Toyota Tacoma vs Honda Ridgeline

eagleg · April 2005

People were curious when they saw the elephant man as well!

gd113 · April 2005

Your are very witty. If you read my post I said they asked my questions that expressed interest not disgust.

eagleg · April 2005

Just don't let the Edmunds people take your baby off road.They didn't have many good things to say about the Rimline, I mean Ridgeline.

gd113 · April 2005

Thats great if you live where you can go off roading. As I live in area area where it is not possible, why do I care. As long as my baby performs in the snow thats all I care about as my guess is probably 90% of pickup drivers do.

gearhead1 · April 2005

"It's really too bad Honda couldn't make a truck with a bit more curb appeal! The Ridgeline has got to be one of the ugliest trucks on the road today. I don't think the crap can overcome the truck."

Interesting you should comment on the styling. Marketing people have done research on the styling of cars with controversial styling that provoke strong negative and positve reactions ( I think it's a beautiful design by the way) sell better than just a bland design that elicits no reaction. They conclude that this will work in Hondas favor. The PT Cruiser and thde Element both have cult followings. The Aztek not so much. Bland is not better most definitly, and for all the bitching I hear about the styling, people sure do seek me out at every fill up and parking lot telling me how much they like it.

gd113 · April 2005

"people sure do seek me out at every fill up and parking lot telling me how much they like it. "

I have the same strange reaction gearhead1. :P

roaddog1 · April 2005

Hi. Brand New Owner here. I looked closely at the Tacoma, Honda and Frontier and liked all of them for various reasons. I eliminated the Fontier early on and chose between the Honda and Toy. I picked the Honda over the Taco double cab Sport because 1. I do not go off-road (on purpose), 2. the Honda had a huge list of features on it that the Toyota did not. And, 3. the Honda dealer actually dropped the lease price to equal that of the Taco while the Toyota dealer did not want to deal at all. My wife and my construction business will be the primary users and we commute on the Highway. I tow a large utility trailer and need something that will stay on the highway under severe winter conditions. I admire the Tacoma as a strong, capable truck but the Ridgeline fits my needs better.

PS: I think the Toyota is a good looking truck and the Ridgeline is kind of ugly, but my wife likes it.

eagleg · April 2005

I wanna be one of those people driving an Element or a PT Cruiser or a Rimline instead of my Indigo Blue 05 Tacoma D/C Long Bed 4x4 4.0 V6 5 SPD/Auto TRD Sport Pkg. 4

gearhead1 · April 2005

"I wanna be one of those people driving an Element or a PT Cruiser or a Rimline instead of my Indigo Blue 05 Tacoma D/C Long Bed 4x4 4.0 V6 5 SPD/Auto TRD Sport Pkg. 4"

So did I, that's why I bought a Ridgeline instead of my Taco Sport.

KCRam · April 2005

What is a "breakover" angle?

Breakover angle is the clearance angle between the axles. The lower the number, the more likely you are to get high-centered on a rock or other such object.

kcram - Pickups Host

rsholland · April 2005

when I hear owners of Toyotas giving out styling critiques.

Bob

moparbad · April 2005

Why is it funny? Do you think owning a Toyota defines a persons knowledge of style?

pb2themax · April 2005

I checked out a Ridgeline at the Cincinnati auto show. The bed was pretty cool, and the interior was comfy, but I just didn't like the style. It's kind of like an upgrade from owning a minivan, but a downgrade from a pickup. It was a little too 'soft' for me. And the front end was a little too plain looking. Overall, it reminds me of a small Avalanch, which I hate. But it is pretty innovative. I think it will appeal to a lot of middle age people. I expect Honda to make it a little more bold or stylish in the next few years.

rsholland · April 2005

Why is it funny?

Because Toyotas are generally acknowledged by many to be among the most bland and/or awkward looking vehicles this earth has ever seen, and people who buy Toyotasat the very least, are not put off by the looks.

Do you think owning a Toyota defines a persons knowledge of style?,

Obviously not.

Bob

matt30 · April 2005

"Your safety remark doesn't make sense. You state that AWD isn't safer for on-road driving, then say, 'In fact Full time 4wd might worsen the situation at higher speeds.'"

I'm making perfect sense. Your confusing PART-time 4wd with FULL-time 4wd, AWD in any form (including full-time 4wd) can make worse a low traction situation.

The more traction you use on the front wheels to move the vehicle, the less traction available for steering. So if youre traveling in AWD/Full-time 4wd at speeds over 40 MPH and suddenly make a steering adjustment in slippery road conditions (On a rainy highway) the greater the chance of understeer or a spin-out. But thats why all models of the ridge are equipped with VSC.

"You cannot combine VSC with SR5 package #8 or either of the TRD packages however."

You can get VSC on all models (except X-runner) including ones with tow packages and TRD packages.

http://www.toyota.com/vehicles/2005/tacoma/specs_access_cab.html
Go the bottom of this page and click on #8, it states that you can ONLY get:

"VSC + TRAC with Downhill Assist Control (DAC) and Hill Start Assist Control (HAC) [9] (4x4 V6 AT models) "

with the TRD package

"The full time 4wd is much better verses part time if you live in snow country. With part time you need to switch in and out of 4wd depending on the road. 4wd on the back road, 2wd on a main road, back to 4wd for an areas not plowed, ect. Imagine turning left at a light, hitting the gas and just spinning your rear wheels since the road is a bit icy and you forgot to put it in 4wd. With full time 4wd it's not an issue."

I've live in snow country (yes there is such thing as snow in SoCal) and (not sure if VTM-4 has a limmited slip but this is the way it happens on most AWD vehicles) AWD only works if all wheels have at least some traction otherwise its just a 2wd system. Luckily you have VSC to combat that problem as well.

"Imagine turning left at a light, hitting the gas and just spinning your rear wheels since the road is a bit icy" I would agree that AWD is this situation would get you going faster, but also keep in mind that with a part time system, while the wheels would spin, you would still move and have better steering control to boot. (BTW, tacomas VSC would not allow that wheel slip to occur in the first place)

Part-time 4wd will get you through unplowed roads better than any AWD system ever could. AWD is oriented so that the inconveniences of on road driving (spinning the wheels when turning a corner, lower traction going through mud puddles, more hp to gravel roads) don't slow you down. 4wd is designed to get you through rough terrain so you wont get stuck. Most people don't need 4wd capability, and thats fine. But I would argue that RWD and FWD could get you to the same place AWD can, albeit a tad slower (and safer with tacomas VSC + Trac system).

"I agree, unless your truck is off road in the dirt and mud more than 50% of the time, unquestionably AWD with VSC is better. It would be nice to have 4Lo (we all want everything, dont we? It's part of being American I guess.), but from my experience thus far, (Deep dry sand) I will never need it in this vehicle."

If your off-road more than 50% of the time your gonna need a helluva lot more than a pickup truck. AWD with VSC may be better for daily around town driving as I've stated before but it is not more capable than any part-time 4wd system.

xwesx · April 2005

Thanks for the response, kcram. I finally managed to pick that out from gearhead1's previous post (#205).

roaddog1 · April 2005

I am now officially in my seventh day of ownership and I think my Steel Blue Ridgeline is a very handsom vehicle indeed. A bit of a turn-a-round from my first impression. Call me fickle if you like, but I think I just had to get used to it.
I drove it to a weekly biker meet and was actually forgiven for not being on one. For the first time in memory, my biker buddies actually talked about something other than V-twins and pegs.

utvnut · April 2005

I really like the blue but to be honest, am worried that it looks "feminine." My wife, daughter and son have all seen it and think it has too much green and looks like a "girl color."

I am curious as to the blue ones owned by men vs. women as the primary driver. I wish it had more blue in it like the s2000 or mini-van.

Blue owners, what has been the reaction to the color or are people still just amazed at the trunk and strange style?

gearhead1 · April 2005

I've got a steel blue. People love it. It's one of the first things they comment on. Look at it in person, then decide.

tacoridge · April 2005

I recently bought a 2003 Tocoma 4x4 double cab with pw,pb,ac,cruise,cd,sr5,trd,cassett,manual seat,I think alloy wheels, but I do not know if it is an AT or LIMITED. No decals, nothing in the manual. What do I have? Thanks

suvguy2005 · April 2005

To say that FWD or RWD can get you anywhere AWD can shows your ignorance. Anyone with half a brain can see that having all 4 wheels powered vs 2 is much better in slippery conditions. Think about it. If you are climbing a hill in a FWD vehicle and your front 2 wheels hit ice, do you think you are going anywhere? Even though the rear wheels are on dry pavement you are going to stop. Duh! The resulting wheel spin can also send you careening off the road.

When you said that 4WD is better than AWD at getting you unstuck is correct, but I don't think you know why. AWD allows for some wheel spin before activating the other wheels, making getting unstuck a jerky situation and near impossible to do the forward/back rocking maneuver smoothly. I currently own both an AWD vehicle and a 4WD vehicle and can attest to this. But the center and rear locking differential on the Ridgeline mimics all the advantages of 4WD.

A quote from Motor Trend Magazine: "The H2 is big, weighty, expensive, and thirsty. (And it needed a shift into low range to finish a hill climb the Volvo's high-tech AWD scrambled up without drama.)"

KCRam · April 2005

You can state your opinion without the insults and condescending remarks.
(Translation: that's your one warning.)

kcram - Pickups Host

howdy1 · April 2005

If you throw out looks, $$$, and only go by functionality, the RL wins hands down. And NO I'm not going to take my 30K+ truck offroading or rockcrawling.
I am too busy going to home depot, work, and the occasional fully-armed outdoor adventure. But, I cannot justify spending extra on a vehicle I think looks kinda odd. Maybe it will grow on me, but not yet.

The Tacoma has a horrible set of first year issues that cannot be ignored.
Is Honda that much better than Toyota nowadays or is the onsalught of RL complaints yet to come? I agree with an earlier post that the Honda engineers knew they had one shot at this, so they probably made darn sure it was manufactured right.

Toyota is too caught up in their reputation for quality to do anything about it. Will it hurt their sales? I doubt it. There are enough buyers out there that don't care about going to the dealer in the first three years. I do! I can't believe there is such a poor history of paint chipping on Toyota's, especially the new Taco. This alone is enough to keep me from buying. What's worse is the lack of acknowledgement by Toyota that there is a problem.

How about I buy neither and save my $$ until they fix the Taco or give the RL a facelift?

roaddog1 · April 2005

Hi. Been away for a while. Feminine/masculine colour? I got to say it's never been an issue, as long as it isn't lavender or something. Like I tell the dealerships. I'll take anything as long as it isn't red (used to fade), white (used to yellow up) or black (every little scratch or print shows). In fact, I specified silver metallic for the Toyota Tacoma I ordered. As mentioned, I cancelled that purchase and went to the Ridgeline. By the purest coincidence it matches my Cherokee colour - light blue metallic except for a hint of green in the RL..
So far, 1000 K ms. & no problems with the RL, I am happy to report. :shades: But there are some controls ergonomic design could use a tune up.

roaddog1 · April 2005

Howdy: Hi. Could you direct me to a source or post that sums up the Tacoma issues you mention? Just curiosity on my part because I actually switched my order from a Tacoma to The RL.. But I'm surprised Toyota would drop the ball like that. :surprise:

gearhead1 · April 2005

Just got to the Toyota forum here on edmunds. They will 05 Taco issues there: leak, soaking carpets, bad suspension popping noise, engine ticking etc, paint chipping.

howdy1 · April 2005

yep, just go the the Tacoma Problems forum. I had been anxiously awaiting the Tacoma's arrival for months, and when it came out I was very disappointed in the low quality of manufacture. I love the idea of it and I love the way it looks. However, they are not willing to admit there is a problem or do anything about it. Small noises and things that can be fixed easily are one thing, but to have such a serious paint chipping issue is another. Imagine what you would feel like now if you bought the Taco and then ran into all of these problems. Wouldn't you be hitting yourself on the head now that you know to expect them? Why would you subject yourself to that? I am just waiting for the complaints about the RL to start.

xwesx · April 2005

I agree with you about the looks. I just saw my "first" Ridgeline yesterday, and it certainly DOES look "different" IRL than in photos, but not in a good way. The sad thing is, this vehicle is still on my list of possibles because of its functionality, and the '05 Tacoma left it a long time ago due to the manufacturing defects. Fortunately, I hope that neither '05 or '06 will be the model years I buy, so things still have time to change. I would much rather have an ugly vehicle that works wonderfully than a beautiful vehicle that is nothing but a headache. Of course, both would be preferred, but how often does that happen?

LoL. I can think of a few other areas in life where this statement applies: I would much rather have an ugly vehicle that works wonderfully than a beautiful vehicle that is nothing but a headache.

matt30 · April 2005

I've pulled so many people just like you out of snow banks and mud holes because they thought the only reason 4WD is better is it will 'rock' you out of a situation better.

All AWD systems have 3 differentials; the job of these mechanical devices is to manage the difference in speeds while your turning your vehicle. The reason you wouldn't be better off on that same icy hill climb is because differentials transfer torque to the axle with least resistance ( i.e. the spinning wheel). Unless you have some sort of electronic traction control system that uses the brakes to limit wheel spin, youre not going anywhere. Also as a side note traction control systems waste torque as it transfers that energy into heat by using the brakes to slow down a wheel (i.e. don't try and pull someone out of a ditch with electronic traction control, you'll only get stuck yourself). Before you start calling people ignorant you might want to actually understand how the mechanics of the thing your talking about works.

Here's a good website to read up on how these systems work (they even have pictures for those that need to learn that way): http://www.4x4abc.com/4WD101/awd.html

once_for_all · April 2005

you bring up an interesting point about traction control systems.

I am still scratching my head wondering how durable the 19 clutch plates will be on either side of the Ridge's rear axle.

If I understand correctly, there is always somekind of slip on these plates until either rear diffy lock is engaged, or the 70% max torque transfer level happens.

Maybe someone needs to explain these clutch packs, I keep picturing them similar to the multiplate asbestos/steel units that I had in my Honda and Yamaha motorcycles. In which case, it is bad news to have continual slippage in a clutch.

John

varmint · April 2005

Many old-school AWD systems use three open differentials. Actually, some of the newer ones (like MB's) still do. They just manage those differentials using the ABS sensors and braking systems, a method which, as pointed out above, does have some drawbacks.

Honda's VTM-4 is a different animal. It has two differentials. The one up front is wide open and uses only traction control to manage power to each front wheel. Not ideal, but better than a wide open diff. The diff in the back is responsible for two jobs. It can shift power fore and aft. It can also lock the rear diff from side to side. Realistically, you could say that Honda has squeezed two differentials into one diff housing. Anyway, that second job is fairly unique among AWD systems and is much more effective than simply managing power with the brakes. With the left and right clutch packs locked, both rear wheels are getting a full serving of torque with nothing holding them back.

As for the clutch packs, I've never read of someone having a problem with excessive wear and tear. It's a wet clutch pack system, so slippage is part of the design. And it's not like these packs are subjected to the same stresses as the clutch in a manual transmission. VTM-4 engages electronically within a fraction of a second. The rpms of the slack clutch plates and the powered clutch plates won't be very different. It's not like going from 4,000 rpms to 2,000 rpms.

eagleg · April 2005

How many Tacomas have been sold and how many people are reporting problems?

once_for_all · April 2005

that is an excellent point about the rpms being similar on engagement. Very different from the function of a standard clutch in an MT.

John

kapelusprime · April 2005

I own a 05 Taco, some of the most fun I've had off road yet. I've owned just about every domestic mud slinger around; That little truck has got some skills in the off road and great manors on road too. If any of you have driven a CRV or pilot,they are ok on a dirt road but give the an open field. Well, even with the tires we put on the girl friends CRV, it sucked!!!! I'm not talking about sink hole either, I'm talking about an open field on my property. Hey, in the snow it did fine and on the road that is another great vehicle by the awesome people at Honda. Getting back to the Ridgeline, This is a suburbs only truck; Yes I too have read all about it's AWD and yes I've even got a chance to drive a friends. This is a Honda thru and thru, liked the fit and finish, loved the power plant, Honda builds them built proof. Even with every thing I've read in the Toyota problem site, My friend of over 18 years who works at a Yota dealership, has heard about a quarter of the problems mentioned and seen even less. Him and I have been in the auto repair biz for a long Mother F'en time. [non-permissible content removed] trucks have always had shity bodys, and never die power plants and drive lines. That Honda is a great SUV, but just like past honda's she just don't cut the mustard off the pavement. On the flip side the toyota is out classed by the honda on pavement, or so I think. But if you fixing to get this thing muddy, or if you live in the country like me, then be prepared to clime the next Ridgeline on foot and call a tow truck with your cell.

once_for_all · April 2005

friend, I don't think you have the definitive answer to on-road and off-road nor AWD and 4wd. I can tell you that my Subaru Forester does great on open fields and snow and pavement.

However, I will be the last to say that this is better than that. You are getting into opinion and subjectiveness, and that is one road I don't recommend.

John

matt30 · April 2005

I think you summed it up perfectly.

Ridgeline is perfect for trips to and from home depot carrying wood and tools through pot hole ridden streets through the city, Tacoma is great for the camping/fishing/offroad trips.

Both are light duty however... If you plan on doing any major towing get a Dodge or Ford.

wooddorker · April 2005

"friend, I don't think you have the definitive answer to on-road and off-road nor AWD and 4wd. I can tell you that my Subaru Forester does great on open fields and snow and pavement. "

I agree with the original poster. I don't think he means grassy fields at fairgrounds.

I currently own a '99 Jeep Wrangler Sport, 2001 Subaru Outback, and an '05 Tacoma.

The Outback is hands down my favorite on-road snow car, EVER! With the 5 speed manual tranny and true center diff, it's also a blast on wet or loose roads. However, the Jeep and Taco absolutely kill it in a muddy field, on a rocky trail, or a wet, loose, sandy beach.

American Subarus lack a 4WD low range, which is key in really sticky situations. The indie suspension is great on the road, and actually has BETTER static center ground clearance than the Jeep with 30" tires (no pumpkin on the Subie, and I haven't compared the Taco), but it gives much of this away as the suspension travels over obstacles. Solid axles act like a fulcrum, tilting the vehicle, but not giving away the clearance. Most indie suspension (except an H1, but that's $100k ) allows the body to stay closer to level, but it "squats", giving away the clearance and breakover angle. The squatting can also be a problem when towing.

The low profile tires (60 series on mine, AFAIK 65 series on a Forester) mounted on most Subarus also lack the sidewall height for true technical off-road performance, but work GREAT in on-road and "rally" type situations. Big, high, gummy sidewalls soak up rocks and shock without blowing beads and/or damaging rims, but they compromise dry pavement handling. I've always wanted to swap my 17" rim / 60 series tire combo for a 15" rim and a tire equalling the same diameter as the original combo and see how much better it behaved over tough stuff, but I've never gotten around to it. The 60 series are also not legal for many off-road beach permits, as they don't have enough sidewall height to spread out and still hold air when aired down for sand.

You may not have had problems, but I think if you spent some real time in all three of my vehicles, I wouldn't have much convincing to do.

If only the Ouback had a LOW!

once_for_all · April 2005

one thing we forget is the weight factor. The Subies are in the 3200 to 3400 lb range, and with their wide 16" tires they tend to float over situations rather than needing to dig themselves out via a low range.

I use mine on freshly plowed fields where I need to accurately measure distance. Any wheel spin, and I get a bad measurement. My F-150 would require a tractor to get it out. One of the worse vehicles we had was an F-250 diesel Power stroke 4x4. The thing was so heavy it would just dig itself right into the loose dirt.

John

xwesx · April 2005

I agree with both of you. My Subaru tends to "float" across mud very well, but a low range would also come in so handy in those situations where stopping or going slowly was necessary. I have taken my car in many a situation where I made it through, but had I stopped, I would have most likely been mired; a 4 low (and locking diff!) would come in very handy right about then.

Let me bring this back around to the discussion at hand: Does the Ridgeline have the "float" advantage? Most likely not, but I have a feeling that the Ridge would make it through most anything a Subaru could (hhaha... or should?!) handle and probably a few things more. A moot point though, because we are approaching the realm of off-roading for which the Ridgeline was not designed. Why contrast it against other vehicles in tasks for which it was not designed to perform? It doesn't seem to make much sense to me. If we just agree that the Ridgeline was designed for "light to moderate" off-road situations and exceptional on-road safety and capability, we could move on to more productive discussions. I think it is far more appropriate to contrast the on-road capability of these two vehicles because we can all agree that both were designed for (and primarily see) such use.

matt30 · April 2005

If Toyota wanted to make a corolla with a bed they would have put independent suspension on it too. The fact is the off-road element was of vital importance to them; just look at how high the thing sits off the ground. It is just as unfair to compare the off-road ride of the ridge with the Tacoma, as it is the on road performance vise versa.

As for safety, the 2005 taco has already earned 5 stars and has fine tuned VSC through the various SUV models that carry it standard.

gearhead1 · April 2005

"That Honda is a great SUV, but just like past honda's she just don't cut the mustard off the pavement. On the flip side the toyota is out classed by the honda on pavement, or so I think. But if you fixing to get this thing muddy, or if you live in the country like me, then be prepared to clime the next Ridgeline on foot and call a tow truck with your cell."

Respectfully, No,No,No. I speak directly from experience on this. The Ridgeline has excellent performance in deep sand and mud. It can handle anything that it's approach and departure angle and over 8" ground clearance allow it to. Some muddy field won't stop the RL. I've had it in deep dry sand where the sand is scraping the undercarriage, and it plowed through like a champ. I just can't let comments like "but just like past honda's she just don't cut the mustard off the pavement." slide by, because it's just not true or accurate. I know better.

55535432 · April 2005

just can't let comments like "but just like past honda's she just don't cut the mustard off the pavement." slide by, because it's just not true or accurate. I know better.

---------------------------
A.M.E.N. Right from an owners mouth and not from an outsider who's only contact with the Ridge is a 15 minute actual or 1 hour fictional test drive :P

I would understand why Toyota Tacoma owners would insist that the Taco is a better choice, after all it's the motor trend truck of the year. To bad though because Toyota has the bad habit of grabbing the limelight in the absence of a Honda compettitor.Think Odyssey, the revamp Sienna only managed to claim top spot when going head to head with an aging Odyssey. Now that the Odyssey is all new, it's the top dog again in the minivan class year 2005 according to CR.

Car and driver has made the Pilot its SUV choice for years 03,04, and 05.(not bad at all for a newcomer, like a back to back to back sweep from a rookie).The Highlander was only in the limelight in the Pilots absence.I wouldn't be surprise that the Motortrend truck of the year award the Tacoma has on it's hands is on borrowed time.MOTORTREND 2006 TRUCK OF THE YEAR:Honda Ridgeline, folks get used to that sound.

Honda is a small company, while Toyota can afford to throw billions without denting i'ts pockets. The limited budget of Honda is the reason why it approaches and researches something so cautiously, coz if it bombs it's a serious dent to their coffers.The Ridgeline for all the crap it receives is one serious truck, Hondas' entry baby into the truck market that could make or break it's future in the hearts and pockets of truck enthusiast, thus the top notch packaging and all around capability.Much like an MVP of any sport, it doesn't excell in one or two facets of the game like towing or offroading but does well in everything. :shades:

Did I mention that this truck is built by Honda?

gearhead1 · April 2005

Even Bob Lutz is impressed. I almost passed out when I read this.

At the North American International Auto Show in Detroit earlier this month, Bob Lutz, GMs vice chairman, brought a large contingent to inspect Ridgeline. He told Flint: Its the best packaging of any vehicle he has ever seen, meaning the best layout and use of space.
Lutz praises competitors sparingly, especially those from abroad.
If the Ridgeline does prove to be a game-changer, its likely that Honda will need more production capacity in North America, which is already beginning to approach capacity. In December the company said it should reach capacity of 1.4 million vehicles by 2006.
A big splash by Ridgeline also may spur a new crop of pickups even more quickly from the competition, models with more clever use of space, a friendlier feel and somewhat smaller engines.

Quote from gary Flint, former engineer for GM for 15 years:

"What we really wanted to do," said Gary Flint, chief engineer for the Ridgeline, "is build a truck that didn't stink. We felt most other trucks stink."

xwesx · April 2005

A big splash by Ridgeline also may spur a new crop of pickups even more quickly from the competition, models with more clever use of space, a friendlier feel and somewhat smaller engines.

Well then let us hope it does..... just as long as other mfgrs do not follow suit on its aesthetics!

roaddog1 · April 2005

Thanks for the info on the Toyota quality issues. I felt kinda bad cancelling the order for the Taco but I seem to have (hopefully) avoided potential hassles! Week 3 and shiny time is over, but not a single glitch to report. We got a bit of freezing rain a couple of days ago but the RL tracked down the highway like it was on suction cups. There's no comparing to my late Cherokees.

Ha! you should have seen the look on the faces of my fellow Kawasaki Vulcan owners when I showed up for a meeting wearing a Honda cap! LOL!

So far I have not seen any more Ridglines on the road. I am told I am the first one to buy here in Winnipeg. Maybe I'm the only one!

roaddog1 · April 2005

Here's a question for the off-roaders...
What is the rollover angle for the Ridgeline? I have noticed it has a wide stance relative to height when compared to the Toyota, or any other 4X4 pick up. So where is the center of gravity? I'm no off roader but I have seen SUVs loose control on a slippery highway and end up in the rhubarb with the shiny side down. I'll bet the RL will have less of a tendancy to end wheels up under the same circumstances.

gearhead1 · April 2005

Just curious, I was also going to buy an 05 Taco. The quality issues aren't necassarily what cancelled my purchase. I think those issues will or are resolved by now, and they were more annoyance issues than true mechanical problems. I just felt the RL was a vastly superior product all around. I was just wondering if the 05 Taco was trouble free, would you still prefer your RL over it? How much better do you think it is than the 05 Taco.

I still have my previous 91 Toy truck and still love it. I could never bear to part with it. You just don't get rid of a vehicle that has been that reliable, but the RL I felt was a much better release and so well thought out.

As far as roll over angle I'm not sure, but doubt it would. It has a wider wheel base. I think it would be less prone to do it.

55535432 · April 2005

A lot of publications I've read rated minivans as one of the safer vehicles due to it's mass, and it's less prone to rollover compared to SUV's. I bought a Pilot 03, because of it's 15% chance of rollover is comparable to the 05 Sienna (15%) and to the 05 Odyssey (14%) making it one of the safest SUV's. The wide bodied stance of the Ridgeline is just like the Pilots, I wouldn't be surprise if it gets a low 15% chance of rollover or maybe even a 14 or 13%.I'll bet the rollover tendency of the 05 Tacoma is greater than the Ridge but not that bad compared to the older Tacos which tip during the test.Check the following links and partial test on the Sienna, Oddy, and Pilot.

The Ridge may be inferior to the Taco, in terms of offroading, towing and maybe the looks (subjective). Safetywise, though not tested yet, hands down it would rollover the Tacoma.I'll take safety over looks, towing and offroading anyday.

1. 05 Sienna.
http://www.nhtsa.gov/NCAP/Cars/3270.html

Chance of Rollover 15%
Static Stability Factor 1.25
Dynamic Test Result No-tip
Drive All wheel drive
Tire Size P235/70R16

2. 05 Odyssey
http://www.nhtsa.gov/NCAP/Cars/3100.html

Chance of Rollover 14%
Static Stability Factor 1.30
Dynamic Test Result No-tip
Drive Front wheel drive
Tire Size 235/65R16

3. 05 Pilot
http://www.nhtsa.gov/NCAP/Cars/3336.html
Chance of Rollover 15%
Static Stability Factor 1.25
Dynamic Test Result No-tip
Drive All wheel drive
Tire Size P235/70R16

rsholland · April 2005

At the North American International Auto Show in Detroit earlier this month, Bob Lutz, GMs vice chairman, brought a large contingent to inspect Ridgeline. He told Flint: Its the best packaging of any vehicle he has ever seen, meaning the best layout and use of space.
Lutz praises competitors sparingly, especially those from abroad.
If the Ridgeline does prove to be a game-changer, its likely that Honda will need more production capacity in North America, which is already beginning to approach capacity. In December the company said it should reach capacity of 1.4 million vehicles by 2006.
A big splash by Ridgeline also may spur a new crop of pickups even more quickly from the competition, models with more clever use of space, a friendlier feel and somewhat smaller engines.

Yep, I couldn't agree more. Lutz is spot-on on this call.

Bob

stephen1 · April 2005

It's a little funny to see each camp bashing the other's automobiles. Many of the vehicles available today are fine automobiles. Each person will purchase the one that they prefer. There is no right or wrong choice. People choose by features or looks or cost or whatever.
I've owned three Hondas in the past 13 years and three Toyotas in the same period of time. Presently, I own one of each. Each make has some things I prefer and some things that I do not prefer. I'm not necessarily loyal to any make. When I'm in the market for a new vehicle, I see what is available and make a decision on what I like. I will say that I've scratched choices because of looks, features, cost, etc. I've also added choices because of the same. Just like most other purchases; whether it is clothes, electronics, or even your home. Just my two cents.

Toyota Tacoma vs Honda Ridgeline

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles