2009 Honda Pilot Touring Test
06-25-08, 10:18 PM
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
2009 Honda Pilot Touring Test
Vehicle Tested:
2009 Honda Pilot EX 4dr SUV AWD (3.5L 6cyl 5A)
MSRP of Test Vehicle: $40,665
What Works:
Roomier than before; more comfortable than before; and still beautifully built.
What Needs Work:
Styling that needs to be dialed back from 11; not particularly fuel-thrifty.
Bottom Line:
Honda's second shot at the Pilot is more useful than ever, even if it hides beneath an overwrought skin.
Conclusion:
Quote »
Honda has become the go-to car company for anyone looking for excellent fuel economy in an attractive package. But the new Pilot has the distinction of being one Honda with a thirst for hydrocarbons. The EPA rates the all-wheel-drive 2009 Pilot at 16 mpg in the city and 22 mpg on the highway — slightly better than the 2008 Pilot due mostly to the VCM system. Considering current fuel prices, it's enough of an appetite that people who don't absolutely need the Pilot's eight-passenger capability might consider looking at a CR-V instead.
The 2009 Honda Pilot does everything the original one did and then adds a little extra room for everybody. It rides well, it's quiet, the engine is smooth and it handles decently within its modest limits. The new exterior look doesn't grab us the right way, but at least this doesn't interfere with the essential utility of this massively useful, relatively large SUV.
Our assessment is that most buyers would probably find the less ornate LX or EX Pilots better long-term companions than the Touring. Besides not being burdened with quite so many self-conscious styling gimmicks, the lower-end Pilots aren't encrusted with electronics that are already headed for obsolescence, they offer exactly the same level of mechanical slickness and they cost a lot less than this $40,665 test vehicle.
Honda should, once again, keep it simple.
http://www.edmunds.com/insidel...27749
06-26-08, 12:08 AM
#6
Lexus Fanatic
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: A better place
Posts: 7,285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Edmunds
What Needs Work:
Styling that needs to be dialed back from 11; not particularly fuel-thrifty; weak brakes.
Styling that needs to be dialed back from 11; not particularly fuel-thrifty; weak brakes.
Also the 0-60 time was horribly slow, even for Edmunds' usually conservative times. A Highlander V6 is much faster, as is a Ford Edge or Mazda CX-9. In fact many 4 cyl midsize sedans and compacts are faster.
So even if styling is ignored, the objective numbers for the new Pilot are not good at all. I'm sure consumers while test-driving will feel how slow the Pilot is as well as the less-than-great braking performance.
Last edited by TRDFantasy; 06-26-08 at 12:13 AM.
06-26-08, 01:29 AM
#7
Lexus Test Driver
I had a chance to sit in the new Pilot a few weeks ago... the first thing catches my attention is the hard plastic on dash and center stack... It's almost too hard to touch. I also tried to sit in the third row but it did not inspire me at all and somehow less comfy than in the first gen.
Trending Topics
10-07-08, 04:38 AM
#9
Lexus Champion
Even Consumer Reports is down on the new Pilot:
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/c...ge-suvs-ov.htm
3 row SUVs
The Ford Flex and Mazda CX-9 rate among the best but the redesigned Honda Pilot slips
The New Ford Flex and the upgraded Mazda CX-9 (both available to subscribers) now rank among the best 3 row SUVs we’ve tested. They trail only the Toyota Highlander Hybrid, the conventional Highlander, and the Acura MDX in our Ratings (available to subscribers) of midsized models.
The redesigned Honda Pilot (available to subscribers), however, has slipped from being one of our top-rated 3 row SUVs. Although it scored only slightly lower, the Pilot drops back to midpack in our rankings, behind 10 other competitive vehicles.
We tested two large 3 row SUVs in addition to the three midsized vehicles in this group: the redesigned Toyota Sequoia and the new Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid (available to subscribers). The Sequoia outscored all of its direct competitors among large SUVs but is far below the pricier Mercedes-Benz GL450. Even with the best fuel economy in the large SUV class, the Tahoe Hybrid ranks only midpack, slightly better than the conventional Tahoe. The GMC Yukon Hybrid is a virtual twin of the Tahoe Hybrid.
Prices of our midsized 3 row SUVs range from $35,830 for the Pilot to $38,615 for the CX-9. The large SUVs are priced at $54,005 for the Sequoia and $55,585 for the Tahoe Hybrid.
The CX-9, Pilot, and Sequoia are the only vehicles in this group that are recommended, thanks to their average or better predicted reliability ratings. The Flex and Tahoe Hybrid are too new for us to have reliability data.
EXPANDED OPTIONS
Three-row SUVs have been popular in recent years. They have seating for up to seven or eight people, so many families now choose them instead of minivans. But the third-row seats in many midsized models have limited space, are cumbersome to access, and are best suited for children. Usually, larger SUVs have roomier third-row seats and extra towing and cargo capacity but are often more expensive to buy and fuel. Overall, minivans still provide the best balance of roominess, manageable size, and fuel economy.
Ford’s new Flex wraps a versatile, cavernous interior in a distinctly boxy styling. It is also lower and more wagon-like than others in this class.
The Mazda CX-9 has improved considerably since we last tested one in 2007, helped by a larger engine and improved braking. It is one of the sportiest SUVs we’ve driven and has a roomy, quiet, well-crafted interior.
The Pilot remains a very practical vehicle with seating for up to eight, slightly improved fuel economy, and a reasonable price. But pronounced road noise, so-so acceleration and braking, and interior quality that’s not as good as the model it replaces cost it points in our testing.
COMING SOON
More models are being released in this rapidly growing 3 row SUVs category. We could not purchase the Chevrolet Traverse, a twin of the GMC Acadia and Saturn Outlook, or the Kia Borrego in time for this test, but they will be in a future issue.
With consumers looking for better fuel economy, manufacturers are also bringing more hybrid and diesel SUVs to market as quickly as they can. Hybrid versions of the Chrysler Aspen and Dodge Durango are due early this fall, and the Mercedes-Benz GL320 diesel is on sale now. Diesel versions of the Audi Q7 and BMW X5 are imminent.
And if you're looking for a vehicle that is pretty much the polar opposite of the SUV, check out our review of the Smart ForTwo car.
Posted: October 2008 — Consumer Reports Magazine issue: November 2008
3 row SUVs
The Ford Flex and Mazda CX-9 rate among the best but the redesigned Honda Pilot slips
The New Ford Flex and the upgraded Mazda CX-9 (both available to subscribers) now rank among the best 3 row SUVs we’ve tested. They trail only the Toyota Highlander Hybrid, the conventional Highlander, and the Acura MDX in our Ratings (available to subscribers) of midsized models.
The redesigned Honda Pilot (available to subscribers), however, has slipped from being one of our top-rated 3 row SUVs. Although it scored only slightly lower, the Pilot drops back to midpack in our rankings, behind 10 other competitive vehicles.
We tested two large 3 row SUVs in addition to the three midsized vehicles in this group: the redesigned Toyota Sequoia and the new Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid (available to subscribers). The Sequoia outscored all of its direct competitors among large SUVs but is far below the pricier Mercedes-Benz GL450. Even with the best fuel economy in the large SUV class, the Tahoe Hybrid ranks only midpack, slightly better than the conventional Tahoe. The GMC Yukon Hybrid is a virtual twin of the Tahoe Hybrid.
Prices of our midsized 3 row SUVs range from $35,830 for the Pilot to $38,615 for the CX-9. The large SUVs are priced at $54,005 for the Sequoia and $55,585 for the Tahoe Hybrid.
The CX-9, Pilot, and Sequoia are the only vehicles in this group that are recommended, thanks to their average or better predicted reliability ratings. The Flex and Tahoe Hybrid are too new for us to have reliability data.
EXPANDED OPTIONS
Three-row SUVs have been popular in recent years. They have seating for up to seven or eight people, so many families now choose them instead of minivans. But the third-row seats in many midsized models have limited space, are cumbersome to access, and are best suited for children. Usually, larger SUVs have roomier third-row seats and extra towing and cargo capacity but are often more expensive to buy and fuel. Overall, minivans still provide the best balance of roominess, manageable size, and fuel economy.
Ford’s new Flex wraps a versatile, cavernous interior in a distinctly boxy styling. It is also lower and more wagon-like than others in this class.
The Mazda CX-9 has improved considerably since we last tested one in 2007, helped by a larger engine and improved braking. It is one of the sportiest SUVs we’ve driven and has a roomy, quiet, well-crafted interior.
The Pilot remains a very practical vehicle with seating for up to eight, slightly improved fuel economy, and a reasonable price. But pronounced road noise, so-so acceleration and braking, and interior quality that’s not as good as the model it replaces cost it points in our testing.
COMING SOON
More models are being released in this rapidly growing 3 row SUVs category. We could not purchase the Chevrolet Traverse, a twin of the GMC Acadia and Saturn Outlook, or the Kia Borrego in time for this test, but they will be in a future issue.
With consumers looking for better fuel economy, manufacturers are also bringing more hybrid and diesel SUVs to market as quickly as they can. Hybrid versions of the Chrysler Aspen and Dodge Durango are due early this fall, and the Mercedes-Benz GL320 diesel is on sale now. Diesel versions of the Audi Q7 and BMW X5 are imminent.
And if you're looking for a vehicle that is pretty much the polar opposite of the SUV, check out our review of the Smart ForTwo car.
Posted: October 2008 — Consumer Reports Magazine issue: November 2008
10-07-08, 05:21 AM
#10
Rookie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Weak brakes? Edmunds complained about weak brakes on the new TSX, and now the new Pilot? Is this a trend now at Edmunds? I've personally noticed weak brakes as well as brake fade for years on a variety of Honda models, a bit strange that Edmunds is noticing it now.
Also the 0-60 time was horribly slow, even for Edmunds' usually conservative times. A Highlander V6 is much faster, as is a Ford Edge or Mazda CX-9. In fact many 4 cyl midsize sedans and compacts are faster.
So even if styling is ignored, the objective numbers for the new Pilot are not good at all. I'm sure consumers while test-driving will feel how slow the Pilot is as well as the less-than-great braking performance.
Also the 0-60 time was horribly slow, even for Edmunds' usually conservative times. A Highlander V6 is much faster, as is a Ford Edge or Mazda CX-9. In fact many 4 cyl midsize sedans and compacts are faster.
So even if styling is ignored, the objective numbers for the new Pilot are not good at all. I'm sure consumers while test-driving will feel how slow the Pilot is as well as the less-than-great braking performance.
Styling unfortunately is just plain ugly
10-07-08, 07:07 AM
#11
The pilot does 0-60 in 9.7 seconds? My gosh how did they get that #? The Pilot's grill everytime I see it reminds me of a
USB port. However I have somewhat opened up my heart to the styling don't hate!
However the interior is another story, it's depressing it really reminds me of the newer Chrysler models now. The blue plastic in the middle reminds me of the Toyota Camry. Neither one looks good in my opinion.
USB port. However I have somewhat opened up my heart to the styling don't hate!
However the interior is another story, it's depressing it really reminds me of the newer Chrysler models now. The blue plastic in the middle reminds me of the Toyota Camry. Neither one looks good in my opinion.
10-07-08, 10:54 AM
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
