Honda Ridgeline SUT



  • atlgaxtatlgaxt Member Posts: 501
    As of right now the Frontier CC is probably at the top of my list for my next truck, but I am intrigued by the Ridgeline, so from my perspective the trucks do compete. My understanding is that the Ridgeline is rated to tow 5,000 lbs, which should be fine for a boat or utility trailer. I've always figured that if you need to tow more than 3,000 to 3,500 lbs on a regular basis, you probably need at least a full sized truck. Based upon preliminary information regarding payload and bed size, I think the Ridgeline is competitive with the Frontier and Tacoma crew cabs.


    The one area it is probably short (besides styling) is in terms of real off road ability. However, if the Ridgeline trades off some off road capability for better ride and handling than a traditional truck (as I expect that it would), I would have to think about it.


    Hope you enjoy your new Frontier. I'm not in the market yet, and am on the fence as to what I will do.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    Speaking of towing, how do automakers rate them? Is towing capacity rated with full payload, or with just the driver?


    In case of Pilot, Honda suggests maximum towing capacity of 4500 lb at sea level with four people on board the vehicle. I suspect Ridgeline would be rated something along the lines.


    Payload being transported could affect (remaining) towing capacity of any vehicle. But I doubt all automakers follow the same standard when it comes to it (similar to measure trunk/cargo space, some quote it using SAE standards, other do it via VDA method).
  • xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 16,360
    Actually, in my experience, the payload on board doesn't affect the towing capacity of the vehicle all that much except on steep grades. I've loaded my '69 chevy with close to 3000# of OSB in the bed and towed a 25' flat bed with 12000# of lumber simultaneously and the weight in the bed of the truck probably helped when pulling the trailer as it gave me more traction pulling it up my muddy driveway. Even a small trailer will really affect my truck's ability to pull a grade, but I can fill the bed with 2 yards of rock and pull the same grade at the speed limit with no problem. Add that same trailer to the payload, and the grade-pulling performance drops right back off. *shrugs* Of course, I'm comparing an antique truck to a modern truck/comfy ride/utility-thingy, when there really is no comparison, but just relating my experience with the topic.


    It might have more of an impact on an auto tranny due to add'l heat build up.
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250
  • varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    As I recall, Honda rated towing for the Pilot with 4 persons and their luggage for a weekend. Buick published numbers assuming a driver and one passenger. I know that some Fords were rated with only the driver and no other weight, but I'm not sure they still do that. No idea how Toyota and Nissan do things.


    The Frontier comes in far more combinations that the one-size-fits-all approach of the Ridgeline. Its also cheaper, even with the more powerful V6. But when using a CC with 4wd and similar equipment, there are some good comparisons.


    The Ridgeline tows 5,000 lbs, which is not bad. But its 1,100 lbs short of the Frontier.


    The Frontier has a payload of 1381, 1098, or 1365 lbs depending on whether you chose the SE, Nismo, or LE. The Ridgeline leads this category with 1549 lbs. The Frontier will come within 100 lbs of that, but you have to drop 4WD on the SE or LE.


    Nissans website has apparently goofed up their labeling of the bed dimensions. If they mean what I think they mean, the beds are about the same length. Width depends on how Nissan measured it. The number they list on their site is 10 more than the Ridgeline. But Honda specifies that theyre talking about the distance between the wheel wells. Nissan does not. And when you look at pics of each bed, the Nissan wheel wells are much larger.
  • xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 16,360
    100 lbs one way or the other is pocket change. If you're gonna need to push the envelope on either rig very often, just install a set of air shocks and inflate when you need them. The biggest problem with slightly overloading is the squat - makes steering a bit dicey......
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    Steep grades throw in another dimension to the towing capacity as does elevation above sea-level... notice what Honda quotes on Pilot: 4500 lb with 4 passengers on board at sea-level.


    Besides on steep grades, payload must affect towing capacity. If the vehicle is operating at GVWR, it may or may not be ready for its rated towing capacity.


    In some 4WD pickups towing capacity is rated lower than their 2WD counterparts. That must have some reasoning (added weight of the 4WD?).


    Also, payload is critical in vehicles that can carry 4-people and stuff. If each person weighed 175 lb on average, half of the total payload is gone, right there.
  • atlgaxtatlgaxt Member Posts: 501
    As I passed a couple of Elements this morning, it struck me that if anything, the styling of the Ridgeline is actually more related to the element (IMHOP) as compared to the Pilot or any other Honda model. The good news about that (for me at least) is that I did not care for the Element at all when it came out, but it grew on me and I think they are pretty cool now. Maybe the same thing will happen with the Ridgeline.
  • xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 16,360
    Thanks for the clarification, Robertsmx. I don't tow with anything other than my '69, so I really haven't experienced how towing affects other vehicles - particularly passenger vehicles. I also typically don't tow long distances, and keeping your load within rated capacity is a lot more important on distance than it is for short jaunts. However, if you know you're gonna use a rig to tow something (like a boat, utility trailer, RV) it should be rated to easily tow it. If you tow 5000# regularly, you probably shouldn't buy a Ridgeline to tow it; but that's just my opinion.
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250
  • varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    I have to correct an earlier post of mine where I mentioned how Buick rates their vehicles for towing. This is the current disclaimer they have on their website.


    "**Maximum trailer weight ratings are calculated assuming a base vehicle, except for any options necessary to achieve the rating, plus driver. The weight of other optional equipment, passengers and cargo will reduce the maximum trailer weight you vehicle can tow. See your dealer for additional details."


    xwesx - I didn't mean to imply any significant advantage for the Ridgeline. I agree that 100 lbs isn't much of a difference. Though it's more like 200 lbs when similarly equipped. I was just listing the capacities.


    "If you tow 5000# regularly, you probably shouldn't buy a Ridgeline to tow it..."


    Ditto that. It's best to leave a little extra "in the bank". As a general rule, towing something that weighs more than the vehicle pulling it probably isn't wise.
  • xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 16,360
    Oh, and I didn't mean it as a defense of one vehicle over another; it was just a mentioning. Clearly, all of these compact/mid-size pickups have their place.


    Haha! Just read your last sentence: "As a general rule..." Hey, didn't I tell you that my '69 weighs over 12000#? *sheepish grin*
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250
  • chuck999chuck999 Member Posts: 38
    Check out this link for video comments by the Ridgeline design team leader ....

  • atlgaxtatlgaxt Member Posts: 501
    I read that the Ridgeline can transfer up to 70% of its torque to its rear wheels. I have also read that the Pilot normally operates with 90% of the power to the front wheels. That seems less than optimal for a pick-up. Has anyone seen what the default balance of the Ridgeline will be? I think 50% / 50% would be good.


    Also, I read somewhere that the Ridgeline will have traction control. Does anyone have information as to how that will work?


  • qbrozenqbrozen Member Posts: 32,238
    Actually, I'm almost positive that the Pilot normally operates with 100% power to the front. It only transfers the power on hard acceleration and any other time it detects slipping.

    Fairly steady: '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c, '21 WRX, '20 S90 T6, '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel, '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '08 Maser QP / Rotating stock, but currently: '92 325i, '97 Alto Works, '96 Pajero Mini, '11 Mini Cooper S

  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    With VTM-4 (and its evolved version, SH-AWD), power distribution is proactively distributed based on throttle. 50-50 isn’t necessarily optimal if traction doesn’t demand it, and more so in a pickup with empty bed (most of the weight would be up front).


    To bring home the point, I will use Acura RL’s SH-AWD. RL has 58/42 static weight distribution. During moderate straightline acceleration, weight shifts towards the rear and so does power distribution (40-60). The rear wheels can get up to 70% of the total power. During cruising, the weight bias is up front (nearly 60%), and so is the power distribution (60-40).


    Depending on these parameters, and combined with the “intelligence” of the computer involved, Ridgeline could have several variances of its own depending on the situation rather than having a fixed 50-50 split.


    As far as traction control goes, in Ridgeline, Vehicle Stability Assist (w/traction control) is standard. VSA allows against side-slip while traction control does what it does. Combine with VTM-4, and this should be one stable pickup.
  • atlgaxtatlgaxt Member Posts: 501
    Thanks for the good replies. I will be interested to hear more about the VTM-4 in the Ridgeline, as I hope that the system has been optimized for use in a pickup truck.


    While I am still thinking about an SUV for my next vehicle, I think a crew cab pickup makes the most sense for me. I'd wish I liked the Tacoma more, but that is one vehicle that I have been less impressed when I have seen it in real life as compared to pictures. The Dakota does not do it for me either. A V8 is intriguing, but to put higher grade fuel to get 250 hp is a joke. The GM twins (Canyon / Colorado) with their 5 cylinder engines and cheap interiors are also a joke.


    As of right now, I think it is between the Ridgeline and the new Frontier. Slightly different flavors, but both have some impressive strengths.
  • varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    Here's a primer on VTM-4. More detail can be found by looking up the Pilot's drivetrain on Honda's website (or just read the link below).


    VTM-4 technical details


    VTM-4 will typically power the front wheels with 100% of the engine's torque. Power is managed by the system's ECU. More slippage = more power sent to the rear. Originally, VTM-4 could send upt to 50% of the torque to the rear. A few years back, the version used in the MDX was upgraded to about 70%. Not sure if the Pilot ever got the same upgrade. The link above hasn't been updated since 2002.


    VTM-4 also incorporates a "locker" of sorts on the rear axle. The two rear wheels may be locked together when the system engages.


    There are 3 situations which will engage VTM-4. Here's the short version. VTM-4 will engage when....


    1. The system detects slippage. If a front wheel slips, the system will send power through the propshaft to the rear wheels. The system "detects" slippage based on input from sensors in the ABS system, so it reacts purdy darn quick.


    2. The driver steps hard on the accelerator. There's a sensor hooked up to the throttle which will enage the rear wheels if the driver aggressively hits the gas. It does this to prevent slippage.


    3. The driver puts the vehicle in lock mode. There's a switch on the dash meant to be used at low speeds, on slippery surfaces, or when doing something like pulling up a boat ramp.


    My guess is that when loaded with heavy materials, towing a boat out of the water, or other stuff like that, the driver will be stepping on the accelerator with a heavier foot than normal. That might qualify as a #2 situation. Pulling from a stop, they can certainly use the lock mode (#3) to get going. Of course it will revert to reactive mode when they get up around 18 mph, so it's only for that initial tug.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    VTM-4 in Ridgeline may be set up differently from Pilot which is slightly different from MDX. It would be a matter of programming the control module.


    In case of RL (SH-AWD), the setup is for permanent AWD (both axles are powered at all times, with rear wheel(s) receiving as much as 70% and never less than 40% of the torque.
  • varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    Right. We really don't know which version of VTM-4 is hiding under the Ridgeline. It could be version 3.0 for all we know.


    I think the SH-AWD is capable of a permanent power split because it has what Honda calls an "acceleration device" forming a coupling between the rear diff and the prop shaft. That device varies the speed of the front vs the back and thus prevents binding. The VTM-4 design doesn't have one. Hence the 100% FWD mode for regular driving.
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    I believe VTM-4 on the Pilot and MDX can be "locked" in 4WD mode if the gear shift is in either "1" or "2." but not so if it's in "Drive." I wonder if the Ridgeline is set up that way too?


    Also, I'm wondering, if the Ridgeline is carrying a load in the bed, or pulling a trailer, is more power is shifted to the rear wheels?


  • varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    I have read nothing that suggests the Ridgeline has weight sensors connected to the VTM-4, so I doubt it. But unless the front wheels aren't getting the job done, I don't see a need for it.
  • wbaywbay Member Posts: 34
    Looks like the Honda El Camino.
  • xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 16,360
    Yeah, now that you mention it, it is the perfect likeness of an El Camino. *shakes his head* Oy......
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    I see the Ridgeline as looking more like a mid-size Chevy Avalanche, especially in profile; and I don't mean that as a slam.


  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    I doubt that acceleration device is responsible for torque split variation between front and rear. In MDX, VTM-4 sends upto 70% of the torque to the rear wheels so it should be possible to simply reprogram the system to send a "permanent split" for cruising. And that may have been done for SH-AWD (and it is 60-40 during cruising).


    But given the weight bias, I wouldn't be surprised if Ridgeline is more similar to MDX and Pilot.
  • once_for_allonce_for_all Member Posts: 1,640
    Bob, I see this as a good thing for Ridgeline sales, as the Avalanche is IMO "overgrown". The actual usable space, vs its size, is criminal. Plus, try parking this gorilla in any city-sized stall, and lets not forget the mpg penalties.


    The Ridgeline should hit it just right. If Subaru doesn't come in with a contender in the next 2 years, I will very likely swap out my Forester.


  • xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 16,360
    Yes Bob and John, I completely agree. It looks similar to the Avalanche in profile, but is definitely the right size for the rig and is far more functional from what I've read here. To compare it to an El Camino is like saying the new '05 Subaru Outback Wagon was patterned after a mid-90s Chevy Caprice. ;-D
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250
  • varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    "I doubt that acceleration device is responsible for torque split variation between front and rear."


    I don't think the acceleration device is necessarily responsible for distributing power. I believe the clutch packs are capable of handling that. Sending more or less power is not a problem. Allowing the wheels to spin at different speeds (while powering all of them) is the hurdle.


    For many designs, this means a center differential.


    I expect one of the reasons why VTM-4 (and RT4WD for that matter) revert back to FWD mode as soon as traction is restored is because traction + turning = binding in a system without a diff.


    I think the accel device handles that part of the job. It prevents binding.
  • varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    It's the way the top edge of the bed tapers from cab downward to the tailgate. Most other trucks have the cab and bed meet at a right angle.


    The Avalanche doesn't do this. On the Chevy, the roof tapers to the bed, then it goes straight back. But that taper (and lack of a 90 degree angle) is just enough of a visual oddity to make them seem similar.


    I kinda like the front end of the Ridgeline. The lights are interesting and it's masculine without being over-the-top. But I don't like the profile. Can't tell if it's coming or going. I think Honda could have come up with a better way to make the design stand out from the pack.
  • chuck999chuck999 Member Posts: 38
    Wife has MDX with it's version of VTM-4. This weekend, drove from Baltimore to Northern PA ... Upon arrival - 1/2 mile dirt road to cabin had at least 18 inches new and old unplowed snow. Shift into D1-2 and push button for VTM-lock. Sweet - just plowed up those hills, cross little stream - no probs. On the way back home on Mon - nice snowstorm in northern PA - semi's overturned, etc. Vehicle held road fantastically well ....


    Bottom line - From my driving experience, VTM-4 seems well engineered. Honda's been working it out over the years. If Ridgeline version is similar - this is a fairly significant advantage over other pickups .....
  • cr vcr v Member Posts: 23
    It seems like things are a stand off,quess waiting for the arrival of the real thing.So if you are interesed here is a real toy for those that enjoy thier off road adventure's. I think that a Hummer would bend at the knee's if it encountered one.Plus win the lottery to afford it.Have seen them in the Swiss,French and Italian Alps with Snow Blowers and Plows also in farmers field through out Europe.Now I hope that the link I am about to type in works,if not type in Unimog USA in Google.

    <> PS:click on applications when site loads.
  • once_for_allonce_for_all Member Posts: 1,640
    LOL Unimogs are great. I used to see them in Africa occasionally, they handle the sand dunes and river crossings pretty well. Jungle mud bogs are favorite social gatherings with their elephant buddies.


  • andyman73andyman73 Member Posts: 322
    Unimogs ROCK!!! :D I lived in Germany for nearly 8 years, and they used Unis for EVERYTHING! Thanks for bringing back the memories! This would definitely be my toy of choice! I liked the yellow one with the explorer set up. Man, I'd make it my daily driver just cuz I could. A Unimog would be my lottery toy! Would work great up at camp, and wouldn't have to EVER shovel the drive again!


    Oh yeah, the HMMV would turn tail at the sight of one of these bad boys! Talk about reviving all my childhood car dreams.
  • xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 16,360
    Composite bed is an excellent idea. I'd hate to damage it though; the repair costs would be scary...
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250
  • varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    Anybody know how expensive it is to replace a typical steel bed?


    I posted this a while back, but one of the things Honda had in mind when they designed the bed was crash safety. With cargo in the bed, a frontal crash becomes an automatic rear-ending for the passenger compartment. Honda tested a Toyota (I think it was the Tundra) and found that the cargo easily smashed through the back wall of the cab.


    Anyway... wonder if their choice of material was partly driven by that concern. A Honda engineer at NAIAS claimed that the Ridgeline's passenger compartment can withstand the crash test which the Toyota failed.
  • atlgaxtatlgaxt Member Posts: 501
    I'm confused. I got my Truck Trend yesterday. On the cover, they had a headline that said something like, the All new Ridgeline, "Honda just does not get it". I looked inside the magazine and there was a relatively positive preview article. I also received a Motor Trend, which also had a fairly positive preview article.


    What is up with the headline?


    Anyway, one point of interest. They said they drag raced a Ridgeline and an F-150 with the 5.4 V8 (I think), both pulling 5,000 lb trailers. The F-150 won, but apparently not by much. Looks like the Ridgeline will have enough towing capability for me.
  • varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    "They said they drag raced a Ridgeline and an F-150 with the 5.4 V8 (I think), both pulling 5,000 lb trailers."


    Sounds promising, but you have to remember that sprinting and hauling over distance are two different animals. Heat build-up would be one of the important factors that would probably not show up in a sprint.
  • ergoergo Member Posts: 56
    [B][U]Ridgeline vs. Avalanche[B][U] Specifications:

    3.5L VTEC-V6 vs. 5.3L V8

    255hp & 245 ft lbs vs. 295hp & 330 ft lbs

    Mileage 16/21* (Estimated) vs. 14-16/17-20mpg


    Width 77.8" vs. 79.8" (excludes mirrors)

    Length 206.8" vs. 221.0" (Av has bumpers F/R)

    Height 70.3" vs. 73.6" (Wheels can affect this)

    Wheel track 67.1" vs. 66.9"

    Seats 5 vs. 5 or 6


    Hip Room F/R 40.7/39.1 vs. 40.7/38.6

    Leg Room F/R 40.8/36.4 vs. 41.3/38.9

    Shoulder Room 63.2/62.6 vs. 65.2/65.2

    Hip Room 57.6/57.2 vs. 61.4/62.0


    Ground clearance 8.2 vs. 8.6-9.6


    Bed Dimensions

    Length 60.0 vs. 63.0

    Depth 20.7 vs 22.5

    Width 49.5 vs 49.0

    Storage 8.5 in trunk vs. 6.2 in side boxes

    Covers Optional vs. Standard 41.0 Sq ft lockable

    Bed Mat Optional vs. Standard

    Composite bed Yes vs. Yes

    Tailgate Capacity 300lbs vs. 1,500 rolling

    Midgate No vs. Yes

    Rear Window Power vs. Removable


    Towing Up to 5,000lbs vs 7,000to12,000 lbs.

    Transfer case No vs. Yes

    Lock Rear Diff? No vs. Yes


    Base price $28,000+ vs. $32,000+


    So, the numbers were closer than I imagined! The Ridgeline is only 2 inches shy in width! It's 15 inches shorter overall, but lack the protective Fron and Rear bumpers that most trucks have. The front seat dimensions are competitive, though the back seat seems to be tight in comparison to an Av. I also must admit that the price and MPG were closer than I expected. Given the fact there are no stripper Avalanches, plus the new Toyota Tacoma, Nissan Frontier, Chevy Colorado, and Dodge Dakota...I'd say it'll be an interesting battle in the marketplace. Just what does American want?


    What are your impressions thus far? ???
  • atlgaxtatlgaxt Member Posts: 501
    Wow - I guess the Ridgeline is bigger than I realized - but the Ridgeline is about as big a vehicle as I would want to drive. Interior space seems a little tighter than Avalanche. But the comparison between the two is closer than I would have thought.
  • once_for_allonce_for_all Member Posts: 1,640
    yup, I see that too. But, I thought that the VTM-4 system DID have locking rear wheel drive.


    ALSO- and this is important--AWD and IRS on the Honda.


  • xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 16,360
    My point was that the composite bed is nearly one piece (or 10, according to the article posted above) and therefore would require more to be fixed/replaced if some of it was spot-damaged than a steel bed with many components that are independently replaceable. Overall, I'd much prefer a composite bed over steel. Heck, I even prefer the wood bed in my '69 over steel and I know that composite is more durable than the wood. But again, I can replace individual pieces of wood in my truck should I damage them. A completely new wood bed is about $700 pre-manufactured, or I could do it myself for much, much less had I the inclination. Composite is another story....
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250
  • granite_statergranite_stater Member Posts: 26
    Holy cow.. the ridgeline is EXACTLY what I'm looking for!


    My competitve set was the Tacoma and Frontier in crew cab... I wanted the passenger space of four doors put more utility than your average SUV. I don't really tow things but wouldn't mind the capability should I need it. I need the bed to transport landscaping materials as I've recently built a house and will be doing all the landscaping on my 3 acre + lot. I'm sure the bed will come in handy for hauling plenty of other things in the future as well (mountain bikes, skis, golf clubs, building materials, furniture, etc., etc., etc.)


    And I need AWD/4WD for our New England winters.


    I was prepared to accept the comprimises of those vehicles (less than ideal ride, higher step in height, less than spacious back seats, etc.) until I saw the Ridgeline... I haven't tested it yet, but I'm 99% sold by what I've seen so far in terms of design.


    As per the styling, yes, I agree that some angles can look odd. But then again, it's starting to grow on me and I think it's not a deal breaker... I'm not into how it looks, I'm into how it works!


    I went over to that "Temple of V-Tec" site linked above... great video with the engineer in charge of the project talking about facets of the car. It is exteremly well thought out and executed of a design... pracitcality/utility and a good understanding of how the target consumer would really use the vehicle drove several smart design decisions.




    + The trunk is brilliant.

    + Composite cargo liner is nice and the payload/towing are more than adequate for my needs.

    + Best in class gas mileage

    + Best in class interior space... esp. the back seat

    + very smart touches in the interior... the center console is trick! All controls are designed to be easy to operate with gloves on... that's just good thinking.

    + Rear seat provides additoinal functionality/storage by being a 60/40 split

    + Can carry 4 ft. building materials BETWEEN the wheel wells.

    + tie down cleats and good lighting in the bed

    + It's a Honda, so you know it will be well built and reliable


    The minuses


    - I would have loved to see an integrated roof rack of some sort

    - No pass through ala the avalanche

    - Styling is different... but I'm warming up to it

    - No rail system for adjustable cleats/devices ala the Frontier

    - didn't see a power outlet in the rear.. (the one on the Tacoma is trick)

    - Can it accomidate a bed cap?

    - It's not at my local Honda dealer RIGHT NOW!


    I'm geeked to drive one...


  • chuck999chuck999 Member Posts: 38
    Excellent comparison of Ridgeline vs Avalanche numbers .... Confirmed my impression that A. is lots less efficient with space and comes out with similary cargo / passenger space ..


    One thing not mentioned ...

    Side CURTAIN airbags:


    STANDARD in Ridgeline

    NOT AVAILABLE in Avalanche


    Avalanche has OPTIONAL SIDE airbags to protect shoulder - but not the CURTAIN type that protect head in side impact or rollover.


    This is major advantage IMHO ...
  • timfarntimfarn Member Posts: 289
    After reading posts on features being a major advantage, it comes down to what you want/need. True trucks for work/offroad use have transfer cases, locking rearends, larger payloads and towing capabilities, etc. About town models feature AWD, IRS for the ride, etc. But, the Av ride is so smooth, even with the solid rear axle!
  • nargnarg Member Posts: 112
    I don't understand the need or desire for the high angled line on the sides of the bed. If they straightened it out, and simplified it would be 1. less expesive, 2. more attractive (imo).


    That high line makes the bed harder to get into from the sides, which limits it's usability. Not to mention is makes the vehicle just look plain weird.


    Other minor points, I expected a little better gas milage from Honda. I can get 20 MPG in my big V8 chevy full size. Why only 21 in a 6 by Honda? I also hope the radio options are a little better, as the pictures don't give a good feeling that it's a decent system.


    Everything else is extremely positive. Having driven some of the Honda SUV's this guy has a lot of potential.
  • varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    I was serious about what it costs to replace a steel bed. My experience with pick-ups is all 2nd-hand. I've never owned one myself. I don't doubt that a steel bed would be cheaper to replace or repair. I just have no idea how much cheaper.
  • varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    Timfarn - If I recall correctly, the AV's wheelbase is a lot longer than the Ridgeline. That would certainly help smooth out the bumps.


    "I don't understand the need or desire for the high angled line on the sides of the bed. If they straightened it out, and simplified it would be 1. less expesive, 2. more attractive (imo)." - narg


    The sides are that high to cure a few aerodynamic issues. In the videos mentioned above, the LPL explains several aero-related enhancements, including the odd-looking tail gate (doesn't match the height of the sides).


    I agree that it will make getting over the sides more difficult. The whole bed seems kinda high, too. Liftover may be a problem for some.
  • cumminsguycumminsguy Member Posts: 1
    I think that it is funny that people are comparing the F-150 to the Honda! Anyone who knows anything about vehicles would say that the Honda is going to be the better choice simply because of their reliablity! Ford has been a sleep at the wheel for years, and the verdict is still out on how well the F-150 will hold up!
  • xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 16,360
    I do not know, either. I have certainly damaged the inside of steel beds before (it is not too difficult to do!), but I have never had one repaired. To me, it just would not make sense, but then I have never owned a truck that I wanted to keep pretty!


    I think the Honda representative pointed out the reason why composite beds are not more widespread: they are far more expensive (pound for pound) and most consumers, given the option, do not care enough about the material to incur the added expense (and wait, as apparently GM did not mfg the composite bed unless it was pre-ordered).
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250
Sign In or Register to comment.