Review: 2011 Honda Pilot
04-06-10, 05:44 PM
#1
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Review: 2011 Honda Pilot
By general CL interest, a review of the 2011 Honda Pilot.
http://automobiles.honda.com/pilot/
In a Nutshell: Traditional Pilot versatility, typical superb Honda quality, but with some exterior/underhood cost-cutting.
(NAV dash panel shown)
A number of CL posters have expressed interest in the Honda Pilot as a new or used-vehicle purchase, and, though I didn't get any specific review requests in person, several members have asked me, either privately or in public, my opinion of this vehicle. So, since I haven't done a Pilot review for some time (and I can't remember formally writing one up before), I decided to do a full-review of the new 2011 model.
The Pilot has been in production for a number of years now, having essentially (along with the smaller Honda CR-V and Element), replaced the earlier rebadged Isuzu-designed and built SUVs that Honda/Acura marketed in the mid-1990's as the Passport and SLX. The Passport, a rebadged Isuzu Rodeo, while off-road-worthy, was not very impressive in either refinement or reliability. The SLX, a much nicer and more reliabile rebadged Isuzu Trooper, was a lot easier to live with day-by-day, but, unfortunately, failed the Consumer Reports stability test for roll-overs. Honda, after a few years, elected to drop them and design their own SUVs. (Honda ended up with the Isuzu products as a buisness arrangement whereby they gave Isuzu rebadged Civics and first-generation Odysseys, and Isuzu gave them rebadged SUVs in return). So, from Honda engineers at last, came the Honda SUV line that we know today as the CR-V, Element, and Pilot.
The Pilot is derived from the same basic platform that also gives us the U.S.-version Honda Accord, Acura MDX, Acura TL, Honda Odyssey Minivan, Honda Crosstour, and (with an added frame-rail chassis to the unibody), the Honda Ridgeline pickup. (the non-U.S. Accord is smaller and marketed as the Acura TSX). For 2011, Honda has touted a number of changes in its marketing, but the new Pilot seems to be pretty much the same as in the last few years of its second-generation design, with (apparantly) only minor changes. 3 basic trim lines, or versions, are offered, with Honda's traditional marketing more by trim level than by adding individual options. There is an entry-level LX version, an EX or EX-L (L for "Leather"), and the top-line Touring. All three levels come in a choice of FWD or 4WD/AWD version, the ubiquitous Honda/Acura 3.5L V6 with the cylinder-deactivation feature for cruise, and a 5-speed automatic transmission that lacks shift paddles or a Sport-shift gate....but does include an oil-cooler for towing. The V6, in the Pilot-spec version, cranks out 250 HP, a little less than in the Crosstour, but with about the same torque level (253 ft-lbs.). No straight-manual transmission is offered....they usually are not, with V6-powered SUVs.
As of this writing, both 2010 and 2011-model Pilots are in short supply in this part of the country (Mid-Atlantic/NE). A very severe winter this year in this region, with massive blizzards, caused a run-up in Pilot sales that Honda did not plan for in their early-year production run. The Honda rep that gave me the keys today for the one I drove admitted he was embarassed, several times, whan potential Pilot customers would come by and he just didn't have enough on the lot for them. It was basically just take a number and wait. Even today, a month after all the snow melted, he had only three on the lot.......a 2010, a new 2011 4WD Touring model that listed for 41K, and a mid-level 2011 4WD EX-L that listed for about 36K. I chose the 2011 EX-L for the review, as I thought the loaded Touring model, at 41K, was just too much for a Pilot.....you can get a discounted Acura MDX for that money, though the Pilot is more space-efficient than the MDX because of its squarish design. The Touring model had a stunning White Pearl paint job, but the Dark Cherry Pearl on the EX-L I drove was also quite classy (the other Pilot paint colors, from the color-chips in the brochure, are the usual funeral-home shades...more on that below).
There are some disappointing things about the new 2011 Pilot, particularly underhood and in some exterior/interior features, but, overall, I was favorably impressed with it. The 36K price on my test vehicle seemed like a reasonable compromise between the cloth-seat, FWD, base models which start at 29-30K, and the loaded Touring models which, like the one on the lot, can list for 41K or more.
Details coming up.
Model Reviewed: 2011 Honda Pilot EX-L 4WD
Base Price: $35,595
Options: None
Destination/Freight: $710
List Price as Reviewed: $36,305
Drivetrain: On-demand 4WD/AWD, Transverse-mounted 3.5L SOHC I-VTEC V6, 250 HP @ 5700 RPM, Torque 253 Ft-lbs. @ 4800 RPM, 5-speed automatic with heavy-duty cooler.
EPA Mileage Rating: (4WD) 16 City, 22 Highway, 18 Combined
Exterior Color: Dark Cherry Pearl (this is a nice color)
Interior: Beige Leather.
PLUSSES:
Good reliability record.
Smooth, quiet V6.
Seamless cylinder-cutout system.
Smooth, quiet 5-speed automatic.
Slick-operating transmision shifter has no zig-zags.
Relatively good ride comfort for a mid-size SUV.
Relatively good handling for a high-center-of-gravity SUV (but slow steering response).
Good wind noise isolation.
Better road/tire noise control than in previous Hondas.
4500-lb. towing capacity with Class III package.
Well-done paint job.
Attractive (IMO) computer-port-shaped grille.
Attractive (IMO) alloy wheels in upper-line versions.
Relatively easy-to-access battery underhood.
Standard body-side mouldings for parking-lot protection.
Good body sheet metal.
Thick, solid-closing doors.
Well-finished cargo area with superb hardware.
Real spare tire instead of temporary.
Killer stereo sound.
Arctic-cold, quick-cool air-conditioning.
Good front/rear headroom.
Good front/rear legroom.
Many interior cupholders/cubbyholes/compartments.
Excellent interior hardware.
Generally well-done gauges/buttons/controls.
Good rear vision except for thick D-pillar.
MINUSES:
Currently in short supply in some areas.
Adequate, but not strong, acceleration.
Relatively slow steering response.
OK, but not excellent braking action.
Brake pedal location not ideal for large feet.
5-speed automatic has no manual Sport-shift.
Unimpressive EPA gas mileage despite cylinder-shutdown feature.
Relatively poor underhood layout except for battery access.
Paint colors (IMO) too dull and unatractive, except for Dark Cherry Pearl.
Cheap prop-rod for hood, instead of struts.
No underhood sound insulation pad.
Side-mirror housings/hinges flimsier and cheaper-feeling than on other Hondas.
Non-standard cargo-area-cover is an accessory.
Standard non-power rear hatchlid is very stiff to raise/lower.
Awkward rear seatbelt stowage when not in use.
Cheap, hard-plastic dash material.
Hard-to-adjust inside mirror for large hands.
Relatively flat, non-supportive seat cushions.
OK but rather grainy, unimpressive seat leather.
Dull, flat finish on most interior surfaces.
Spare tire hard-to-reach, under rear bumper.
EXTERIOR:
Despite some of the Honda PR, no surprises as you first walk up to the Pilot.....it's pretty much the same as it's been for the last few years. The same versatile, space-efficient boxy design with the attractive (IMO) computer/USB-port-shaped, chrome/brushed-metal-look grille and conservative, non-swept headlights (I'd choose this design, myself, over its more rakish Acura MDX cousin in a heartbeat). Not everyone likes the unusual grille, but I've always thought it was unique, if nothing else, and certainly not ugly. The wheels in all three versions, but especially the alloys on the EX and Touring versions, are also good-looking in my book. The nice, fairly tall-profile 65-series, 17" all-season tires give a reasonably smooth ride (more on that below). Standard body-side-mouldings, a feature rapidly disappearing from new vehiches, help protect from parking-lot dings. On the Pilot, they are black, painted or painted/chrome, depending on the trim model. Though I didn't see them listed in the brochure, splash guards behind all four wheels were on my test vehicle. Nice blacked-out lower-body cladding (except on the Touring model, where it is painted) also helps protect the paint from road debris. As on most purpose-designed SUVs, there is plenty of room underneath for ground clearance, mild off-roading, and for getting a hose underneath to help get things cleaned up. The sheet metal, doors, and body panels seem to be solid and of high-quality, and the doors shut with typical Honda laser-precision and a solid thunk. The squarish rear end and high roofline help rear vision, but the big, thick D-pillar cuts visibility on the rear-corners...more on that below. The paint job is the usual Honda first-rate-quality...the White Diamond Pearl Touring model was low-gloss (like most Oyster/Pearl-white paint) but was well-done and very classy. The Dark Cherry Pearl on my EX-L test vehicle was also very classy. It was a darkish reddish-brown, with a high gloss and only a small amount of orange peel. I did not personally inspect any of the other Pilot paint jobs (there were no other Pilots on the lot), but, from the color-chips in the brochure, I was not impressed....generally the same old Clancy's Funeral-Home stuff, just like many other vehicles today. Best of all, neither the nice White Diamond Pearl or the Dark Cherry Pearl cost extra, like they do on European and a growing number of domestic vehicles. The biggest disappointment on the exterior was probably the flimsy, cheap-feeling side-mirror housings that were totally unlike the slick, solid, easy-swivel/lock mirrors on past Hondas (maybe a little cost-cutting at work here), though the top-level Touring mirrors have integrated turn-signals, a nice feature. All of the rest of the exterior hardware, in typical Honda fashion, was slick, solid, and well-fitted. The body, though of relatively high-stance, was generally low enough that most people probably wouldn't need running-boards getting in and out of the seats, nor are they provided, even on the Touring model.
UNDERHOOD:
Definitely not one of the vehicle's better points. Although the hood was solid and well-fitted, it lacked both an underhood insulation pad and and gas struts to hold it up. So, you have to fumble around with a cheap, crude prop-rod and a retaining-hole....something that, IMO, you should NOT have to do on a mid-size SUV that can list for over 40K. There may be a place for cost-cutting.....but, IMO, on a vehicle of this price, this is definitely not it. The general underhood layout is not the worst I've seen, but, in terms of engine location/mount, could be better. The ubiquitous 3.5L V6, transversely-mounted, sits down low in the compartment, surrounded by components and underhood bracings that you have to reach down over, and, even then, has a big, annoying plastic cover over the top of the engine that blocks access even further. On the good side, however, the battery, on the right side of the engine and relatively uncovered, is fairly easy to access, and dipsticks/reservoirs/filler caps are generally no problem.
INTERIOR:
The interior was generally well-done, well-fitted, and showed the usual Honda solidness of hardware and craftmanship, but also had some faults as well. All of the hardware felt durable, like it would last for years, and the buttons/controls/***** were well-done, slick-operating, and generally easy to use. The STRONG air-conditioning, helped by the green-tint, solar-blocking windows, turned a typical D.C. warm, humid day (noon temperature 85 degrees, headed to 90) into nice, cool comfort in just a few minutes. The leather-covered steering wheel (standard in the EX-L) was well-designed and felt comfortable to hold. The gauges were different from past Hondas in design, but still clear, simple and easy to read......clear faces covered white backgrounds and red/silver/gray-sweep needles. Headroom and legroom, partly because of the conservative high roofline, was good both front and rear, even with the sunroof housing. There were cubbyholes, cupholders, and stash-compartments almost everywhere....the Pilot was obviously designed for either families or carpools. Even the glove box latch, a weak point on some vehicles, felt rock-solid. The 512-watt, Premium stereo, with 10 speakers, was a borderline killer in sound quality....definitely better then I expected. The headliner was reasonably nice and well-fitted, and the second-row seat folded well, with durable hinges/hardware. The center console had a smart, clever, multi-use function, with multi-adjustable covers/sections. The climate-control and stereo controls were generally easy-to-use in my non-NAV-equipped vehicle (I didn't test them out with the NAV).
But there were some minuses inside, too. The second and third-row seatbelts, when not in use, stowed away in awkward ceiling cubby-holes/tabs that were difficult (for me) to use easily. The inside mirror was mounted a little too high and close to the windshield header, making it a little awkward for large hands like mine to firmly grasp and adjust. The rather flat front-seat cushions didn't offer much in the way of support, but, of course, this is not a sports car where you need to stay anchored in sharp corners. The seat leather seemed OK in quality, but was a little too grained, rough, and non-leather-like in feel for my tastes. Still, it was real leather...not the vinyl, MB-Tex, or Leatherette you get in some much more expensive German vehicles. The solid, round, rotating climate/A/C heat vents weren't as easy to aim as traditional up-down/left-right vents. The whole top of the dash was a molded, black, curved/humped, hard-plastic panel that was not very pleasant to look at or feel. The headrests on the seats were stiff to adjust
up and down. And the whole interior, despite the superb quality of (most) of the materials used and the excellent way they were fitted/assembled, just didn't have a well-finished look....there was no wood trim, little in the way of high-gloss surfaces, little metallic trim except for some painted-silver on the shifter, door handles, and center-dash stack. The interior just seemed to have a half-finished look to it, even with the two-tone black/beige option........but, as I said earlier, you can't argue with the underlying quality of the materials used.
CARGO AREA/TRUNK:
The solid but H-E-A-V-Y hatch lid/hinges/struts seem to have designed for WWF guys......unless you have the power-tailgate in the Touring model, you pretty much have to be Hulk Hogan to easily lift ut up and down. I keep my arm/wrist/shoulder muscles in reasonably good shape with daily swimming, and I had to give it some good effort myself. I couldn't check any other non-power models to see if this was in the general design or just a fluke in my test-car, because there were no other 2011 models on the lot (just the power-operated Touring model). So, if you shop for an LX/EX model, make sure to check this out for yourself before you buy one and be sure you can handle it (it might just be a defect on my particular vehicle).
Other than that, the cargo area is generally well-done, with superb materials/hardware. The conservative, high, squared-off roofline, of course, adds to the usable cargo space (one good incentive for choosing a Pilot over an Acura MDX), and vision out the back is generally good except for the large, bulky D-Pillars that block some vision at the corners. Perhaps (?) those large D-Pillars are needed now, because of the new SUV roll-over roof-integrity standards........I did not ask, but it would seem to make sense. The pull-up floor panels, hardware, tie-down hooks, 3rd-seat-fold mechanisms, and almost all of the cargo-area hardware seem to be of tank-level solidness and quality (perhaps this is where the money went that was not spent with the cheapness under the hood). The carpet used is not plush or thick, but solid and strong. Solid pull-tabs on the backs of both 3rd-row seats drop both of them down perfectly flat with the floor, and with the second-row seats if needed. A (seemingly) real spare-tire, instead of a temporary, is provided (this was not verified in the specs), but, to find and unbolt it, you have to get down and crawl under the rear end of the vehicle...not a very pleasant prospect if you get a flat tire on anything other than a nice, dry paved surface. A cargo-area pull-cover (for use when the 3rd-seat is down) is available as an accessory on LX/EX models...the brochure doesn't seem to indicate if it comes standard with the Touring model or as an option/accessory. The 3rd-row seat, when up, is, of course, not as roomy as the second-row seat, but is not bad by the standards of car-based mid-size SUVs.
ON THE ROAD:
Start up the 3.5L V6 with a traditional side-column ignition switch/key, and it idles with the same smoothness/quietness/refinement that it does in other Honda/Acura products. Under acceleration, it is also well-controlled in both the engine and exhaust-noise department...somewhat surprising, considering the cheapness and lack of insulation under the hood mentioned earlier. The vehicle's size/weight, however (more than 4500 lbs. empty, probably 4800-4900 with me and a load of gas in it), takes its toll on acceleration. The 253 ft-lbs. of torque, under this load, gives it adequate pick-up for normal street/highway driving, but don't challenge a Mustang GT or Camaro SS on Friday night. Fortunately, for me at least, the cylinder deactivation system apparantly works seamlessly, despite some comments I have sometimes heard to the contrary. According to specs, the system can run on 3, 4, or 6 cylinders, depending on load and conditions. A green "ECO" light on the dash glows when you are not running on all 6. However, despite the eco-cutoff feature, it still doesn't seem to give very impressive EPA mileage (16/22/18)....the vehicle's weight and heft takes its toll here, too.
The 5-speed automatic transmission is smooth, quiet, and unobtrusive....Honda/Acura automatics seem to have come a long way from the days when they were known for their roughness and bump-shifting. The dash-mounted shifter is typical Honda....smooth/slick/solid-feeling, but, in this case, lacks either shift-paddles or a manual Sport-shift gate for the lever. Again, typical Honda, it also lacks a manual lever-shiftdown from Drive to all the lower gears, going from D to 2 and 1. This lack of manual-control for all the lower gears is something that Honda, IMO, is going to have to address in future models....it is something that they have done repeatedly for some years now.
I generally liked the Pilot's road manners, and was surprised by how well-designed and capable the chassis was. Handling was reasonably free of body roll, despite the high stance and center-of-gravity. Steering response was a little slower than I would like, but OK by mid-size SUV standards, and the steering effort was the way I like it.....smooth, firm, borderline-heavy, and even had a little BMW feel to it (but, of course, was no real BMW). Tracking was good, with little drift (important on narrow roads with a wide vehicle). Overall ride comfort was pretty good....better than expected, partly from the tall 65-series tires, with bumps having relatively little impact. I didn't notice any of the fore/aft, rocking-horse ride motions that high-stance trucks and SUVs used to commonly have. Wind noise was very well-controlled, no doubt from good insulation and the solid, laser-precise-fitted doors. And, surprising for a Honda, road/tire noise was also well-controlled (road noise has been a common Honda complaint or years). So, good job, Honda, on the chassis and suspension.
Another common Honda weakness, though (brakes) still needs a little work. Basic stopping power is OK for a vehicle of this type (you don't expect it to be a Porsche or Ferrari). But the pedal has some mushiness/sponginess (not too bad), doesn't engage well in the first part of its travel, and is located a little too high in relation to the gas pedal. So, as with some other vehicles, my big circus-clown size 15 shoe tends to catch on the underside of the pedal going from gas to brake unless I am careful and remember to lift it slightly. But, again, it's not the worst I've seen.....I had a few brake
pedals that were much worse.
THE VERDICT:
Part of the new Pilot was part of what I expected, part better, and part not-so-good. Honda seems to be a master at screwing their vehicles together at the factory, and I could find little to complain about there. Nor could I complain about the material quality underneath, although the flimsiness of the outside mirrors on this model do seem to be a step down from the past. So does the cheapness under the hood, with the prop-rod and lack of insulation. Some work needs to be done on the brake pedal and transmission shifter design. But the Pilot's drivetrain, though not race-car quick, is seamless and refined, its overall road manners are surprisingly good, its interior generally well-done if a little dull-looking, the paint job well-above average, the stereo also well-above average, and the interior rather space-efficient.
Its price, though not cheap, is not that much out of line compared to the competition. However, unless you specifically want the top-of-the-line Touring version and the standard equipment it offers, I would avoid it. I took a brief look at the one they had in the lot that listed for 41K, and didn't feel that the extra $5000 it cost over the one I drove was worth the extra money. That $5000, for instance, would buy a nice tax-free municipal bond to help retirement or your kid's college fund. As I stated earlier, if you are going to spend 40K or more, and don't need the Pilot's better space efficiency, you might as well get the Acura MDX and its longer warranty, better dealer service, more-plush interior, and more standard equipment.
And, as always............Happy Car Shopping.
MM
http://automobiles.honda.com/pilot/
In a Nutshell: Traditional Pilot versatility, typical superb Honda quality, but with some exterior/underhood cost-cutting.
(NAV dash panel shown)
A number of CL posters have expressed interest in the Honda Pilot as a new or used-vehicle purchase, and, though I didn't get any specific review requests in person, several members have asked me, either privately or in public, my opinion of this vehicle. So, since I haven't done a Pilot review for some time (and I can't remember formally writing one up before), I decided to do a full-review of the new 2011 model.
The Pilot has been in production for a number of years now, having essentially (along with the smaller Honda CR-V and Element), replaced the earlier rebadged Isuzu-designed and built SUVs that Honda/Acura marketed in the mid-1990's as the Passport and SLX. The Passport, a rebadged Isuzu Rodeo, while off-road-worthy, was not very impressive in either refinement or reliability. The SLX, a much nicer and more reliabile rebadged Isuzu Trooper, was a lot easier to live with day-by-day, but, unfortunately, failed the Consumer Reports stability test for roll-overs. Honda, after a few years, elected to drop them and design their own SUVs. (Honda ended up with the Isuzu products as a buisness arrangement whereby they gave Isuzu rebadged Civics and first-generation Odysseys, and Isuzu gave them rebadged SUVs in return). So, from Honda engineers at last, came the Honda SUV line that we know today as the CR-V, Element, and Pilot.
The Pilot is derived from the same basic platform that also gives us the U.S.-version Honda Accord, Acura MDX, Acura TL, Honda Odyssey Minivan, Honda Crosstour, and (with an added frame-rail chassis to the unibody), the Honda Ridgeline pickup. (the non-U.S. Accord is smaller and marketed as the Acura TSX). For 2011, Honda has touted a number of changes in its marketing, but the new Pilot seems to be pretty much the same as in the last few years of its second-generation design, with (apparantly) only minor changes. 3 basic trim lines, or versions, are offered, with Honda's traditional marketing more by trim level than by adding individual options. There is an entry-level LX version, an EX or EX-L (L for "Leather"), and the top-line Touring. All three levels come in a choice of FWD or 4WD/AWD version, the ubiquitous Honda/Acura 3.5L V6 with the cylinder-deactivation feature for cruise, and a 5-speed automatic transmission that lacks shift paddles or a Sport-shift gate....but does include an oil-cooler for towing. The V6, in the Pilot-spec version, cranks out 250 HP, a little less than in the Crosstour, but with about the same torque level (253 ft-lbs.). No straight-manual transmission is offered....they usually are not, with V6-powered SUVs.
As of this writing, both 2010 and 2011-model Pilots are in short supply in this part of the country (Mid-Atlantic/NE). A very severe winter this year in this region, with massive blizzards, caused a run-up in Pilot sales that Honda did not plan for in their early-year production run. The Honda rep that gave me the keys today for the one I drove admitted he was embarassed, several times, whan potential Pilot customers would come by and he just didn't have enough on the lot for them. It was basically just take a number and wait. Even today, a month after all the snow melted, he had only three on the lot.......a 2010, a new 2011 4WD Touring model that listed for 41K, and a mid-level 2011 4WD EX-L that listed for about 36K. I chose the 2011 EX-L for the review, as I thought the loaded Touring model, at 41K, was just too much for a Pilot.....you can get a discounted Acura MDX for that money, though the Pilot is more space-efficient than the MDX because of its squarish design. The Touring model had a stunning White Pearl paint job, but the Dark Cherry Pearl on the EX-L I drove was also quite classy (the other Pilot paint colors, from the color-chips in the brochure, are the usual funeral-home shades...more on that below).
There are some disappointing things about the new 2011 Pilot, particularly underhood and in some exterior/interior features, but, overall, I was favorably impressed with it. The 36K price on my test vehicle seemed like a reasonable compromise between the cloth-seat, FWD, base models which start at 29-30K, and the loaded Touring models which, like the one on the lot, can list for 41K or more.
Details coming up.
Model Reviewed: 2011 Honda Pilot EX-L 4WD
Base Price: $35,595
Options: None
Destination/Freight: $710
List Price as Reviewed: $36,305
Drivetrain: On-demand 4WD/AWD, Transverse-mounted 3.5L SOHC I-VTEC V6, 250 HP @ 5700 RPM, Torque 253 Ft-lbs. @ 4800 RPM, 5-speed automatic with heavy-duty cooler.
EPA Mileage Rating: (4WD) 16 City, 22 Highway, 18 Combined
Exterior Color: Dark Cherry Pearl (this is a nice color)
Interior: Beige Leather.
PLUSSES:
Good reliability record.
Smooth, quiet V6.
Seamless cylinder-cutout system.
Smooth, quiet 5-speed automatic.
Slick-operating transmision shifter has no zig-zags.
Relatively good ride comfort for a mid-size SUV.
Relatively good handling for a high-center-of-gravity SUV (but slow steering response).
Good wind noise isolation.
Better road/tire noise control than in previous Hondas.
4500-lb. towing capacity with Class III package.
Well-done paint job.
Attractive (IMO) computer-port-shaped grille.
Attractive (IMO) alloy wheels in upper-line versions.
Relatively easy-to-access battery underhood.
Standard body-side mouldings for parking-lot protection.
Good body sheet metal.
Thick, solid-closing doors.
Well-finished cargo area with superb hardware.
Real spare tire instead of temporary.
Killer stereo sound.
Arctic-cold, quick-cool air-conditioning.
Good front/rear headroom.
Good front/rear legroom.
Many interior cupholders/cubbyholes/compartments.
Excellent interior hardware.
Generally well-done gauges/buttons/controls.
Good rear vision except for thick D-pillar.
MINUSES:
Currently in short supply in some areas.
Adequate, but not strong, acceleration.
Relatively slow steering response.
OK, but not excellent braking action.
Brake pedal location not ideal for large feet.
5-speed automatic has no manual Sport-shift.
Unimpressive EPA gas mileage despite cylinder-shutdown feature.
Relatively poor underhood layout except for battery access.
Paint colors (IMO) too dull and unatractive, except for Dark Cherry Pearl.
Cheap prop-rod for hood, instead of struts.
No underhood sound insulation pad.
Side-mirror housings/hinges flimsier and cheaper-feeling than on other Hondas.
Non-standard cargo-area-cover is an accessory.
Standard non-power rear hatchlid is very stiff to raise/lower.
Awkward rear seatbelt stowage when not in use.
Cheap, hard-plastic dash material.
Hard-to-adjust inside mirror for large hands.
Relatively flat, non-supportive seat cushions.
OK but rather grainy, unimpressive seat leather.
Dull, flat finish on most interior surfaces.
Spare tire hard-to-reach, under rear bumper.
EXTERIOR:
Despite some of the Honda PR, no surprises as you first walk up to the Pilot.....it's pretty much the same as it's been for the last few years. The same versatile, space-efficient boxy design with the attractive (IMO) computer/USB-port-shaped, chrome/brushed-metal-look grille and conservative, non-swept headlights (I'd choose this design, myself, over its more rakish Acura MDX cousin in a heartbeat). Not everyone likes the unusual grille, but I've always thought it was unique, if nothing else, and certainly not ugly. The wheels in all three versions, but especially the alloys on the EX and Touring versions, are also good-looking in my book. The nice, fairly tall-profile 65-series, 17" all-season tires give a reasonably smooth ride (more on that below). Standard body-side-mouldings, a feature rapidly disappearing from new vehiches, help protect from parking-lot dings. On the Pilot, they are black, painted or painted/chrome, depending on the trim model. Though I didn't see them listed in the brochure, splash guards behind all four wheels were on my test vehicle. Nice blacked-out lower-body cladding (except on the Touring model, where it is painted) also helps protect the paint from road debris. As on most purpose-designed SUVs, there is plenty of room underneath for ground clearance, mild off-roading, and for getting a hose underneath to help get things cleaned up. The sheet metal, doors, and body panels seem to be solid and of high-quality, and the doors shut with typical Honda laser-precision and a solid thunk. The squarish rear end and high roofline help rear vision, but the big, thick D-pillar cuts visibility on the rear-corners...more on that below. The paint job is the usual Honda first-rate-quality...the White Diamond Pearl Touring model was low-gloss (like most Oyster/Pearl-white paint) but was well-done and very classy. The Dark Cherry Pearl on my EX-L test vehicle was also very classy. It was a darkish reddish-brown, with a high gloss and only a small amount of orange peel. I did not personally inspect any of the other Pilot paint jobs (there were no other Pilots on the lot), but, from the color-chips in the brochure, I was not impressed....generally the same old Clancy's Funeral-Home stuff, just like many other vehicles today. Best of all, neither the nice White Diamond Pearl or the Dark Cherry Pearl cost extra, like they do on European and a growing number of domestic vehicles. The biggest disappointment on the exterior was probably the flimsy, cheap-feeling side-mirror housings that were totally unlike the slick, solid, easy-swivel/lock mirrors on past Hondas (maybe a little cost-cutting at work here), though the top-level Touring mirrors have integrated turn-signals, a nice feature. All of the rest of the exterior hardware, in typical Honda fashion, was slick, solid, and well-fitted. The body, though of relatively high-stance, was generally low enough that most people probably wouldn't need running-boards getting in and out of the seats, nor are they provided, even on the Touring model.
UNDERHOOD:
Definitely not one of the vehicle's better points. Although the hood was solid and well-fitted, it lacked both an underhood insulation pad and and gas struts to hold it up. So, you have to fumble around with a cheap, crude prop-rod and a retaining-hole....something that, IMO, you should NOT have to do on a mid-size SUV that can list for over 40K. There may be a place for cost-cutting.....but, IMO, on a vehicle of this price, this is definitely not it. The general underhood layout is not the worst I've seen, but, in terms of engine location/mount, could be better. The ubiquitous 3.5L V6, transversely-mounted, sits down low in the compartment, surrounded by components and underhood bracings that you have to reach down over, and, even then, has a big, annoying plastic cover over the top of the engine that blocks access even further. On the good side, however, the battery, on the right side of the engine and relatively uncovered, is fairly easy to access, and dipsticks/reservoirs/filler caps are generally no problem.
INTERIOR:
The interior was generally well-done, well-fitted, and showed the usual Honda solidness of hardware and craftmanship, but also had some faults as well. All of the hardware felt durable, like it would last for years, and the buttons/controls/***** were well-done, slick-operating, and generally easy to use. The STRONG air-conditioning, helped by the green-tint, solar-blocking windows, turned a typical D.C. warm, humid day (noon temperature 85 degrees, headed to 90) into nice, cool comfort in just a few minutes. The leather-covered steering wheel (standard in the EX-L) was well-designed and felt comfortable to hold. The gauges were different from past Hondas in design, but still clear, simple and easy to read......clear faces covered white backgrounds and red/silver/gray-sweep needles. Headroom and legroom, partly because of the conservative high roofline, was good both front and rear, even with the sunroof housing. There were cubbyholes, cupholders, and stash-compartments almost everywhere....the Pilot was obviously designed for either families or carpools. Even the glove box latch, a weak point on some vehicles, felt rock-solid. The 512-watt, Premium stereo, with 10 speakers, was a borderline killer in sound quality....definitely better then I expected. The headliner was reasonably nice and well-fitted, and the second-row seat folded well, with durable hinges/hardware. The center console had a smart, clever, multi-use function, with multi-adjustable covers/sections. The climate-control and stereo controls were generally easy-to-use in my non-NAV-equipped vehicle (I didn't test them out with the NAV).
But there were some minuses inside, too. The second and third-row seatbelts, when not in use, stowed away in awkward ceiling cubby-holes/tabs that were difficult (for me) to use easily. The inside mirror was mounted a little too high and close to the windshield header, making it a little awkward for large hands like mine to firmly grasp and adjust. The rather flat front-seat cushions didn't offer much in the way of support, but, of course, this is not a sports car where you need to stay anchored in sharp corners. The seat leather seemed OK in quality, but was a little too grained, rough, and non-leather-like in feel for my tastes. Still, it was real leather...not the vinyl, MB-Tex, or Leatherette you get in some much more expensive German vehicles. The solid, round, rotating climate/A/C heat vents weren't as easy to aim as traditional up-down/left-right vents. The whole top of the dash was a molded, black, curved/humped, hard-plastic panel that was not very pleasant to look at or feel. The headrests on the seats were stiff to adjust
up and down. And the whole interior, despite the superb quality of (most) of the materials used and the excellent way they were fitted/assembled, just didn't have a well-finished look....there was no wood trim, little in the way of high-gloss surfaces, little metallic trim except for some painted-silver on the shifter, door handles, and center-dash stack. The interior just seemed to have a half-finished look to it, even with the two-tone black/beige option........but, as I said earlier, you can't argue with the underlying quality of the materials used.
CARGO AREA/TRUNK:
The solid but H-E-A-V-Y hatch lid/hinges/struts seem to have designed for WWF guys......unless you have the power-tailgate in the Touring model, you pretty much have to be Hulk Hogan to easily lift ut up and down. I keep my arm/wrist/shoulder muscles in reasonably good shape with daily swimming, and I had to give it some good effort myself. I couldn't check any other non-power models to see if this was in the general design or just a fluke in my test-car, because there were no other 2011 models on the lot (just the power-operated Touring model). So, if you shop for an LX/EX model, make sure to check this out for yourself before you buy one and be sure you can handle it (it might just be a defect on my particular vehicle).
Other than that, the cargo area is generally well-done, with superb materials/hardware. The conservative, high, squared-off roofline, of course, adds to the usable cargo space (one good incentive for choosing a Pilot over an Acura MDX), and vision out the back is generally good except for the large, bulky D-Pillars that block some vision at the corners. Perhaps (?) those large D-Pillars are needed now, because of the new SUV roll-over roof-integrity standards........I did not ask, but it would seem to make sense. The pull-up floor panels, hardware, tie-down hooks, 3rd-seat-fold mechanisms, and almost all of the cargo-area hardware seem to be of tank-level solidness and quality (perhaps this is where the money went that was not spent with the cheapness under the hood). The carpet used is not plush or thick, but solid and strong. Solid pull-tabs on the backs of both 3rd-row seats drop both of them down perfectly flat with the floor, and with the second-row seats if needed. A (seemingly) real spare-tire, instead of a temporary, is provided (this was not verified in the specs), but, to find and unbolt it, you have to get down and crawl under the rear end of the vehicle...not a very pleasant prospect if you get a flat tire on anything other than a nice, dry paved surface. A cargo-area pull-cover (for use when the 3rd-seat is down) is available as an accessory on LX/EX models...the brochure doesn't seem to indicate if it comes standard with the Touring model or as an option/accessory. The 3rd-row seat, when up, is, of course, not as roomy as the second-row seat, but is not bad by the standards of car-based mid-size SUVs.
ON THE ROAD:
Start up the 3.5L V6 with a traditional side-column ignition switch/key, and it idles with the same smoothness/quietness/refinement that it does in other Honda/Acura products. Under acceleration, it is also well-controlled in both the engine and exhaust-noise department...somewhat surprising, considering the cheapness and lack of insulation under the hood mentioned earlier. The vehicle's size/weight, however (more than 4500 lbs. empty, probably 4800-4900 with me and a load of gas in it), takes its toll on acceleration. The 253 ft-lbs. of torque, under this load, gives it adequate pick-up for normal street/highway driving, but don't challenge a Mustang GT or Camaro SS on Friday night. Fortunately, for me at least, the cylinder deactivation system apparantly works seamlessly, despite some comments I have sometimes heard to the contrary. According to specs, the system can run on 3, 4, or 6 cylinders, depending on load and conditions. A green "ECO" light on the dash glows when you are not running on all 6. However, despite the eco-cutoff feature, it still doesn't seem to give very impressive EPA mileage (16/22/18)....the vehicle's weight and heft takes its toll here, too.
The 5-speed automatic transmission is smooth, quiet, and unobtrusive....Honda/Acura automatics seem to have come a long way from the days when they were known for their roughness and bump-shifting. The dash-mounted shifter is typical Honda....smooth/slick/solid-feeling, but, in this case, lacks either shift-paddles or a manual Sport-shift gate for the lever. Again, typical Honda, it also lacks a manual lever-shiftdown from Drive to all the lower gears, going from D to 2 and 1. This lack of manual-control for all the lower gears is something that Honda, IMO, is going to have to address in future models....it is something that they have done repeatedly for some years now.
I generally liked the Pilot's road manners, and was surprised by how well-designed and capable the chassis was. Handling was reasonably free of body roll, despite the high stance and center-of-gravity. Steering response was a little slower than I would like, but OK by mid-size SUV standards, and the steering effort was the way I like it.....smooth, firm, borderline-heavy, and even had a little BMW feel to it (but, of course, was no real BMW). Tracking was good, with little drift (important on narrow roads with a wide vehicle). Overall ride comfort was pretty good....better than expected, partly from the tall 65-series tires, with bumps having relatively little impact. I didn't notice any of the fore/aft, rocking-horse ride motions that high-stance trucks and SUVs used to commonly have. Wind noise was very well-controlled, no doubt from good insulation and the solid, laser-precise-fitted doors. And, surprising for a Honda, road/tire noise was also well-controlled (road noise has been a common Honda complaint or years). So, good job, Honda, on the chassis and suspension.
Another common Honda weakness, though (brakes) still needs a little work. Basic stopping power is OK for a vehicle of this type (you don't expect it to be a Porsche or Ferrari). But the pedal has some mushiness/sponginess (not too bad), doesn't engage well in the first part of its travel, and is located a little too high in relation to the gas pedal. So, as with some other vehicles, my big circus-clown size 15 shoe tends to catch on the underside of the pedal going from gas to brake unless I am careful and remember to lift it slightly. But, again, it's not the worst I've seen.....I had a few brake
pedals that were much worse.
THE VERDICT:
Part of the new Pilot was part of what I expected, part better, and part not-so-good. Honda seems to be a master at screwing their vehicles together at the factory, and I could find little to complain about there. Nor could I complain about the material quality underneath, although the flimsiness of the outside mirrors on this model do seem to be a step down from the past. So does the cheapness under the hood, with the prop-rod and lack of insulation. Some work needs to be done on the brake pedal and transmission shifter design. But the Pilot's drivetrain, though not race-car quick, is seamless and refined, its overall road manners are surprisingly good, its interior generally well-done if a little dull-looking, the paint job well-above average, the stereo also well-above average, and the interior rather space-efficient.
Its price, though not cheap, is not that much out of line compared to the competition. However, unless you specifically want the top-of-the-line Touring version and the standard equipment it offers, I would avoid it. I took a brief look at the one they had in the lot that listed for 41K, and didn't feel that the extra $5000 it cost over the one I drove was worth the extra money. That $5000, for instance, would buy a nice tax-free municipal bond to help retirement or your kid's college fund. As I stated earlier, if you are going to spend 40K or more, and don't need the Pilot's better space efficiency, you might as well get the Acura MDX and its longer warranty, better dealer service, more-plush interior, and more standard equipment.
And, as always............Happy Car Shopping.
MM
Last edited by mmarshall; 04-07-10 at 08:48 AM.
04-06-10, 08:52 PM
#2
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Next planned reviews, by CL request: 2011 (2012) Hyundai Equus, Ford Fiesta.
These two cars have not been released in the U.S. market yet, (and probably will not be for several months yet), so I may (?) do some others in the meantime. I will review the Nissan Leaf, an all-electric car, if possible.
These two cars have not been released in the U.S. market yet, (and probably will not be for several months yet), so I may (?) do some others in the meantime. I will review the Nissan Leaf, an all-electric car, if possible.
04-06-10, 09:14 PM
#3
Lexus Test Driver
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: il
Posts: 1,439
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nice review! you are so dedicated. i can't wait till your Equus review. that would be something.
i'm sure this is very functional and gets the job done, but i really can't get over the design. Honda somehow managed to screw even more on this. last gen really wasn't that bad looking, but this one is one giant mess. reminds me of everything that was wrong about domestic SUV's 10 years ago.
my 8 year old MDX looks much better than this IMO.
i'm sure this is very functional and gets the job done, but i really can't get over the design. Honda somehow managed to screw even more on this. last gen really wasn't that bad looking, but this one is one giant mess. reminds me of everything that was wrong about domestic SUV's 10 years ago.
my 8 year old MDX looks much better than this IMO.
04-06-10, 09:26 PM
#4
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
In some ways, I can't wait either. I especially want to see how it compares to upper-level Lexus sedans.
i'm sure this is very functional and gets the job done, but i really can't get over the design. Honda somehow managed to screw even more on this. last gen really wasn't that bad looking, but this one is one giant mess. reminds me of everything that was wrong about domestic SUV's 10 years ago.
my 8 year old MDX looks much better than this IMO.
04-06-10, 09:38 PM
#5
Pole Position
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: MD
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While I like the new Pilot design better (aside from maybe the grill) - Honda totally took the square/"blocky" rear end/rear greenhouse look from Jeep.
04-07-10, 06:36 AM
#7
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Honda, along with everybody else. For decades, that was more or less the standard SUV look.....for good reason. Then, some manufacturers started attempting to make SUVs into fashion statements instead of just people/cargo haulers for bad weather. Of course, these non-boxy SUVs sold well (The Lexus RX and Acura MDX are great examples), and made money for their manufacturers, so they proliferated.
Last edited by mmarshall; 04-07-10 at 08:23 AM.
Trending Topics
04-07-10, 01:28 PM
#8
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Here's a bunch more exterior/interior pictures from Honda's own gallery, if you want them:
http://automobiles.honda.com/pilot/exterior-photos.aspx
04-07-10, 05:54 PM
#10
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Which Highlander model is she interested in? The hybrid model might take some time to find.......they may (?) be short supply. But I've got several large Toyota shops near me, though, with a good number of conventional Highlanders...and, yes, a few hybrids here and there.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
