Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Toyota Tacoma vs Honda Ridgeline

2456726

Comments

  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,652
    Need to compare apples-to-apples; the Ridgeline should to be compared to a 4x4, not a 2WD.

     

    Bob
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 8,269
    I agree with you wholeheartedly on many points you have illustrated in this topic (and others), Bob. While I hope to not be in the market for a new vehicle to replace my '96 Subaru OB for another 3 years, I have seriously been leaning toward a small CC pickup to be both my Subaru and my '69 C20. I want to retire the '69 as a work truck one of these years to restore it (only needs some touch up) and then not use it for in-bed payload; hopefully just some parades & periodic towing.

     

    The ridgeline will definitely be on my short list come shopping time. With a small maxi-dump trailer, I should be able to use it admirably as a family car and also haul the equivalent with the trailer as my '69 does in its bed alone. On the rare occasion that I do need 3-8 ton towing, I can break out ol' yeller to supplement.

     

    I have already removed the Tacoma from that list, at least for the time being (we'll see again in 3 yrs).
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,452
    bob, my only point is that the bed area is over designed. i am not trying to discourage anyone from buying one.
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,652
    my only point is that the bed area is over designed.

     

    And more power to Honda for doing so, and may they reap the rewards (aka sales & profits) that all those overdesigned features are bound to bring.

     

    Bob
  • looked very nice. There was a 4 x 2 xtra cab with a sport package (large wheels, slightly lowered, etc.). Very nice looking truck drawing huge crowds.

     

    So, I climbed into the front seat, and liked just about everything until I looked out the windshield. The rear view mirrow was actually below my eye level (me being 6'3") and created a huge blind spot for me. Wondering why, I noticed that Toyota had created head room by carving out a chunk of the head liner. Hmmm. Not good.

     

    Loved the oil filter location on the V-6 and nifty drain setup with easy access.

     

    Hoping Honda has things sized better for me.

     

    John
  • Pretty face or ugly face, who cares.

     

    For the apparently few buyers of 4WD trucks who use it, or even know what it does, there is no 4Lo range in the Ridgeline, according to a magazine review I just read. If you actually plan to use it for 4-wheeling rather than just carting family and friends to the ski slopes and malls, you'd better check this out for yourself.

     

    If lack of 4Lo does not matter, you're comparing it to the wrong type of vehicle (Tacoma still has this). An all-wheel-drive station wagon or van would be more analogous (lots of passenger and cargo room, not much 4-wheeling ability). Or if you occasionally need an open bed, there's the GM SUV with the sliding rear roof.
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,652
    I agree. That's one of my few complaints about the Ridgeline; no low-range. :(

     

    Bob
  • The Ridgeline boasts having the first pickup with a trunk! I could see many uses here. For one: you may not need a tool box. The draw back is that if you have a load of heavy tools or lumber or manure, you will have to remove the load before you can get to the trunk. The "door opening" reminds me of the old El Camino. That was a car that was a truck also and it had quite a long bed.

     

    All-in-all you will have 255 ponies pulling it and it is capable of towing 5,000 pounds.

     

    As neat as this may be, I ordered a Tacoma and hope to take delivery sometime before I die.

     

    B
  • I currently work at a Honda dealership, and you might want to do a little research, the honda ridgeline as with the pilot both have a four low option. However it is not called that, it is called VTM for variable torque management and is standard on all ridgelines and pilots. For your safety once engaged, if you exceed the recommended speed for the four low option it will automatically disengage to prevent damage to the engine.
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,652
    I currently work at a Honda dealership, and you might want to do a little research, the honda ridgeline as with the pilot both have a four low option.

    WRONG!

    That is not a "Low Range." All that is, is the ability to lock the vehicle in either 1st or 2nd gear—which is not low range.

    Vehicles with a with a low-range transfer case have a full set of gears x 2. So if the Ridgeline had a true low range transfer case, it would have a total of 10 gears, not 5.

    Bob
  • varmintvarmint Posts: 6,326
    Bob is right. VTM-4 locks the rear diff so that power is constantly being send to the rear wheels (up to a certain speed), but it has nothing to do with the gearing of the transmission.
  • My dying Grand Cherokee was capable but is not functional for my current needs. My requirements are for a pick-up capable of: 1) hauling firewood, dirt, stone, furniture, etc.; 2) 4WD or AWD to get me up the mountain dirt trail thru mud, snow, ice (but no need for off-roading); 3) small enough to fit thru the 8' wide mile-long "driveway" along the cliff; 4) smooth, comfortable ride [middle-aged man with bad back]; 5) relatively quiet ride [mild hearing loss]; 6) "good" mpg [miles from gas station; 7) "small" turning circle [tiny turn-around at cliff top]; 8) comfortable back seat for "haulin'" in-laws. I'm considering Dakota Quad 4WD; Tacoma Double Cab 4WD; & Ridgeline Crew Cab AWD. Anybody know what's best?
  • The ridgeline sounds like a good fit, I didn't wait because I didn't like the looks of it. I ruled out Dakota because of the history of Dodge and poor resale. That left Tacoma and Frontier (which you didn't mention). I heavily researched both, test drove both (many times) and I thought the Frontier was the clear winner. All three (Taco, Frontier and Ridgeline) are all newly designed/remodeled. There are going to be growing pains. With a completely new platform, I would be a little more hesitant to go with the Honda. The Taco is having some major growing pains (maybe they will get ironed out by later this year). I have had zero problems with the Frontier, but they have only been out for a couple of months. Just my thoughts.
  • Thanks for responding. I read that around town and on the highway the Frontier is comfortable but a bit harsh, that the heavy-duty frame is ultra-stiff which makes for a choppy ride. Do you own the Nismo or one of the others, e.g. LE?
  • atlgaxtatlgaxt Posts: 487
    Stiff frame is a good thing, which helps your ride. Stiff suspension setting make a vehicle ride hard. Are you saying the Frontier has a stiff suspension?

    You do not want a loose floppy frame.
  • This is why you need to demo for yourself: ride quality is extremely subjective.

    I test drove non-NISMO and NISMO Frontiers. I thought the non-NISMO (SE) had a very plush ride, predictable yet ultrasmooth. I actually preferred the firmer NISMO ride and ordered that truck instead for that and other reasons.

    These trucks have long wheelbases, so they do not have a choppy ride at all (again, this is my subjective rating). You want choppy, try riding a bobtailed 4WD such as a Sami or Wrangler.
  • centralcalcentralcal Posts: 215
    I have an LE. I think the ride is excellent (and I just got out of a car and I am very picky). I do think the Taco ride is a little more refined if you do not get the TRD package, but the Frontier is very nice and much quieter. The Taco sport seats are very comfortable, but I thought SR5 seats were not (and you can not adjust them). Also, the visibility wasn't very good. I feel very confident taking the Frontier through about anything (I am sure the Taco is the same). I would take them both out several times on a test drive, you will find one you like better.
  • woofwoof Posts: 27
    From what I can see, the Ridgeline is an interesting vehicle and would meet my needs for my next truck. Yet, recent experiences with my '01 and '02 Accords were the worst of any cars I've owned. The '01 was a lemon; Honda's customer service from both the dealer and the factory was terrible, actually torturous. (The '02 was not a lemon but was developing unexpected problems, including transmission and brakes, so I quickly dumped it after 20k miles and less than one year.) My Toyotas have been great; any issues were handled with care by the dealer often with a follow-up from the factory people. Based on experience, this is a BIG plus for Toyota. Even though Toyota's warranty is better from the start, they take care of customers much better in and out of warranty. My vote goes to Toyota.
  • boxskyboxsky Posts: 7
    That's unusually for Honda. I had a 95 Civic and my wife a 94 with no problems. I had over 125,000 miles on me with only a CV boot needing to be replaced and my wife had a water pump go around 85,000 miles.
    Later on my wife and mother both bought a RAV4 and both had small problems with them. My mother also got a Camry and had several problems with fit/finish. Honda, Toy & Nissan still are better then the big 3. It's all preferences.
Sign In or Register to comment.