Picture Gallery: 2008 Honda Pilot SE-L | Day 1 | Day 2 | Day 3 | Day 4
 Click Image to Enlarge |
Equipped with such features as a DVD rear entertainment system, security system, power moonroof, fog lights, automatic climate control system, conversation mirror, HomeLink garage opener, outside temperature indicator and an eight-way power adjustable driver’s seat. It is easy to see where Honda packed the value into this vehicle.
 Click Image to Enlarge |
What will all this “value” cost you? The base Pilot starts at $36,820 for the LX-2WD model; choosing the SE causes the price to jump to $43,990 but not only includes all the aforementioned features but also all-wheel drive (AWD) and, as in my tester, leather can be added for only $1530.
Standard for all Pilots is a 3.5liter V6 engine mated to a 5-speed automatic transmission. The engine produces 244hp and 240lb-ft of torque and runs on good old regular fuel. Towing capacity for all AWD equipped Pilots is rated at 2045kg (4500lbs).
For those not in the know (I was not until today) the Pilot is an eight passenger vehicle with two captain chairs in the front row and two three-place bench seats (second and third rows). From the outside the Pilot does not look like it would be capable of holding eight passengers, but it can do it. Whether it can do so in comfort is something I’ll have to look into this week.
|
|
Offering similar features for nearly $10,000 less than competition such as the GMC Acadia the Pilot certainly seems like a bargain at first glance. Being slightly smaller, in both engine and dimensions, than the new offerings from General Motors, such as the GMC Acadia and Saturn Outlook, I expect the Pilot to be a little less on the thirsty side but with a penalty in cargo and passenger space.
2008 Honda Pilot SE-L
MSRP as tested: $45,520
For more information on Honda and the Pilot visit Honda Canada
 Click Image to Enlarge |
Not that I particularly like night time driving or winter for that matter, but it’s a fact of life that the days are getting shorter — unfortunately. At night I have come to the conclusion that the Pilot’s interior is not particularly well lit. There is no overhead ambient lighting, the buttons on the steering wheel do not light up or glow and the back lighting of the gauges is a little too well lit which reduces visibility of the other controls which are barely lit.
 Click Image to Enlarge |
The rest of the Pilot’s interior is well laid out and fairly modern and simple, but it does look slightly dated: you can tell this is an older Honda design with some tweaks, as the new designs are more technical-feeling and a little on the richer side.
Now what people are probably more interested in is the seating arrangements. The front seats are comfortable, as you would expect in a vehicle of this size, with good visibility of the road. The second row bench is fairly comfortable as well and adjustable to allow for third row access, although I found the step up to get to the second row a little high and visibility out the front isn’t so great which could cause you to crane your neck if you are a back seat driver.
The third row is well… useless. Okay, maybe that is a little harsh, but sitting back there isn’t really much fun. Getting in isn’t particularly bad, but watch out getting out: the step down is scary while you try to navigate around the flipped and folded second row. For occasional use the third row is nice to have but it would be cumbersome for anyone but small kids who can get there themselves. With those rear seats up cargo space is pathetic as well, with barely enough room for my gym bag. Of course with the seats folded it opens up a good amount of cargo space, and I suspect most owners would leave those down nearly indefinitely.
 Click Image to Enlarge |
Certainly the Pilot is a complete departure from my beloved sports car genre, but sometimes it is nice to sit back in comfort and cruise down the highway without needing or wanting to scoot around. Sometimes peace and quiet, a smooth ride and comfortable suspension is great too.
 Click Image to Enlarge |
The 3.5 litre V6 engine is very quiet and the five-speed automatic transmission does an excellent job of keeping you in the right gear at the right time. When cold the transmission seems to shift a little late holding the revs just a little bit longer (into the 3500-4000rpm range) but once warm it shifts nice and early if you are not poking the go pedal for more power.
The engine is plenty powerful enough to get you up to speed in a hurry and kick down occurs rather briskly if you ask for extra oomph. Handling and braking are not sports car-like but seem very well sorted; the brakes provide confidence with smooth pedal feel and early bite.
The Pilot does have a lot of ground clearance and a high centre of gravity so handling is not its main goal, but it performs well enough that I am easily able to catch up to sport car drivers in the corners — come on people; I have places to be!
 Click Image to Enlarge |
The funny thing is, the Pilot is no small vehicle. I filled up the fuel tank today and it took over 48 litres of fuel: luckily I had driven over 350km as well, so I averaged 13.9L/100km, which isn’t spectacular by any means but not bad. Most of my driving with the Pilot was on the highway, though.
While at the gas station the cashier asked me if I was in the Chevy — I pointed out it was a Honda and he apologized, saying the size of the Pilot threw him off. Funny how he assumed it was a Chevy based on the size of the vehicle alone.
The Pilot is smooth and quiet, has ample room and is fairly fuel efficient for a vehicle of its size, but with new offerings from General Motors, Ford, Toyota, Mazda and others in the last year or so the Pilot is in need of a redesign to keep up with the ever growing competition in this market segment.
*Rating out of 5:
| 2008 Honda Pilot SE-L | |
| Acceleration | 
|
| Handling |
|
| Comfort | |
| Interior |
|
| Audio System |  |
| Gas Mileage | |
*Rating based on vehicle’s classification
2008 Honda Pilot SE-L
MSRP as tested: $45,520
For more information on Honda and the Pilot visit Honda Canada
October 18, 2007, 04:28:32 pm
I'd tend to agree with you but the fact remains that most people don't want/need a "real 4WD system" (or a real truck based SUV for that matter
October 18, 2007, 07:14:59 pm
Wing, how did you get to this conclusion??? A Saturn Outlook XR AWD with the rear DVD system and the sunroof comes out to $48K including destination.
Personally I would buy an aftermarket DVD system and go for a Mazda CX-9 GT ($48,700) before I'd buy the dated Pilot...
October 18, 2007, 08:18:37 pm Based on the equipment in my tester Acadia. That should read $10,000 less than some of the competition I suppose.
October 18, 2007, 09:35:02 pm The Pilot has been out since...2003? Pretty dated.
Same with the 4Runner.
So CX-9 it is.
October 18, 2007, 11:08:31 pm
When shopping for our Pilot, we looked long and hard at the 4Runner as we both always wanted one.
Here's why we went with the Pilot:
1. Cargo space. For our needs, we would always have had to lower the rear seats on the Toyota. Not so with the Pilot. It's amazing what a few extra inches can do. (easy everyone)
2. Standard equipment. To get side and curtain airbags in the 4runner you had to go to the limited level. That was a HUGE price jump! All levels of the Pilot had this as standard.
3. Dealing: Toyota wouldn't, Honda would.
October 19, 2007, 02:35:46 pm
Here's why we went with the Pilot:
1. Cargo space. For our needs, we would always have had to lower the rear seats on the Toyota. Not so with the Pilot. It's amazing what a few extra inches can do. (easy everyone)
2. Standard equipment. To get side and curtain airbags in the 4runner you had to go to the limited level. That was a HUGE price jump! All levels of the Pilot had this as standard.
One thing the Pilot did seem to have a slight edge on the 4Runner though was the front seats "seemed" a bit wider than the Toyota.
Same with the 4Runner.
So CX-9 it is.
You've got a point though, but comparing a CX9 to a 4Runner is not fair. One is a car with an AWD system for the odd bit of inclimate weather. The 4Runner is a truck based SUV. The V6 also gets surprisingly good fuel economy for what it is - pushing 19MPG in town and low 20s on the highway.
October 20, 2007, 11:45:44 am
Here's why we went with the Pilot:
1. Cargo space. For our needs, we would always have had to lower the rear seats on the Toyota. Not so with the Pilot. It's amazing what a few extra inches can do. (easy everyone)
2. Standard equipment. To get side and curtain airbags in the 4runner you had to go to the limited level. That was a HUGE price jump! All levels of the Pilot had this as standard.
One thing the Pilot did seem to have a slight edge on the 4Runner though was the front seats "seemed" a bit wider than the Toyota.
Same with the 4Runner.
So CX-9 it is.
You've got a point though, but comparing a CX9 to a 4Runner is not fair. One is a car with an AWD system for the odd bit of inclimate weather. The 4Runner is a truck based SUV. The V6 also gets surprisingly good fuel economy for what it is - pushing 19MPG in town and low 20s on the highway.
I see your point about the comparison. Well, the 4Runner can be compared to...the Kia Sorento, Jeep Grand Cherokee...Not much anymore in terms of midsize truck based SUV's. I'd choose the 4Runner those any day.
October 20, 2007, 06:56:20 pm
I see your point about the comparison. Well, the 4Runner can be compared to...the Kia Sorento, Jeep Grand Cherokee...Not much anymore in terms of midsize truck based SUV's. I'd choose the 4Runner those any day.
I agree and it will make a replacement for my Pathfinder rather tough.
We have friends who have the Pilot, they love it. But I agree with others, if space and people friendly is a key, go with a van. The Sienna is available with AWD, even in the base trim, if that is a requirement.
October 20, 2007, 07:02:29 pm
I see your point about the comparison. Well, the 4Runner can be compared to...the Kia Sorento, Jeep Grand Cherokee...Not much anymore in terms of midsize truck based SUV's. I'd choose the 4Runner those any day.
I agree and it will make a replacement for my Pathfinder rather tough.
We have friends who have the Pilot, they love it. But I agree with others, if space and people friendly is a key, go with a van. The Sienna is available with AWD, even in the base trim, if that is a requirement.
I'm finding myself in a similar position. The more I look the more I'm beginning to think perhaps I really don't care for the new crossovers. I'd really like to find a 08 version of my 03 Pathfinder (but NOT the 05 redesign Path!). In terms of a well built reliable vehicle I guess the 4Runner may be about it.
October 20, 2007, 07:22:21 pm
I think the 4Runner is due to change next year. It will be assembled in Mexico (instead of Japan if I'm not mistaken).
October 20, 2007, 07:38:04 pm
I think the 4Runner is due to change next year. It will be assembled in Mexico (instead of Japan if I'm not mistaken).
If that is correct
October 20, 2007, 08:14:06 pm
I see your point about the comparison. Well, the 4Runner can be compared to...the Kia Sorento, Jeep Grand Cherokee...Not much anymore in terms of midsize truck based SUV's. I'd choose the 4Runner those any day.
I agree and it will make a replacement for my Pathfinder rather tough.
We have friends who have the Pilot, they love it. But I agree with others, if space and people friendly is a key, go with a van. The Sienna is available with AWD, even in the base trim, if that is a requirement.
I'm finding myself in a similar position. The more I look the more I'm beginning to think perhaps I really don't care for the new crossovers. I'd really like to find a 08 version of my 03 Pathfinder (but NOT the 05 redesign Path!). In terms of a well built reliable vehicle I guess the 4Runner may be about it.
I think mine will be the XTerra, it is the "new" Pathfinder (same length/wheelbase as the R50 style and better fuel consumption from what I hear) although I will really miss the AllMode transfer case, in which case the current Pathy may be an option.
October 20, 2007, 08:24:30 pm
I think the 4Runner is due to change next year. It will be assembled in Mexico (instead of Japan if I'm not mistaken).
If that is correct
October 21, 2007, 05:58:37 am
I think the 4Runner is due to change next year. It will be assembled in Mexico (instead of Japan if I'm not mistaken).
If that is correct
I don't have any information on this but it "seems" a little unlikely. If past history is any thing to go by most manufacturers have used Mexican production for pretty basic entry level vehicles.
October 21, 2007, 07:16:58 am The one big complaint with the 4Runner has been the amount of 'Governannies" - too much control taken away from the driver and given to those 'black boxes' that mean intervention. Hill descent etc. make the driver less part of the experience with no control over the outcome.
I think ther new Highlander has the same genetic makeup although early reports have not been as critical. As far as Mexican production - Toyota is building a new plant there although they are usually big volume ones and that may mean no 4Runners.
October 21, 2007, 03:53:49 pm
I think you can turn those off, like you can with Stability control and traction control.
October 23, 2007, 10:19:58 am
I think the 4Runner is due to change next year. It will be assembled in Mexico (instead of Japan if I'm not mistaken).
I doubt anyone knows for sure on this forum, but it is unlikely it will be made in Mexico. The numbers of it probably wouldn't make much sense. More likely, they'll continue to make it along side the Prados and Lexus GX470 (they are all basically the same vehicle) in the Tahara plant.
You can not turn off traction control or ABS (well, short of pulling a fuse). You can turn off everything else at the push of a button.
October 23, 2007, 10:56:19 am
I see your point about the comparison. Well, the 4Runner can be compared to...the Kia Sorento, Jeep Grand Cherokee...Not much anymore in terms of midsize truck based SUV's. I'd choose the 4Runner those any day.
I agree and it will make a replacement for my Pathfinder rather tough.
We have friends who have the Pilot, they love it. But I agree with others, if space and people friendly is a key, go with a van. The Sienna is available with AWD, even in the base trim, if that is a requirement.
I'm finding myself in a similar position. The more I look the more I'm beginning to think perhaps I really don't care for the new crossovers. I'd really like to find a 08 version of my 03 Pathfinder (but NOT the 05 redesign Path!). In terms of a well built reliable vehicle I guess the 4Runner may be about it.
I think mine will be the XTerra, it is the "new" Pathfinder (same length/wheelbase as the R50 style and better fuel consumption from what I hear) although I will really miss the AllMode transfer case, in which case the current Pathy may be an option.
I prefer the new Pathfinder to the old one, it shows how subjective styling is. I found the older pathfinders kinda "weak" and urban looking. The new one is boxy but looks tougher. Whether or not it is who knows. All I do know is the the V8 LE with skidplates would make a spunky, luxurious back road cruiser. I found it way more comfortable than the 4Runner.
October 23, 2007, 11:13:24 am
I see your point about the comparison. Well, the 4Runner can be compared to...the Kia Sorento, Jeep Grand Cherokee...Not much anymore in terms of midsize truck based SUV's. I'd choose the 4Runner those any day.
I agree and it will make a replacement for my Pathfinder rather tough.
We have friends who have the Pilot, they love it. But I agree with others, if space and people friendly is a key, go with a van. The Sienna is available with AWD, even in the base trim, if that is a requirement.
I'm finding myself in a similar position. The more I look the more I'm beginning to think perhaps I really don't care for the new crossovers. I'd really like to find a 08 version of my 03 Pathfinder (but NOT the 05 redesign Path!). In terms of a well built reliable vehicle I guess the 4Runner may be about it.
I think mine will be the XTerra, it is the "new" Pathfinder (same length/wheelbase as the R50 style and better fuel consumption from what I hear) although I will really miss the AllMode transfer case, in which case the current Pathy may be an option.
I prefer the new Pathfinder to the old one, it shows how subjective styling is. I found the older pathfinders kinda "weak" and urban looking. The new one is boxy but looks tougher. Whether or not it is who knows. All I do know is the the V8 LE with skidplates would make a spunky, luxurious back road cruiser. I found it way more comfortable than the 4Runner.
I have warmed quite a bit to the new Pathfinder's design. I find it tough, trucky, and attractive without being gimmicky or overstyled. Nice boxy space.
Personally I don't see much to like about the 4Runner and don't know who they're selling them to. Well, sales numbers are lagging so I guess not that many people anymore. It has high step-in with the low seats once inside, a cheap feeling interior IMO (those HVAC knobs are spacey looking plastic), which also lacks width and interior height. It's also fairly expensive. Sure it's pretty tough, but few really need it. An XTerra or Pathfinder or something would do the trick much better IMO.
October 23, 2007, 12:15:32 pm
The virtually unmatched reliability ratings and resale clinched the deal.
October 23, 2007, 07:11:49 pm
I agree with SirA assessment of the 4runner except for the interior quality feel. Though I'm not a big fan of the HVAC or the radio head, I thought the interior design, especially material utilized, was superior to the Nissan Pathfinder. It was high on my list when I was still shopping for a SUV but the exterior design, cramped interior (FJ has better rear seats!) and high price ruled it out. Still today have to buy the Limited if you want side/curtain air bags. Toyota:
Spud, resale value of the 4runner was actually not so great in Canada, and horrible in the USA. The toyota dealer would not order one for stock or demo because of poor (inexistent really) sales and wanted me to order one without test driving one. Now that I think about it, this is one vehicle worth shopping south of the border (MSRP about $12K less, real market price probably at least $16K less than here...). US Dealers were selling way under MSRP a year ago.
Pathfinder's revised interior and V8 engine availability (I really wanted a V8) would definitely worth having a second look at the Nissan IMO.
October 24, 2007, 04:32:50 pm
American pricing in general is far less than Canada. There is a huge cost savings new by more than $10K. Used pricing is obviously also adjusted accordingly.
Don't get me wrong, I know that there are some fine vehicles out there and Nissan makes a good one too.
October 24, 2007, 04:39:30 pm I will conceed the 4Runner feels durable (still don't like the interior) and solid inside and out, plus does get exceptional reliability ratings.
I've been in the newest Pathfinder... don't recall the interior prior to current model year.
October 24, 2007, 07:04:18 pm Spud, no problem, of course we are all entitled to our opinion!
According to Toyota Canada website, side/curtain airbags are not available on the SR5, not even as an option
http://www.toyota.ca/cgi-bin/WebObjects/WWW.woa/11/wo/Home.Vehicles.Go.4Runner-JfAtoSXFMmfreqon4Y30qM/7.15?v122035e%2ehtml
S = Standard O = Option - = Not Available
SR5 V6 LIMITED V6 LIMITED V8
SAFETY
Dual Stage Driver & Passenger Airbag Supplemental Restraint System (SRS) S S S
Front Seat Mounted Side Airbags, Roll-Sensing Front and Rear Head / Side Curtain Airbag - S S
I was actually on the market to buy a SUV and did quite some shopping/research. Yes the 4Runner used to have a very good resale value and the older models (4-5+ year old) still did. The newer models weren't so good. Unless of course you use Don Valley Toyota as your reference
The black book is indicative of the expected value for a trade-in. A 2006 4Runner Limited with 20K kms goes between $27,800 and $29,500. The MSRP in 2006 was $52,500. A Grand Cherokee Limited Hemi had a lower MSRP (about $4k less) and goes between $26,000 and $27,900. Not much difference as far as depreciation goes. And Grand Cherokees don't have a good reputation for resale value.
SirA described very well the 4Runner cramped interior. The floor is so darn high and you can't squeeze your feet under the front seats. The rear seat comfort is even considerably worse than in the Grand Cherokee. Try back to back the FJ and 4Runner rear seats; you'll be very surprised. Looks can be very deceiving...
October 25, 2007, 11:24:03 am It is surprising that toyota didn't address some of the 4Runner's shortcomings. The Lexus GX470 I drove took care of some of them (low seat height and improved headroom) but still had some of the others: Weird tailgate (does the Runner have this?), and lack of rear seat room. The sunvisors were right out of a 70's Chevy weird smooth fuzzy stuff I call mouse fur. Really downmarket.