|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
We own both the Odyssey and the Pilot (Reply to this comment)
by linlu
I own a 2000 Honda Odyssey - reviewed on this site. Hubby owns the 2004 Pilot EX with Leather and lots of goodies. The ride is much better on Pilot and it handles better than our Ody. On the cloverleaf offramp I take every time I get off the bypass to get home, the Pilot can take it 5 mph higher than the Ody. The suspension on the pilot if beefier, so it can handle these turns better, and it is still cushier. Maybe the new 2005 Ody has the pilot's smooth ride and tighter suspension - something that is normally an either/or proposition. I disdain boat like suspension prevalent on American designed cars/trucks/etc.
As for cargo room, when we absolutely need all that space we take the Ody. But since hubby got his Pilot in the spring, 90% of the time we take the Pilot. The choice is based on the ride and comfort in the Pilot vs the Ody. Maybe when we replace the Ody with the updated ex touring model we'll be back to 50/50 as for which one to take.
The only other thing I miss from the Ody are the sliding doors. Handy when you're removing one of those infant car seats from their base.
Another bonus vs the 2000 Ody, this Pilot has more horsepower. Hubby makes mention of my quick starts every time he calculate the mpg after a fill-up. He averages 2 mpg more when he drives - which equals that of our Ody. In this area, a quick pickup getting onto the bypass or the highway is a necessity when you have many Ernhardt wannabees from Carolina.
There are definite advantages to the Pilot vs the Ody.
|
Nov 21 '04
10:54 am PST
|
|
Re: Better than a minivan for my family (Reply to this comment)
by mkaresh,  in Cars & Motorsports
Good point on the three across option. In my experience most people would rather put a kid in the third row than deal with the center position, but I'm not among them. That's why I continue to drive a car. GM's minivans also offer this feature.
Responding to an earlier comment: I've found that many people simply don't care for the Pacifica. I suspect Chrysler overstyled this one--many people want more glass. Ford's new Freestyle might fare better. For one thing, a three-person bench in the second row is a no cost option.
|
Sep 29 '04
4:38 am PDT
|
|
Better than a minivan for my family (Reply to this comment)
by ayjay
We struggled with the minivan vs. SUV debate, driving both the Odyssey and the Pilot back to back. We chose the Pilot for a few reasons. I liked the driving position better. I liked the cockpit and controls better.
But most of all, I liked the fact that I can put three child seats across in the second row - not an option on the 2003 or 2004 Odyssey. My kids did not want to be stuck way in the back of a minivan. The new Sienna offered this ability, but at a price and performance premium (plus they were nearly impossible to get at the time). The 2005 Odyssey will also offer three across seating, and we may end up with one in a year or two when it comes time to replace the other car.
The Pacifica was never in the running. Besides the odd 2-2-2 seating, if offers inferior quality, inferior space, and inferior mileage.
My ownership experience has vindicated our decision. We couldn't be happier with the Pilot, and neither could the kids.
|
Sep 28 '04
8:31 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: SUVs are not just about image (Reply to this comment)
by pushinmetal
RE: mkaresh | Dec 02 '03 - Something you wrote in follow up comments resonated with me. To paraphrase, you stated that no one has (yet) fielded a car-based SUV with enough truck-like characteristics of power, cargo space, and style and that Pacifica was the only one which came close. In that regard, do you have any experience with the VW Toureg? [I also understand Audi will field their version either '05 or '06 - but you know that it will command a hefty price....]? Currently we've got an A4 wagon which has the issue of lack of room and hauling / towing capacity. [I did, however, see its big brother, an All Road, towing a small boat the other day...]. Currently I am in the market for something a bit more truck like and am evaluating the Pilot. As I see it, it's the lesser of evils, but I may still cave and go for a more traditional truck-based product the on road warts notwithstanding. Anyhow, your thoughts appreciated...
|
May 24 '04
1:57 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Covered a lot.... (Reply to this comment)
by mkaresh, in Cars & Motorsports
As a previous commenter noted, the Pilot can only tow 1000 pounds more than the Odyssey. For serious towing a conventional SUV or pickup is necessary.
|
Apr 20 '04
4:54 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Covered a lot.... (Reply to this comment)
by kenikov
A SUV can tow?
|
Apr 19 '04
5:20 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Covered a lot.... (Reply to this comment)
by mkaresh, in Cars & Motorsports
What is so totally different between the Pilot and Odyssey? Sure, one's called an SUV and the other's called a minivan, but do you care to elaborate beyond that? It's not like you're going offroad in the Pilot. The Pilot is AWD, but it's possible to buy an AWD minivan. Ultimately what makes the Pilot an SUV is its a little higher off the ground and has conventional rear doors.
Basically what I'm saying is that the Pilot is an AWD minivan for people who don't want to think they're buying a minivan.
|
Apr 18 '04
5:58 pm PDT
|
|
Covered a lot.... (Reply to this comment)
by spodgorski
Although your review covered quite a bit, as a 2004 owner (not just a test driver) I would tend to disagree. I own a 96 Odyssey and love it (LOVE IT!) and when we went shopping I checked out the 04 models. However, you just can't compare a minivan to an SUV -- 2 different vehicles completely... If you are minivan shopping the Odyssey is great. We decided to go SUV and after numerous trips to numerous dealers to narrow our search (I checked out every detail on both vehicles - checked Epinions, Consumer Reports, asked owners, test drove them, did online research, etc...) we were left with just the Highlander and the Pilot. Of the two the final decision came down to overall comfort - with a family of 6, we want the kids in the third row seat to have some leg room and the Highlander is just too small in that row. Also the Pilot has the added feature of being able to split the 3rd row to either 1 or 2 seats with the other part left for additional storage. Anyway, this is getting longer than I expected -- bottom line, can't compare an SUV to a minivan and the Pilot is top in my book after several months of searching and driving and searching and asking and searching and researching!
|
Apr 17 '04
7:02 am PDT
|
|
Covered a lot.... (Reply to this comment)
by spodgorski
Although your review covered quite a bit, as a 2004 owner (not just a test driver) I would tend to disagree. I own a 96 Odyssey and love it (LOVE IT!) and when we went shopping I checked out the 04 models. However, you just can't compare a minivan to an SUV -- 2 different vehicles completely... If you are minivan shopping the Odyssey is great. We decided to go SUV and after numerous trips to numerous dealers to narrow our search (I checked out every detail on both vehicles - checked Epinions, Consumer Reports, asked owners, test drove them, did online research, etc...) we were left with just the Highlander and the Pilot. Of the two the final decision came down to overall comfort - with a family of 6, we want the kids in the third row seat to have some leg room and the Highlander is just too small in that row. Also the Pilot has the added feature of being able to split the 3rd row to either 1 or 2 seats with the other part left for additional storage. Anyway, this is getting longer than I expected -- bottom line, can't compare an SUV to a minivan and the Pilot is top in my book after several months of searching and driving and searching and asking and searching and researching!
|
Apr 17 '04
7:01 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Apples vs. Oranges (Reply to this comment)
by mkaresh, in Cars & Motorsports
You mentioned all-wheel-drive, but not in relation to towing.
As for the ratio of horsepower to weight, it is a commonly used rough predictor of performance. But if you want to get picky there are complicating factors. It's not hard to explain, just not worth it.
The major thing I cannot explain is your tone. This review very clearly presents the reasoning behind my evaluation of the Pilot. Some people will agree with it, others won't, but even for the latter my review will force them to think about the benefits they derive (or would derive) from the Pilot. In my opinion many SUV buyers need to think more about their reasons for choosing such vehicles.
If you don't agree with my reasoning, I have no problem with that. But you're so belligerent that I wonder how secure you are with your own reasoning.
|
Mar 28 '04
3:50 am PST
|
|
Re: Apples vs. Oranges (Reply to this comment)
by mkaresh, in Cars & Motorsports
This comparison is not apples vs. oranges. In my opinion, the Pilot provides so little functionality over a minivan while being bought by many people who could use the added functionality of a mininvan, but won't be caught dead in one for image reasons, that the comparison begs to be done.
Your own arguments almost make this point for me. An extra 1,000 pounds of towing capacity? Frankly, the all-wheel-drive for use on wet boat ramps is a stronger argument for the Pilot being a better alternative on this basis.
I imagine you're still not buying it. But consider this: many SUV buyers do not thoroughly consider the tradeoffs between the two types of vehicles. This review sought to promote a bit more thought in this area. Why this SUV and not all of them? Well, it would get quite boring if I reviewed every SUV this way, so I went with the least stylish and most minivan-like of the bunch.
As for my horsepower argument, it is a bit crude. It's really necessary to compare loaded weights, the entire torque curve, and gearing. Since this gets so complicated that it's no longer worth making the point, I'll deduct that bit from my review.
|
Mar 27 '04
5:18 am PST
|
|
Re: Pilot v. Pacifica (Reply to this comment)
by mkaresh, in Cars & Motorsports
Either is a boat compared to an S4.
The resale value is a valid concern.
I'm not sure about the quality of interior materials. The Pacifica's seem better to me overall, especially in terms of ambiance, but the Honda's might be more consistent in terms of solid feel. That people expect Chryslers to be cheap inside at this point also doesn't help.
You don't mention styling. In my opinion, if the Pilot's styling suits you you might as well get the added interior space of a minivan.
|
Mar 04 '04
8:33 am PST
|
|
Pilot v. Pacifica (Reply to this comment)
by gpolma
My wife and I have are having our third child and need a family car with a third row seat. We've narrowed it down to a Pilot and Pacifica, but we come out on the opposite side of this reviewer. First, a close scrutiny suggests to me that the Pacifica interior and exterior are not built to the same quality level of fit and finish, an important consideration when you plan to keep a vehicle several years. Second, I anticipate that the Chrysler's resale value will be far worse than the Honda's, effectively making the Honda a less expensive car. Third, the Honda's flexible seating configurations provide far more versatility than the Pacifica's 2 2 2. Finally, my subjective experience based on test drives was that both are comepetent and somewhat car-like, yet neither is materially more enjoyable or exciting to drive than the other (by way of comparison, I currently drive an Audit S4).
|
Mar 03 '04
10:36 am PST
|
|
Re: SUVs are not just about image (Reply to this comment)
by mkaresh, in Cars & Motorsports
The Pilot handles better than the Highlander? Interesting.
True, front-drive vehicles are not good for towing. People often buy SUVs for this purpose.
I didn't discuss this rationale in my review because the Pilot's towing capacity is low as SUVs go. But perhaps I should have, since for the size boat most people own it's no doubt adequate.
Of course, most all-wheel-drive minivans and wagons can tow just as much. Honda doesn't offer an all-wheel-drive van. Instead, it sells the Pilot, which is pretty much the same thing except for much less cargo room and soggier handling.
I have given a number of large vehicles positive reviews. I even gave the Pilot a positive review when it first appeared. But even though that was only the spring of 2002 the competitive landscape has already changed, and it no longer makes sense to me for most buyers in this segment.
Oddly, in my opinion no one has offered a car-based SUV in this price range that looks right, handles well, and offers a large amount of cargo room. I believe the Chrsyler Pacifica comes closest, but it's not an SUV per se. Many people want to sit up higher.
Many new vehicles are on the way. I suspect that in the next few years we'll be seeing some much better all-around offerings in this segment.
|
Jan 17 '04
2:02 pm PST
|
|
SUVs are not just about image (Reply to this comment)
by ejangler
The reviewer is entitled to his opinion, but I find it hard to accept at face value a person that has only just bought a car, yet professes to have some ability to review them based only on a test drive. And, based on the vehicle he chose (a compact Mazda), he obviously has no personal familiarity with larger vehicles or their everyday use. Test drives are limited to that definition.
I have both owned a minivan (three) and a Pilot (for the last 14 months) and my reasons for owning the two types of vehicles was (is) entirely different. If your main goal is to move people, then a minivan is a good choice, especially the Ody. My kids are grown and gone, and I wanted an SUV to haul my stuff, pull my small boat, and be able to go up a slippery boat ramp with ease. Three rows of seats are wasted on me, thus the third row on the Pilot has never been used. But, no matter, when cross shopped with a Highlander or an Acura MDX it was clearly superior. It is larger than the Highlander and handles better, and is $8-10,000 cheaper than the X.
The Ody simply does not suit my needs, image aside. Since I have had and personally drove a minivan, I am not threatened by the "soccer mom" look, even though I am a man. The Pilot has worked very well for me, and is one of the best vehicles I have ever owned. Note the use of the word "owned", not just taken for a spin and then written about as if I knew something from a couple of miles and a few minutes of time.
Again, I have owned two Accords, a Civic, a Honda CR-V (my wife's current car), a Toyota Van, two Nissan Vans, a Nissan Pickup truck, an Isuzu Pickup truck, a Nissan station wagon, a Chevrolet Impala, two Triumph Spitfires, and a 1955 Chevy Wagon. That doesn't make me an automotive expert, but I do know those vehicles, pretty well, and why I bought them.
The reviewer doesn't have a clue.
EJ
|
Jan 16 '04
4:40 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: I gotta wonder... (Reply to this comment)
by kenikov
Your first category is Styling & Accommodations . Then, your second category is Accommodations again.
Kind of odd how you have 2 of the same categories...
|
Dec 03 '03
3:29 pm PST
|
|
Re: I gotta wonder... (Reply to this comment)
by mkaresh, in Cars & Motorsports
A Volvo V70R isn't too shabby in the fun-to-drive department. Some versions of the A6 and E500 wagons might also be fun, though I haven't driven these. All three are available with a third row.
Among crossover vehicles, the Cadillac SRX (V8 with magnetic ride control) and Chrysler Pacifica are in the running, though the latter is a bit of a beast.
|
Dec 03 '03
8:24 am PST
|
|
I gotta wonder... (Reply to this comment)
by scmrak, in Cars & Motorsports
it it's even possible to make a vehicle with three rows of seats that's fun to drive. Seems that the physical size (not to mention mass) necessary for that amount of room pretty much mean that they'll always be whales instead of dolphins - at least until there's a complete paradigm shift in suspension technology.
Well done, lad.
R
|
Dec 03 '03
7:59 am PST
|
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.