My review of the 2003 Honda Pilot was quite favorable. I was impressed by its interior design, interior volume, powertrain performance, and affordable price compared to other midsize SUVs. But is this the correct standard? What about compared to a minivan? This time around I test drove the Pilot immediately after driving a Honda Odyssey. In many areas the Pilot falls short of its platform-mate. This raises the issue of why people buy SUVs? Given these reasons, is the Pilot a good choice?

Honda Pilot Reliability

Want better reliability information? Want to really know what difference it will make if you buy a Honda Pilot rather than something else? It's coming in the form of "times in the shop" and "days in the shop" stats. From these you might learn that your first choice, compared to your second choice, is likely to make 2.7 extra trips to the shop in its first five years. You might decide its advantages compensate for this, or you might not. Either way, you'll be able to make a much better informed decision.

To gain access to this information you have a choice: sign up to help provide the data now or pay $24.95 later. For the details, visit my website, www.truedelta.com.

Styling

The #1 reason people buy SUVs rather than minivans is styling. Minivans generally look like boring boxes and suggest a lifestyle enslaved to functionality. SUVs, on the other hand, look rugged and exciting. Well, at least many of them do.

In my review of the 2003 I defended the exterior styling of the Pilot against its many critics. I felt a bit sorry for it. Well, over the past year-and-a-half I’ve grown to like the Pilot’s sheetmetal less and less. I still don’t have so much of an issue with it being boring—the common charge against it. As I said in my first review, many people want a vehicle that will blend in.

But more I look at the Pilot the more its proportions annoy me. To begin with, its wheelbase is about a half-foot too short. Its been at least a decade since a 188-inch body looked okay astride a 106-inch wheelbase. The Pilot’s front-wheel-drive ancestry is not entirely to blame. The Toyota Highlander, itself no beauty, has a slightly longer wheelbase but four inches less overall length. The Nissan Murano’s fractionally shorter body rides upon a 111-inch wheelbase. It’s not the problem of packaging a third row, either. The Highlander offers a third row for 2004. The Volvo XC90 is less than an inch longer than the Pilot but has a 112.6-inch wheelbase. Honda should pay especially close attention to the last—an amazingly well-proportioned vehicle given its basic package—while creating the next-generation Pilot.

The Pilot’s proportions, like those of the similar Buick Rendezvous, also suffer from its minivan heritage. When creating an SUV off a minivan, Honda’s engineers saved a few (million) bucks by not shifting the base of the A-pillars (the ones that frame the windshield). As a result, this base is much further forward than the SUV norm.

Overall, like the Toyota Highlander the Pilot fails to provide a significant styling advantage over a minivan. Both unfairly benefit from the semantics earned by earlier SUVs. The Grand Cherokee, Ford Explorer, and the like earned associations with adventure, fun, ruggedness, and excitement by looking the part, and in some cases by even being capable of playing it. The Pilot and Highlander then waltzed onto the scene late and, because they looked more like SUVs than any other kind of vehicle, “borrowed” these associations.

As I see it, if you’re going to get an SUV instead of a minivan then get one that looks less like a minivan with conventional rear doors and a mild suspension lift. The Acura MDX does a bit better here, but it shares the Pilot’s awkward proportions.

I continue to have far fewer issues with the Pilot’s interior. In this area the Odyssey is the big Honda in need of help. The dark gray interior with faux metal trim continues to look sharp. Many design elements, such as the instrument graphics, air vents, and flow of the center stack into the console, lend it a more upscale, refined, sporty character than even the MDX’s interior, much less the Odyssey’s.

I continue to dislike the way to steering wheel often onstructs the gear indicator for the column shifter. As far as materials are concerned, I drove a cloth EX this time around and found the appearance and tactile quality of this material more than acceptable. The leather looks more upscale, but not as much as it should. The leather in Hondas, like that in Acuras, is of a medium grade. It does not begin to compare to that in the Lexus RX 330. The leather in the Nissan Murano also looks and feels richer.

Accommodations

Like the MDX, the Pilot is roomier than most midsize SUVs. The 77” width is a major contributor—this is Chevy Tahoe and Ford Expedition territory. That said, all seats are not equally roomy, or equally comfortable. The Pilot might be nearly as wide as a Chevrolet Suburban, but it’s much shorter in length.

The Pilot's front seats are plenty roomy, but they could be more comfortable. They are overly flat, and lack enough contour for proper support. You sit on them, not in them. The seats in the MDX and Odyssey are similar. You sit high up, and there is plenty of glass, so visibility is excellent all around. The rear headrests do not block the driver’s view (though for safety tall adults might want them raised).

Relative to the norm, the second row might be the best of the bunch. There’s tons of room in all directions, and the cushion is high enough for proper thigh support. Generously sized vents are placed on the trailing edge of the center console.

The third seat is children-only except for short trips. It’s very low to the floor, providing no thigh support. It’s also less well padded than the second row. As a result, although the Pilot can carry one more person than the Odyssey can, at least four of these will be significantly less comfortable than they would be in the minivan.

Cargo room has great potential. With all three rows up, there’s only enough space behind the third row to handle the average grocery run (16 cubic feet). So the Pilot cannot compete with a Suburban for carrying eight people and their stuff. It’s either/or here. With the third row folded (all seats fold flat, there is no need to remove them) cargo space becomes plentiful at 49 cubic feet. With both rows folded, this volume nearly doubles to 90 cubic feet. The midsize SUV average is in the low 80s.

However, compared to the 146 cubic feet available in the Odyssey 90 doesn’t look so good. The dealer had a Pilot and Odyssey parked next to one another in the showroom. When I opened both tailgates and folded the seats the Odyssey’s cargo volume was obvious. One caveat: Much of the minivan’s advantage is in the height of its cargo area. If the length and width of the cargo area are far more important to you, then the two rank much closer.

Plenty of storage compartments are scattered throughout the interior, especially in the center console. This is one thing Honda tends to do well.

Overall, even an SUV biased strongly towards functionality, as the Pilot is, is significantly less functional than a minivan. Anyone buying this vehicle over the Odyssey is trading off passenger comfort and room for whatever it is SUVs offer. But the Pilot offers little in the way of styling. What about performance?

On the Road

I’m a car person, but with three young children I really could use a package like the Pilot’s. If anyone ever offered a vehicle with three rows of seats that was exciting to drive, they’d have my money. Sadly, the Pilot is not such a vehicle.

First, the powertrain. With 240 horsepower, the Pilot might seem plenty powerful. But these horses have to move 4400 pounds. Acceleration is beyond adequate but hardly exciting. This same engine feels quicker and more responsive in the Odyssey, partly because the Odyssey weighs a bit less but mostly because the minivan has a less numb overall feel.

EPA estimates are 17/22, a bit better than average for a mid-sized SUV. Nissan’s Murano does better, but any truck-based SUV like the Explorer does significantly worse.

The extra stability on slick surfaces afforded by all-wheel-drive is another reason people supposedly buy SUVs. The Pilot has Honda’s all-wheel-drive system standard. This system powers the front wheels under normal conditions, only directing power automatically to the rear wheels when the front wheels slip. Very useful for slick roads. Not meant for off-road. A system that permanently drives all four wheels, especially with a bit of bias towards the rear, would lend the chassis a sportier feel. (The MDX has the same system, with the same results.) The rear differential can be locked, but automatically unlocks in third gear. This feature is for temporary help getting traction on difficult surfaces.

However, Chrysler, GM, and Toyota offer minivans with all-wheel-drive, so there is no need to buy an SUV to get it. I would not be surprised if the next Odyssey, due in the 2005 model year, also offered this feature. If it does this would eliminate one more reason for Honda loyalists to get an SUV. As it is, I doubt many Pilot drivers have much need for all-wheel-drive in the first place.

The Pilot’s handling is a mixed bag. On the plus side, the Pilot corners with less lean than I expect in such a tall vehicle and handles more nimbly than its size and mass suggest it should. But that’s not saying much, as I expect such a tall, heavy vehicle to handle abysmally. Steering feel is very vague, even though the amount of effort is about right.

Driving the Pilot right after driving the Odyssey did not help. The minivan feels more nimble, reacts to steering inputs more quickly and decisively, and generally handles much better. I had much more fun driving it. In comparison, the Pilot feels unresponsive and ponderous. The Pilot is higher off the ground than the Odyssey. A higher center of gravity always comes at a price in handling, ride quality, or both. BMW sacrificed ride quality with its SUVs. Honda sacrificed handling with the Pilot.

Especially after revisions for 2003 and 2004, the MDX handles significantly better than the Pilot. It leans less and body motions are more tightly controlled. Its steering feels sharper and inspires greater confidence. Still, it is hardly fun to drive. The suspension is tuned to safely understeer when pushed and the height of the driving position lends the vehicle a tippy feeling. Driving the Odyssey feels much more natural.

The Pilot’s ride quality is about average for this sort of vehicle. It’s fairly even and composed, with only a bit of shudder on broken surfaces. It doesn’t have the velvetty feel that surprised me in the GMC Envoy, so it doesn’t impart a luxury feel to the vehicle. (The Dodge Durango also rides surprisingly well.) But it’s plenty comfortable. Wind noise is low, while road noise is moderate.

Overall the Pilot does not perform or handle as well as the Odyssey. In both sport and utility it falls short of the minivan.

Pricing and Alternatives

For quick, up-to-date pricing, and especially user-specified price comparisons, check out the website I created: www.truedelta.com. Why yet another vehicle pricing website? Well, I personally lacked the patience to keep using the others. They were too slow and required too much effort, especially when trying to compare prices. So I taught myself some programming and created a site where there is no need to dig through option packages, prerequisites, and the like one by one -- the TrueDelta algorithm figures these out for you in one swift pass.

The rest of this section dates from when the review was origially written.

The Pilot EX I drove listed for $29,960. Heated leather would have added $1,400. (The heat is new for 2004.) Options available on the EX with leather include a navigation system ($2,000) and an entertainment system ($1,500), but not both together. A sunroof and stability control remain unavailable. For this price analysis I’m going to use the $31,360 EX-L. According to Edmunds, dealer discounting remains minimal, cutting this price to about $30,900.

First, the sibs. An Odyssey EX-L lists for $28,980. The typical discount reduces the price to about $28,200. So the Pilot’s “advantages” cost about $2,400 sticker to sticker and $2,700 based on typical transaction prices. What are these? Basically all-wheel-drive, a nicer interior, and a better image. Those who can stomach driving a minivan clearly get much more vehicle for less money.

An Acura MDX lists for $36,945, and Edmunds suggests no discounting. What does the extra six grand get you? Sportier styling and handling, stability control, curtain airbags, a sunroof, an extra year on the warranty, and…that seems about it. It doesn’t seem like enough for six grand. Maybe half that.

Last year I ruled the Toyota Highlander obsolete because it did not offer a third row. Well, for 2004 it does, along with a more powerful engine. I hope to drive a 2004 Highlander soon. A Limited with heated leather lists for $33,760, but the typical discount drops this to about $31,400. The more compact Highlander leans more than the Pilot in turns yet feels much more like a car, has a higher quality interior, and comes standard with a premium JBL sound system. Worth the difference? Unlike last year, maybe.

The awkwardly styled Buick Rendezvous has possessed a serious power disadvantage—until 2004. This year a new Ultra model is powered by a new 3.6-liter V6 related to the one in the Cadillac CTS and SRX. In the Buick it produces only 245 horsepower, but this is a significant gain over the 185 produced by the 3.4 and competitive with the others here. The transmission is less competitive, as it lacks a fifth ratio. The base price is $39,645, much higher than the others. However, large discounts and a $2,500 rebate cut this to about $33,600. The Buick has more standard equipment, including a CD changer, power passenger seat, and memory for driver settings. These features might be worth a grand. The Buick is clearly styled to appear more upscale than any Honda or Toyota, but cannot quite pull it off. The Ultra’s wood trim cannot compensate for the cheap plastic around it. Depreciation will be faster than with the Japanese SUVs. I’d pass on this one. Throw in styling that makes even the Pilot look well-proportioned and I cannot recommend this one.

In my mind, the Chrysler Pacifica represents the future of the large, car-based SUV. Attractive styling and a luxurious interior compensate for the loss of functionality vis-à-vis a minivan. Recognizing that the all-wheel-drive system is not suited for hardcore off-road use, it rides a few inches lower to the ground. Excess poundage takes its toll on performance, but the Pacifica still acquits itself well. Equipped like the Honda (but with a power passenger seat and adjustable pedals) it lists for $34,370. But the typical discount and a $3,000 rebate reduce this to abut $29,400. A bargain for what you get—this would be my choice.

The Pacifica is unsuited for off-road travel and cannot tow a great deal, but then the same is true of the Pilot. If you need these things, then you need a real SUV. Of those with three rows I’ve been most impressed with the Dodge Durango. The Durango will run in the mid-30s until discounting and incentives increase later in the model year.

Last Words

A year-and-a-half after my initial review, the Pilot is looking considerably less attractive to me. It still offers a roomy, well-styled interior, but the exterior styling and performance do not begin to compensate for the reduction in rear passenger comfort and cargo volume compared to the Odyssey. Against the revised Toyota Highlander it might still hold its own. However, if you need a minivan but refuse to get one, I recommend buying something with more performance, luxury, and style as compensation for the loss in utility. The Chrysler Pacifica is far more stylish, considerably more luxurious, and costs less. Chryslers over the past few years have proven reliable according to the primary surveys. The Pacifica is the one I’d get.

So why do so many people buy the Pilot, and love it? Well, it's kind of like this. As Honda claims, it designs SUVs for how people actually use them. Which means, just like minivans. But for people who won't buy a minivan. And this works. Because there are many people out there who's only reason for buying an SUV is that it holds a great deal of stuff without being a minivan. They don't care about styling. They don't care about off-road performance. They don't care about sharp handling (though handling as little like a truck as possible is a common desire). All they want is a big box that's not a minivan. Many of these people also prefer to buy a Toyota or Honda.

This sets up the Pilot and Highlander as their top contenders. And between these two the Pilot is the bigger box. Basically, the Pilot is the best SUV for people who want an SUV "just because."

To learn more about my reliability research and sign up to participate in it, visit www.truedelta.com.

My reviews of related vehicles:
Acura MDX
Buick Rendezvous
Chevrolet TrailBlazer EXT
Chrysler Pacifica
Dodge Durango
Ford Explorer
Honda Pilot (2003)
Toyota Highlander

Amount Paid (US$): 29,960