Or you can buy a nicely loaded 2006 Mercedes E350 Wagon with 6 year/100k mile warranty for about the same money as a base Pilot.
 
It also gets 27 mpg on the highway....

Ummm, yeah. 2 mpg better than a Suburban... That's worth what, $15-20 a month? This thing is uglier than a Ridgeline (didn't think that was even possible...), less practical than an Odyssey, less capable than any real SUV. What's the point? What is this better than? To each his own, but I can't figure out any scenario for which there isn't a better alternative.

Karl, I actually like the new Pilot. No, I don't like the stying of the front—and I haven't driven it yet either.
 
I did check one out fairly closely at a dealer and it appears to be a typical Honda in that the (interior) details seem to be very well thought out—and better than the outgoing model.
 
Unlike many, I DO like the boxy design. Why? Because it's very practical in that you can get the "most" stuff into the "least" amount of space.
 
It may not drive or handle like a CX9, but for a vehicle like this—at least for me—that doesn't matter. In the world of "Sport-Utility-Vehicles," Honda puts the emphasis on "Utility," not "Sport," which I think is correct.
 
Yeah, the styling is not great, but it's not a deal-killer for me. I'm far more interested in the "functional" aspects of this vehicle.
 
If anything I wish it were even more truck-like: I'm disappointed that there is no low-range offered as an option. I'm disappointed that the spare tire is still a temporary unit; I think all SUVs (and trucks) should have full size spares. I'm disappointed that they didn't raise the towing another 500 pounds to make it 5K (Class III max).
 
One thing people have to remember: Even in this day of stupid-high fuel prices—there is still a need for trucks and SUVs. That will always be the case. I think when Honda introduces the diesel version of the Pilot this vehicle will start to make more sense to a lot more people.
 
I do agree with you in that the timing of this vehicle's launch couldn't be worse, however.

Even a few years ago, the idea of building a bigger, porkier, thirstier Pilot was just dumb. Was the market really asking for that back then? Gas wasn't THAT cheap. It looks like a Ridgeline with a Commander body. That same drivetrain uses less gas in the Odyssey. The lousy mpg must be due to the weight and that trucky bod. And the sloppy handling and marginal brakes! This is a Honda? [PS - The Honda loyalists here in the East seem to be buying a lot of Pilots, though].

rs, I think what you're looking for is a Pathfinder or Explorer. Comparable price, space, performance, fuel economy. But still a "real" truck with good towing capacity, low range, etc.

ahightower
 
Actually, I'm not looking. :)
 
But yes, I wish it were more like those vehicles in terms of capability. I do prefer Honda's (Jeep-like) frame-unitized body over the BOF construction of the Explorer and Pathfinder. BTW, both the Pathfinder and Explorer are losing the BOF next time around, so you may be right in that those next-gen vehicles may better suit my "wish list."

Honda's poor decisions really have nothing to do with bad timing. Gas prices have nothing do with the Pilot's ugly styling, worst in class hp, odd looking interior and too small wheels. Honda has underacheived with this Pilot but I'm not surprised at all because Honda seems to design new products with no regards for the competition. When the 2003 Pilot came out it was someone ahead of its time and had little competition. The 2009 model wasnt designed to stand out in a fiercely competitive segment, it was designed as if the landscape was the same as it was in 2003.
 
I am so glad Karl kept it real in terms of describing the Pilot. After reading that softball road test on IL I was thinking any hope of objectivity was lost at edmunds/IL. Somehoe IL found ways to praise a vehicle with medicre mileage, worst in class acceleration, inept braking, questionable interior and exterior design and interior materials that look like they came from a Chrysler. I don't expect any harsh criticism of a Honda from IL but I was hoping for some admission that Honda might have missed the mark.
 
I'd buy a CX-9, Acadia or Highlander over this vehicle.

verdi,
 
You can rest assured that any Honda will sell relatively well regardless of merit or the competence of the competition. I am willing to bet most Pilot buyers wont even cross shop the Pilot with anything other than a Highlander. I never understood the success of the first model but it was the first competent Honda midsize SUV so people were bound to be excited.

Hey Karl, was the Enclave in the comparo the long term vehicle or a new '09 model with the more powerful engine?
 
Honda had to make the Pilot boxy as it rides on ridiculously short wheelbase. In order to maximize the interior volume, it needs a verticle rear liftgate and damn near verticle windshield which dictates the box-on-wheels design. The GM Lambdas ride on a 118.9" (~10" longer than the Pilot) wheelbase which enables much swoopier styling will providing more space and better ride characteristic. Honda completely dropped the ball on this car from the exterior styling to the horrible looking interior to it's lackluster powertrain. For '09, the heavier AWD Lambdas get 16/24 without fancy cylinder deactivation and produce 288hp and 270 lbs-ft of twist compared to the Pilot's paltry numbers.
 
All four GM Lambdas are better, the CX-9 is better and so is the Highlander. If I were in the market, I wouldn't even go to a Honda dealership to see this vehicle.

If it wasn't for the front end, this vehicle may be likable. Then again, I find pretty much every Honda product right now to be hideous, so I guess why not the Pilot too?

What a disaster...
 
Honda/Acura has taken its lineup from classic to elegant to bland and now finally to fugly in the last 20 years.
 
BRAVO!!

I like the box-like exterior too. I'm no fan of SUVs, but I do agree that they should be utilitarian first. I wish Honda had given it a more Ridgeline-like front end.
 
I think there are many good things to say about the Pilot and those should be addressed, but even if I were in the market, I wouldn't consider a Pilot either.

Never fear chavis- Honda faithful will tell you that the reliability advantage the Pilot has by virtue of the brand is reason enough alone to skip the other dealerships..

Karl, the Honda Pilot has the OINK OINK!! front end treatment. Like a pig it has gain weight and grown up on all the directions except the engine dept. Honda forgot to drop the 3.7 V6 engine on the pilot with fewer HP and increase the torque to move the extra weight. The interior looks fine for me and the inside space volume is better than the competition I think.

AWD matchup!
 
Ford Expedition *exempt from publishing*
Nissan Armada 12/18
Toyota Sequoia 5.7-liter 13/18
Dodge Durango 5.7-liter 13/18
Jeep Commander 4.7-liter 13/18
Ford Explorer 13/19
Chevy Surburban 5.3-liter 14/19
Volvo XC90 14/20
Chrysler Pacifica 14/22
*2008 OLD HONDA PILOT 15/20*
Mazda CX-7 15/21
Hyundai Veracruz 15/22
Ford Edge 15/22
Volvo XC70 15/22
Toyota Sienna 16/21
Ford Flex 16/22
GM Enclave/Outlook/Acadia 16/22
*HONDA PILOT 16/22*
Toyota Highlander 17/23
Nissan Murano 18/23
 
The Pilot offers 8% fuel saving from the 2008 Honda Pilot.
The Pilot offers 15% fuel saving from the Chevy Suburban.
The Pilot offers 27% fuel saving from the Nissan Armada.
The Pilot offers extreme fuel relief from the Ford Expedition.
 
The Toyota Sienna is the only AWD minivan.
The Pilot offers 3% fuel saving from the Toyota Sienna.
 
The Honda Pilot comes in at #3 on the billboard; the 2 top cars having less utility than the Pilot.

I'm hoping future Pilots offer direct injection and a CVT. Both those features would offer increased performance and better fuel economy.

Your old Pilot got you 18.3 mpg on your routine driving?
Then the new one will get you 19.8 mpg on your routine driving.

Honda's gone and got themselves a Bangle!
  
The only Honda offerings, I think look good are the Civic Coupe (not the sedan) which I think is a stunning little car and the S2000 (Though the S2000CR is tasteless). I thought the looks of the new Accord would grow on me, but six months later I still find it ugly.

Just fix the oinking oink grille please.
 
Not that there's anything wrong with pigs. Pigs are lovely animals. And tasty. Mmmmmmmm grilled pork...

Correction: Above posted comparisons are libel.
Correct calculations as follows:
 
The Pilot offers 7.1% fuel saving from the 2008 Honda Pilot.
The Pilot offers 13.2% fuel saving from the Chevy Suburban.
The Pilot offers 21.1% fuel saving from the Nissan Armada.
The Pilot offers ~26.3% fuel savings from the Ford Expedition (~11/17 mpg).
  
The Toyota Sienna is the only AWD minivan.
The Pilot offers 2.7% fuel saving from the Toyota Sienna.

Karl, I think Mazda6 going larger and heavier was a poorly timed strategy. Mazda6 criticism for it's smaller size compared to Accord and Camry was relevant from 2003 to 2007, now that the 2009 6 is supersized I believe a smaller 6 would have had a competitive edge.
Would ask you to consider discussing the future of the supersized midsize class at a later time.
 
The Pilot styling is certainly not going to win any awards for beauty though I don't find it offensive. I do find the previous Pilot more appealing and was hoping to see the previous Pilot styling applied to the Ridgeline for it's midcyle update.
The polarizing styling of the Ridgeline and Pilot, I just can not understand how the home office is approving it for the US.

The ridgeline is getting this new grille so it will look like the Pilot for 2009. Th exterior of the Pilot isnt really ugly but it is bland and unimaginative. The interior is the real problem.
 
The Pilots fuel efficiency isn't bad for its class, but when Honda is revered by the press and its fans for being "green" I find 16/22 to be a bit diappointing. While the Lambdas give the same mileage, they do so with far more space, weight and superior hp. The Flex is also heavier and larger and yet generates the same mileage figures.
 
I think its pretty ridiculous to brag about the Pilot's mileage relative to a 6000lb Suburban that is over a foot longer.

Obviously the Chevy Suburban is the best bet for your money.
We need to encourage all the mothers in the neighborhood to switch over to Suburbans. What a fantastic automobile.
 
Does your wife have a Suburban yet? Oh. I'm sorry you don't love her that much.

Did it really pork up that much? By the brochure numbers, it picked up 3" between the axles and 50 pounds. An inch wider, an inch lower.
 
50 pounds - or 200 pounds - isn't what's making it slow. Honda's VCM system that kills midrange power is making it slow.

either way its slow. Edmunds clocked the Edge to 60 in 8.3 secs and a FWD Outlook to 60 in 8.2 secs. I think the civic automatic is faster than the Pilot.

The new Pilot is so frumpy looking that it makes the Jeep Commander look modern and sleek.

A good vehicle in a sea of great vehicles. Im dissapointed as well.

I have to play devil's advocate on this one Karl...the new EPA 2008 ratings for the old AWD Pilot are 15/20 so your 18.3 avg you claim for your long-termer is either ridiculously lucky or just an unusual case. I can say from my own experience that more like 16-17 is the best you can expect, especially with a 60:40 mix of city/highway driving.
 
Secondly, it's worth mentioning that according to your own sales stats, the Pilot is selling like gangbusters. I think the reasons for this are simple and have nothing to do with the review you gave it or the reviews that any car magazine or website gives (which by the way is the last reason people buy Toyotas and Hondas these days).
 
Your average typical Honda or Toyota buyer could care less about driving experience and to a lesser degree, looks. Instead, they look for "boring" things like 5-star crash ratings, higher reliability rating per Consumer Reports (sorry, TrueDelta who?) compared with any similar domestic vehicle, resale values that make said domestics blush, and finally - the halo of the Toyota and Honda brands. Now, that resale value point may be changing this year, but I think the rest of the points still hold true. I mean, who wants to buy from one of the 2.8, since one is more than likely going to fall into bankruptcy?? And why buy a gas-guzzling, anecdotally unreliable and finicky German car like the Toureg (which has whole websites dedicated to the hell it has caused some owners)? So, what are you left with? I think some of my fellow posters mentioned them: the Highlander, the Pilot and...um...the CX7 and CX9, neither of which will put the mileage of the Pilot to shame.
 
I'll never say the Pilot is pretty (it never was) but it's boxy frame gives it unbelievable hauling ability. Even my older model has the perfect shape with it's relatively straight greenhouse so that you can really fit in a surprising amount of stuff in there. Oh yeah, and it drives pretty well for a big unibody too.

My opinion is Honda should offer AWD as an option on the Odyssey (for those in the snowbelt) and just drop the Pilot.
 
Since the Odyssey is better in everyway and they are both on the same platform anyhow, I see no reason to offer the inferior Pilot.
 
It just makes Honda look second rate.

The Odyssey's pretty sleek inside and out too.
That Odyssey interior is to die for. My goodness talk about custom limo-like.

"My opinion is Honda should offer AWD as an option on the Odyssey (for those in the snowbelt) and just drop the Pilot."
 
We have a 2005 Odyssey Touring and Ive driven it in a Canadian snow. Trust me, it tracks well enough to not need AWD.
 
My biggest issue is that Honda failed to make the new Pilot... MUCH... better than the previous. On top of that the competition is fierce, the Lamdas, CX9 and Highlander are pretty well executed.

Lots of back-and-forth here, so let's stick to the basics.
 
The new Pilot's direct competition is the Mazda CX-9, Toyota Highlander and whichever GM Lambda you want to pick.
 
Compared to the competition, the Pilot is:
1. Slower than the competition
2. Gets worse mileage than the competition (ties the LARGER Lambdas)
3. Is harder to stop than the competition
4. Handles worse than the competition
 
To me a vehicle should never combine number 1 and 2. Simply unacceptable. Number 3 pretty much negates any safety claims. And number 4 makes it unappealing to the core crossover market (mr. and mrs. john q suburb looking to move kids and occasional cargo around while sitting high and having as CARLIKE driving experience as possible).
 
Sure, somebody out there wants a big, trucky box that has a locking diff, slow steering and a few inches more cargo space (except compared to the Lambdas, which are BIGGER and MORE CARLIKE), but after those 4 people are satisfied, who's buying this in today's $4-plus gas world?
 
P.S. I'd like it noted for the record I didn't bring up the Pilot's gorgeous appearance once in this comment...
 
I guess we'll check the sales numbers in 1 year and find out...

"2. Gets worse mileage than the competition (ties the LARGER Lambdas) "
  
For '09, the Pilot will have WORSE EPA mileage than the Lambdas!! The Traverse will be rated at 17/24 in FWD and 16/23 in AWD and that's pretty darn sad considering the Pilot has a new 3 mode VCM system. The first gen Pilot AWD numbers flat out sucked under the current standards as someone else mentioned since it lacked the original 2 mode VCM system.
  
I wouldn't even mind the negligible differences in mileage if the power was competitive with the competition. As it is, the Pilot is underpowered and Honda has stretched its current J V6 as far as it can go. The only way to get more power would be to increase the compression ratio (as in all Acura V6 models) forcing the need of premium fuel or increase displacement.
  
But, as many have stated, Honda's success has nothing to do with their supposed excellence in engineering (as that ridiculous Ode to Honda IL article read)- it's all about their reputation with buyers. People perceive Honda products as reliable long lasting vehicles, period. They think the Honda factory adds magical pixie dust to the parts to keep it them breaking down. They are not interested in styling, value of excitement.

ugly ugly pugface refrigeratorbox ugly

The Traverse's offical mpg hasn't been published on GM, Chevrolet, or the EPA web site. 17/24 is what the crapo Equinox gets.
 
But the Traverse wins because it's a pretty darn handsome car.
 
It would be hard to call the VCM "sad". The VCM is improving mpg an appropriate amount.
The GMs can do better because they come with the new 3.6-liter engine, and new 6-speed automatic too. Everyone's running on new tech. GM got double new.
Honda only got engine new, transmission old,
Toyota got 3.5-liter engine new and 6-speed transmission new also.

This thing is absolutely ugly, but many Hondas of late have had terrible styling with awesome engineering. Ugliness is only skin-deep but ingenuity lasts forever

"This thing is absolutely ugly, but many Hondas of late have had terrible styling with awesome engineering"
 
But you can get a Honda with the same awesome engineering that isn't butt ugly...stop pretending it's an suv and buy an Odyssey.

"The Traverse's offical mpg hasn't been published on GM, Chevrolet, or the EPA web site. 17/24 is what the crapo Equinox gets. "
 
http://media.gm.com/us/chevrolet/en/product_services/r_trucks/r_c_traverse/09index.html
 
Go see for yourself

PS- the 6 speed's shift logic has been reprogrammed so that should solve all the complaints from the original Lambda models.

Hold the presses, are 1487, opfreak and Karl agreeing on something here? (ie that the Pilot is pointless)

"Secondly, it's worth mentioning that according to your own sales stats, the Pilot is selling like gangbusters."
 
Pilot sales were declining big time before they bumped up incentives on the old model. Get your facts straight. The Edge outsold it last year.
 
"The GMs can do better because they come with the new 3.6-liter engine, and new 6-speed automatic too. Everyone's running on new tech. GM got double new.
Honda only got engine new, transmission old,
Toyota got 3.5-liter engine new and 6-speed transmission new also."
 
I dont think its GM's fault that Honda (known for engineering) doesnt use a 6 speed or DI in its V6. For years we have been told that the Asian companies innovated while the domestics made excuses and relied on "old" technology. Same rules apply now. What has to be emphasized here is that the Pilot is far lighter than the lambdas which makes it mileage less impressive. BTW, the Highlander (or RX350) do not have a 6 speed auto. Only camry, ES350 and Avalon has 6 speed with 3.5L.
 
"Hold the presses, are 1487, opfreak and Karl agreeing on something here? (ie that the Pilot is pointless)"
 
I agree with statements that makes sense. Maybe you will figure that out after a while if you stick around. My positions are consistent. I cant speak for anyone else.
 
Traverse pricing has been announced and its right on top of the Pilot's pricing. I dont see any way the new Pilot can sell as well as the old one when gas is this high and the Flex and Traverse are on the market.

"I agree with statements that makes sense. Maybe you will figure that out after a while if you stick around. My positions are consistent. I cant speak for anyone else."
 
Learn to take a compliment buddy, I was pointing out that for once it didn't degenerate into name calling.
 
Your positions are indeed consistent, thats one thing no one would argue.
 
Back to SUVs, I don't know about the front styling of the Traverse (or the name for that matter), but in both cases its a helluva lot better then the Pilot. I still maintain that the Acadia is the best of the triplets/quadruplets (sp). If I wanted a Land Yacht, the Acadia would indeed by my choice.

"It would be hard to call the VCM "sad". The VCM is improving mpg an appropriate amount."
 
Well I would. If power and weight were equal to the class leaders, than yes I'd say it's mileage is acceptible. However, non of the competition is using a cylinder deactivation scheme and yet meet or exceed the Pilot's mileage with more power AND weight.

i didn't even post here yet, and I got mentioned. I tired to stay away from this... because weren't we a few days ago bashing the domestic market on how they were not targeting the small car market? Yet honda seems to have spent alot of engineering dolllars on a 'bigger' suv?
 
Anyways, my track record with Karls post is probably about 50/50.
 
Honda is alive because its civic is getting class leading gas milage, even with a douby looking design, that I at times like, and and times hate.
 
The accord is selling because there is alot of hidden money in the car (just read the carspace prices paid) and people are getting them for prices that I find amazing... ones that are not reflective of the incentive spending figures edmunds puts out.
 
And yes a box on wheels can be the most efficent use of space, but that doesn't change the fact its ugly.
 
At the end of the day it repersents a bigger point: No automarker had any really clue that gas prices were going to go up as much, and as fast as they did.
 
GM & ford, were caught the most, because they were/are truck companies.
 
Honda never really was, and toyota is trying. Its easy to bash GM&ford for that, but on the other hand, There was a market for those trucks for years, and the imports did little to fill that need.
 
Chrsyler is a basket case, that quite frankly is unfairly lumped into the 'domestic' market.
 
It has been owned for years by germans, and we see how well they respected the brand. All the current designs are stuff that was signed off on overseas.

sorry op, i meant chavis.

"sorry op, i meant chavis."
 
There are times when I agree with Karl and you will see me acknowledge this. He makes good points from time to time, there is no denying that. My beef is not personal with Karl or anyone, I'm just give my opinions and call it as I see it. When I notice paradoxical or unlearned commentary, I will speak on it. It's as simple as that.

"Learn to take a compliment buddy, I was pointing out that for once it didn't degenerate into name calling. "
 
Honestly, I didnt take "agreeing with Karl" to be a compliment. I thought you were just stating a fact. Karl and everyone else who's been around for a while knows that I agree with blog entries that follow some sort of logic. Contrary to popular sentiment I don't agree or disagree with statements based on who authored the statement. Almost everyone makes a good point from time to time I and I am not afraid to concur with anyone.
 
OPfreak,
 
Good points. The idea that only GM and Ford lacked the foresight to see $4/gal gas is rubbish as vehicles like the Pilot and 2007 Tundra prove. The bigger you are the harder you fall and the recent sales declines experienced by the Big 2 are simply a function of their domination of the truck market. If they sold unsuccessful trucks like the Ridgeline and Titan they wouldn't have had so much share to lose when prices increased.
 
If the Pilot is an example of Honda's insight into the future than I am not impressed.
 
BTW, I too find Edmunds incentive numbers unbelievable. Apparently they've never shopped for a Toyota in the Phila area where every model except the Prius is heavily discounted.

AUTHOR: allenfre
DATE: 06/27/2008 06:36:09 PM
EMAIL: allenfre@live.com

I just saw an ad on hulu.com for the new 2wd Pilot...the 'smug' driver applauding himself for his lousy 23 mpg highway driving. I've a 1992 Jeep Cherokee I6 4wd and get 19 mpg highway @ 65 mph. 23 is suppose to be impressive, with 16 years 'advanced' technology (apples to oranges notwithstanding)...on a 2wd? LOL