Midsize Pickup Comparo

thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
edited March 2014 in Honda
The Ridgeline has been found to be competitive with the four-door models of most midsize trucks from Nissan, Toyota, Dodge, and Chevrolet. I thought a proper comparison was in order for this field of trucks.
«13456715

Comments

  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    If you can assist me in adding the other two pickups to the list I would appreciate it. This comparison is for the four-door models of the midsize pickup market.
  • KCRamKCRam Mt. Arlington NJMember Posts: 3,516
    Done, and I added the Colorado twin as well.

    kcram - Pickups Host
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Thank you, host.

    To get started, who feels that the Ridgeline is overpriced for what it delivers?

    Some say that the Honda pickup is too expensive to compete in the midsize pickup market, but the same can be said for the other Japanese makes in this comparison (all can be optioned to $30,000 or more, yet don't offer the brawny V-8 power (with exception of Dodge) that the full-size trucks do. A case can be made for the full size trucks (with rebates, a Silverado can often be had with 4wd and a V-8 for $25,000 if not less.

    Let the fun begin.

    thegrad
  • chrisconchriscon Member Posts: 23
    To say that all trucks can be optioned to $30k or more is not a good argument. To me you have to compare the standard features vs. the standard pricing.

    I have a 2005 Frontier SE 4x4 Crew Cab with only power package as an option, and I was at $24k. How do the other models match up to this?
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    I just read on the Ridgeline board of someone paying under 25k for a Ridgeline RT. This comes with standard power accessories (pw, pl, CD, air, cruise ctrl). It also includes neat features like the dual action tailgate, in-bed trunk, and LOADS of safety stuff standard (Vehicle Stability Control (optional on most other makes), Electronic Brake-Force Distribution, 4-channel ABS, 8 (or 6, I can't remember) airbags, keyless entry, and other items not standard on many trucks.

    I was just making the point about options because that is how Car and Driver (or was it MT?) tested them. Honda was actually not the most pricey when basically equipped comparably. The ranking from first to last went as such

    Honda Ridgeline (On basis of ingenious idea of trunk, lots of room, great handling)
    Nissan Frontier (Only entry with leather, with great steering)
    Toyota Tacoma (Had longest bed but iffy handling)
    Dodge Dakota (Needed more power despite most cylinders, also lacked ABS with its $32k price)
    Chevrolet Colorado (Significantly under-powered with CHEAP interior)
  • varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    Amen. You do need to look at features. Otherwise pricing comparisons can be very tricky.

    When equipped with similar hardware, the Ridgeline costs about as much as a similar Tacoma or Frontier. The thing that sets the Ridgeline apart is that the base model is still fairly well equipped. There is no stripped, 2wd model of the Honda. So perception suggests that it is expensive even though the reality is not so bad.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Amen. You do need to look at features. Otherwise pricing comparisons can be very tricky.

    When equipped with similar hardware, the Ridgeline costs about as much as a similar Tacoma or Frontier. The thing that sets the Ridgeline apart is that the base model is still fairly well equipped. There is no stripped, 2wd model of the Honda. So perception suggests that it is expensive even though the reality is not so bad.


    Yep; the base model of the Ridgeline is VERY well-equipped.
  • toykicktoykick Member Posts: 104
    FOR THOSE DIE HARD TRUCK FANS WHO SAID THEY WOULD COMMIT SUICIDE IF VTEC MADE IT INTO A TRUCK...WELL. NOW YOU CAN KILL YOURSELVES...
  • gearhead1gearhead1 Member Posts: 408
    WELL. NOW YOU CAN KILL YOURSELVES...

    That would be sweet. :)
  • woodshop28woodshop28 Member Posts: 74
    I am not sure what the point of this post is, but I believe both the Nissan and Toyota 6-cyl engines have a form of variable intake. The ridgeline's engine is no more powerful than the other trucks.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    I noticed in a recent test of a Pontiac G6, that it had variable lift timing, even though it is still a pushrod engine. A "VTec/Vvti - like system may not be that far away for MANY automakers. After all, it is tuned to bring torque numbers up down low, and helps raise peak horsepower up high. I remember driving a 1994 Dodge Ram 5.2 V-8 (220 hp, I think). It had plenty of get up off the line, but punch it at 60 mph, and it had nothing for the driver when compared to a Ridgeline. Add to that it got 11 mpg when driving it to work, and I'd say that VTec is a good thing.
  • demoncleanerdemoncleaner Member Posts: 82
    All these trucks were redone or released in the past 2 years, so you'd think a competive field... This is simple. Toyota, Honda, and Nissan did their homework before releasing thier trucks. Each has design features to meet what different truck buyers want. They were significantly improved over the previous model (except Honda as its new). Dodge just made small changes. The Colorado is a prime example of what is wrong with US car manufacurers. From a clean sheet, GM designers managed to make another S-10, with little upgrade to what they had before.

    I have driven them all. The Dakota was ok. The Frontier was nice, the Ridgeline was as well, but not the vehicle for me. I drove 2 Colorados. Didn't compare to the others, at all. I loved the Tacoma, so thats what I bought. Very happy with my decision.
  • varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    Except for the fact that you can get them dirt cheap (and they look nice, in a GMish way), I can't think of a good reason to go with the Colorado/Canyon. They had to cut costs to bring this to market. I can accept that. But the result is a truly compromised vehicle. I think they might've been better off cancelling the S10, saving their pennies, and trying again in a few years.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    I like the Tacoma as well, but with a couple of issues I find fault with...It drink premium gasoline (a problem for me, since oil prices are at $68.35 the instant I write this (CNBC television is on, haha). That makes its economy kinda iffy IMO. The other issue was the fact that I couldn't see the stereo readout with my polarized sunglasses on! I know this sounds like a tiny issue, but I only wear polarized, so over time, this can get VERY annoying! Congratulations on your purchase, demoncleaner.
  • pb2themaxpb2themax Member Posts: 471
    The new Tacomas don't have to have premium gas. I have tried all grades in my V6 4.0 liter. No difference in power, MPG, or engine noise. 10k miles and no problems. Very happy with my purchase.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Toyota says themselves that premium is reccommended, but regular can be run with "reduced performance". I imagine the engineers know what they're talking about.
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    If I'm not mistaken, the Xterra and Frontier are tuned to run on "regular," while the Pathfinder (with 5 more hp) is tuned to run on "premium."

    Frankly, I think all these vehicles (Toyotas too) should be tuned to run on "regular." I believe the Ridgeline and Pilot are tuned to run on "regular." Not sure about the MDX?

    Bob
  • bill55bill55 Member Posts: 25
    The idea of the VVTI engine is also for improved emmisions.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Right, i'm assuming it is similar to Honda's VTEC, in that it runs with more restricted breathing at lower throttle-input/rpms to boost economy. Thank you for pointing out this important virtue of Variable Valve Timing.
  • asaasa Member Posts: 359
    I want a 4x2 Crew with a manual tranny and unless I'm mistaken, I think Nissan's Frontier is the only manufacturer that offers this combination. Colorado/Canyon offered it in '04 and '05, but it's been dropped in '06. Tacoma demands a 4x4 to get a stick. Dakota/Raider doesn't offer it I don't think (and these are too long for my garage anyway).
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    I think you are right. I know some Tacomas can be had with a 6-speed manual. Are these just the X-Runner models?
  • asaasa Member Posts: 359
    You're correct -- 4x2 6-Speed Tacos are not Crew Cabs.
  • toykicktoykick Member Posts: 104
    for some reason the automatic tacomas are quicker and more fuel efficient then the stick..

    access cab 4x2 comes with the 6spd, so does the 4x4 and 4x4 DC tacoma..

    and x-runner...

    as for options... i wonder why nissan doesnt build a frontier that does 0-60 in under 7 seconds and 14 second 1/4miles... and does over .90Gs on lateral skid pad... wait isnt that more then the 350z ? :P
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    i wonder why nissan doesnt build a frontier that does 0-60 in under 7 seconds and 14 second 1/4miles... and does over .90Gs on lateral skid pad... wait isnt that more then the 350z ?

    That IS more Gs than the 350Z, you are right. My guess would have to be that the market for "high-performance" trucks is a small niche compared to what most buyers want out of a midsizer. $25,000 for a manual transmission, 2-wheel drive truck that drinks premium gas (to get advertised perfromance levels; you can use regular, which will reduce performance marginally). When you can get a Ridgeline RT or Tacoma Double Cab for about the same money. Most people looking for performance will shop Mustangs, and Nissan 350Z.

    What I'm wondering, is when will Toyota get a "fun" car again, now that they've killed off that last sporty car they had (Celica)? They are letting Nissan (350z) and Honda (S2000) have all the fun!
  • toykicktoykick Member Posts: 104
    A X-runner cost 21-23k around here, a 350z cost 28+k, type s RSX cost 25k+ etc...

    compression ratios:

    tacoma v6 - 11.0:1

    RSX type s - 11.0:1

    350z - 10.3

    Ridgeline - 10.0:1

    frontier - 9.7:1

    lol looks like all need premium :surprise:
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    compression ratios:

    tacoma v6 - 11.0:1

    RSX type s - 11.0:1

    350z - 10.3

    Ridgeline - 10.0:1

    frontier - 9.7:1

    lol looks like all need premium


    The Ridgeline makes all 247 horsepower on regular. I'm not sure why you think it needs premium. Toyota specifically reccomends premium for "optimum performance". Honda reccommends "regular unleaded". For 22 cents more per gallon, the Honda makes 8 more horsepower with smaller displacement.

    The RSX...why is it here? It also runs on premium, but delivers good economy to offset to price difference.

    The Frontier beats 'em all with the most power on regular gas, but gets 1-2 mpg less than Honda/Toyota.

    So, the irrelevant cars drink premium (350Z, RSX-S), as does the Toyota V-6. The other four trucks here all get the full power out of good 'ole regular unleaded.

    This is all info per Nissan's compare feature:

    *Ridgeline - Regular (247hp/252lb-ft)
    *Tacoma - Premium (236hp/266lb-ft)
    Frontier - Regular (265hp/284lb-ft)
    Dodge - Regular (230hp/290lb-ft)
    (250hp/310lb-ft for H.O. version)
    GM - Regular (220hp/225lb-ft)

    *Honda and Toyota have already adjusted their hp ratings for the new SAE test procedures. The others may not have been tested under the new restrictions, which tend to reduce output numbers.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    The Honda makes 11 more horsepower, not 8, as I said incorrectly.
  • toykicktoykick Member Posts: 104
    lol i like how you added a few numbers to the ridgelines torque... Hondas website has it at 245... typical for honda engines... more hp then torque... Thats why VTEC doesnt belong in a truck... Trucks need torque, and also need to peak low to haul crap around easily... Hondas Ridgeline isnt like a hemi or others which peak 90% of it torque under 2k rpm... The Ridgelines Vtec needs to rev a lot more to get a comparable load moving... several tests have been done, towing a comparable weight of 5k and the ridgeline takes 6+ seconds more to reach 60 then the tacoma... Frontier is almost 5 seconds slower... AWD doesnt really help it... i'm not saying people should go race their mid-size trucks with a 5k trailer behind them but i can assure you a Tacoma is going to pull any comparable weight up a hill better then a frontier or ridgeline... :P
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    I assure you that without VTEC, both figures would be much lower than they are now.

    As far as the incorrect figures, I knew that the Ridgeline's horsepower had dropped to 247 from 255. I didn't know the torque figures currently. Nissan's site is outdated, b/c it showed the RL with 255/252. Sorry for this misquote. thats why i pointed out where i got my figures.

    My Accord actually has more torque than horsepower, so, I'm not sure where you get that idea. Honda could do like GM and make BOTH numbers low, if you prefer. ;)

    You are right, the Ridgeline isn't like the Hemi. If it claims to match its abilities with an engine 1.5 times it's size in an oviously different market, I'll be the first to refute it.
  • toykicktoykick Member Posts: 104
    your accord has more torque then hp? really? see i dont do VTEC #s... if your torque peaks before your hp it doesnt mean you have more torque then hp

    the 06 v6 accord has 244HP @ 6244 rpm and 211ft.lb of torque at 5000 rpm...

    So i guess you have more torque then hp before 6k rpm right ? ;)
  • objectiveviewobjectiveview Member Posts: 72
    For all intents and purposes a VTEC system isnt a bad thing for a truck, but I dont think a ridgline belongs here, as it cant do the heavy-duty work nor has the off road ability that all the trucks here have.

    "sport-utilty truck" my [non-permissible content removed]

    However though, it'd make a great base for street truck, like a tacoma x-runner or f-150 lightning and be a great buy "for people who dont like trucks".... WTF would you buy one then?
  • pb2themaxpb2themax Member Posts: 471
    "I imagine the engineers know what they're talking about."

    That would be nice, and you would also think that the Toyota salesmen know everything about thier products, but as most of us know, they don't. The only way to really find out is to try it, like I did. Try it and see for yourself, that there is no MPG or HP difference that you can feel when running lower octane.

    Only high compression engines need high octane.

    http://chemistry.about.com/library/weekly/aabyb100401.htm
  • ustazzafustazzaf Member Posts: 311
    FOR THOSE DIE HARD TRUCK FANS WHO SAID THEY WOULD COMMIT SUICIDE IF VTEC MADE IT INTO A TRUCK

    Saying the Ridgeline and it's VTEC "made it in a truck" is like saying the Houston Texans made it in the big leagues. Ya, they have a team, but they have no hope of being a contender. Sure they got accolades when they came out and won the first game, but they quickly dropped back into the bottom of the cespool. Hey, maybe it will be more like the Seahawks and reach greatness 30+ years after being created.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Honda never intended this truck to sell more than its target of 50,000. I don't think it's a "poser" if it doesen't make claims of even being competitive with the big sellers. I would like to mention that Honda reached their annual sales goals two months early. Seems like Honda knew what they were doing. Sales are sales, regardless it the buyer is a truck guy or not, right?
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    your accord has more torque then hp? really? see i dont do VTEC #s... if your torque peaks before your hp it doesnt mean you have more torque then hp

    Who said the Accord to which I am referring has VTEC? Or a V-6? My Accord has 9 more lb-ft of torque than horsepower.

    My 2006 Accord has 6 more hp than torque lb-ft.

    Who referred to when torque peaks? I sure didn't. Were you just assuming that I didn't understand how power peaks worked, and since my torque peaks below my horsepower peak that I automatically thought the peak numbers didn't count?
    I do know that my 1996 has more torque than horsepower, and the VTEC EX models did too. If you want to, we can chat about it in an Accord forum. I think we owe the rest of these guys enough, so lets get back to the trucks.

    Has anyone here even considered purchasing one of the American brands?
  • toykicktoykick Member Posts: 104
    lol 6 more ft.lb of torque.. or 9 doesnt really count. Plus these are family sedans and 4 bangers.. and those 06 hp and torque numbers are from hondas website.. The only new accord which probably has more torque then hp is the hybrid

    We're talking about trucks... This is hondas biggest production engine right? its in both the pilot and ridgeline... both engines peak high, and have less torque then hp.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    If 6 or 9 doesen't really count, then why do you think 2 does (Difference in Ridgeline)?

    I think I see how you work...nothing "counts" unless it is in your favor. Suddenly, 15 or 20 pounds of torque makes your Tacoma a ton better than the Ridgeline, yet, 10 doesen't count? It "doesen't count" that the numbers are lower on Toyota's vehicles when run without premium? I'm just going by facts here, fella.

    Actually, the Hybrid has more horsepower than torque, does that count? It probably does, because saying it doesen't won't really help your case much.

    and those 06 hp and torque numbers are from hondas website

    ok??? I'm afraid I miss your point here.

    Anyway, I'm outta here for the day... Have a good one.
  • toykicktoykick Member Posts: 104
    i'm talking about trucks... not sedans... the Accord your talking about has about 130hp with vtec and under 140 ft.lb of torque...

    again your comparing a 4 banger engine... honda has that same engine tuned with more hp and less torque with a higher compression ratio... again most of hondas engines have more torque then hp.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    the Accord your talking about has about 130hp with vtec and under 140 ft.lb of torque...


    Wrong. My Accord LX (which I was referencing here) doesn't have VTEC, and has 130hp. The VTEC has 145 hp.

    Where else is this 2.2L engine with more horsepower other than the Prelude? The prelude had a 2.2 with nearly 200 hp.
  • toykicktoykick Member Posts: 104
    prelude took 8 sec. to reach 60

    lol just admit most of hondas engines dont produce torque... i'm not saying its bad for cars... some have a lot of go but its doesnt belong in a truck...
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    In auto form, yes. It was 1998, remember. We didn't have family sedans that reached 0-60 in under 6 seconds then, either. When you are ready to get off the torque train, i'll chat with ya again. I'm heading to dinner. I have to stop and buy gas first, good thing I can keep advertised horsepower figures with regular gas!
  • danielacostadanielacosta Member Posts: 132
    If you compare dimensions and capacities, you will see the Ridgeline is closer to a full-size truck, but is commonly compared to mid-size trucks because it only has a 6. Interior space and payload (1550# if I remember correctly) are comparable to or actually better than most 1/2-ton full size trucks. Honda did a great job designing a truck that would meet the needs of a large cross-section of truck buyers. Ridgeline sales started out slow, partly because it doesn't neatly fit into the typical truck categories. I believe the latest monthly sales figures show the Ridgeline passing the Frontier.

    I had a deposit on a Ridgeline in late 2004 because I wanted one of the first ones. After attending the press introduction in January 2005, I got my deposit back and bought a Frontier instead. I discovered that the Ridgeline's drive system relegates it to "soft-roader" status, which actually does meet the requirements of most truck buyers. I'm part of the small minority that tackles more challenging off-road situations, so that left me to choose between the 05 Tacoma and 05 Frontier.

    The Tacoma has a higher body, but lower chassis than the Frontier. The low point on the Tacoma is the central exhaust crossmember, which looks like it would get hit off-road. The exhaust on the 04 and older Tacomas was tucked higher. The back seat on the Tacoma crew-cab takes many more steps to fold than the Frontier's, and has less real world leg room than the Frontier. Thus, I've had my 05 Frontier for one year and 23,000 very enjoyable miles.

    I have since borrowed a Ridgeline for a day, and it does have a more car-like ride and handling than the Frontier. The extra power in the Frontier is noticeable compared to the Ridgeline, and I scared myself pretty good trying to take the Ridgeline up a hill that the Frontier takes with ease.

    Overall, unless you need true off-road capability or more than 5,000 # towing ability, the Ridgeline is probably a better choice than the other mid-size or full-size trucks on the market. If you exclude the Ridgeline from consideration, it becomes a much closer horse race with a lot of good choices. We each have our own reasons for making the choice we did. I enjoy hearing other's opinions on these forums.
  • varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    A VVT system is beneficial for any engine, any purpose. Although Honda made a name for VTEC using small displacement, high horsepower engines, that is not the only way such a system may be used.

    A VVT system allows the engine to select between a breathing pattern that is good for low rpm operation or another for high rpm operation.

    An engine without a VVT must pick one single pattern for breathing. Typically it is one that is best for the mid-range, and sacrifices both the low and high rpm bands. In a truck (where the low rpm range is very important) they will compensate for that lack of low rpm power by adding displacement.

    That is a perfectly legitimate solution to the problem. It tends to be a very cheap solution, too. But it introduces other problems with fuel economy and smog emissions.

    Meanwhile, the vehicle with VVT can use engine breathing specifically designed for low rpm use. This is better than something tuned for the middle range. Then VVT switches over to higher rpm breathing when the engine is pushed.

    And, as an FYI, Honda reports that more than 90% of peak torque output is available from 2,500 - 5,500 rpms. So, if 90% @ 2,000 is your personal benchmark, the Ridgeline cannot be far from it.

    Also, your statements about Honda engines not producing much torque is misleading. They simply do not build big engines. When you look at how much torque is being produced relative to the size of the engine, Honda is doing just fine. The Tacoma's 4.0L is good for 66.5 lbs-ft per liter. The Ridgeline's 3.5L is good for 70. And the Frontier's 4.0L is good for 71.

    If Honda had chosen to go with a larger, less fuel efficient engine, it probably would have generated something like 280 lbs-ft.
  • varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    Great post.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Wow, a non-Honda owner that can actually admit that Ridgeline is great at what it is intended for. Good for you, and if I was going with a serious off-roader, I too would overlook the Ridgeline. Good points in your message, daniel. Rationality will always make points with forum posters. Saying "X brand is the best and thats it, period!" won't get you anywhere with anybody, as far as making a convincing argument.

    Tell us if you don't mind, what kind of off-roading do you do? What did you have before the Frontier? I'd be interested to know...

    thegrad
  • danielacostadanielacosta Member Posts: 132
    "Tell us if you don't mind, what kind of off-roading do you do? What did you have before the Frontier? I'd be interested to know... "

    Before my 05 Frontier I had an 01 Silverado ext-cab Z71, which did very well off-road. I decided to downsize for better fuel economy, more off-road capability, and a narrower body for less tendency to scrape bushes, etc. when off-roading.

    If I remember correctly, the Ridgeline is only 1" narrower than the Silverado, so I wouldn't have gained anything with regard to avoiding the bushes. Frontier, Tacoma, and the rest of the traditional mid-size trucks are several inches narrower than traditional full-size trucks. Most of my off-roading could be handled by the Ridgeline, but occasionally I encounter sections of rock and boulder crawling that fully challenge a true 4wd system with lo-range, locking differentials, hill start / descent control, etc. The "stairsteps" on Broken Arrow Trail near Sedona AZ are a good example.

    Guys like me who go rock and boulder crawling know they will scrape the bottom of their truck, so besides the mechanicals of the 4wd system, the design and protection of the undercarriage are very important, too. Besides needing more ground clearance, the Ridgeline would need a couple more skid plates and a redesigned exhaust, which is presently the low point for roughly half the length of the vehicle from front to rear. In addition, the Ridgeline has what I think is a parking brake cable clipped to the bottom of one of the frame rails; someone like me would scrape that off the first time "riding the rails." None of that matters, though, because the Ridgeline isn't intended for hard-core off-roading where you know you will be scraping the frame rails and other pieces on the bottom. I wish it was designed for more than soft-roading, because I'm very impressed with the rest of the truck and would be driving one now otherwise.

    By comparison, Tacoma TRD is designed for more serious off-roading, which is why I was surprised that the exhaust hangs as the low-point on the 05 when it was tucked up higher on the older models.

    Frontier is not perfect either. While I successfully took the stairsteps described above in my stock Frontier, I did a lot of scraping on the bottom in the process. No harm done, but it's still scary wondering if you're going to break something when riding the frame rails. I've since installed a 2.5" lift from Greg at prerunners.com, bringing my ground clearance up from a stock 10.5" to 13" and haven't scraped bottom since.

    Ground clearance aside, the Frontier's 4wd system has been great. I have a NISMO with 4-wheel limited slip, locking rear, hill-start assist, and hill descent control. Before installing the lift, I got myself stuck on a boulder on one of my excursions. I locked the rear end and was able to drive off with traction from only one wheel. Most of the time the 4-wheel limited slip works so well that the locking rear end is not even needed.
  • toykicktoykick Member Posts: 104
    honda did build a large displacement engine... and its in the ridgeline... i wouldnt call it an advancement in technology since The big 3 have v8 engines which are more fuel efficient then the ridgeline and have more power to boot not to mention they're probably cheaper also..

    I dont think the Ridgeline fits into any category since it doesnt compare to any truck... The Ridgeline has more human comforts in some ways... like interior space. But when it comes down to doing truck tasks... its over rated. Payload cap. for the ridgeline is under 1200 pounds with passengers. and has a towing capacity of 5k which is less then properly equipped midsized trucks like the Frontier crew cab, Tacomas crew cab, Dodge Dakota v8 and ford v6 ranger... yep thats right RANGER lol... with proper gearing you could tow bigger loads... :P nissan catched onto this, this year adding 4.10 gearing to push up its towing capacity to the tacoma... kinda funny since the taco doesnt use 4.10+ gearing to pull 6500 pounds..
  • toykicktoykick Member Posts: 104
    I agree with the fact that the majority of the people who have trucks dont really use its capabilities... but if you could barely put 13 bags of concrete in the bed and have to be cautious of not blowing out two expensive struts then its not so functional... this is a typical home depot run..
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    I dont think the Ridgeline fits into any category since it doesnt compare to any truck... The Ridgeline has more human comforts in some ways... like interior space. But when it comes down to doing truck tasks... its over rated. Payload cap. for the ridgeline is under 1200 pounds with passengers. and has a towing capacity of 5k which is less then properly equipped midsized trucks like the Frontier crew cab, Tacomas crew cab, Dodge Dakota v8 and ford v6 ranger... yep thats right RANGER lol... with proper gearing you could tow bigger loads... nissan catched onto this

    What Nissan has catched on to is what brought their fuel economy down to 15/20. Honda may have already caught on to this fact, but would it really garner many more buyers with a lower gear ratio? Perhaps it would drive more away with the lower mileage? Noone will really know.

    On the subject of its 5,000 tow rating...

    GM, who has made compact trucks like its S-10 for a LONG time opted to take measures actually REDUCING its tow rating from 5,900 pounds in the S-10 to 4,000 pounds in the Colorado/Canyon. Apparently GM feels that buyers looking to tow heavy objects will likely step up to bigger trucks with V-8s more aptly suited to pulling heavy things and not go with a "weenie midsizer".
  • varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    "honda did build a large displacement engine... and its in the ridgeline... i wouldnt call it an advancement in technology since The big 3 have v8 engines which are more fuel efficient then the ridgeline and have more power to boot not to mention they're probably cheaper also.."

    LOL. I wouldn't call it "advanced technology" either. Not since it's been in mass production since the early 1990s.

    And the only way your V8 is more fuel efficient than the Ridgeline is if you install it in a 2WD truck or drive downhill with the wind at your back.

    "But when it comes down to doing truck tasks... its over rated. Payload cap. for the ridgeline is under 1200 pounds with passengers. and has a towing capacity of 5k which is less then properly equipped midsized trucks like the Frontier crew cab, Tacomas crew cab, Dodge Dakota v8 and ford v6 ranger"

    Well, let's look at some numbers...

    Ridgeline:
    Payload 1,549 (RT)
    Payload 1,558(RTS)
    Payload 1,554(RTL)
    Towing 5,000

    4X4 Frontier CC:
    Payload 1,381 (SE)
    Payload 1,365 (LE)
    Payload 1,098 (NISMO)
    Towing 6,100

    4X4 Tacoma CC:
    Payload 1,370 (short bed)
    Payload 1,315 (long bed)
    Towing 6,500

    4X4 Dakota CC (w/ opt. equipment to boost capacities):
    Payload 1,550 (SLT)
    Payload 1,560 (ST)
    Payload 1,530 (Laramie)
    Towing 6,750

    4X4 Colorado CC:
    Payload 1,338 (base trim)
    Towing 4,000

    Ford does not offer a Ranger in 4X4 crew cab configuration. The closest thing they have is the Sport Trac:
    Payload 1,480
    Towing 5,080

    Now, before you go and say that Honda has to reduce their figures when you add passengers, optional equipment, or cargo... This is the payload disclaimer from Toyota.

    "Includes the weight of occupants, optional equipment and cargo; limited by weight distribution."

    This is how Ford puts it.

    "Make sure vehicle payload (reduced by option weight) will accomondate trailer tongue load weight and weight of passengers and cargo added to towing vehicle."

    Chevy...

    "Maximum payload capacity includes weight of driver, passengers, optional equipment, and cargo... Maximum trailer weight ratings are calculated assuming a base vehicle, except for any option(s) necessary to achieve the rating, plus driver. The weight of other optional equipment, passengers and cargo will reduce the maximum trailer weight your vehicle can tow."

    This is the disclaimer used by Honda.

    "Industry practice is to boast a high maximum tow rating, even though some sacrifice of passengers and cargo may be necessary to suitably accommodate such a trailer load - in some cases limiting the vehicle to one passenger to accommodate the maximum specified towing capacity. The Ridgeline's 5,000-pound rating is calculated to include up to two passengers and 200 pounds of cargo."
This discussion has been closed.