Well, I finally went down and test drove an RTL. I like the truck; it drives well and has quite adequate pickup from the engine. I really liked the cabin layout and the rear trunk / tailgate. Not sure if I can afford one, and my wife is very short, so I'm not sure she can get into and out of the cab comfortably. Anyone out there shorter that 5 feet tall?
I currently one an RTS and have a 5' tall wife. I have previously owned a 1990 Chevrolet Silverado and a 2000 F-150 Lariat, both fine trucks BUT, the Ridgeline is better for my needs. I don't tow any trailers nor do I do construction.
What I do is commuting, traveling to visit family, and haul groceries. While the other trucks were fine, they were overkill for my particular needs.
The Ridgeline on highway travel is over 22 MPG, better than either two others.
I'm not knocking either previous trucks-they were good vehicles, just this one is better for my needs.
You are woefully uninformed. I take my RL up unpaved steep mountain roads in the Utah (Brianhead area) all the time. I take it on deep sandy BLM trails by the Coral Pink Sand Dunes, and its performance is stellar. What the hec do you think I bought it for??
I do all that with my AWD Astro too, but it keeps 8 people dry. But when it comes time to kick in low range, I, too, find myself without a real 4X4.
I'm getting 19-20 mpg. Get informed before you post.
Ya, but eventually you will run out of downhill roads with the wind behind you.
I think what Honda has created is to the truck world what the minivan is to the car world. Ridgeline is like a minivan of trucks. Well built, practical and cleaverley designed, yes but not sporty and exhillarating to drive. I just got out of a minivan and needed to put fun back into my driving experience so I got a Tacoma 4X4 even though a Ridgeline may have been a smarter choice for my family.
Ya, but eventually you will run out of downhill roads with the wind behind you.
Nope, I'm getting 19-20mpg. I threw out the downhill numbers. Downhill Cedar City to Mesquite, the RL gets 22mpg. That would be misleading to include that as mpg, but since you mention it.
Most people that have 4wd Lo, don't use it even when they have it. I find I do have true 4wd. When VTM-4 lock is engaged, all 4 wheels are locked and supplying traction. That is 4wd.
The order of least to greatest traction control in the RL would be
-AWD, VSA on-default mode upon start up. good for the wife no brainer mode. It can remain in this mode for 99% of all encounters. This is superior to any part time 4wd system and is what is needed for driving in ice and snow conditions on the road.
-AWD VSA off-for situations where VSA may bog down the vehicle such as deep sand.
-VTM-4 Lock, VSA off. put in first, second or reverse, and it will extract you from 99% of anything.
If you need more traction options than this, your probably a lost cause anyway. Find someone that can drive.
I'm not saying I would take the RL up the Rubicon trail, but it's all anybody would need in most sane off road situations.
Most people that have 4wd Lo, don't use it even when they have it. I find I do have true 4wd. When VTM-4 lock is engaged, all 4 wheels are locked and supplying traction. That is 4wd
True, most people don't use low, not because they don't need it, but because they don't know why it is there. Dropping the truck in low while pulling the boat out or playing in the sand is going to put alot less stress on the tranny and clutch. You won't get better traction, just better power with less stress on the drive line. I got my wife the AWD Astro (which I traded for an AWD Mountaineer yesterday) so she won't have to worry about locking in the 4X4 if she hits a icey hill, but I choose the 4WD so I can kick it out and save gas in normal day to day driving.
I got my wife the AWD Astro (which I traded for an AWD Mountaineer yesterday) so she won't have to worry about locking in the 4X4 if she hits a icey hill, but I choose the 4WD so I can kick it out and save gas in normal day to day driving.
The Ridgeline isn't Full Time AWD (if i'm not mistaken), but is more of an "On-demand" system so fuel economy doesn't suffer. Only when the VTM-4 button is locked is the truck in FULL 4WD mode. Its kind of the best of both worlds, you don't lose the economy of full time-4wd, but can if you need to.
True, most people don't use low, not because they don't need it, but because they don't know why it is there.
If you don't even understand it, are you really much of an off-roader who would utilize it anyway?
My grasp of this all wheel drive vs 4wd argument is pretty decent though not at expert level. This I know however, I and my wife came out of the movie house around 10:30 pm (02-11-06)and Maryland temps are at 32 F with around 6 inches of snow on the ground and a lot more till Sunday morning (2-12-06).
Against my better judgement, I opted to drive the Ridgeline with OEM Michelin tires vs my all season/snow rated Nokian tires (made in Finland) equipped Honda pilot.
It was again one of those de ja vu days, whereas I saw 2 trucks, and a few cars stuck (ironically one truck with a 4x4 sign on the back) in the snow in some shallow ditch, my Ridgeline on the other hand handled the clear and snow packed roads like a champ. I do admit that the ABS system kicked out OFTEN AND LIKE CRAZY, but other than that, it didn't show any sign of loosing control. Whatever the gizmos Honda put in this truck works like a charm even on dangerous icy roads.Not once could I detect a hint of loosing control even when I did some slalom on the very large snow packed parking lot beside the movie house before hitting the streets.
My Ridgeline maybe lousy on Rubicon trails, but on the EVERYDAY REALITIES OF LIFE WHERE IT MATTERS THE MOST, IT IS ONE OF THE SAFEST TRUCK ON THE ROAD. :shades:
My Ridgeline maybe lousy on Rubicon trails, but on the EVERYDAY REALITIES OF LIFE WHERE IT MATTERS THE MOST, IT IS ONE OF THE SAFEST TRUCK ON THE ROAD.
Yep, though I use it off road, the most important part is the traction in the winter on the road. No part time so called "real" 4wd can beat the Ridgelines traction system.
We have a mountain pass called Black Ridge. It's very treacherous in the winter. We were traveling through it during a winter storm, and there were the usual 5-6 vehicles spun out on the side of the road. The Ridgeline felt absolutely stable despite the very dangerous conditions I knew were under the wheels. Usually this is white knuckle driving for sure. We just kicked back and listened to the comedy channel on XM. We were probably the only people laughing on Black Ridge that night. The biggest stressor was the other vehicles on the road that weren't as stable as the Ridgeline.
This is the only vehicle I want my family in under those conditions. Honda's "safety for all" program combined with this traction system makes it the safest vehicle on the road.
I was out today with a 18" snowfall in CT. Unplowed roads and snow banks were no prob. I went everywhere I wanted with 4wd kicking in when needed. Didn't have to worry about turning a switch on and off.
I drive on highways with ice and packed snow with alot of confidence with my RL. It tracks so much better than either of my Cherokees (Quadra-Trac) or Ford AWD ever did. However: I did notice the traction control occasionally slows me down in deep snow, when a little momentum and judicious wheel spin would get the job done. I have occasionally switched off the stability control (Fun Switch) and made better headway.
The Stability Control also seems a bit abrupt on sharp corners in town. In - does the job - out.
"You may as well get a real truck, like a Ranger or something. That's all. If you're picking-up a TV at Sears, you can find accomodations to get it home, you can put groceries in almost any car, but for the other 364 days of the year....you'r driving a $30,000 grocery-getter that gets horrible gas mileage, for its class."
Well, I agree with part of what you're writing. Many people who buys trucks don't really need them. Just like many who would best be served by a minivan end up buying a truck-based SUV.
But which would you rather have them drive... a "real truck" which gets bad mileage, has sloppy handling, and a bumpy ride... or a Ridgeline which gets bad mileage, has good handling, and a smooth ride? This vehicle gives them the most of what they'll actually use with the fewest drawbacks.
I disagree that the Ridgeline gets worse mileage than the other trucks in its class. 16-21 is better than most. Unless you compare 2WD trucks to the AWD Ridgeline.
As for ads showing the Ridgeline off-roading, well... Ford shows the F-150 pull a tractor trailer truck 12' in the air (not possible given limits of traction). Nissan has pictured the Titan towing a camper which is too big for it's capacity. Those are TV ads. Just about anything on TV nowadays requires two doses of salt.
I'm not a big off-roader myself, but I've spent my share of time riding in rigs with people who are. If you're talking about anything technical (real rocks, berms, and mud pits) all pick-ups are lousy vehicles. They have a long wheelbase, making them suckers for a high-center situation. Their long under carriage provides a huge surface for mud to grab onto in the deep snotty stuff. And their open-top construction means the frames will twist all over the place, making rock crawling very difficult. That's why hard-top jeeps and SUVs are king of the trails.
Yea, you might just have a point there. Guess I'm just lookin for a ruby in an old mountain of rocks, and I ain't gonna find it there. I would like to see a Ridgeline back-up to a Subaru Brat, hook a chain up to each of their frames, and have them both just floor-it! And see who pulls who? Hey, I know a guy who runs a Gin-mill, and he says those subaru Brats are bullet-proof. You can take those things anywhere. But you can also take them to the drive-ins with a girl, and have a nice evening. So you get the best of both worlds, with the Brat. But the Honda has that storage compartment in the back, so maybe it would be a good rumble.
2nd cut back for honda... Not a bad thing, but just shows sales are slow on hondas truck line... Same goes for some domestic trucks... With rising gas prices, who wants to deal with a 14-18mpg vehicle... I like what others like GM are doing... Look at the new 07 tahoe, its a v8 and its rated at 16-22mpg EPA Thats not bad for a vehicle which weighs 5800+ pounds and has a 320hp v8 engine.
Well, if you wanna go that far....take this into perspective...the Hyundai Sonata gets 34 MPG/HWY. Ok, now the Sonata frame is about the exact same thing that Honda puts on the Ridgeline. The difference is the truck/car body. The Sonata also has one of those little hooks near the back bumper...in case you got it stuck in the mud, and you have to be pulled-out. Just like the Ridgeline. The major difference is that the Hyundai Sonata has more standard safety features, and only 6% less interior volume than the Ridgey. So just swinging back to my orignal argument, if you want a car, get the Sonata. If you want a truck...get a '96 Ranger!
Well, if you wanna go that far....take this into perspective...the Hyundai Sonata gets 34 MPG/HWY. Ok, now the Sonata frame is about the exact same thing that Honda puts on the Ridgeline. The difference is the truck/car body. The Sonata also has one of those little hooks near the back bumper...in case you got it stuck in the mud, and you have to be pulled-out. Just like the Ridgeline. The major difference is that the Hyundai Sonata has more standard safety features, and only 6% less interior volume than the Ridgey. So just swinging back to my orignal argument, if you want a car, get the Sonata. If you want a truck...get a '96 Ranger!
That is a wierd post. The Sonata you speak of has 162 horsepower, the Ridgeline has 247 horsepower. The Sonata you speak of has a manual transmission and only 3250 pounds of weight, as well as a much better drag coefficient (due to its "car"-ness). The Ridgeline sits above most traffic and weighs 4500 pounds. The Sonata isn't designed to pull a 5,000 pound trailer. The Sonata has no AWD architecture. The Sonata does not have more than 8-inches of off-roading ground clearance. The Sonata does not have many things the Ridgeline has, because there is no logical comparison between the two vehicles. Maybe next you'll compare a sea-doo to a barge?
I'm not sure what your point was here, prime. Not everyone wants or can have two vehicles, and the RL is QUITE a great compromise. I'm not sure how you figure the Sonata has more safety features. Honda has 8 airbags standard, the Sonata lists 6. Both have VSC.
Normally I don't say things like this, but your attampt to knock the Ridgeline was not a good one; mainly because you did it with a Sonata, which shares few characteristics with the Ridgeline. Guess what, my Accord has a little hook to be towed with too...MOST CARS DO.
By the way, if I'm shopping any of the trucks on this particular forum, I wouldn't dare consider a ten-year old compact Ford.
lol dont compare apples to oranges... if you would like to do so, look at the rav4. The new v6 rav4 doesnt require premium and produces more SAE rated HP and Torque then the ridgeline not to mention the engine is also smaller in cubic inches... But the rav4 doesnt have a big trunk like the ridgeline nor does it tow as much, but does have AWD which distributes power to all wheels and the AWD system could be locked to make some nice donuts in a parking lot :surprise:
There sure is a lot of that goin' on. No matter what vehicle we choose there is compromise. All we can do is pick one that suits our needs ( or desires) effectively and enjoy it. Of course we all know that.
That's not the second cut-back. It's just a late report describing the first cut-back.
A big part of the rationale behind these cuts is because the Acura MDX is six years old and sales are slowing. It's also about to be replaced at the end of the year. No sense having extra units of the old model sitting around.
Optimusprime, It sounds as though you have watched a little too much Spiderman given your screen name. I was curious, with your self-proclaimed off roading knowledge, are you still running the factory twin I beam front suspension in that stout Ranger of yours? Also, what power plant do have anchored under the hood of that beastly machine. I have my doubts that the factory 4.0 or 2.5 have enough to get those Iroks turning the right direction. Could you attach a picture of your rig for the rest of us to view, because it certainly sounds like one tough ombre'. I'm not sure where you are located, but their are several of fellow off-roaders that get together each year for some good times as well as adventure. Maybe we could camp together, if you feel up to it? Anyway your information has been extremely valuable, I hope to gain some knowledge from you. Sincerely :shades: :shades:
Hey Rubicon Express...go back to Jeep land and put that dinosaur to rest. They don't put solid springs on Jeeps or Hondas, go figure. Optimusprime, I'm not sure where you are getting your information, however, I never mentioned anything about a Jeep. Could you explain what it is you meant. I don't believe I understand where you are going with this. Thanks, you have a very commanding presence.
Optimusprime, Disregard the spiderman reference, after some research it appears as though you are a transformer. I would like you to go back a read the registration agreement. You must be over 13 to play on these sites. Does your mommy know your on here? No body drives a 96 Ranger these days, everyone who is in the muddin business knows they were the worst thing to roll out of Dearborn Michigan. I would think you could find a better rig for a build up. You might want to look into a Suzuki Samari. I hear they'll out climb what you are dragin around spit it out and belch.
No such thing as a stock off-road vehicle. 'Cept maybe the Rubicon Wrangler. While Sammys are very capable on the trails, they only become that way when somebody modifies them. Like Skunk here.
As a general rule, pick-ups do not make good off-roaders. The long wheelbase, poor turning radius, and flabby chassis aren't much good for rock crawling. The expansive undercarriage isn't good for muddin'.
Again, you can mod a truck to do anything. But if you're talking about real wheelin', stock is not the best option. Still a lot of fun (I've taken my CR-V into the woods). But I would never attempt anything but mild to moderate trails.
I only mentioned Jeep, because of your screen-name: Rubicon. I just figured you were into Jeeps, or something. If my Screen-name was, let's say..Pony Express, you might assume I'm into Mustangs. I was just trying to use some probability factoring, here. Just so you know, I dropped the old 2.5L engine out of my Ranger a few years ago. I did a 302 ci conversion,300hp, Block was thermo-cleaned and diamond honed, stainless valves, aluminum intake, Ford-forged rods, 4bbl Elderbrock carb. suiside hood, I had the rear leaf-springs notched by: Steve Colley & Joey Machado. And since you mentioned it, I have DJM I-Beams in the front, I also had the transmission crossmember and radius arms relocated. 2,500lb. Firestone Bags in the front, 2,600lbs, in the rear. Blow Jax DC7000 Compressor, 1/2" Parker Valves, 3/8" air-lines, and I have all components mounted under the bed floor. Let me know when you wanna line 'em-up! Mud or Street! What????? I thought so, have a seat, son. Get ready to be educated in 4WD 101.
Nothing you describe in your incoherent ramblings even came close to a rational thought or a real product. You talk a lot smack with no back. I wouldn't try your probability factoring again because your not very good at it. If your screen name was pony express I would assume you were a cowboy from broke back mountain. Educate me...What????? Got nothin I thought so. I hear your mom calling you for dinner
I'm afraid I have to agree with you, driver, although I agree that it's entertaining. The Ranger is really in a different league when compared with any of these trucks. Interpret that to your own liking.
Not a "heck of a lot to do with the Ridgeline," ? How do you think the Ridgeline was born? The ridgeline was a Japanese rendition of an American past-time.
I don't think Honda set the Ranger as a benchmark. The Ridgeline has more in common with a sport trac or Tacoma Double Cab etc than a 10 year old compact platform (when was it last updated?)
Ok, I have finally got it. Everyone loves their vehicle, whether it's a Honda, Chev, Ford, Dodge, Jeep, etc. I left this forum awhile ago because I was tired of all the BS from those that do not own a Ridgeline. Ok, you don't like it for whatever reason. That's fine, it's your opinion and I respect that. So give us owners some respect for buying a Ridgeline because it's the vehicle of our choice, not yours. I drove and researched every truck on the market and decided the Ridgeline was the best vehicle for my needs. So get over that fact and give me and others the respect of ownership. I really don't care if you have the baddest truck or vehicle out there. I knew what I liked and didn't like. I know for a fact that there will always be those that have nothing positive to say about any truck except theirs. That's why I left because I got tired of all the BS and have to justify why I got a Ridgeline. So Hey Folks, keep going, I enjoy all the comments whether they are true, accurate or not. It makes good reading, just like the daily paper since I only believe 1% of it. So enjoy your bickering, while I enjoy driving my Ridgeline. :P :P
If you are referring to my post, I meant that some people were getting off the intended track being this is supposed to be a comparison of the Ridge, Fronty, Taco, and Colorado/Canyon. The Ranger/B Series (the last of the true compacts) were omitted. You are off on another tangent altogether.
After reading through the archives it appears that this forum has lost track of the topic. Do you have a vehicle that is in one of these categories. I am interested in the comparison.
I could live with any of the Japanese trucks, but I am still a little leary of the Chevys and Dodges.
I chose the Frontier because of its styling which is purely a personal thing. I also got a much better deal from Nissan since I was trading in a Nissan.
I ruled the Honda out because I did not want a crew cab and the cost was higher. I ruled the Tacoma out because of the much higher cost to me.
I actually looked at the Tacoma first because I like my wife's Solara so well. They just would not deal with me. Wouldn't even give me wholesale price on a very clean, pampered, low mileage truck.
I would have been happy with any of the three. My younger brother bought a Canyon and after riding in his truck I am glad that I got what I did.
As has been noted by others, why must some tear down what others have bought? I personally would not want to live in a world where everyone drove the same kind of vehicle.
On the Frontier forums I have seen a few people who hate their Frontiers because of all of the problems they have had. I am fortunate, I have only had a couple of minor problems that have been fixed.
I do have to admit I get a lot of laughs at what goes on in this thread, but it certainly does not make me sorry I bought my truck, nor want to go out and buy the truck that the guy who is trashing my ride drives.
So you see, by trashing other's rides you are not accomplishing what you intend to do, CHANGE OUR MINDS.
Gentleman, Can anyone tell me about the capabilities of the Ridgeline? I am starting my search for a good roustabout vehicle. I have done some of my own investigating, but I am more interested in the owner's opinions of the Ridgeline. If there is anyone with this information, don't hesitate to post me a message..
Can anyone tell me about the capabilities of the Ridgeline? I am starting my search for a good roustabout vehicle.
I'm not sure how it fits in the "roustabout" category.
1 a : DECKHAND b : LONGSHOREMAN 2 : an unskilled or semiskilled laborer especially in an oil field or refinery 3 : a circus worker who erects and dismantles tents, cares for the grounds, and handles animals and equipment
but, it's capabilities are discussed quite throughly at this link:
My personal opinion is that it performs superbly. This is the best automatic tranny I've driven. it seems to be programmed just right. There is also very good power at 0-60 in 8.5 sec. The versatile storage capacity is second to none with the flip up seats, the bed, and inbed trunk. These are just a few of many things that sold me.
Gearhead 1, You have proven yourself worthy of using the Webster's Dictionary. I was referring to the unskilled laborer, which is what I consider the smaller trucks to be. I apologize if that offends anyone. A better illustration, might be to say, more practical for everyday use than my other vehicles. Thank you for the text book definition.
The weak points for the Ridgeline would be heavy duty towing and off-roading.
But if you're going to use it for hauling gear, people, personal equipment, and supplies it's a great truck. It's not the truck you take on the trails, it's the truck you use to haul your bikes to the trails. It's not the truck you haul horses with, it's the truck you use to haul the ranch hands, their saddles, and extra gear. It's not necessarily the truck used by the workers on the job site, but it would serve nicely as the foreman's truck... used every now and then for labor activities.
On top of that, it's unsurpassed as the truck you'd want to haul your wife and kids in.
If you really need a true work truck, then I'd go with the Tacoma or Frontier. My personal preference is the Taco, but that's just me.
< Also, when will Nissan decide to finally re-test their numbers against the new SAE standards?>
This engine HP upsmanship seems so rediculous to me in the face of today's gasoline prices. If people tow, it probably matters somewhat, but for the most part, any of the mid-sizers will suit most buyers just fine. I wish the manufacturers would have used their engineering prowess to advance MPG numbers instead of playing can-you-top-this HP games. It'll be interesting to see what the new '07 Tundra starts in terms of a full-size truck HP war
< Also, when will Nissan decide to finally re-test their numbers against the new SAE standards?>
This engine HP upsmanship seems so rediculous to me in the face of today's gasoline prices.
I only ask due to Nissan being on the top of the market in horsepower ratings; for now. I'd be interested to see where they line up after a retest. Probably around 250-255 (my guess).
yeah it would be interesting... The new 07 tundras v8 engine is ULEV rated... Something to think about.
I would rather have both MPG and power...
new Technology is always coming out, And theres already full size trucks which get better MPG then the ridgeline, tacoma, frontier, titan, tundra etc,...
There will be a hybrid v8 Tundra. And probably a hybrid Diesel tundra in the near Future... If Fuel efficiency was a factor and you were looking for a reliable truck then you should of picked a diesel... You can easily modify any domestic diesel truck to get over 20mpg in the city with gobs of torque... its kinda funny how some HD diesel truck owners could change power ratings and fuel efficiency by just pressing a few buttons while driving... they could easily run low 14s to high 13 1/4 miles stock with just a ecu upgrade, And thats from a 7800+ pound truck...
I've wondered why manufactuers don't introduce a two-speed rear differential with one setting (say 4.10) for towing/power and another setting (say 3.42) for economy. Owners could set the rear for that day's need.
Comments
What I do is commuting, traveling to visit family, and haul groceries. While the other trucks were fine, they were overkill for my particular needs.
The Ridgeline on highway travel is over 22 MPG, better than either two others.
I'm not knocking either previous trucks-they were good vehicles, just this one is better for my needs.
I do all that with my AWD Astro too, but it keeps 8 people dry. But when it comes time to kick in low range, I, too, find myself without a real 4X4.
I'm getting 19-20 mpg. Get informed before you post.
Ya, but eventually you will run out of downhill roads with the wind behind you.
Nope, I'm getting 19-20mpg. I threw out the downhill numbers. Downhill Cedar City to Mesquite, the RL gets 22mpg. That would be misleading to include that as mpg, but since you mention it.
Most people that have 4wd Lo, don't use it even when they have it. I find I do have true 4wd. When VTM-4 lock is engaged, all 4 wheels are locked and supplying traction. That is 4wd.
The order of least to greatest traction control in the RL would be
-AWD, VSA on-default mode upon start up. good for the wife no brainer mode. It can remain in this mode for 99% of all encounters. This is superior to any part time 4wd system and is what is needed for driving in ice and snow conditions on the road.
-AWD VSA off-for situations where VSA may bog down the vehicle such as deep sand.
-VTM-4 Lock, VSA off. put in first, second or reverse, and it will extract you from 99% of anything.
If you need more traction options than this, your probably a lost cause anyway. Find someone that can drive.
I'm not saying I would take the RL up the Rubicon trail, but it's all anybody would need in most sane off road situations.
True, most people don't use low, not because they don't need it, but because they don't know why it is there. Dropping the truck in low while pulling the boat out or playing in the sand is going to put alot less stress on the tranny and clutch. You won't get better traction, just better power with less stress on the drive line. I got my wife the AWD Astro (which I traded for an AWD Mountaineer yesterday) so she won't have to worry about locking in the 4X4 if she hits a icey hill, but I choose the 4WD so I can kick it out and save gas in normal day to day driving.
The Ridgeline isn't Full Time AWD (if i'm not mistaken), but is more of an "On-demand" system so fuel economy doesn't suffer. Only when the VTM-4 button is locked is the truck in FULL 4WD mode. Its kind of the best of both worlds, you don't lose the economy of full time-4wd, but can if you need to.
True, most people don't use low, not because they don't need it, but because they don't know why it is there.
If you don't even understand it, are you really much of an off-roader who would utilize it anyway?
Against my better judgement, I opted to drive the Ridgeline with OEM Michelin tires vs my all season/snow rated Nokian tires (made in Finland) equipped Honda pilot.
It was again one of those de ja vu days, whereas I saw 2 trucks, and a few cars stuck (ironically one truck with a 4x4 sign on the back) in the snow in some shallow ditch, my Ridgeline on the other hand handled the clear and snow packed roads like a champ. I do admit that the ABS system kicked out OFTEN AND LIKE CRAZY, but other than that, it didn't show any sign of loosing control. Whatever the gizmos Honda put in this truck works like a charm even on dangerous icy roads.Not once could I detect a hint of loosing control even when I did some slalom on the very large snow packed parking lot beside the movie house before hitting the streets.
My Ridgeline maybe lousy on Rubicon trails, but on the EVERYDAY REALITIES OF LIFE WHERE IT MATTERS THE MOST, IT IS ONE OF THE SAFEST TRUCK ON THE ROAD. :shades:
Yep, though I use it off road, the most important part is the traction in the winter on the road. No part time so called "real" 4wd can beat the Ridgelines traction system.
We have a mountain pass called Black Ridge. It's very treacherous in the winter. We were traveling through it during a winter storm, and there were the usual 5-6 vehicles spun out on the side of the road. The Ridgeline felt absolutely stable despite the very dangerous conditions I knew were under the wheels. Usually this is white knuckle driving for sure. We just kicked back and listened to the comedy channel on XM. We were probably the only people laughing on Black Ridge that night. The biggest stressor was the other vehicles on the road that weren't as stable as the Ridgeline.
This is the only vehicle I want my family in under those conditions. Honda's "safety for all" program combined with this traction system makes it the safest vehicle on the road.
The Stability Control also seems a bit abrupt on sharp corners in town. In - does the job - out.
Well, I agree with part of what you're writing. Many people who buys trucks don't really need them. Just like many who would best be served by a minivan end up buying a truck-based SUV.
But which would you rather have them drive... a "real truck" which gets bad mileage, has sloppy handling, and a bumpy ride... or a Ridgeline which gets bad mileage, has good handling, and a smooth ride? This vehicle gives them the most of what they'll actually use with the fewest drawbacks.
I disagree that the Ridgeline gets worse mileage than the other trucks in its class. 16-21 is better than most. Unless you compare 2WD trucks to the AWD Ridgeline.
As for ads showing the Ridgeline off-roading, well... Ford shows the F-150 pull a tractor trailer truck 12' in the air (not possible given limits of traction). Nissan has pictured the Titan towing a camper which is too big for it's capacity. Those are TV ads. Just about anything on TV nowadays requires two doses of salt.
I'm not a big off-roader myself, but I've spent my share of time riding in rigs with people who are. If you're talking about anything technical (real rocks, berms, and mud pits) all pick-ups are lousy vehicles. They have a long wheelbase, making them suckers for a high-center situation. Their long under carriage provides a huge surface for mud to grab onto in the deep snotty stuff. And their open-top construction means the frames will twist all over the place, making rock crawling very difficult. That's why hard-top jeeps and SUVs are king of the trails.
Guess I'm just lookin for a ruby in an old mountain of rocks, and I ain't gonna find it there.
I would like to see a Ridgeline back-up to a Subaru Brat, hook a chain up to each of their frames, and have them both just floor-it! And see who pulls who? Hey, I know a guy who runs a Gin-mill, and he says those subaru Brats are bullet-proof. You can take those things anywhere. But you can also take them to the drive-ins with a girl, and have a nice evening. So you get the best of both worlds, with the Brat. But the Honda has that storage compartment in the back, so maybe it would be a good rumble.
It would be an expected midlife bump.
2nd cut back for honda... Not a bad thing, but just shows sales are slow on hondas truck line... Same goes for some domestic trucks... With rising gas prices, who wants to deal with a 14-18mpg vehicle... I like what others like GM are doing... Look at the new 07 tahoe, its a v8 and its rated at 16-22mpg EPA Thats not bad for a vehicle which weighs 5800+ pounds and has a 320hp v8 engine.
Ok, now the Sonata frame is about the exact same thing that Honda puts on the Ridgeline. The difference is the truck/car body. The Sonata also has one of those little hooks near the back bumper...in case you got it stuck in the mud, and you have to be pulled-out. Just like the Ridgeline. The major difference is that the Hyundai Sonata has more standard safety features, and only 6% less interior volume than the Ridgey.
So just swinging back to my orignal argument, if you want a car, get the Sonata. If you want a truck...get a '96 Ranger!
Ok, now the Sonata frame is about the exact same thing that Honda puts on the Ridgeline. The difference is the truck/car body. The Sonata also has one of those little hooks near the back bumper...in case you got it stuck in the mud, and you have to be pulled-out. Just like the Ridgeline. The major difference is that the Hyundai Sonata has more standard safety features, and only 6% less interior volume than the Ridgey.
So just swinging back to my orignal argument, if you want a car, get the Sonata. If you want a truck...get a '96 Ranger!
That is a wierd post. The Sonata you speak of has 162 horsepower, the Ridgeline has 247 horsepower. The Sonata you speak of has a manual transmission and only 3250 pounds of weight, as well as a much better drag coefficient (due to its "car"-ness). The Ridgeline sits above most traffic and weighs 4500 pounds. The Sonata isn't designed to pull a 5,000 pound trailer. The Sonata has no AWD architecture. The Sonata does not have more than 8-inches of off-roading ground clearance. The Sonata does not have many things the Ridgeline has, because there is no logical comparison between the two vehicles. Maybe next you'll compare a sea-doo to a barge?
I'm not sure what your point was here, prime. Not everyone wants or can have two vehicles, and the RL is QUITE a great compromise. I'm not sure how you figure the Sonata has more safety features. Honda has 8 airbags standard, the Sonata lists 6. Both have VSC.
Normally I don't say things like this, but your attampt to knock the Ridgeline was not a good one; mainly because you did it with a Sonata, which shares few characteristics with the Ridgeline. Guess what, my Accord has a little hook to be towed with too...MOST CARS DO.
By the way, if I'm shopping any of the trucks on this particular forum, I wouldn't dare consider a ten-year old compact Ford.
The reason why he said that is because he owns a 96' Ford Ranger
This is a first, never thought I'd here someone say a Sonata is comparable to a Ridgeline.
Lets get back on topic and compare trucks.
It was a first for me, too!
A big part of the rationale behind these cuts is because the Acura MDX is six years old and sales are slowing. It's also about to be replaced at the end of the year. No sense having extra units of the old model sitting around.
That's the frame found under the Pilot. Imagine a few more crossmembers and rails 70% thicker. Now you've got the frame under the Ridgeline.
It's the same sort of design used in the Grand Cherokee and LR Discovery.
Don't feel badly. There's so much garbage out there about this truck it's not surprising you'd be so badly misinformed.
It sounds as though you have watched a little too much Spiderman given your screen name. I was curious, with your self-proclaimed off roading knowledge, are you still running the factory twin I beam front suspension in that stout Ranger of yours? Also, what power plant do have anchored under the hood of that beastly machine. I have my doubts that the factory 4.0 or 2.5 have enough to get those Iroks turning the right direction. Could you attach a picture of your rig for the rest of us to view, because it certainly sounds like one tough ombre'. I'm not sure where you are located, but their are several of fellow off-roaders that get together each year for some good times as well as adventure. Maybe we could camp together, if you feel up to it? Anyway your information has been extremely valuable, I hope to gain some knowledge from you.
Sincerely :shades: :shades:
Optimusprime,
I'm not sure where you are getting your information, however, I never mentioned anything about a Jeep. Could you explain what it is you meant. I don't believe I understand where you are going with this. Thanks, you have a very commanding presence.
Disregard the spiderman reference, after some research it appears as though you are a transformer. I would like you to go back a read the registration agreement. You must be over 13 to play on these sites. Does your mommy know your on here? No body drives a 96 Ranger these days, everyone who is in the muddin business knows they were the worst thing to roll out of Dearborn Michigan. I would think you could find a better rig for a build up. You might want to look into a Suzuki Samari. I hear they'll out climb what you are dragin around spit it out and belch.
As a general rule, pick-ups do not make good off-roaders. The long wheelbase, poor turning radius, and flabby chassis aren't much good for rock crawling. The expansive undercarriage isn't good for muddin'.
Again, you can mod a truck to do anything. But if you're talking about real wheelin', stock is not the best option. Still a lot of fun (I've taken my CR-V into the woods). But I would never attempt anything but mild to moderate trails.
If my Screen-name was, let's say..Pony Express, you might assume I'm into Mustangs. I was just trying to use some probability factoring, here.
Just so you know, I dropped the old 2.5L engine out of my Ranger a few years ago. I did a 302 ci conversion,300hp, Block was thermo-cleaned and diamond honed, stainless valves, aluminum intake, Ford-forged rods, 4bbl Elderbrock carb. suiside hood, I had the rear leaf-springs notched by: Steve Colley & Joey Machado. And since you mentioned it, I have DJM I-Beams in the front, I also had the transmission crossmember and radius arms relocated. 2,500lb. Firestone Bags in the front, 2,600lbs, in the rear. Blow Jax DC7000 Compressor, 1/2" Parker Valves, 3/8" air-lines, and I have all components mounted under the bed floor.
Let me know when you wanna line 'em-up! Mud or Street!
What????? I thought so, have a seat, son. Get ready to be educated in 4WD 101.
Dodges.
I chose the Frontier because of its styling which is purely a personal thing. I also got a much better deal from Nissan since I was trading in a Nissan.
I ruled the Honda out because I did not want
a crew cab and the cost was higher. I ruled the Tacoma out because of the much higher cost to me.
I actually looked at the Tacoma first because I like my wife's Solara so well. They just would not deal with me. Wouldn't even give me
wholesale price on a very clean, pampered, low
mileage truck.
I would have been happy with any of the three.
My younger brother bought a Canyon and after riding in his truck I am glad that I got what I did.
As has been noted by others, why must some tear down what others have bought? I personally would not want to live in a world where everyone drove the same kind of vehicle.
On the Frontier forums I have seen a few people who hate their Frontiers because of all of the problems they have had. I am fortunate,
I have only had a couple of minor problems that have been fixed.
I do have to admit I get a lot of laughs at what goes on in this thread, but it certainly does not make me sorry I bought my truck, nor want to go out and buy the truck that the guy who is trashing my ride drives.
So you see, by trashing other's rides you are not accomplishing what you intend to do, CHANGE
OUR MINDS.
Let the flames continue.
OkieScot
Can anyone tell me about the capabilities of the Ridgeline? I am starting my search for a good roustabout vehicle. I have done some of my own investigating, but I am more interested in the owner's opinions of the Ridgeline. If there is anyone with this information, don't hesitate to post me a message..
I'm not sure how it fits in the "roustabout" category.
1 a : DECKHAND b : LONGSHOREMAN
2 : an unskilled or semiskilled laborer especially in an oil field or refinery
3 : a circus worker who erects and dismantles tents, cares for the grounds, and handles animals and equipment
but, it's capabilities are discussed quite throughly at this link:
http://www.hondanews.com/catID2138?view=t&page=1
My personal opinion is that it performs superbly. This is the best automatic tranny I've driven. it seems to be programmed just right. There is also very good power at 0-60 in 8.5 sec. The versatile storage capacity is second to none with the flip up seats, the bed, and inbed trunk. These are just a few of many things that sold me.
You have proven yourself worthy of using the Webster's Dictionary. I was referring to the unskilled laborer, which is what I consider the smaller trucks to be. I apologize if that offends anyone. A better illustration, might be to say, more practical for everyday use than my other vehicles. Thank you for the text book definition.
But if you're going to use it for hauling gear, people, personal equipment, and supplies it's a great truck. It's not the truck you take on the trails, it's the truck you use to haul your bikes to the trails. It's not the truck you haul horses with, it's the truck you use to haul the ranch hands, their saddles, and extra gear. It's not necessarily the truck used by the workers on the job site, but it would serve nicely as the foreman's truck... used every now and then for labor activities.
On top of that, it's unsurpassed as the truck you'd want to haul your wife and kids in.
If you really need a true work truck, then I'd go with the Tacoma or Frontier. My personal preference is the Taco, but that's just me.
This engine HP upsmanship seems so rediculous to me in the face of today's gasoline prices. If people tow, it probably matters somewhat, but for the most part, any of the mid-sizers will suit most buyers just fine. I wish the manufacturers would have used their engineering prowess to advance MPG numbers instead of playing can-you-top-this HP games. It'll be interesting to see what the new '07 Tundra starts in terms of a full-size truck HP war
This engine HP upsmanship seems so rediculous to me in the face of today's gasoline prices.
I only ask due to Nissan being on the top of the market in horsepower ratings; for now. I'd be interested to see where they line up after a retest. Probably around 250-255 (my guess).
I would rather have both MPG and power...
new Technology is always coming out, And theres already full size trucks which get better MPG then the ridgeline, tacoma, frontier, titan, tundra etc,...
There will be a hybrid v8 Tundra. And probably a hybrid Diesel tundra in the near Future... If Fuel efficiency was a factor and you were looking for a reliable truck then you should of picked a diesel... You can easily modify any domestic diesel truck to get over 20mpg in the city with gobs of torque... its kinda funny how some HD diesel truck owners could change power ratings and fuel efficiency by just pressing a few buttons while driving... they could easily run low 14s to high 13 1/4 miles stock with just a ecu upgrade, And thats from a 7800+ pound truck...