was in the market at the same time that comparison came out and coincidentally those three (plus the Acura) became my finalists in the total CUV 3-row market, so I read it with interest then (and commented on Edmunds forums). We have a long history of Toyota and Lexus ownership so we really started with that as our favored choice... But after 3-4 test drives of each, we ended up with the Pilot.
I haven't noticed any of the braking issues they suggest with the '09 so far. I didn't put it to the emergency braking test but the brakes handle great in normal use. I haven't seen their results widely repeated elsewhere either.
The Highlander just has way to many important compromises, starting with the lack of a split third-row seat, making it useless if you want to take a large family on trips and haul a lot of luggage, etc. It's really shocking Toyota revised this vehicle at a time when literally every other CUV on the market with three rows already split and still didn't make this simple change. The Toyota third row is also a lot more cramped. The mini-van-like (already have one) gimmicky removable middle second row was also a negative for us since the net result is really only 2.5 seats in the second row. The net result is 4 good seats and 3 only suitable for small kids without car seats. Not good enough. It also has a decent towing capacity but no factory hitch option, no memory seats, a nav which locks out when driving (by design) and no iPod integration. The RES (rear screen) also completely blocks the rear view. A real disappointment overall. We definitely liked the better MPG (even the non-hybrid is best in class in this area for the 4WD) and the fact that it was Toyota, but couldn’t get over the problems.
We liked the CX-9. It was a close call with it and the Pilot. The Pilot has the 8 seat advantage and a much more fun / functional cabin tech (iPod integration, much better nav, better voice control, better RES). And Mazda has a real spotty reputation with its dealer service centers. Some are good but some are really bad and do more harm than good to your car.
That said, to clarify your later post, I wouldn’t say the Pilot felt more powerful in passing than either of the competition. The Highlander definitely accelerates faster than the Pilot, as does the CX-9. And both of those also have manual shifting options which the Pilot does not (not counting the manual option for gears 1 & 2 which is different). This, and the look, were my big hold-ups on the Pilot in fact. I didn’t love the drive. It does feel “heavy” when trying to accelerate. But it can get the job done and at the end of the day you have to prioritize something and overall utility became our driving factor (no pun intended). |
|
|
| dustino8 |
| I was surprised when I read the 9.7 seconds 0-60. The power to weight ratio of the first and second gen is fairly close, and the magazines that I've read had 0-60 times ranging from the high sevens to low eights for the first gen. Something is amiss with the 9.7 second time. |
|
|
|
