| billco302 |
| Hmmm, makes me wonder if I should have waited for this. I just ordered my MDX 11 days ago. Naaa! |
|
|
| ghotie |
| Thanks for the link. Some nice pics, but tough to imagine 8 passenger seating. Can't believe you'd squeeze three across in the 'wayback' (what we call the 3rd seat). |
|
|
| DaleB |
Totally outfitted with leather and Navi for 32K is not bad.
That steering wheel has got to go! The whole interior is design is like something out of the Baltics. I guess they wanted to make sure it did not look as good as an MDX, but why make it look uglier than an Accord? |
|
|
| fancourt |
DaleB,
Uh, to each his own but I have really enjoyed my '98 Accord V6 and it doesn't look ugly. At least not to me. But then I am trading for an "X". Same color as Accord--White. Where is it? Was supposed to have been built Monday but haven't heard from dealer yet. |
|
|
| papawoolf |
What a bummer, it looks like you get NAV or the entertainment system but can't have both.
Pilot EX models add such features as aluminum alloy wheels; synchronized front and rear automatic climate control; a seven-speaker, high-powered stereo; and options including leather interior, a Honda Satellite-linked Navigation System or Honda's DVD Rear Entertainment System.
Hopefully Acura will design the 2003 MDX with the Base Carrier and the DVD Rear Entertainment System from the Pilot. The Pilot carrier looks more usable than the MDX's.
I wonder if the Pilot will have a wait list like the Odyssey and the MDX? If so will the dealers bargain or sell them at MSRP.
This might be an alternative to getting a second MDX. This way the wife can drive it and I can drive the MDX.
:D :D :D |
|
|
| ifeldman |
| I noticed that the Nav controls are on the right of the display, rather than the left, as they currently are with the MDX. I wonder what the rationale was for that. If I want to check my mileage, or move between map display and map/turn display, I would have to reach far. |
|
|
| ghotie |
| I also have a 2000 TL and the controls are on the right of the screen. Makes no sense unless somehow they thought that the passenger would be using it more than the driver. I'm glad they were moved to the left side on the MDX. |
|
|
| DaleB |
quote:
Originally posted by fancourt
DaleB,
Uh, to each his own but I have really enjoyed my '98 Accord V6 and it doesn't look ugly.
Sorry, I mistated my remark. I don't think an ACCORD looks ugly at all (inside or outside), but the interior of the Pilot does IMHO.
Artist's conceptions of the exterior Pilot make it look quite good from the outside. |
|
|
| Gar |
Ghotie,
So you also call the 3rd seat a "wayback" eh?
I thought that term was unique to our family. We've been using it since our sons were little guys.
Gar in Indy
Go Indiana !! |
|
|
| MDXtrous |
| I think the silver is actually very nice. I think the red had reminded me too much of the first gen CRV. But definitely not bad for the budget conscious. |
|
|
| Erik |
The Pilot looks to be a fine vehicle. I would imagine that it will sell well. However, one significant reason (of several) that I bought the MDX is that, except for the Aztec, it is the only SUV with a NHTSA 4-star rollover resistance rating. For safety minded folk like me, this was a critical factor. Honda claims that they expect the Pilot to have 5-star passenger and driver crash test ratings, which is wonderful of course. But, will they join the ranks of MDX and Aztec with a 4 star rollover resistance rating? Has anyone heard of Honda or anyone else suggesting that the Pilot's rollover rating will be 4 star? Who knows, maybe it will indeed be. After all, it is going to be wider than the MDX. But, it's also going to be shorter and higher, so I have no guess. I believe that the statistic is that 80%(!) of all fatalities in SUV accidents occur in rollovers. So, the Pilot's rollover resistance is as of yet unknown, plus '03 will be the Pilot's first model year (always a risk), not to mention that the MDX is better looking, and I am content with my choice of the '02 MDX. I kinda wish that I could wait for the '03 and get the more powerful engine, but on the other hand, won't gas mileage suffer with the more powerful engine?
peace |
|
|
| Drew |
quote:
Originally posted by papawoolf
What a bummer, it looks like you get NAV or the entertainment system but can't have both.
Pilot EX models add such features as aluminum alloy wheels; synchronized front and rear automatic climate control; a seven-speaker, high-powered stereo; and options including leather interior, a Honda Satellite-linked Navigation System or Honda's DVD Rear Entertainment System.
Hopefully Acura will design the 2003 MDX with the Base Carrier and the DVD Rear Entertainment System from the Pilot. The Pilot carrier looks more usable than the MDX's.
The reason why you can't get both is because the radio headunit also controls the DVD entertaintment system. As a result, if you get the navigation system, you lose this multi-function headunit for the navigation screen. |
|
|
| Drew |
quote:
Originally posted by Erik
The Pilot looks to be a fine vehicle. I would imagine that it will sell well. However, one significant reason (of several) that I bought the MDX is that, except for the Aztec, it is the only SUV with a NHTSA 4-star rollover resistance rating. For safety minded folk like me, this was a critical factor. Honda claims that they expect the Pilot to have 5-star passenger and driver crash test ratings, which is wonderful of course. But, will they join the ranks of MDX and Aztec with a 4 star rollover resistance rating? Has anyone heard of Honda or anyone else suggesting that the Pilot's rollover rating will be 4 star? Who knows, maybe it will indeed be. After all, it is going to be wider than the MDX. But, it's also going to be shorter and higher, so I have no guess. I believe that the statistic is that 80%(!) of all fatalities in SUV accidents occur in rollovers. So, the Pilot's rollover resistance is as of yet unknown, plus '03 will be the Pilot's first model year (always a risk), not to mention that the MDX is better looking, and I am content with my choice of the '02 MDX. I kinda wish that I could wait for the '03 and get the more powerful engine, but on the other hand, won't gas mileage suffer with the more powerful engine?
peace
The answer to your question about the rollover rating is probably yes, since the MDX and Pilot share very similar dimensions and ground clearance. While the NHTSA's ratings are helpful, they are also quite useless in that they are static measurements and do not take into account real world conditions. That is, static measurements cannot take into account the benefits of stability control, or different suspension tuning. For example, the Corvette, despite its low centre of gravity and width, had one of the highest rollover figures.
This is one major reason that I don't put a lot of stock into the NHTSA's rollover ratings. Real world tests, such as what Consumer Reports conducts are far more realistic. Even the NHTSA realises this and is developing dynamic rollover tests. The static measurements are to a large extent, to give the public something to look at in the interim. Unfortunately, it is misleading has the potential of causing a lot of confusion to those who are less informed about the specifics. |
|
|
| vicpai |
| ........the article did not mention the Pilot's dimensions. Articles I've read before stated that the Pilot's length is shorter than the MDX, some others speculated that it would be the same as the MDX........but speculation on width ranged from wider than MDX :eek: to narrower........any insiders know anything?? |
|
|
| Tech555 |
| Very true. If you have to make an emergency turn off an Interstate with an embankment at 70MPH, you are probably going to roll over in any SUV. Fortunately most of the rollover deaths are caused by people not being buckled in and they get ejected from the vehicle. (Note that Airbags do little to stop this so it is important to use your seatbelt also) The other big problems are the roof will cave in and the seats can break. Unfortunately the NHTSA does not test for this so you don't know what will happen. |
|
|
| wmquan |
quote:
Originally posted by Drew
While the NHTSA's ratings are helpful, they are also quite useless in that they are static measurements and do not take into account real world conditions.
Saying that the NHTSA rollover ratings are "helpful" but also "quite useless" is a rather contradictory statement. I don't think something can be both polar opposites at the same time. ;)
I agree that the rollover ratings do have limitations and do not factor in features like stability control. However, I think they're a base comparison mark and then it's up to the consumer to factor in emergency handling tests, etc. until NHTSA comes up with something better. E.g. if someone sees an SUV with a one-star rating, I'm not sure if they'd feel comfortable buying it over an SUV with a four-star recommendation. Suspension tuning, stability control, etc. may obviously change it somewhat but the bottom line is that the vehicle has a general weight/mass distribution that is more prone to a rollover.
quote:
For example, the Corvette, despite its low centre of gravity and width, had one of the highest rollover figures.
This is where you really have to take the statistics with a grain of salt. One reason the Corvette rolls over a lot is because their owners are pushing the vehicles a lot more. One's more likely to do a risky, potentially-rollover-inducing trick in a 'vette than in a Buick Park Avenue. Not just that the vehicle encourages it, but the demographics of the driver makes that driver less likely to push things on the highway.
As Tech555 mentioned, the other gimmick with the rollover statistics is that most of the deaths in rollovers are caused by people not buckling up. Granted that if more people buckled in, some of them still might be killed by a roof cave-in. But these stats have to be used and taken with care.
This all said, I wouldn't worry about a Pilot being more rollover-prone than an MDX, at least as far as the rollover rating goes. Though the Pilot will probably not come with tires as good as the MDX (Touring, at least), and that's always a factor in avoiding an accident in the first place.
And, frankly, the limitation of the rollover resistance rating is reflected by the fact the MDX is a below-average performer in the emergency handling test as conducted by Consumer Reports, and also noted by Motor Week in their test. This is where lack of stability control hurts the vehicle (in terms of avoiding the accident that triggers the rollover), and I'd postulate, without scientific proof to back this up, the MDX is no more rollover-proof than some three-star rollover resistance vehicles that have better emergency handling.
And I don't believe Acura has made strong statements about how crush-resistant their roof is in a rollover. Let's hope that it is at least fairly sturdy and doesn't crumple like an aluminum can. Photos of RX300 rollovers have provided some indication that it is not good in rollovers, whereas ML's are advertised with the vehicle rolling like crazy without any crushing. The new Volvo XC90 SUV is apparently tested for rollovers by the manufacturer and has reinforced steel to prevent crushing. Also have seen an X5 rollover photo that wasn't encouraging either. Of course, the photos aren't backed up with scientific evidence to fully document the circumstances of the crash. |
|
|
| Erik |
You've given me some things to think about, wmquan. I certainly agree with your point about the rollover resistance rating being a base comparison mark, as well as your point about 'vette drivers driving differently than Park Ave drivers. However, I was shamefully unaware that Consumer Reports rated the MDX as a below-average performer in the emergency handling test. Can you shed any more light on that test? Was this result relative to other SUVs, or all vehicles? I would have thought that since it is wide and reasonably powerful, the MDX would perform reasonably well in emergency handling. That's what I get for assuming.
The roof strength point is another good one too. Perhaps from a safety perspective, the MDX will prove to be no better than the Pilot. Maybe if I want the safest SUV (and I do not want an ML), I should be waiting for the XC90...if I want to take a chance on a first year model vehicle...which I'm not sure that I do.
I know that I may be perceived as being a bit obssesive about the safety issue, but hey, I've got infant twins. I want to know that I'm doing all I reasonably can.
hmm... |
|
|
| Soichiro Honda |
| Really great vehicle.... can't wait! |
|
|
| donsev |
quote:
Originally posted by Erik
I was shamefully unaware that Consumer Reports rated the MDX as a below-average performer in the emergency handling test. Can you shed any more light on that test? Was this result relative to other SUVs, or all vehicles? I would have thought that since it is wide and reasonably powerful, the MDX would perform reasonably well in emergency handling
Actually, If I recall correctly, CR gave the MDX emergency handling a half black (fair) same as many other SUVs (including the Highlander WITH VSC)
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even with electonic stability control....the Highlander proved a little slow and sloppy when negotiating our emergency-avoidance maneuvers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would not characterize the half black as being below average - it depends entirely on the data set (i.e. All cars, sports cars, SUVs, wagons, etc - although I believe that CR DOES compare emergency handling across WAGONS and SUVs for their reference point). As far as I know, only one other true SUV achieved a higher emergency handling rating - the X5 with a half red circle. I may be wrong but I believe that CR's earlier test of the ML320 w/o stability control, received the same rating as the MDX (Drew?) |
|
|
| Solid |
| I'm so pissed! Why would they make something very similar to there higher end Acura MDX. |
|
|
| davisdog |
Because they are confident they can sell all they can make of both...The Odyssey (and now MDX) are now proven platforms and honda typically builds on success. The Pilot will appeal to several groups (including some who would have chosen the MDX otherwise). For one, many people will prefer this because it has a more traditional SUV look (like the american counterparts) instead of the more luxury (Lexus etc...) curves that the MDX has.
If you have an MDX don't worry about it...you got a wonderful SUV (and I'm sure the Pilot will also be one for those that chose it) |
|
|
| renov8r |
quote:
Originally posted by donsev
Actually, If I recall correctly, CR gave the MDX emergency handling a half black (fair) same as many other SUVs (including the Highlander WITH VSC)
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even with electonic stability control....the Highlander proved a little slow and sloppy when negotiating our emergency-avoidance maneuvers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would not characterize the half black as being below average - it depends entirely on the data set (i.e. All cars, sports cars, SUVs, wagons, etc - although I believe that CR DOES compare emergency handling across WAGONS and SUVs for their reference point). As far as I know, only one other true SUV achieved a higher emergency handling rating - the X5 with a half red circle. I may be wrong but I believe that CR's earlier test of the ML320 w/o stability control, received the same rating as the MDX (Drew?)
AND LET'S NOT forget that CU pretty much never puts actual number generating test equipment on vehicle. Instead they rely on "real world" tests, which for the most part mean "seat of the pants". Gee, do you think that the overall impression of the X5 is more "driver oriented" than other SUVs? (Realize fully that overall impression, by default, means that IMAGE IN THE TESTER'S head plays a role...)
It would be so cool to see CU try its "emergancy lane change" test and other "accident avoidance" manuevers with a F1 car and state the results were only "fair". ;) |
|
|
| wmquan |
quote:
Originally posted by Erik
... However, I was shamefully unaware that Consumer Reports rated the MDX as a below-average performer in the emergency handling test. Can you shed any more light on that test? Was this result relative to other SUVs, or all vehicles?
...
The roof strength point is another good one too. Perhaps from a safety perspective, the MDX will prove to be no better than the Pilot. Maybe if I want the safest SUV (and I do not want an ML), I should be waiting for the XC90...if I want to take a chance on a first year model vehicle...which I'm not sure that I do.
Erik,
You can search for "emergency handling" and you'll find threads like this one on the CR test:
http://www.acuramdx.org/forums/show...=&threadid=2066
Net-net, CR's scale is across all vehicles. SUV's usually score below average or just average (the X5 is one of the few -- assuming there are more, which I'm not sure about -- SUV's that score above average). The MDX scored below average.
If the Highlander with VSC scores only below average, I wonder what the non-VSC Highlander does?
SUV's that have scored "average" include the 2001 and later (after VSC was added) RX300 and the ML.
I wouldn't discount the CR emergency handling test as "seat of the pants," though. During the CR test, the MDX fishtailed, there's nothing seat of the pants about that. It also fishtailed during Motor Week's slalom too, though not by a huge amount (I saw the video). That's an indication of emergency handling that can be better, period.
I can understand about obsessing about safety. I thought long and hard before buying the MDX. Unfortunately there are no absolutes in safety, even with various equipment and techniques.
I think the MDX is very safe. Excellent crash test performance, some real-world accidents documented on this system, etc. That said, I think that the ML and the upcoming XC90 carry safety one degree higher. This despite the fact that the ML's crash test score isn't as good as the MDX's -- I think it's made up for in other areas.
So if you're looking for a very safe vehicle, the MDX may be fine for your priorities. But if you want that n-th degree of safety and are willing to accept tradeoffs in other areas (both good and bad; I really don't want this thread to turn into another long SUV war; you can search for info on other vehicles or go their respective websites), I'd look at the XC90 or ML. They have some safety equipment you just can't get on the MDX -- e.g. side curtain airbags, rear side airbags (in the case of the ML, though they are somewhat controversial when children are in the back), Brake Assist, bi-xenon headlamps, stability control, better headrests (especially the Volvo), and documented roof crush protection (I'd have to see some factory film of MDX rollover tests to be confident that it'll stand up to a rollover).
Good luck! |
|
|
| JTM |
| hmm... Other than bigger cargo space.. I still think MDX has better interior and exterior looking. :) Go Go X~~~~ |
|
|
| Erik |
Thanks again, wmquan. Very helpful stuff. I appreciate it.
Agreed - few absolutes in safety. Honestly, I do wish that the XC90 were available now so I could at least test drive it. But I don't think that I can really wait until November to get a new vehicle, plus I don't know that I'd be able to afford it. From what I've read, I expect that it'll be about 5k more than the base model MDX. Which leaves me with one probably not definitively answerable question: Will the Pilot be at least as safe as the MDX? Even though it ships in June, who knows when NHTSA, IIHS and CR will have crash results on it. But if I could know that it will indeed be at least as safe as the MDX, and that I could get one this summer, I'd be inclined to seriously consider cancelling my MDX order (it's due in a week) and saving 5K on a Pilot. Oh, and while I'm at it, I'd also like peace on earth and goodwill toward men. |
|
|
| wmquan |
quote:
Originally posted by Erik
Honestly, I do wish that the XC90 were available now so I could at least test drive it.
...
Will the Pilot be at least as safe as the MDX? ...
It is very, very difficult to predict. My personal opinion is that it should be very close. The MDX was originally based on the Honda Odyssey, but through its more advanced design and some more consideration to safety, exceeds the Odyssey in crash testing. So Honda/Acura knows how to build a vehicle that at least performs well in crash tests. The new Civic also fares extremely well.
Thus it would be logical that the Pilot should fare as well in the crash tests. In fact, it might actually do a bit better if Honda has taken the time to incorporate more improvements.
The only safety items that jump out at me in looking at the Pilot is the likelihood that it'll have weaker tires than the MDX Touring's Michelin Cross Terrains, but that is correctable. So unless Honda otherwise skimped on the Pilot, it should be fine.
I guess a key question is, has Honda made a statement that the Pilot will achieve the highest scores in crash tests (5-stars NHTSA, Good IIHS)? Acura made a similar statement with the MDX before it was released, and they were true to their word. If Honda has made the same statement, then I would take their word for it.
I agree that the Volvo XC90 will probably be expensive, as most Volvos are. The fact that the XC70 wagon sells for around $40k is a glaring indicator of just how much the more extensive XC90 may be priced at. Plus, frankly, Volvo quality has taken a definite dive and I wouldn't go near a first-year one. Not only that, but Volvos are quite expensive to maintain, and, unlike their fellow European SUV's like the X5 and ML320, do not include regularly scheduled maintenance in the purchase price.
========== Message edited after original post ==========
Okay, the press release says that Honda anticipates 5-star ratings for front and side. I assume they also means good on the IIHS test (which is often more demanding). Given that, I think the Pilot will be fine but there are no certainties here.
Hmmm $32k for a top-line Pilot. I assume that includes either the nav or the rear seat entertainment system. If so, then it is a relative bargain compared to the 2001/2002 MDX. Main thing it seems to lack is a sunroof and the slightly longer Acura warranty and that Great Acura Treatment (ahem :rolleyes: ). Acura will probably make improvements to the 2003 MDX to try to differentiate it more and justify the price difference. That's progress in the auto industry! |
|
|
| RedMdxMemphis |
quote:
Originally posted by Solid
I'm so pissed! Why would they make something very similar to there higher end Acura MDX.
I second your opinion! What do you get in MDX Touring / Navigation that you don't get from the highest end Honda Pilot?
If one tries to say a Lexus vs Toyota scenario, let's remember the "Total Luxury Experience" on the Acura side is commonly known to less preferrable. Where is the $8K difference we paid to the MDX ? It just seems Honda gaves the whole thing to the Pilot that there isn't much of an edge on the MDX side.
Somebody? |
|
|
| A2MDXer |
| I don't think you should compare the Touring/Nav MDX with the Pilot. From what I have read even a fully optioned Pilot may not have some of the features of a Premium MDX. If you want to compare then use the Premium with Nav. I think that comes to about $37,500 so the diff. is about $5,500 not $8000. Then you factor is a longer warranty and better styling.... My guess is that many will say the Pilot is a better bargain than the MDX but many will conclude that the extra $$ for the MDX is worth it (maybe on styling alone from the pics I have seen). |
|
|
| mdxpecting |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by RedMdxMemphis
[B]
I second your opinion! What do you get in MDX Touring / Navigation that you don't get from the highest end Honda Pilot?
I also agree - but I can't say I'm surprised:
Civic/Integra
Accord/TL
Offering the Pilot at a much lower cost with comparable specs does seem to "dilute" the value of the MDX. Even comparing the Pilot with the premium MDX, is the warranty, styling and Acura moniker worth $5K?
On the other hand, many of us selectied the MDX based on its value compared with other vehicles in its class (American, ML, X5, RX). And barring the Pilot intro, would probably do so again. |
|
|
| DaleB |
| A comparison with the 2003 MDX would be much more accurate as the Pilot is considered a 2003 model. We should know the true differences in a few more months. |
|
|
| oceanMDX |
| I have to agree with the previous posters who stated that they are disappointed that the Pilot is so similar to the MDX. I'll bet that the Pilot will hurt MDX sales in a significant way. It's my guess that a more powerful engine is now a virtual certainty for the 2003 MDX.:( |
|
|
| wmquan |
As far as I've noticed, thus far the differences between a Pilot and MDX seem to be:
Powertrain
- LEV engine of Pilot, possibly the Odyssey's 2002 engine, possibly running on regular gas instead of premium.
Exterior
- Different styling; nose is different, rear is more vertical.
- Goodyear Integrity tires on Pilot, Integrity's on MDX Premium, Michelin Cross Terrains on MDX Touring. No word on upgrade tire on Pilot.
- Fog lights are extra-cost accessory on Pilot (on at least the LX trim and possibly the EX trim), standard on MDX.
- Pilot LX does not have roof rack like MDX Premium.
- Different wheels, possibly no alloys for (cheaper) LX.
Interior
- Pilot has some more interior room, including alleged 8 passenger capability.
- Available cloth interior.
- 60/40 split of third row seat.
- No moonroof/sunroof on Pilot.
- Available DVD entertainment system on Pilot (can't combine with Navi).
- Pilot electrochromic rear view mirror must be added as accessory.
- Pilot EX comes with in-dash 6-CD changer, whereas MDX Premium only has a magazine changer accessory (extra cost). MDX Touring has in-dash 6-CD changer.
- No memory seats on Pilot -- probably. MDX Touring has memory seats.
- Unknown which (if any) Pilot trims have heated seats.
- Not sure which Pilot trims (if any) have a power passenger seat and/or power driver's seat.
- Some Pilot trims do not have automatic climate control.
Other
- 3 year/36,000 mile warranty on Pilot vs. MDX's 4/50 (though the extended warranty on both will go to 7/100).
- MDX has vaunted Acura Total Luxury Care. :rolleyes: Instead of vaunted Honda service. :D
- Available rear view camera accessory (extra cost) on Pilot. Maybe this will be added later for the MDX as an accessory.
- Backup warning accessory (extra cost) on pilot. Maybe this will be added later for the MDX as an accessory.
- They should both be better-than-average in reliability/quality.
I think more differences will appear as more Pilot info comes out. In general, I suspect the differentiation between the Pilot and the current MDX is not very pronounced, but there are some differences. That'll make the Pilot a bargain for some buyers at the expense of the current MDX, or that'll make the Pilot a non-option for some shoppers in favor of the current MDX. That's life in the auto industry!
I don't think any MDX owner should be shocked at the Pilot being similar to the MDX. It's been well-known that Honda would replace the Passport with an MDX version. When you see the differentiation between the Accord EX V6 and the TL (the TL-S came later), it's also not huge. The differentiation level is somewhere in between the level between a Camry/ES300 and a Maxima/I35 or Pathfinder/QX4 (the latter two which are barely differentiated). |
|
|
| A2MDXer |
| Is it possible that you cannot get the Pilot with a sun/moonroof? This is one of my requirements for a car, especially an SUV. Sure, you can have it done aftermarket but rarely is it as well integrated. I can't imagine not having this as at least an option (I believe the Odyssey also had no such option but that might have changed in 2002). |
|
|
| conradsmith |
wmquam,
That is a very comprehensive list, and some of the things missing from the Pilot (heated seats, memory, power passenger seat, fog lights, and moonroof) are very important to me. There is one other that no one has mentioned. From all of the pictures it appears that the Pilot has a column mounted shift lever on all trims. That was one of the 'features' that really turned me off on the Mazda Tribute. It does give you more console space (see Pilot pics), but it is terrible for anything other than straight highway driving. Of course, that may be just fine for the soccer moms that the Pilot is aimed at.
It also appears that the 3rd row seat isn't really any wider; it just has 3 head rests and a 60/40 split.
- Conrad |
|
|
| Dilbert |
The Pilot is touting 90+ cu ft max cargo (vs 82 in the X) with the ability to carry 4x sheet goods. Does the MDX allow for 48+ inches to lie flat on the floor between the wheel wells?
They are marketing 'utility'' as the Pilot advantage vs luxury in the MDX. Is that sound? Sure wish they would have put a lift up rear window as utility usually means long pipe or moulding sticking out the rear.
Curious as to the wheel and tire size. Anyone? They look more anemic than the MDX. Nothing a set of 275/55/17 x-terrains and 17x8 wheels couldn't fix, I guess, for a mere $1800. |
|
|
| wmquan |
quote:
Originally posted by Dilbert
The Pilot is touting 90+ cu ft max cargo (vs 82 in the X) with the ability to carry 4x sheet goods. Does the MDX allow for 48+ inches to lie flat on the floor between the wheel wells?
They are marketing 'utility'' as the Pilot advantage vs luxury in the MDX. Is that sound? Sure wish they would have put a lift up rear window as utility usually means long pipe or moulding sticking out the rear.
Curious as to the wheel and tire size. Anyone? They look more anemic than the MDX. Nothing a set of 275/55/17 x-terrains and 17x8 wheels couldn't fix, I guess, for a mere $1800.
The Pilot's wheels are 16", vs. the MDX's 17". The tires are Goodyear Integrity's (same model as what comes with the base MDX).
The MDX's cargo area is wide enough to carry a 4-foot-wide item between the wheel wells. Acura marketed this feature too, though you can only put a 4x6 and not a 4x8 sheet in the vehicle because of its length. I don't believe Honda has claimed you can carry a 4x8 sheet in the Pilot with the cargo door closed.
Not sure where the extra cubic feet comes from in the Pilot. Dunno if there's actually extra length or width in there. Maybe some space efficiencies came in, and maybe some of it is the fact that the Pilot's hatch is much straighter than the MDX. |
|
|
| DaleB |
quote:
Curious as to the wheel and tire size. Anyone? They look more anemic than the MDX. Nothing a set of 275/55/17 x-terrains and 17x8 wheels couldn't fix, I guess, for a mere $1800.
A little off the subject but the base M 320 has 17X8 wheels with 255/60 tires.
That's also a sport option for the same size wheels and tires on the X5 which has 17X7.5 wheels as base with 245/65/70 tires.
Maybe will Acura will do something about that with the '03 model.
Otherwise, 2001 and 2002 owners need to take care of that themselves. 255/60/17 tires give virtually the same diameter as the stock 235/65/17 on the MDX now. |
|
|
| MrPrescott |
I have to admit, it looks nice; a lot like the MDX. In fact, many of the features, handles, etc. are the same as the MDX.
Like other's have said, it doesn't look any bigger than the MDX, so 8 passenger seating is a stretch. Maybe Honda buyers aren't as beamy as Acura drivers?!?!;)
Although I like the MDX styling better, I have to admit that I'd probably opt for the Honda simply for the value. One things for sure, this will keep the MDX are rare breed on the road.
I wonder if the rear entertainment option can be transplanted into the MDX? |
|
|
| MDXtrous |
I went to the New York auto show, and the guy demoing the Pilot said the Pilot is wider. If I'm not mistaken it's 2 or 3 inches wider, and 2 or 3 inches shorter overall. It also has pushed the seats further to the sides. (If you take a look at the Acura, you could argue they could have made the 3rd seat a bit wider, they didn't.)
My brother and I, who both have the MDX noticed that it was visibly wider. It also has a 60/40 split.
A note that the little storage "bin" behind the 3rd row is also bigger. There is no special holes to fit in the headrests, since they made it wider almost to the edge of the sides of the car.
So the guy put in the headrests just like any other item. |
|
|
| vicpai |
quote:
Originally posted by MDXtrous
I went to the New York auto show, and the guy demoing the Pilot said the Pilot is wider. If I'm not mistaken it's 2 or 3 inches wider, and 2 or 3 inches shorter overall. It also has pushed the seats further to the sides. (If you take a look at the Acura, you could argue they could have made the 3rd seat a bit wider, they didn't.)
My brother and I, who both have the MDX noticed that it was visibly wider. It also has a 60/40 split.
A note that the little storage "bin" behind the 3rd row is also bigger. There is no special holes to fit in the headrests, since they made it wider almost to the edge of the sides of the car.
So the guy put in the headrests just like any other item.
MDXtrous,
thanks for the info......3 inches wider than the MDX :eek: ?? (does that mean 80 inches wide?? - FYI a Ford Expedition is 78 inches wide).......I'm sorry, I should've asked......do you mean "somehow wider on the inside, but same external dimensions as MDX" or did the guy say it was wider externally as well........and did it look wider on the outside to you??........Thanks! Vic |
|
|
| MDXtrous |
| The impression I got from the guy was it was a bit wider on the outside, but they've managed to squeeze more out of the 2nd and 3rd row widths. |
|
|
| mjhorwitz |
| It's interesting to see that Gray and Fern will be available interior colors. Many MDX (and TL and CL) customers ask me why they can't get a Silver car with gray leather. |
|
|
| ifeldman |
| I wanted so badly to get a gray interior car. I had to settle for black with my MDX, but have gotten used to it. The Lexus also only had a black or tan interior as a choice. I dont understand why gray was not an available choice. |
|
|
| srpbep |
I don't think that we can blame Honda. They always planned on using the Acura SUV as the "base" for the Passport replacement [in fact, it was originally due out last year].
Sure the Pilot will cost less, then agan, the Honda Accord EX-6 with leather costs less than an Acura 3.2 TL [same difference, both built on the Accord platform].
Maybe this will cause Acura to put softer seats in the MDX!! [3.2 TL seats are nicer than Accord IMHO]. |
|
|
| wait4mdx |
Remember all of those above MSRP Acura dealers and the mandaotry accessories. How's this on the Pilot, from College Hills Honda? Supply and demand at its finest, I guess:
Due to the high demand and limited availability of certain vehicles, purchases outside the State of Ohio will carry a "loss of service fee" on top of the regular selling price. These fees only apply to the vehicles listed below.
2003 Pilot $3000
2002 Odyssey $2000
2002 Cr-v $2000
2002 S2000 $2000
2003 Civic Hybrid $1500
2002 Civic Si $1500
(from http://www.collegehillshonda.com/2002.htm) |
|
|
| MDXtheFIXX |
| The more I look at exterior pictures of the Pilot - the more it reminds me of a of slightly bigger Highlander. Blah. As much as I think the back of a MDX looks bland - the front grille more than makes up for it. |
|
|
| wait4mdx |
| Please PM me if you are interested in buying mine. (Agree that the back of the Pilot looks like a Toyota!) |
|
|
| DaleB |
It really doesn't look that bad IMHO, one of the best pics I've seen of it. The interior pics are what really turned me off. The dash in particular.
I made a sorry comment that the interior looks worse than an Accord.
A very bad choice of words. The Accord looks very nice, but the Pilot interior looks inferior.. styling-wise anyway.
Well, so this is the MDX's Highlander in a matter of speaking.
Honda is late to the game, but never fails to deliver the goods; it should do just fine in it's niche. |
|
|
| PCMDX |
I thank the original poster of this Pilot thread. I've been holding out for an MDX for so long. As I got finally close to placing my order last week, we did the numbers and it easily topped $40K. And I knew some time ago that the dark green was no longer available. The MDXs in that color were sharp, not to mention the nice saddle interior.
Anyway, even though the X is an awesome vehicle, seeing the Pilot and knowing the EXL can be had for around the $30K mark (give or take), it was a no brainer. The X may look a tad better (my wife thinks the Pilot looks better - a happy wife is important too), but you can't beat 26MPG on the highway and 90% recyclable parts with the Pilot. It's about as green as an SUV can get. So, I ordered an emerald green Pilot EXL with the tan leather interior. Same deal as the MDX, put your deposit down and hope for the best...
My dealer in SLC tells me I can expect a mid-July delivery. We'll see.
At least my shift from MDX to Pilot won't result in lost revenue for Honda. Both great vehicles!
Anyone out there who wants an MDX, but just can't spend what it takes to get in one comfortably, the Pilot is a slam dunk. This vehicle will be the Accord of SUVs. |
|
|
| GatorGreg |
quote:
Originally posted by PCMDX
I The X may look a tad better (my wife thinks the Pilot looks better - a happy wife is important too), but you can't beat 26MPG on the highway and 90% recyclable parts with the Pilot. It's about as green as an SUV can get.
Sorry, but the Pilot will not get 26 mpg. It gets 17/23 just like the MDX (according to April's "Automobile" magazine). Perhaps you are confusing it with the 2nd gen CR-V which gets 22/26 mpg in the EX auto variety :confused: |
|
|
| MrPrescott |
| I think the Honda engineers used some morphing software to design the pilot! If you take a highlander, a durango, an MDX, a CRV, a Grand Cherokee, and a Sequoia - - - - poof! The Pilot! |
|
|
| JFK |
| I happen to see a Pilot this weekend. When I came up behind it, yet still at quite a distance, I thought at first it was an "X"! As I got closer it did not look as good as an "X", but almost the same width. When I got next to it, it was shorter. It was a pale blue/green and it had Distributor plates. The only other thing I time to notice was the headrest has the open section much like a lot of other cars. It looked OK, but not a nice as my "X". |
|
|
| dwawindsurfer |
| wmquan states that no moonroof/sunroof is available on the Pilot - has this been confirmed? |
|
|
| wlind |
Every post at other sites and sales rep at NY Auto Show has said no moonroof. I think it's because the rear flip down entertainment center would interfere with the moonroof sliding back to open.
I looked at the Pilot at the Auto Show and I'm glad I didn't wait for one over the MDX. The interior is not as nice as the MDX IMHO, and the top of the dash looks like a wet blanket drapped over the dash.
Although mechanically the Pilot & Mdx wil be the same, I think there will be lots of little creature comfort items that the Pilot will not have such as heated seats and side mirrors. If you outfit the Pilot similar to the MDX, they will be close in price from the info that I have seen. Outfitting the Pilot more simply, it will be a great value, but I prefer the MDX. |
|
|
| BostonX |
I'm pretty sure the Pilot will be a success, but whether or not it cuts into sales of the MDX remains to be seen. Buyers willing to pony up 40 grand or more for a luxury vehicle and the status that it provides won't take more than a passing glance at the new Honda. Also, the styling is decidedly more "middle of the road" (so to speak), ensuring that it's audience will be more concerned with practicality than foo foo aesthetics (not to denigrate foo foo aesthetics!).
To each his own and I'd choose the MDX over the Pilot any day, but next time I'd get the NAVI! |
|
|
| MDXLuvr |
interesting discussion. I would still buy my 'X, then again if i wanted to wait for the Pilot I would have had to wait 2 years(see below).
I am going to the Houston Auto Show next wk. I will try to pin down the salesman regarding width(vic), moonroof, dimensions, and prices.
anything else u want me to ask? |
|
|
| Dilbert |
www.cars.com has a photo of the MDX not quite being able to accomodate the full 48" width of sheet goods at the floor. Edmunds has video footage of the Pilot accepting a regular full sheet of plywood AND closing the hatch.
Luxury/ style- go MDX.
Utility/ value- go Pilot. |
|
|
| Markedoc |
The MDX moonroof/sunroof has to be one of the most disappointing MDX features IMHO. Even with just the back tipped up, it makes far too much noise at speeds over 35 or 40 MPH. Don't know why this is and not sure if it matters. I had a sunroof on my last car (BMW) that made almost no noise and was useful even at highway speeds.
All the MDX sunroof does is take up space and cost money. I would have deleted it as a feature if I could have. |
|
|
| A2MDXer |
quote:
Originally posted by Markedoc
The MDX moonroof/sunroof has to be one of the most disappointing MDX features IMHO. Even with just the back tipped up, it makes far too much noise at speeds over 35 or 40 MPH. Don't know why this is and not sure if it matters. I had a sunroof on my last car (BMW) that made almost no noise and was useful even at highway speeds.
All the MDX sunroof does is take up space and cost money. I would have deleted it as a feature if I could have.
I would not buy an SUV without a moonroof. As for the noise I think it is, at least in part, because of the roof rack. I never really use it in the "tipped-up" position - only wide open. Before I installed my bike rack (i.e. base carrier only), noise was not really different than other SUV I have driven with a rack. I have noticed increased wind noise with the bike rack but that is a trade-off that's worth it to me. Maybe others without a rack can describe their feeling about wind noise. |
|
|
| DaleB |
I am actually one owner contemplating the removal of the rack. (First, I have to receive my X!)
I will drive with it on for a month, in most cases with the moonroof closed.
I will try with it open, and with it tilted.
After a month, I will remove it, and report back any noted changes.
I do not plan the installation of a moonroof deflector.
I know there are others on here that have considered removing their rack, and we can see if our conclusions are similar.
Of course, it will vary some if it's a 2001 or 2002, but I think the 2001 will have slightly more noise because of the more forward position of the rack. So I am sure removal in that case will certainly result in a noticeable reduction if I have read previous posts correctly. |
|
|
| paul123 |
| If you want it to be quieter, 1st you have the air deflector installed. This should make it a little quieter, and if want to go further remove the roof rack. Overall all SUV's and trucks are elevated higher off the ground which makes for a louder wind noise. Basically, I only open when at reduced speeds. |
|
|
| mdxrules |
Hello all,
Just wanted to say that my first impression of the Honda Pilot was that it is a 'grown up' CR-V...of course from the '97-'01 years since they changed the CR-V for 2002. I am a previous owner of a 1999 CR-V until it was totaled last month. I've looked at the Pilot photos over and over and do not like the section designed for the navi and stereo. It looks very 'knobby' and inconvenient for the driver. I know we are not suppose to play with the navi when driving, but sometimes I switch from the trip to the map and in the Pilot you have to reach across to do that. I guess I feel that it is inconvenient because I am the only one who drives my MDX since I have no husband or kids. My friends aren't allowed in my new automobile because the last time I took them out in my car (before the MDX) they left food crumbs on the floor, soda cups and cheese was stuck to the seat! I'm better off without them in the MDX. :) Anyhow, I think for those who want the Pilot will find it just as enjoyable as we find our MDX's. The price seems right for those not wanting to spend the money on the MDX. :)
Take care all!
-MDXRULES ;) |
|
|
| pbm317 |
Found Pilot Specs on Honda's Website
Wheelbase - 106.3 inches
Length - 188.0 Inches
Height - 71.7 inches
Width - 77.3 inches
Interior Dimensions. Front/Middle/Rear (inches)
Headroom - 41.9/40.9/38.9
Legroom - 41.4/37.4/30.2
Shoulder Room - 61.6/61.4/58.8
Hiproom - 57.5/56.6/49.0
Cargo room. Behind 3rd seat/Behind 2nd seat/Behind Front Row
16.3/48.7/90.3 cubic feet
Also, you can have EITHER Nav or DVD, not both |
|
|
| wmquan |
(You can get the above info at www.hondacars.com, though you have to sign up.)
So a lot of the early info we got is mostly true, except the stuff speculating about it being 6" shorter, or 3" wider.
Wheels are 16". No apparent moonroof. Here's a comparison of dimensions:
Fascinating. After all the months of rumors about the size -- wider than the MDX, shorter than the MDX, bigger third row -- Honda once again proves that its conservatism wins out and the vehicles are actually extremely similar in dimensions.
Compared to the MDX, the Pilot is ...
0.5" shorter. Since the wheelbase length is the same, the half-inch is probably just the length of the nose or the rear overhang.
0.3" wider. Wonder if this is just because of the mirrors, or perhaps there's more curve on the doors?
Slightly taller, at 71.7" for the EX, 70.6" for the LX (without roof rack?). The MDX is 68.7" without the roof rack, 71.3" with.
The LX is 4,416 lbs, EX is 4,439 lbs, vs 4,374 for the MDX Premium, 4,436 for the MDX Touring.
All in all, the vehicle is pretty much the same as the MDX in terms of exterior size. But it looks like there's more room in the interior.
Front headroom of 41.9/40.9/38.9 vs. 38.7/39.0/36.3. Part of this is the lack of a moonroof, part of it is probably the more upright greenhouse of the vehicle (tall all the way to the back). This should help the taller folks out there.
Legroom of 41.4/37.4/30.2 vs. 41.5/37.8/29.3. Looks like Honda did squeeze 0.9" for the rear seat passengers, which is a pretty critical need. It's tight but like on an airplane, you want that extra inch. The second row got shortened by 0.4" to help out. I'll be the extra 0.4" for the third row came from some modification of seat thickness and whatnot.
Shoulder room of 61.6/61.4/58.8 vs. 61.2/61.1/58.6 is very similar to the MDX with a bit more in the front row. Could this just be the shape of the doors or something? Note that third seat passengers do not have much more shoulder room.
Hiproom of 57.5/56.6/49.0 vs. 56.9/56.3/48.5 shows some gains in the Pilot. 0.6" in the front, just 0.3" in the second row, and 0.5" in the third row.
Cargo capacity of 16.3/48.7/90.3 vs. ???/49.6/82.0 is interesting. The Pilot is the clear winner when the second and third rows are folded down, but the MDX actually has a tiny bit more space with just the third row folded down. Though the Pilot's taller back means some more odd-shaped items can go in the back.
All in all, the dimensions are similar to the MDX with some significant differences. Unfortunately the third row is not really much bigger to get 8 passengers, since it was already tight. Honda basically added a center seatbelt and headrest. Though it should be okay for smaller children, three across is going to be a squeeze. |
|
|
| wmquan |
Varmint wrote this article on the Pilot after inspecting some on a dealer's lot ...
http://66.28.132.100/pilot/pilot_spy.htm
Honda's website and this article (congratulations, Varmint) pretty much confirm what we suspected on differences from the MDX. The Pilot should be extremely competitive in its price range (the only unconfirmed thing left, really).
There are definite differences from the MDX, like the much-discussed column-mounted shifter, 16" wheels (Goodyear Integrity's or Bridgestone Duelers), no moonroof, available DVD entertainment system (though not in conjunction with nav). The eight-passenger seating is a bit of a joke unless you have three small kids. Unfortunately the dash is even somewhat cheaper than the MDX's hard dash and has (shudder) fake metallic-looking plastic. Honda deleted some of the convenience features in the MDX.
But, overall, the vehicles are pretty similar, the MDX as it stands now is like a higher trim level of the Pilot (okay, maybe 1.5 trim levels if you factor in the Touring). Acura will need to differentiate the 2003 MDX more.
Again, it should compete well in its segment and give the Highlander and Explorer trouble. Though Honda's volumes won't be very high. |
|
|
| MDXtrous |
I was able to fit 8 adults, 3 medium built adult ladies in the third row once in the MDX. They actually said "it's comfortable back here." The second row wasn't inclined and the third row was reclined all the way.
I wouldn't say the third row is a joke, especially since the Pilot third row is a little bit wider and has a little bit more legroom. |
|
|
|
