Honda Pilot (2017) vs. (2015) Specs

vs.

◆

2017 Honda Pilot and 2015 Specifications

2017 Honda Pilot Seat Room and Comfort: Pros
Year	Comment
2016	According to their spec sheets, the Ford Explorer and Nissan Pathfinder have more rear legroom than the new Honda Pilot. In practice, though, the Pilot's rear legroom feels at least as generous as theirs--I suspect some creative measuring--and well ahead of what you'll find in a Toyota Highlander. The Pilot's second-row seat isn't as high off the floor as the Ford Explorer's, but is more comfortably positioned than the low benches in the GM crossovers and the Pathfinder. The Elite trim level includes captains chairs, so it can only seat up to seven people. With a second-row split bench, other Pilots can seat eight people. The Pilot's largest seating advantage is its third row. Unlike in most crossovers, the cabin remains broad in the "way back," so there's enough shoulder room for three passengers. The Highlander's third-row bench, though also designed for three passengers, is somewhat narrower and lacking in legroom. Only the GM crossovers roughly match the new Pilot in third-row space as well as passenger capacity. The Pilot's seats are positioned so that the view forward from each is open, further enhancing perceived roominess. see full Honda Pilot review

None of our members have yet commented on the seat room and comfort of the 2017 Honda Pilot.

2015 Seat Room and Comfort: Pros
Year	Comment
2016	The CX-3's driving position is very good, more car-like even than the HR-V's. The view forward is open. The view rearward, not so much, as the racy styling yields rear windows that are quite a bit smaller than the front ones. To help compensate, the outside mirrors are large plus blind sport warning is standard on the Touring and Grand Touring. The CX-3's driver seat is very comfortable and provides good lateral support in turns. The cloth center pocket is cushy without being mushy. Unlike in the HR-V and some others, the headrest does not jut uncomfortably far forward. But the lumbar bulge is not adjustable. As is, it fit my back well, but many people will wish for more of a bulge. The HR-V's also non-adjustable lumbar bulge was too pronounced for my taste. The JUKE's seats are comfortable, but for effective side bolsters (and then some) you must step up to the NISMO. Worth noting for those of you who get your coffee to go: the cup holders are located beneath the armrest (optional on the Sport, standard on the others). If you want to use them, then you can't use the armrest. see full review

2015 Seat Room and Comfort: Cons
Year	Comment
	For people who have no interest in a manual transmission (the great majority), the Mazda CX-3's largest shortcoming is a rear seat that is tight even by small car standards. Sitting behind my 5-9 self, my knees pressed lightly against the front seat backs. I wasn't uncomfortable, but felt a little closed-in. A shame, as rear headroom is relatively plentiful and the rear seat is otherwise very comfortable. The HR-V provides about four inches more rear legroom, a big difference. According to their specs, the JUKE has three inches less rear legroom than the Mazda. In reality, though, I had perhaps an inch more rear knee room, but less rear headroom. The Nissan's rear seat might be slightly more adult-friendly than the Mazda's, but neither is a good choice if people taller than me will be sitting in both rows. see full review

None of our members have yet commented on the seat room and comfort of the 2015 .

See TrueDelta's information for all SUVs

See TrueDelta's information for all Honda models.