Pilot Road Test - Honda Pilot

kullenberg · 01-12-2004, 08:16 PM

We drove a Pilot EX-L today, and were greatly impressed. I have reduced our short list down to the Pilot and the Subaru Forester XT. My requirements are: 1. good winter performance, 2. comfort on long cross country trips, ease of entry and exit, good power at higher altitudes. For the most part, the Pilot fulfills all these requirements. My major complaints were; the shift lever is awkward, particularly in use as engine braking downhill, lack of dealer acknowledgment of the sagging leather problem; leg room is not as good as the Forester XT, and the fun factor certainly favors the Subaru. When taken as a whole, the Pilot is the hands down winner, when usage is realized as a cross country tourer.! Now the question is what I can negotiate my local dealer down to, as I do want to do a deal with him, as that is where it will be serviced.

The summation is that the Pilot is a great package for the price!!

terraambient · 01-12-2004, 09:19 PM

Of course this is subjective, but seeing as how my step-mother has a Forester I think I can interject on this:

1. good winter performance= Forester

Hey, the pilot is good, but Subaru owns the market in bad condition control.

2. comfort on long cross country trips, ease of entry and exit, good power at higher altitudes. = Pilot

I cannot speak to higher altitudes, but all of the others is an easy Pilot. I find the Forester to be VERY uncomfortable. The seats just seem very narrow and unsupportive in the thigh and lombar areas. But it seems you find it comforatable. Again...subjective.

Are you hauling a trailer or just traveling alot of mountain roads (you mention downhill braking)? I would say Forester wins here also for the simple reason that it's a smaller vehicle, less mass = less stress on the brakes.

If your towing, go with the Pilot. My step mother blew her transmission towing a SMALL trailer (acceptable for a car's towing capacity) through the Adarondacks. Just one person's opinions thought and it could have been a fluke.

**colorider** · 01-12-2004, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by terraambient
Of course this is subjective, but seeing as how my step-mother has a Forester I think I can interject on this:

1. good winter performance= Forester

Hey, the pilot is good, but Subaru owns the market in bad condition control.

2. comfort on long cross country trips, ease of entry and exit, good power at higher altitudes. = Pilot

I cannot speak to higher altitudes, but all of the others is an easy Pilot. I find the Forester to be VERY uncomfortable. The seats just seem very narrow and unsupportive in the thigh and lombar areas. But it seems you find it comforatable. Again...subjective.

Are you hauling a trailer or just traveling alot of mountain roads (you mention downhill braking)? I would say Forester wins here also for the simple reason that it's a smaller vehicle, less mass = less stress on the brakes.

If your towing, go with the Pilot. My step mother blew her transmission towing a SMALL trailer (acceptable for a car's towing capacity) through the Adarondacks. Just one person's opinions thought and it could have been a fluke.

One thing I might add - if you go for the Turbo Forester, it will be the hands-down winner at HIGH elevations.

BTDT

As for overall AWD performance in adverse conditions - I would opt for the Subaru. Much as I like my Pilot, I ALWAYS felt that each of my Subarus were more sure-footed in bad weather.

YMMV

mtbenson · 01-13-2004, 07:48 AM

We have a '98 Forester with 102k, and it's been the most reliable car I've ever owned. It's great in the snow, fun to drive and the clutch has lasted through two kids learning to drive. I keep offering to buy my wife a new one, but she likes this one too much. When the time does come to replace it, we will head directly to our Subaru dealer for another Forester.

terraambient · 01-13-2004, 08:27 AM

...is this the Pilot forum??

I think it comes down to use. Driving in Northern Canada 90% of the time or wanting more in the perfomance arena, get the Subaru.

Taking long road trips with the kids, want a little more luxury or doing some light towing, get the Pilot.

calbear · 01-13-2004, 05:14 PM

I considered the XT as well before getting the Pilot. Having the greater cargo space is excellent -- don't have to put down the 2nd row seats to get really usable space. I felt the XT was just a bit too small. It's really a medium station wagon with a higher ride. I was shocked to find out it was shorter than my old Toyota Camry! That said, the Pilot for all its space is only 6" longer than the old Camry...

I also figured that with both Pilot and XT getting about the same gas mileage and the XT needing premium fuel, might as well get the Pilot in the fuel cost category. Also, not a big fan on 4 cy. engines, even with that Turbo power.

Really been happy with the Pilot (got it last month).

PILOTinginCO · 01-13-2004, 08:06 PM

My boss has a Forrester and she's always complaining that is doesn't have enough power.... and we live in altitude.... Denver, CO.
(elevation near 5,300 ft)

She complains about not having power when going into the mountains... which can get into altitudes of 11,000 feet.

I never had any problems roaring into the mountains when we had our PILOT.

I think the PILOT is the hands down winner of the two vehicles... even if you factor in the crappy Goodyear Integrities.

calbear · 01-13-2004, 08:27 PM

Does she have the Forrester with or without the Turbo -- it makes a huge difference. I first tested the XS with the 165HP motor. It was sluggish. Then I tried the XT. It's a real screamer -- 0-60 in 5.3s according to their specs, and it really does move.

Not sure how the XT would perform at altitude...

My pilot was awesome at 8k+ feet last month! And luckily I have the Bridgestones which have so far been very good too.

PQSpin · 01-13-2004, 08:48 PM

Pardon my ignorance, but comparing a Pilot with a Forrester? Kind of apples & oranges, isn't it? Maybe a Forrester vs. a CR-V.

calbear · 01-13-2004, 09:36 PM

You're correct. They are in two different size/power classes. But I was looking at them both of them initially as I imagine many do. The Forrester is top-rated in safety which I am sure gets a lot of attention from folks -- at least it gets it on the initial list.

But the Pilot is very good in safety too and after a day of test drives, getting the Pilot was a pretty easy decision for me! The Forrester looks a lot bigger in photos than in real life...it's quite a small car actually.

jay · 01-13-2004, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by calbear
You're correct. They are in two different size/power classes. But I was looking at them both of them initially as I imagine many do. The Forrester is top-rated in safety which I am sure gets a lot of attention from folks -- at least it gets it on the initial list.

But the Pilot is very good in safety too and after a day of test drives, getting the Pilot was a pretty easy decision for me! The Forrester looks a lot bigger in photos than in real life...it's quite a small car actually.

I see Forester's around, know they're top-rated in safety, have ridden at least two, and it never even came into my mind as a choice.

**colorider** · 01-14-2004, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by PILOTinginCO
My boss has a Forrester and she's always complaining that is doesn't have enough power.... and we live in altitude.... Denver, CO.
(elevation near 5,300 ft)

She complains about not having power when going into the mountains... which can get into altitudes of 11,000 feet.

I never had any problems roaring into the mountains when we had our PILOT.

I think the PILOT is the hands down winner of the two vehicles... even if you factor in the crappy Goodyear Integrities.

Her's must not be the Turbo. If it was, it would likely out perform the Pilot at 11K feet. I used to run away from liter-class motorcycles on Monarch Pass on a little 650 Turbo.

**colorider** · 01-14-2004, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by calbear

~snip~
Not sure how the XT would perform at altitude...
~snip~

That's where a Turbo REALLY shines as they don't care how thin the air is!!!

If I was in the market for a smaller AWD drive today, the Forrester would be my first choice. Only question would be if I would go for the Turbo since it requires premium fuel. Each of my previous turbos (I've had 2 cars and 1 motorcycle) did not require premium and it was cheap performance with little or no impact on gas mileage.

My .02

charlie · 01-14-2004, 12:42 PM

Colorider,was that the YAMAHA 650 Seca Turbo~1982 or so?It was a real tech wonder back then when turbo bikes were supposed to be ther next big thing..If I remember correctly is was maybe a mid 12 sec bike at sealevel-maybe .5 sec quicker than the stock 650 Seca,and maybe .5 sec slower than the GS1000,XS1100 ETC.Sorta heavy wasn't it,almost liter class weight~530 wet?
Still have it(don't see it in your inventory,so guess not)?Spent some time in Colo(parents lived there),and I remember mid 70's American V-8's were such POS's I thought I was going to have to get out and push it over Monarch pass!! Neat bike,Charlie

**colorider** · 01-14-2004, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by charlie
Colorider,was that the YAMAHA 650 Seca Turbo~1982 or so?It was a real tech wonder back then when turbo bikes were supposed to be ther next big thing..If I remember correctly is was maybe a mid 12 sec bike at sealevel-maybe .5 sec quicker than the stock 650 Seca,and maybe .5 sec slower than the GS1000,XS1100 ETC.Sorta heavy wasn't it,almost liter class weight~530 wet?
Still have it(don't see it in your inventory,so guess not)?Spent some time in Colo(parents lived there),and I remember mid 70's American V-8's were such POS's I thought I was going to have to get out and push it over Monarch pass!! Neat bike,Charlie

Yepper - an '82 vintage. I repainted it a Pearl White and is was a beauty!! Wasn't really known for it's handling (small fork tubes, etc), but once the turbo kicked in, it was a blast!!

BTW, here's my list of two-wheelers (1968 to present):

1967 Yamaha 305 Big Bear Scrambler
1969 Triumph T100 Daytona 500
1969 Yamaha DT250
1970 Honda SL70 (2)
1972 Honda CL100 (2)
1974 Honda XL350
1975 Yamaha DT175
1973 Yamaha DT125
197? Yamaha TY80 (2)
1978 Honda GL1000
1980 Honda CM400A
1981 Suzuki GS650G
1986 Suzuki GV1400
1975 Honda CL360
1982 Yamaha XJ650LJ Seca Turbo
1991 Honda ST1100
1989 Honda XL600V TransAlp
1995 BMW R100GSP - Classic
1989 Honda XL600V TransAlp
1998 Honda ST1100A
1990 Honda XL600V TransAlp
1991 Honda ST1100
2000 Honda XR100R
1988 Honda NX250 (still have)
2001 BMW R1150GS
1997 Kawasaki KLR650
2002 Honda ST1100A (still have)
1999 BMW F650
2002 Honda GL1800A (coming soon)

01-12-2004, 08:16 PM	#1 (permalink)
kullenberg Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: BEECH MTN., NC - HIGHEST TOWN IN EASTERN US Posts: 39 Feedback Score: 0 reviews	Pilot Road Test We drove a Pilot EX-L today, and were greatly impressed. I have reduced our short list down to the Pilot and the Subaru Forester XT. My requirements are: 1. good winter performance, 2. comfort on long cross country trips, ease of entry and exit, good power at higher altitudes. For the most part, the Pilot fulfills all these requirements. My major complaints were; the shift lever is awkward, particularly in use as engine braking downhill, lack of dealer acknowledgment of the sagging leather problem; leg room is not as good as the Forester XT, and the fun factor certainly favors the Subaru. When taken as a whole, the Pilot is the hands down winner, when usage is realized as a cross country tourer.! Now the question is what I can negotiate my local dealer down to, as I do want to do a deal with him, as that is where it will be serviced. The summation is that the Pilot is a great package for the price!! __________________ Cheers Pat

01-13-2004, 07:48 AM	#4 (permalink)
mtbenson Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Northwest PA Posts: 34 Feedback Score: 0 reviews	We have a '98 Forester with 102k, and it's been the most reliable car I've ever owned. It's great in the snow, fun to drive and the clutch has lasted through two kids learning to drive. I keep offering to buy my wife a new one, but she likes this one too much. When the time does come to replace it, we will head directly to our Subaru dealer for another Forester. __________________ 2004 Honda Pilot LX (red), 2005 Subaru Forester X, 1999 BMW R1100GS, 2000 KTM 400 SXC, 2000 Cannondale F700

01-13-2004, 08:06 PM	#7 (permalink)
PILOTinginCO a.k.a. TREGinginCO Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Parker, Colorado Posts: 726 Feedback Score: 0 reviews	My Two Cents My boss has a Forrester and she's always complaining that is doesn't have enough power.... and we live in altitude.... Denver, CO. (elevation near 5,300 ft) She complains about not having power when going into the mountains... which can get into altitudes of 11,000 feet. I never had any problems roaring into the mountains when we had our PILOT. I think the PILOT is the hands down winner of the two vehicles... even if you factor in the crappy Goodyear Integrities. __________________ I'd rather go hunting with Dick Cheney than ride in a car with Ted Kennedy!

01-14-2004, 12:42 PM	#14 (permalink)
charlie Super Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: new orleans Posts: 367 Feedback Score: 0 reviews	650 Seca turbo? Colorider,was that the YAMAHA 650 Seca Turbo~1982 or so?It was a real tech wonder back then when turbo bikes were supposed to be ther next big thing..If I remember correctly is was maybe a mid 12 sec bike at sealevel-maybe .5 sec quicker than the stock 650 Seca,and maybe .5 sec slower than the GS1000,XS1100 ETC.Sorta heavy wasn't it,almost liter class weight~530 wet? Still have it(don't see it in your inventory,so guess not)?Spent some time in Colo(parents lived there),and I remember mid 70's American V-8's were such POS's I thought I was going to have to get out and push it over Monarch pass!! Neat bike,Charlie

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

01-12-2004, 09:19 PM	#2 (permalink)
terraambient Señior Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Posts: 162 Feedback Score: 0 reviews	Of course this is subjective, but seeing as how my step-mother has a Forester I think I can interject on this: 1. good winter performance= Forester Hey, the pilot is good, but Subaru owns the market in bad condition control. 2. comfort on long cross country trips, ease of entry and exit, good power at higher altitudes. = Pilot I cannot speak to higher altitudes, but all of the others is an easy Pilot. I find the Forester to be VERY uncomfortable. The seats just seem very narrow and unsupportive in the thigh and lombar areas. But it seems you find it comforatable. Again...subjective. Are you hauling a trailer or just traveling alot of mountain roads (you mention downhill braking)? I would say Forester wins here also for the simple reason that it's a smaller vehicle, less mass = less stress on the brakes. If your towing, go with the Pilot. My step mother blew her transmission towing a SMALL trailer (acceptable for a car's towing capacity) through the Adarondacks. Just one person's opinions thought and it could have been a fluke.

01-13-2004, 08:27 AM	#5 (permalink)
terraambient Señior Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Posts: 162 Feedback Score: 0 reviews	...is this the Pilot forum?? I think it comes down to use. Driving in Northern Canada 90% of the time or wanting more in the perfomance arena, get the Subaru. Taking long road trips with the kids, want a little more luxury or doing some light towing, get the Pilot.

01-13-2004, 05:14 PM	#6 (permalink)
calbear Go Bears! Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: California Posts: 151 Feedback Score: 0 reviews	I considered the XT as well before getting the Pilot. Having the greater cargo space is excellent -- don't have to put down the 2nd row seats to get really usable space. I felt the XT was just a bit too small. It's really a medium station wagon with a higher ride. I was shocked to find out it was shorter than my old Toyota Camry! That said, the Pilot for all its space is only 6" longer than the old Camry... I also figured that with both Pilot and XT getting about the same gas mileage and the XT needing premium fuel, might as well get the Pilot in the fuel cost category. Also, not a big fan on 4 cy. engines, even with that Turbo power. Really been happy with the Pilot (got it last month).

01-13-2004, 08:27 PM	#8 (permalink)
calbear Go Bears! Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: California Posts: 151 Feedback Score: 0 reviews	Does she have the Forrester with or without the Turbo -- it makes a huge difference. I first tested the XS with the 165HP motor. It was sluggish. Then I tried the XT. It's a real screamer -- 0-60 in 5.3s according to their specs, and it really does move. Not sure how the XT would perform at altitude... My pilot was awesome at 8k+ feet last month! And luckily I have the Bridgestones which have so far been very good too.

01-13-2004, 08:48 PM	#9 (permalink)
PQSpin Super Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Southern New England Posts: 359 Feedback Score: 0 reviews	Pardon my ignorance, but comparing a Pilot with a Forrester? Kind of apples & oranges, isn't it? Maybe a Forrester vs. a CR-V.

01-13-2004, 09:36 PM	#10 (permalink)
calbear Go Bears! Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: California Posts: 151 Feedback Score: 0 reviews	You're correct. They are in two different size/power classes. But I was looking at them both of them initially as I imagine many do. The Forrester is top-rated in safety which I am sure gets a lot of attention from folks -- at least it gets it on the initial list. But the Pilot is very good in safety too and after a day of test drives, getting the Pilot was a pretty easy decision for me! The Forrester looks a lot bigger in photos than in real life...it's quite a small car actually.

Remove Advertisements Sponsored Links
Piloteers.org Advertisement