Review: 2009 Honda Pilot Touring
by Dan Roth on Jan 29th 2009 at 12:58PM 
Click above for high-res image gallery of the 2009 Honda Pilot Touring
My family has fallen in love with Bruno. Yes, we named it. Clearly, the Honda Pilot has left an impression. Size is the first thing you notice, solidity the second – there's not a whiff of the gelatin-jiggles that afflict most of this CUV's body-on-frame competitors. The Pilot is also loaded up with thoughtful, family-friendly touches everywhere you look. It's big, accommodating, and solid. What else? Follow the jump to find out.
Photos Copyright ©2009 Alex Núñez / Weblogs, Inc.
With styling via a framing square, "pretty" is not a word that springs easily to mind when admiring the 2009 Honda Pilot. Aerodynamic improvements increase efficiency and quell noise, and the facelift looks surprisingly pugnacious. The chromey fangs are a ruse, though, as the Pilot is all pussycat. This is an easy-driving box. It's steering is light and would be considered numb in the sedan world, but if nothing else, it brings that trademark Hondaness to the realm of large CUVs.
The rest of the chassis lives up to the name on the tailgate, as well. A tightly snubbed ride might run the risk of liquefying occupants when the going gets bumpy, but the Pilot just eats up scarred macadam without drama. No doubt the structural improvements that Honda has effected on the updated Pilot play a role in the vehicle's aplomb. The Pilot glides over roads that make you wince, and despite carting around 4,000-plus pounds, this eight-seater feels light on its feet.
The engine bay is still occupied by Honda's 3.5-liter V6 delivering 250 horsepower and 253 pound-feet of torque, a marginal improvement over earlier versions. The V6 augments its ability to deactivate cylinders by adding a four-cylinder step, thereby eking out better fuel economy. Engine noise is muted, even when you wind it so hard the tachometer screams in protest. Despite its weight, and the fact that it packs "only" 250 horsepower, we were never able to catch the Pilot flat-footed. Its five-speed automatic transmission is always in the proper gear and obediently follows the command of the driver's foot. Clearly, the Pilot is no drag racer, but power levels are more than adequate.
While the Pilot is dynamically pleasing, if a bit numb, the driver's environment has actually sustained a downgrade. It's spacious and comfortable, but it's ergonomically confused and the materials and design harks back nearly two decades. Plastics are hard and shiny and things are best at night when you can't see the surfaces. The center stack sprouts lots of buttons; helpful in that you can operate the audio, HVAC and navigation systems without venturing close to Honda's imitation of iDrive. It's nice to have as little interaction with a GUI and infuriating multifunction knob as possible. However, we'd have preferred knobs instead of rockers for temperature and blower fan settings. It also seemed to take the heater quite a while to blow roasty-toasty. Of course, there is a lot of interior volume and thus a lot of air to exchange, but the vents could certainly get hotter more quickly.
Things are well thought out for the inevitable family duty. There's a convex mirror for keeping an eye on who's throwing what, and the second-row seat is wide enough to accommodate a rare trio of LATCH anchors that allows three very solidly mounted kidlets to ride just behind your shoulders. A center console with big, no fuss cupholders and a gigantic storage bin make it easy to stow everything but the kitchen sink, which will likely fit in the door pockets or on the shelf in front of the passenger.
In the interest of keeping things quiet, there's a DVD entertainment system for those long hauls through uninteresting scenery. A power liftgate seems like unneeded frippery until the first time you come upon the Pilot with full hands, barely able to press the fob button. The back seat, too, is easier to get in and out of with a sliding second row and extra wheelbase. Real people actually fit back there, as opposed to the kneecap-munching lack of legroom in similar steeds.
The Touring trim level our tester carried does not come cheap, carrying a price tag of $40,095. For that price, thankfully, there's little else to want in the Pilot. The Touring is loaded to the gills with the stuff you'd expect on luxury CUVs – the power liftgate, the DVD system, three rows of seats, surefooted performance, navigation, the works. The interior styling and execution, however, are disappointing from an automaker that's served as a benchmark. While it's quieter than before, it's still not luxury-quiet inside, but at least Consumer Reports' reliability ratings offer peace of mind to supplant the peace and quiet.
The Pilot is one of those vehicles that comes for an evaluation and stays on our minds long after its gone. It may not peg the exceptional meter on any one thing, but it would be hard to call it anything but a good choice for a buyer looking in the segment.
Photos Copyright ©2009 Alex Núñez / Weblogs, Inc.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
C.W. 1:02PM (1/29/2009)
the first thing i notice is how hideous it is
Reply
carlbolt 1:10PM (1/29/2009)
It may look not so great at first glance, but look closely this car is superbly made. its build quality, practicality and fuel efficiency are outstanding. The Ford Flex and Chevy Traverse are not comparable to this one.
Sea Urchin 1:13PM (1/29/2009)
Carbolt, i think it was C&D, maybe Motor Trend that did a full review of SUVs. Pilot beat out Traverse very handily. In fact, of 6 SUVs tested Traverse came in 5th, even thou it is the newest.
Todd 1:59PM (1/29/2009)
Unlike everyone else in the world (seemingly) I think the new Pilot looks good...the styling move reminds me of the CR-V's development...the CR-V started out with a strong shoulder line and an airy looking upper-half with pretty thin A,B pillars (like the Pilot) and then the second generation was a very boxy and strong looking with thicker pillars (again just like the Pilot) so I personally was not surprised nor repulsed at all by the new style.
ken_aisin 1:44PM (1/29/2009)
These new Honda and Acura chrome designs are absolutely hideous. As a
design chief, Dave Marek is as inept as Chris Bangle. These two guys
should never have been allowed to work in the auto industry in the
first place.
Here are some fugly concepts from Dave Marek in case you're "interested"....
http://www.showrods.com/home_page_links/flat_out.html
pmalloy4391 2:23PM (1/29/2009)
To me it looks like a knock off of the jeep patriot
Adamb 4:35PM (1/29/2009)
Unlike most people, I find the Pilot very modern, cleaned lined. Unlike the whole GM triplets are very nice looking, they are just plain big, most people buy a Pilot because it doesn't look like a tank. I love big cars, don't take me wrong, and the GM and Ford companies' CUV's are very attractive to a buyer's whose main concern is size. Most of Honda buyers like to get the top of the line trim on the Odyssey and Pilot (to my knowledge). The CX-9 is amazing, but it doesn't look as masculine as the Honda Pilot. Don't bash me for my opinion.
roadkillrob 7:02PM (1/29/2009)
Its the first thing, second thing and last thing I notice about it - couldn't ever get past the looks of that thing, it was better before!
Buy a Highlander or anything else!
hyundaifans.com 11:44PM (1/29/2009)
The interior is first class but that snout.......
RSR 3:38AM (1/30/2009)
@carbolt,
Outstanding fuel efficiency? Flex and Traverse are not comparable? Check fueleconomy.gov. Flex and Traverse gets slightly better fuel economy for FWD. For AWD, Flex is same as Pilot, while Traverse is still better than both. All this with Traverse having more torque and hp, and far more towing capacity.
Perception wins again.
2004m3driver 1:08PM (1/29/2009)
I've driven it before and it is very accommodating. It has utility ,which is what its suppose to have, with out any flash or excitement for that matter. But IMO having something reliable and useful is an exciting prospect in itself.
Reply
Steven 1:10PM (1/29/2009)
The longer I look, the uglier it gets!
Reply
Assass1n 1:10PM (1/29/2009)
"ergonomically confused and the materials and design harks back nearly two decades. Plastics are hard and shiny and things are best at night when you can't see the surfaces."
But I'm sure it gets a free pass because of the H on the grill right?
Reply
Sean Eagen 4:24PM (1/29/2009)
Exactly. The wife's 05 Oddessey has HORRIBLE dash materials. Hard plastic everywehere. But I never heard complaints from any review sites. But once they get into a GM, they nonstop harp on it. Funny thing is my 04 Grand Prix GTP Comp G is built much better inside and out compared to the Honda. Shocking to me with all the honda lovers out there praising their build quality.
chconline 7:05PM (1/29/2009)
I think you'd get more credibility if you could spell "Odyssey" correctly.
We have a 2008 model year Odyssey EX-L (Purchased November because of the $8000 incentives) and I found everything to be top notch both in and out. Stuff like the leather seats are only with the EX-L, but dash is quite standard across the board. I've looked both upmarket and down, as well as driving cars from American, European, and Japanese, and there's nothing that the Odyssey doesn't have and better at its price point.
I'm not particular pro any brand nor against any brand, but I often find Honda to make something that's true to their philosophy. I thought the Pilot was extremely ugly at first (Same goes with the new Accord, previous and current gen Odyssey, CR-V, etc) and after a while, it's really growing on me. The funny thing is, we are on our fourth Honda in the last 10 years. We keep buying them out of choice. And it has been compared.
The only Honda vehicle that hasn't grown on me is the Ridgeline, but that's because it IS really ugly :x lol.
chconline 7:11PM (1/29/2009)
Forgot to add though -- I sat in the Pilot when I was at a Honda dealership a few months back. It didn't take me long before I jumped out, shaking my head. The interior is disgustingly bad, especially for a Honda. It's a very poor choice and attempt to imitate the worst interiors found on an American work truck.
g00fba11 9:24PM (1/29/2009)
yep...have had 6 Hondas for the past 10 years or so. The interior of the newer Hondas, starting with Pilots, but including the new Accords, are definitely much worse than before. It is really worrisome.
Assass1n 10:57AM (1/30/2009)
Its like Honduh realizes that Americans will buy anything with an H on the grill so they are almost daring us to buy their increasingly uglier cars with increasingly bad interiors. They probably figure they can slack off because we're gonna buy the Accord and CR-V no matter how ugly or cheap they make it, so why not save time and money and let the kids of the designers have at the designing.
bh 1:10PM (1/29/2009)
" it would be hard to call it anything but a good choice for a buyer looking in the segment. "
No it wouldn't. You list several key complaints, don't explain what makes it better than some tough competitors (except for saying there's more third-row-seat room, which isn't even true), and then conclude that it's pretty durn nice.
???
Reply
geo.stewart 2:19PM (1/29/2009)
yep, the traverse has better ergonomic, better materials, more room, and lower costs. cant speak to the ride but neighbor says its great.
of course, you always have those that blindly worship the big H, or as I like to say- the automotive equivalent of the golden arches though that is probably more a Toyota thing
and NO ONE can speak to the long term durability of the traverse as its too soon. GMs offerings as of late have been of a much higher standard than the past so I expect it will do just fine.