If you want something simple and effective in two dimensions, then the Tacoma is a very good choice. It does exactly what a truck is supposed to do. The Frontier is another with similar qualities.
But the personal truck market includes buyers looking for more than just a simple truck. I'm not talking about construction workers or ranchers. It's the Harry Homeowner who has to drop his kid off at school one day, then load up a set of dirt bikes for the weekend. That's the market. It calls for a truck that can serve as transportation to the office as well as truckish duties.
The Ridgeline does that. It's equally comfortable on the street with a family of four as it is with a bed full of rocks. Incidentally, and because you mentioned durability, it was a Toyota that Honda used as a demonstration for how a load of rocks will destroy a stamped bed. The Ridgeline can handle that without damage, as well as serve as daily transportation.
That's why the Ridgeline beat the Tacoma in the recent C&D comparo.
That's why the Ridgeline beat the Tacoma in the recent C&D comparo. --------------------------- You betcha, 211 points against 192. Thats how overwhelming the Ridgelines advantage over the Tacoma.Not a one point difference but 19 points.If any other truck is worthy to be the Ridgelines competetion forget the Tacoma, think Frontier.
Both trucks can easily seat 4 people go to the grocery store and load dirt bikes for the weekend.
The reason Car & Driver put the Ridgeline on top because it was very car-like.
Independant suspention, low ground clearance, AWD instead of 4WD, a trunk, and a high rev engine.
The Frontier likewise is low to the ground and performs well on the street.
The Tacoma (in every trim, part of what makes job specific) Will ride just about as well as most independant suspention SUV's and perform better Off-pavement. Not only that but Tacoma's engine is stronger and its VSC + TRAC, Downhill assist and Hill stablility control are top notch.
For every magaizne test that shows the Ridgeline ahead, I'll show you one that puts the Frontier or Tacoma on top.
As for the rock test, please cite your source. As of 2005 all tacomas have a SMC bed just like the ridgeline. Either your lying or don't know what your talking about.
Also another point to add is hp the ridge line does have more but lets look at torque it dont even come close theres like a good 40 pounds difference in the taco. With real 4 wheel drive. If i wanted a family vehicle id buy a minivan and just pull the dirt bikes with a trailer sheesh come on folks. Who the hell would buy a gas pig truck for a vehicle in the city to begin with. A real truck is an overall package off road and on road mixed with work attitude. There not your family comute vehicle doesnt seem feasible with the cost of fuel. This is just my 2 cents. Just an oppinion. I like the honda its just i like a real 4 by four truck and I am sorry but the honda is not it seems its falling under the same resent suv epedemic lets build a truck like a car and we will give it unibody and a fake 4 wheel drive system we will call it awd. Sound familiar. Well most new suv are unibody and awd there are few far and between left. In the end you want a car like experience buy a car you want a truck buy a truck and I dont meen spicifically a taco the nissan is nice and theres are others that could fit the bill.
Its just nice to no what you pay for. Depending on were you live 4 wheel drive helps alot etc snow storms outfiting for hunters etc. Just like living in the city mini van if you have lots of kids or fuel efecient carsthey all have there perks vehicles in general are designed for specific tasks is all I am saying.
"No offense to anybody but this on or off-road discussion is silly. I would bet 98 to 99% of all miles in all the trucks in the usa are on-road. "
First of all where did you get your statisics?
I've actually traveled farther than just my negiborhood and I would say that almost all of the rachers and farmers I ran into in the mid-west used trucks off-road daily --- just to do their job. If it wasn't 'off road' per se, it was on very rough roads.
I live near the SoCal mountains (San angeles mountain range) and unplowed roads with heavy snow should also be considered 'off-road'.
So the disscution is not 'silly', its is very valid. I would rather pull up to a contruction site (often broken cement, lose gravel, steep hills) boat launch (steep decline angles on slipery surfaces), Snowy road(twisting, low traction, high resistance), Dirt bike track (loose gravel, lots of dust and flying debris) and interstate (potholes, narrow roads, sand covered) in a vehicle with a low range, rear locker (that will not disengage), traction control, and lots of clearance.
I will say that the ride with independant is smoother over freeways and through intersections; but on washboard roads, potholed mountan ranges, and rocky passes the articualtion of a rear solid axle and small sway bars and large tires will smooth out the ride significantly.
Sorry about the generalities. What I wrote above is pretty much common knowledge for the folks who have been following this discussion. I didn't think I needed to cite sources and get into specifics.
Yes, you can use any crew cab to haul passengers. Just like I can take my CR-V to Paragon Off-road Adventure Park and have a fun day romping around on the trails. Sure. It can be done. Anything can be done.
The real question is which one does it better. I don't pretend my CR-V is as good as a Jeep. Just because the Taco has two rows of seats doesn't make it even with every other crew cab.
"The reason Car & Driver put the Ridgeline on top because it was very car-like."
No. The reason C&D ranked the Ridgeline higher was because it scored more point in more categories than any other truck in the test. All of which can be seen at this link. There's a lot more there than just car-like attributes.
Just out of curiousity, what makes you think the Frontier is low to the ground? It has the highest ground clearance, it's just as tall as the Tacoma, and I've never seen anything published about its center of gravity. Perhaps you've read something I've not yet seen.
Now, I agree that the Tacoma is a better choice for anyone looking to do real off-road driving. But I cannot agree that it rides and handles as well as the Ridgeline on pavement. Here's a quote from C&D
"And so is the driving experience. Although the Nissan was considered pretty good in this group, the Honda "is in another league," according to one test driver. The ride is on the firm side, but the payoff is a clear communications line between the road and driver. We're not talking sports-car feel here, but it's head and shoulders above its competitors. The Honda topped the chart in every subjective handling category."
Again, it's not that the Tacoma cannot drive on the pavement at all. It's just that the Ridgeline is apparently far better at it. And if you think that's not a truckish attribute, you should know that journalists were allowed to drive the Ridgeline with a full load in the back at it's introduction. It continued to out-handle the competition even when loaded. Not only does it have a higher payload, it also handles that weight better.
"For every magaizne test that shows the Ridgeline ahead, I'll show you one that puts the Frontier or Tacoma on top."
Fair enough. Please do. I'm only aware of the C&D comparo. Again, maybe you've read something I have not. I know that MT gave TOTY to the Tacoma, but the Ridgeline was not included in that comparison. They included the Dakota, Frontier, Tacoma, Ford 250-350, and the H2 SUT.
As for the rock test, it is mentioned in just about every introduction article for the Ridgeline. Honda performed a test where they dropped a load of rocks into the Ridgeline's bed. It survived without dents or scratches. Then they showed a stamped steel bed which had been subjected to the same test. Edmunds described it as looking "as if someone having a very bad day had taken a ball peen hammer to it." I know from other articles that the steel bed belonged to a Toyota. I do not know if it was a Tundra or a Tacoma. Which is why I wrote "Toyota" in my earlier post.
The point being... you remarked about wanting a "durable" truck. There is nothing out there, other than the prejudices of old-school truck buyers, to suggest that the Ridgeline is not durable.
driver comfort ergonomics rear-seat comfort bed space features/amenities interior styling exterior styling gotta-have-it factor fun to drive
These were the top things (in order) on the list for C&D according to your link. Not only is it an objective comparison, but it's also one from people who drive cars all day long. Even they themself admit they are not 'truck people'.
"Again, it's not that the Tacoma cannot drive on the pavement at all. It's just that the Ridgeline is apparently far better at it."
Again another subjective opinion. I prefer the feel of a solid axle suspention rather than one of a civic on road, and so do many others. To use this as the basis of how well a truck performs on-road is narrowminded. What about HP, torque, skid pad, foul weather, shock absorber performance? Things which can be mathematically meausred? I didn't see any of that.
"Fair enough. Please do. I'm only aware of the C&D comparo. Again, maybe you've read something I have not. I know that MT gave TOTY to the Tacoma, but the Ridgeline was not included in that comparison. They included the Dakota, Frontier, Tacoma, Ford 250-350, and the H2 SUT."
Intelichoice Automobile magazine Motor trend Truck Trend 4wheel and Off-road
Consumer reports will come out with a comparison soon. (Looking forward to that one)
Just out of curiousity, what makes you think the Frontier is low to the ground? It has the highest ground clearance, it's just as tall as the Tacoma, and I've never seen anything published about its center of gravity. Perhaps you've read something I've not yet seen.
If you actually go look at a Frontier NISMO then look at a Tacoma TRD, the Tacomas frame sits significantly higher than the Frontiers does. Apparently Toyota mesured from the rear differencial while Nissan mesured from the frame to the ground.
You may not belive that, but you should check it out the next time you drive through an autocenter. Maybe someone who has seen both can vouch for me.
As for the rock test, it is mentioned in just about every introduction article for the Ridgeline. Honda performed a test where they dropped a load of rocks into the Ridgeline's bed.
The problem with the example is that you used it as proof to show the tacoma was more fragile, which wasn't true.
I prefer the feel of a solid axle suspention rather than one of a civic on road, and so do many others. To use this as the basis of how well a truck performs on-road is narrowminded.
You have got to be one of the few that prefer the ride of solid rear axle over an independent suspension. I seriously doubt there are "many" who do. I certainly don't. The ride quality is very important, and is the reason many will buy the RL. I've never heard a person yearn for that comfy solid axle ride. Here's the latest opinion from a Pickuptruck.com reviewer on a solid axle ride:
I drove a couple of different Super Duty trucks last year when Ford reengineered its heavy-duty lineup. Most of my recollections center on the Power Stroke models that were involved in head-to-head tests with other competitive diesel products in towing and payload. But I don’t remember any truck I drove that day that was as brutally harsh as this empty Super Duty was on the highway. Concrete expansion joints on the freeway sent the 141.8-inch wheelbase rocking with all the force of a ¾-ton paint shaker. One of my trips was to Disneyland, and my stomach was properly prepared to take punishment from any roller coaster. Had I passed a materials yard, I would have asked for a ton of gravel in the bed to help soak up the road impacts.
The only reason to put up with this kind of discomfort, is if you need the capability of this truck. Not many people do.
For those of us who need a truck around the house, need to have a vehicle that is suitable for kids, and don't want to have a third vehicle that is a "real truck" just to go to the dump, the ridgeline is perfect. To imply that there is no need for a vehicle that can do what the ridgeline can is very shortsighted. I am willing to pay the extra money for the fuel for the extra things the ridgeline can do. I traded an 04 tacoma TRD and got worse gas milage for a vehicle that my family hated riding in. For my purposes the AWD works better. The part-time system in the tacoma is only supposed to be used on wet roads. After a bad winter, the roads were covered in sand. I got a little tired of losing traction everytime I was at a traffic light due to sand on dry roads. I never have a problem with the RL losing traction. Now off-road I'm sure tacoma is much better, but I never took the tacoma off-road. I think that the tacoma is a great truck, the RL is a great truck and the driver has to determine what meets their needs. The tacoma cannot fill the niche that the Ridgeline fills, and neither can any other truck on the market. The RL cannot do what the tacoma can do off-road, but the tacoma is not all that different than its competitors. Like it or not, the RL is unique. I'm sure it was the very attitude that a truck is a truck and a car a car that kept people from designing a vehicle like the RL before. Well, it suits my needs very well and I dropped my tacoma like a hot potato when it came out as it was perfect for me. I guarantee you that Toyota will come out with a similar vehicle withen the next two years to compete, just like they did with the scion after the element was released and the new Sienna after the Odyssey. Then it would be appropriate to compare the RL to the equivelent toyota. Comparing the RL to the tacoma is not all that different than comparing an SUV to the tacoma, they are not the same. I love toyotas and I'm sure I would consider buying one when they offer an equivalent product.
You are welcome to your opinion. I'm not trying to change it. If you like the performance of a solid rear axle, that's cool. If you prefer the taste of diet diesel fuel over a cold beer, that's your prerogative.
However, even within the context of truck enthusiasts, I have never read a review where the editors stated, "the truck that made my tush squeal in pain was the one I liked most". When the Tundra first arrived on the scene even magazines dedicated to 4-wheeling commented on how nicely the Tundra rode (even if they hated the rest of it).
The question is not which truck to you or I prefer. I think that's been answered. The question is which does a better job of meeting the needs of the target market.
"These were the top things (in order) on the list for C&D according to your link."
The categories you were referring to may have been on the list, but I question your choice of words when you wrote "top things". The categories are weighted. The number appearing next to the category (indicating the max # of points) allows the reader to see how it was weighted. For example, the top categories were:
Gotta have it factor (25 points) Fun to drive (25 points) Performance (20 points) As-tested price (20 points)
Most of the categories are allotted 10 points, though a few of the ones on your list were worth only 5.
"What about HP, torque, skid pad, foul weather, shock absorber performance? Things which can be mathematically measured? I didn't see any of that."
I'm not sure how you expect to mathematically represent "foul weather", but most of what you're asking for is on that link. HP, torque, and skid pad information is there. Since your question was in reference to on-road performance, I'll give you those details. You can go back to the link and find the rest.
Skidpad: Ridgeline .75 Tacoma .70
Lane Change: Ridgeline 58.8 mph Tacoma 57.5
Earlier, you claimed that the Tacoma had been rated higher than the Ridgeline in several magazine tests. Since I subscribe to several magazine and have not seen those, I questioned your claim. You responded with a list of magazines (thank you for the response). The problem is, I subscribe to half of them and have not read a single comparison article which included the Ridgeline. I know that several of them favored the Tacoma or Frontier before the Ridgeline was available for testing. In fact, one of the magazines you listed was the one I used to make my point. MotorTrend (MT for short) did NOT include the Ridgeline in their 2005 Truck of the Year (TOTY for short) award comparison because the Ridge is a 2006 model.
So perhaps when you write, "For every magazine test that shows the Ridgeline ahead, I'll show you one that puts the Frontier or Tacoma on top.", you should add the caveat, "so long as the Ridgeline is not invited to the competition."
As for your assertion that the lower truck wins in the C&D comparison, I have a hard time believing that they ignored the skidpad, lane change, and other testing data, instead deciding to use a tape measure and see how high the vehicle's frame is from the ground.
Finally, when you start writing about the NISMO and TRD packages, we're no longer talking about comparable trucks. I'm certain that without such packages, the Frontier and Tacoma are better off-road than the Ridgeline. There's no need to add those packages. But it's not all fun and games if you do.
For example, when you add the NISMO package to the Frontier, max payload drops from 1,381 lbs to just 1,098 lbs.
"You have got to be one of the few that prefer the ride of solid rear axle over an independent suspension. I seriously doubt there are "many" who do."
Anyone whos drives a new mustang obviously like the ride of a solid axle.
I'm not saying the ride of all soild axle vehicles feels better, nor am I saying all independant systems are great either. I was just pointing out that ride quality is subjective.
My guess is the average Mustang owner doesn't know (or care) what kind of rear suspension the car has, but instead is more interested in what's under the hood.
Yes, you're right, ride quality is indeed subjective. Heck, there are those who prefer to sleep on the ground in a sleeping bag, to sleeping in a bed. Whatever floats your boat...
The Mustang uses a solid axle because it's a better set up for laying down rubber patches. Ford has done quite a bit of research on the subject and found that buyers were willing to sacrifice ride and handling for smoking tires.
I'm not going to address everything because you did make some good points.
"I'm not sure how you expect to mathematically represent "foul weather", but most of what you're asking for is on that link. HP, torque, and skid pad information is there"
Foul weather tests can easily (for these magazines) be simulated. But the point was (ignoring the fact they choose a lower level tacoma to compete) The Tacoma had better performance numbers more capability but they choose the RL because of it's car-like properties.
Which is not a bad thing for Ca & Driver mag.
"The problem is, I subscribe to half of them and have not read a single comparison article which included the Ridgeline. I know that several of them favored the Tacoma or Frontier before the Ridgeline was available for testing."
As I said, I'm waiting for Consumer Reports to come out with their comparison (next month) which will include the RL.
"As for your assertion that the lower truck wins in the C&D comparison, I have a hard time believing that they ignored the skidpad, lane change, and other testing data, instead deciding to use a tape measure and see how high the vehicle's frame is from the ground."
Thats not what I was saying. You made some vague statement about the Frontier having higher ground clearance numbers, which isn't exactly true.
"Finally, when you start writing about the NISMO and TRD packages, we're no longer talking about comparable trucks. I'm certain that without such packages, the Frontier and Tacoma are better off-road than the Ridgeline. There's no need to add those packages. But it's not all fun and games if you do."
If you going to compare trucks It's nice to have comparable prices as well. Since these trucks hover in the 29,000 to 30,000 range, right around where RL pricing starts how is that not comparable?
Not only do the TRD and NISMO packages smooth out the ride considerably, they also add mechanical accessories that make the trucks realitivly equal (such as a locking differential and stability control).
that explains everything. My very first traffic ticket was for laying rubber (false start, they call it) in a Sears parking lot with a 1971 Opel Manta.
Oddly, I never got one in my '66 GT mustang even though it could lay a big stripe if needed.
Now, after my mid-life crisis, I dislike solid rear axles and want precise handling and car like ride.
Maybe 20 years from now I will be wanting a Lincoln Towncar.
I've been following this thread for awhile (it took forever to read through all 18 pages) as I'm looking to buy a new truck in the next month or so. The Taco DC 4x4 has been at the top of my list for a long time, but to be fair I had to go check out the RL when it came to a nearby dealer.
I'll be getting the Taco.
The RL does look a great truck, for what it is. And I'm a huge fan of Honda (I own 4 of their motorcycles). The problem is one of my main uses for the truck will be hauling my dirt bikes out to the desert. The bed of the RL is tall! Call me lazy, but I really don't want to have to load my bikes into that thing. I also don't like the high sides surrounding the bed. I'm sure they work well to provide an aerodynamic flow over the bed (better mileage) but I load way to much stuff over the side when I'm out in the desert.
I'll never use the max towing capacity of either of these trucks, and the off-road performance is more important to me than ride comfort (and I mean off-road, like the Baja peninsula).
Just my $.02 ...frankly, as long as you aren't buying an H2 or some other stupid-truck like that, I say enjoy!
"The bed of the RL is tall! Call me lazy, but I really don't want to have to load my bikes into that thing. I also don't like the high sides surrounding the bed. "
Don't laugh, this is another thing that turned me off about an F150 and towards the Taco. The F150 bed rails, and floor, for that matter, are too high to use as a truck. I'm not exactly shrimpy @ 6'1'"!
The Tacoma isn't exactly low slung, but the competition is up there!
I've been lucky enough to drive a pontiac and a stang. Part of the fun factor of owning one is that you can actually feels the ground underneath you. As opposed to the pontiac which felt uncomfortably disconnected to the road.
You may not like the feel of a solid axle but MANY people do.
I have a Tacoma 4X4 Sport Double Cab long bed on order (there is a three month wait) and in the meantime the Ridgeline has appeared in dealerships.I wondered if i had done the right thing after checking out the Ridgeline.The Ridgeline is very practicle and smartly engineered (Honda put alot of thought into this) and would be very suitable for a guy like myself with young kids in the city but for me i wanted the sporty feel and offroad capabilities of the Taco. I'm sure it will sell well to suburbanites. To each their own.
I am the suburban guy with three kids. the 3 month wait aggravation that toyota was going to put me thru to get side air bags is inexcusable. The double cab should have standard side and rear curtain airbags, or at least readily available. Here in snow country having awd and the in-bed storage are big too. all in all the tacoma was a great truck and the ridgeline is a great suv with an open bed.
That's really no surprise. They also loved the Subaru Outback, which was the first vehicle I've ever gotten rid of after only four years.
They hate the Jeep Wrangler, which I can't pry my wife's hands off the wheel after seven years. They also called older Tacomas "Not Acceptable", because the 4x4's lifted a wheel during slalom manuvers. This is the same Tacoma that has a HUGE, well-earned, off-road following.
If your main cargo is the family and kids, CR is an excellent resource for a vehicle. Just remember, not all pickup buyers want a back seat, "car-like" ride, leather, etc... Others don't bother to touch up scratches in the bed, they expect them.
Oh, I'm not putting CR on a pedestal. I have plenty of beefs with the reviews they publish. A while back, CR was mentioned by someone else as a source they were anticipating. I'm just announcing that it's available.
I was initially very disappointed and critical of the Ridgeline after seeing it at the Los Angeles Auto Show in January, but I finally drove one today, and it is evident that Toyota, Nissan, Ford and GM have a very substantial new competitor and that the truck market has been permantly changed.
The Ridgelines somehow look better than at the auto show.
I was able to get the seat and steering column in a comfortable position (one of my initial concerns during the hustle and bustle of looking at it during the car show). I took a test drive for a few miles, and they offered (after I insisted), to allow me to drive it for several hours to really check out the comfort and ride on different roads.
I had ordered a 2005 Tacoma and then cancelled the order, and I am glad that I did not buy one (I did buy a Sienna).
A truck (or anything else) with a solid rear axle will never ride as smoothly as a vehicle such as the Ridgeline with an independent rear suspension. For those who think a solid rear axle means "tough truck for off roading," I suggest looking under a Hummer H1 or military Humvee to view the independent rear suspension.
For those who think a solid rear axle means "tough truck for off roading," I suggest looking under a Hummer H1 or military Humvee to view the independent rear suspension.
Agreed. It's an old wive's tale that needs to be put to rest.
Besides the Hummer H1/Humvee, check out the following Oshkosh severe-duty trucks that have fully independent suspensions.
The point of these threads is to compare the pros and cons of particular vehicles. It's a great way to learn more about any given vehicle. You certainly don't know much having read only the brochure.
But, yes, the discussion will lead to opinions. You are not required to like them.
RSH has made some informative comments on this board. Didn't you say you own a Ridgeline in a previous post? RSH's comments didn't close the thread anyway. Keep em coming.
I just wanted to say a few things about what I've read on here recently. By the way, I own a Tacoma. I've seen alot of quoting the C&D comparison test. Notice how it never mentions who the raters are? How did the Tacoma score a 12 on the "fun-to-drive" and the Frontier and Ridgeline scored a 17 and 18? I had a BMW 325is before my Tacoma, this truck is a rocket. It's a half second faster than the gas-hog Frontier and a full second faster than the Ridgeline. The ground clearance is awfully low on the Ridgeline and it's got little puny tires (the tire size listed is also wrong on the Tacoma C&D Test), which has always scared me on most of Honda's SUV-type vehicles. I don't know but when I think of the "fun-to-drive" factor on a 4x4, I think of acceleration and off-road capability. I know Honda's are very reliable and new cars and trucks go through so much testing before release, but I always worry about the little bugs, things that they fix for 2006. I'm sure they will fix that blind spot caused by the strange looking triangle thing between the cab and the bed, which seems like the only major complaint by owners. I guess i'm just saying I think the comparisons are bogus. It's like comparing apples and oranges, this message board really has no relevance. You want to argue about how great the Ridgeline is, go find some Avalanche owners. I'll continue to bust on the Frontier-ers.
"I don't know but when I think of the "fun-to-drive" factor on a 4x4, I think of acceleration and off-road capability."
Off-roading capability is certainly something I would enjoy in a truck. I'm not so sure about acceleration. My 1999 CR-V with a wee little 2 liter engine will match or better the times posted by these trucks. But I think C&D's "fun to drive" ratings probably included some handling characteristics. That's why the Ridgeline scored so high.
For an apples to apples comparison with the Ridgeline, folks should probably look to the Ford SportTrac. Trouble is... that vehicle is so dated, there's just no comparison.
But it appears that many people in the market for a personal use truck are giving the Ridgeline a look along with the Tacoma, Frontier, Dakota, and others. So, even if the comparison isn't apples to apples, it's still happening.
Since we like to quote: "Off-roading capability is certainly something I would enjoy in a truck."
How does this explain the fun-to-drive rating? Since it's obvious you read what I wrote, how about commenting on why the Ridgeline scored so high? Handling hardly makes it FUN (not enjoyable, pleasant, whatever) to drive.
It suddenly becomes obvious why you like the Ridgeline so much. You consider it a truck probably the same way you consider a CR-V an SUV. Personally, and I'm sure I'm not alone, the CR-V is a slightly jacked-up station wagon.
Unfortunately, the Ridgeline, which i don't doubt is a nice "truck", doesn't really fit into a category. I would compare it to the Subaru Baja or an el Camino. You want a truck, buy a truck. You want a soccer dad vehicle (cart the kids around, buy groceries, tie your mother-in-law to the back), buy a Ridgeline.
I don't care if Consumer Reports or C&D or Better Homes & Gardens compares the Ridgeline to any truck on the market. They aren't the same, so take all these head-to-head match ups with a grain of salt and stop quoting the articles.
PS.. CR-V (0-60) - 9.9sec.
"My 1999 CR-V with a wee little 2 liter engine will match or better the times posted by these trucks"
Obviously, I don't have access to what they use to calculate their findings, I'm reading the same article you are. This is the paragraph where they explain the handling dynamics of the Ridgeline.
"And so is the driving experience [first rate]. Although the Nissan was considered pretty good in this group, the Honda "is in another league," according to one test driver. The ride is on the firm side, but the payoff is a clear communications line between the road and driver. We're not talking sports-car feel here, but it's head and shoulders above its competitors. The Honda topped the chart in every subjective handling category."
I'm sure the Ridgeline lost a few points as a result of its lack of off-road capability. It simply made up for that deficiency with stronger handling when driven on-road. Essentially, I think they disagree with you. The handling did make it fun.
As for my opinion of the Ridgeline, I like it because it represents something of a paradigm shift in trucks. If asked whether or not the Ridgeline is a real truck, I'd say "No". It does not have the same utility offered by the best of the traditional trucks. It does not share the same durability for activities like off-roading. However, I think that's going to be fine for many of the buyers out there. While it gives up some of the absolute utility "real" trucks offer, it also makes the buyers sacrifice far less to get enough utility for their purposes.
You can call it a "quazi-truck", a "wannabe", or a "wagon on steroids", but I'm willing to bet a good portion of the market is going to call it "the right tool for the job". And those buyers will take one rather than a truckish truck. The Baja does not offer anything like the same capability as the Ridgeline. The El Camino is no longer around. So buyers will compare with the Ridgeline with something. The closest they'll find are the trucks in C&D's article.
For reference, cross-over SUVs have taken up 49% of the SUV market. I think there's potential for cross-over trucks to do some business in the truck market.
p.s. You're right about my CR-V remark. My 1999 5MT has been clocked between 8.6 and 9.3 seconds. I recalled the 0-60 times for the C&D test incorrectly. (My bad.) But the point is still valid. These trucks ain't setting any track records. Today's RAV4 can match them on a track and several V6 "family" sedans would smoke them.
I looked at the Ridgeline the same time as i looked at a Tacoma this March. I would have bought a Tacoma last year but the box was too short.This year i had to seriously consider the Honda but it had too small of box for me so i went for the Tacoma. I do think the Tacoma is targeted more for a younger crowd while the Ridgeline is targeted more for the family.
I also bought my Tacoma in March. Prior to shopping for a replacement for my F-250, I decided that I wanted a double cab 4X4 with a 6 foot bed. That bed length eliminated a lot of full and mid-sized trucks, including the Ridgeline.
Because the Ridgeline had so many features and my local Honda dealer had three of them in stock, I had looked at them twice before deciding on the Toyo.The bed looked awful small and the high bed sides behind the "C" piller made it look like it would be difficult to place anything into the bed from the side. Although the grill reminded me of the cooling coils on the back of the fridge at my camp, I found that an accessory grill was available through Honda which in my opinion, looks much better.
The only other concern that I had with the Honda was its weight. At just under 4500 lbs. empty, I would have to register the truck as a 3/4 ton here in Pa. if I intended to haul more than 5,000 lbs (three adults, my four wheeler etc.) At 4100 Lbs., the Toyota isn't much better but at least I can transport my wife and son without being over my registered gross weight of 5,000 lbs.
I'm not sure that the Ridgeline is going to take off yet (the local dealer still has those 3 units on his lot) but if it does, you can bet that others will copy its design. I can already see Pacifica and hybred Highlander SUT's running around.
With its 18 differant models, the Toyota appeals to a wider audience. The Prerunner and TRD options appear to be very popular with the younger buyer.
Bottom line; if the Ridgeline had a 6 foot bed, there would be truck in my garage with a big "H" on it's grill rather than a Toyota emblem.
Actually, I see the bed length as one of the more serious shortcomings for the Ridgeline. Honda did a good job making the tailgate capable of holding 300 lbs, but I'm sure many buyers would rather not accept the compromise.
If Honda ever expands this platform, my hope for them is that they shorten the cab and offer a six foot bed.
I'd rather them just offer a 6' bed version of the current crew cab. Toyota offers both a 5' and 6' bed on their Tacoma crew cab. I'd like to see Honda do the same.
Not sure it would work. I mean, the Taco with a long bed has a 141" wheelbase. The Ridgeline's is 122". I'm sure you've seen the photo-chopped Baja with a load in the back and its front wheels up in the air. :sick:
I assume they'd have to play with the wheelbase of the Ridgeline to make it happen. Yet, the Ridge already has the longest wheelbase of any vehicle made on Honda's light truck platform. And adding to the overall length of the truck would increase its already substantial weight.
It's not impossible. I just think it might be a bit trickier than it seems at first glance.
It's not impossible. I just think it might be a bit trickier than it seems at first glance.
The other issue is the turning circle, which already large, would become even larger because the wheelbase would likely be stretched perhaps 6" or so as you mentioned. To counter that Honda could also offer 4WS (again), but that would add to he costs.
Even so, I think if anybody could pull this off, it would be Honda. Maybe in the HD model I suggested some time back, as a bigger bed usually means more payload?
Overall payload for the Ridgeline is 1,550 lbs, which is already pretty good for a compact/mid-size. It's better than the rest of the pack by a reasonable margin in most cases. Payload for the bed itself is 1,100 lbs. As long as they kept the same payload, I think they could do a 6' bed without trouble.
However, if the longbed design adds weight to the vehicle, payload will come down. I think just adding the NAV and some other niceties drops the payload 15 lbs. Too much of that could be a problem.
Comments
But the personal truck market includes buyers looking for more than just a simple truck. I'm not talking about construction workers or ranchers. It's the Harry Homeowner who has to drop his kid off at school one day, then load up a set of dirt bikes for the weekend. That's the market. It calls for a truck that can serve as transportation to the office as well as truckish duties.
The Ridgeline does that. It's equally comfortable on the street with a family of four as it is with a bed full of rocks. Incidentally, and because you mentioned durability, it was a Toyota that Honda used as a demonstration for how a load of rocks will destroy a stamped bed. The Ridgeline can handle that without damage, as well as serve as daily transportation.
That's why the Ridgeline beat the Tacoma in the recent C&D comparo.
---------------------------
You betcha, 211 points against 192. Thats how overwhelming the Ridgelines advantage over the Tacoma.Not a one point difference but 19 points.If any other truck is worthy to be the Ridgelines competetion forget the Tacoma, think Frontier.
Both trucks can easily seat 4 people go to the grocery store and load dirt bikes for the weekend.
The reason Car & Driver put the Ridgeline on top because it was very car-like.
Independant suspention, low ground clearance, AWD instead of 4WD, a trunk, and a high rev engine.
The Frontier likewise is low to the ground and performs well on the street.
The Tacoma (in every trim, part of what makes job specific) Will ride just about as well as most independant suspention SUV's and perform better Off-pavement. Not only that but Tacoma's engine is stronger and its VSC + TRAC, Downhill assist and Hill stablility control are top notch.
For every magaizne test that shows the Ridgeline ahead, I'll show you one that puts the Frontier or Tacoma on top.
As for the rock test, please cite your source. As of 2005 all tacomas have a SMC bed just like the ridgeline. Either your lying or don't know what your talking about.
First of all where did you get your statisics?
I've actually traveled farther than just my negiborhood and I would say that almost all of the rachers and farmers I ran into in the mid-west used trucks off-road daily --- just to do their job. If it wasn't 'off road' per se, it was on very rough roads.
I live near the SoCal mountains (San angeles mountain range) and unplowed roads with heavy snow should also be considered 'off-road'.
So the disscution is not 'silly', its is very valid. I would rather pull up to a contruction site (often broken cement, lose gravel, steep hills) boat launch (steep decline angles on slipery surfaces), Snowy road(twisting, low traction, high resistance), Dirt bike track (loose gravel, lots of dust and flying debris) and interstate (potholes, narrow roads, sand covered) in a vehicle with a low range, rear locker (that will not disengage), traction control, and lots of clearance.
I will say that the ride with independant is smoother over freeways and through intersections; but on washboard roads, potholed mountan ranges, and rocky passes the articualtion of a rear solid axle and small sway bars and large tires will smooth out the ride significantly.
Yes, you can use any crew cab to haul passengers. Just like I can take my CR-V to Paragon Off-road Adventure Park and have a fun day romping around on the trails. Sure. It can be done. Anything can be done.
The real question is which one does it better. I don't pretend my CR-V is as good as a Jeep. Just because the Taco has two rows of seats doesn't make it even with every other crew cab.
"The reason Car & Driver put the Ridgeline on top because it was very car-like."
No. The reason C&D ranked the Ridgeline higher was because it scored more point in more categories than any other truck in the test. All of which can be seen at this link. There's a lot more there than just car-like attributes.
Just out of curiousity, what makes you think the Frontier is low to the ground? It has the highest ground clearance, it's just as tall as the Tacoma, and I've never seen anything published about its center of gravity. Perhaps you've read something I've not yet seen.
Now, I agree that the Tacoma is a better choice for anyone looking to do real off-road driving. But I cannot agree that it rides and handles as well as the Ridgeline on pavement. Here's a quote from C&D
"And so is the driving experience. Although the Nissan was considered pretty good in this group, the Honda "is in another league," according to one test driver. The ride is on the firm side, but the payoff is a clear communications line between the road and driver. We're not talking sports-car feel here, but it's head and shoulders above its competitors. The Honda topped the chart in every subjective handling category."
Again, it's not that the Tacoma cannot drive on the pavement at all. It's just that the Ridgeline is apparently far better at it. And if you think that's not a truckish attribute, you should know that journalists were allowed to drive the Ridgeline with a full load in the back at it's introduction. It continued to out-handle the competition even when loaded. Not only does it have a higher payload, it also handles that weight better.
"For every magaizne test that shows the Ridgeline ahead, I'll show you one that puts the Frontier or Tacoma on top."
Fair enough. Please do. I'm only aware of the C&D comparo. Again, maybe you've read something I have not. I know that MT gave TOTY to the Tacoma, but the Ridgeline was not included in that comparison. They included the Dakota, Frontier, Tacoma, Ford 250-350, and the H2 SUT.
As for the rock test, it is mentioned in just about every introduction article for the Ridgeline. Honda performed a test where they dropped a load of rocks into the Ridgeline's bed. It survived without dents or scratches. Then they showed a stamped steel bed which had been subjected to the same test. Edmunds described it as looking "as if someone having a very bad day had taken a ball peen hammer to it." I know from other articles that the steel bed belonged to a Toyota. I do not know if it was a Tundra or a Tacoma. Which is why I wrote "Toyota" in my earlier post.
The point being... you remarked about wanting a "durable" truck. There is nothing out there, other than the prejudices of old-school truck buyers, to suggest that the Ridgeline is not durable.
ergonomics
rear-seat comfort
bed space
features/amenities
interior styling
exterior styling
gotta-have-it factor
fun to drive
These were the top things (in order) on the list for C&D according to your link. Not only is it an objective comparison, but it's also one from people who drive cars all day long. Even they themself admit they are not 'truck people'.
"Again, it's not that the Tacoma cannot drive on the pavement at all. It's just that the Ridgeline is apparently far better at it."
Again another subjective opinion. I prefer the feel of a solid axle suspention rather than one of a civic on road, and so do many others. To use this as the basis of how well a truck performs on-road is narrowminded. What about HP, torque, skid pad, foul weather, shock absorber performance? Things which can be mathematically meausred? I didn't see any of that.
"Fair enough. Please do. I'm only aware of the C&D comparo. Again, maybe you've read something I have not. I know that MT gave TOTY to the Tacoma, but the Ridgeline was not included in that comparison. They included the Dakota, Frontier, Tacoma, Ford 250-350, and the H2 SUT."
Intelichoice
Automobile magazine
Motor trend
Truck Trend
4wheel and Off-road
Consumer reports will come out with a comparison soon. (Looking forward to that one)
Just out of curiousity, what makes you think the Frontier is low to the ground? It has the highest ground clearance, it's just as tall as the Tacoma, and I've never seen anything published about its center of gravity. Perhaps you've read something I've not yet seen.
If you actually go look at a Frontier NISMO then look at a Tacoma TRD, the Tacomas frame sits significantly higher than the Frontiers does. Apparently Toyota mesured from the rear differencial while Nissan mesured from the frame to the ground.
You may not belive that, but you should check it out the next time you drive through an autocenter. Maybe someone who has seen both can vouch for me.
As for the rock test, it is mentioned in just about every introduction article for the Ridgeline. Honda performed a test where they dropped a load of rocks into the Ridgeline's bed.
The problem with the example is that you used it as proof to show the tacoma was more fragile, which wasn't true.
You have got to be one of the few that prefer the ride of solid rear axle over an independent suspension. I seriously doubt there are "many" who do. I certainly don't. The ride quality is very important, and is the reason many will buy the RL. I've never heard a person yearn for that comfy solid axle ride. Here's the latest opinion from a Pickuptruck.com reviewer on a solid axle ride:
I drove a couple of different Super Duty trucks last year when Ford reengineered its heavy-duty lineup. Most of my recollections center on the Power Stroke models that were involved in head-to-head tests with other competitive diesel products in towing and payload. But I don’t remember any truck I drove that day that was as brutally harsh as this empty Super Duty was on the highway. Concrete expansion joints on the freeway sent the 141.8-inch wheelbase rocking with all the force of a ¾-ton paint shaker. One of my trips was to Disneyland, and my stomach was properly prepared to take punishment from any roller coaster. Had I passed a materials yard, I would have asked for a ton of gravel in the bed to help soak up the road impacts.
The only reason to put up with this kind of discomfort, is if you need the capability of this truck. Not many people do.
For my purposes the AWD works better. The part-time system in the tacoma is only supposed to be used on wet roads. After a bad winter, the roads were covered in sand. I got a little tired of losing traction everytime I was at a traffic light due to sand on dry roads. I never have a problem with the RL losing traction. Now off-road I'm sure tacoma is much better, but I never took the tacoma off-road. I think that the tacoma is a great truck, the RL is a great truck and the driver has to determine what meets their needs. The tacoma cannot fill the niche that the Ridgeline fills, and neither can any other truck on the market. The RL cannot do what the tacoma can do off-road, but the tacoma is not all that different than its competitors. Like it or not, the RL is unique. I'm sure it was the very attitude that a truck is a truck and a car a car that kept people from designing a vehicle like the RL before. Well, it suits my needs very well and I dropped my tacoma like a hot potato when it came out as it was perfect for me. I guarantee you that Toyota will come out with a similar vehicle withen the next two years to compete, just like they did with the scion after the element was released and the new Sienna after the Odyssey. Then it would be appropriate to compare the RL to the equivelent toyota. Comparing the RL to the tacoma is not all that different than comparing an SUV to the tacoma, they are not the same. I love toyotas and I'm sure I would consider buying one when they offer an equivalent product.
kcram - Pickups Host
Bob
However, even within the context of truck enthusiasts, I have never read a review where the editors stated, "the truck that made my tush squeal in pain was the one I liked most". When the Tundra first arrived on the scene even magazines dedicated to 4-wheeling commented on how nicely the Tundra rode (even if they hated the rest of it).
The question is not which truck to you or I prefer. I think that's been answered. The question is which does a better job of meeting the needs of the target market.
"These were the top things (in order) on the list for C&D according to your link."
The categories you were referring to may have been on the list, but I question your choice of words when you wrote "top things". The categories are weighted. The number appearing next to the category (indicating the max # of points) allows the reader to see how it was weighted. For example, the top categories were:
Gotta have it factor (25 points)
Fun to drive (25 points)
Performance (20 points)
As-tested price (20 points)
Most of the categories are allotted 10 points, though a few of the ones on your list were worth only 5.
"What about HP, torque, skid pad, foul weather, shock absorber performance? Things which can be mathematically measured? I didn't see any of that."
I'm not sure how you expect to mathematically represent "foul weather", but most of what you're asking for is on that link. HP, torque, and skid pad information is there. Since your question was in reference to on-road performance, I'll give you those details. You can go back to the link and find the rest.
Skidpad:
Ridgeline .75
Tacoma .70
Lane Change:
Ridgeline 58.8 mph
Tacoma 57.5
Earlier, you claimed that the Tacoma had been rated higher than the Ridgeline in several magazine tests. Since I subscribe to several magazine and have not seen those, I questioned your claim. You responded with a list of magazines (thank you for the response). The problem is, I subscribe to half of them and have not read a single comparison article which included the Ridgeline. I know that several of them favored the Tacoma or Frontier before the Ridgeline was available for testing. In fact, one of the magazines you listed was the one I used to make my point. MotorTrend (MT for short) did NOT include the Ridgeline in their 2005 Truck of the Year (TOTY for short) award comparison because the Ridge is a 2006 model.
So perhaps when you write, "For every magazine test that shows the Ridgeline ahead, I'll show you one that puts the Frontier or Tacoma on top.", you should add the caveat, "so long as the Ridgeline is not invited to the competition."
As for your assertion that the lower truck wins in the C&D comparison, I have a hard time believing that they ignored the skidpad, lane change, and other testing data, instead deciding to use a tape measure and see how high the vehicle's frame is from the ground.
Finally, when you start writing about the NISMO and TRD packages, we're no longer talking about comparable trucks. I'm certain that without such packages, the Frontier and Tacoma are better off-road than the Ridgeline. There's no need to add those packages. But it's not all fun and games if you do.
For example, when you add the NISMO package to the Frontier, max payload drops from 1,381 lbs to just 1,098 lbs.
Anyone whos drives a new mustang obviously like the ride of a solid axle.
I'm not saying the ride of all soild axle vehicles feels better, nor am I saying all independant systems are great either. I was just pointing out that ride quality is subjective.
Yes, you're right, ride quality is indeed subjective. Heck, there are those who prefer to sleep on the ground in a sleeping bag, to sleeping in a bed. Whatever floats your boat...
Bob
"I'm not sure how you expect to mathematically represent "foul weather", but most of what you're asking for is on that link. HP, torque, and skid pad information is there"
Foul weather tests can easily (for these magazines) be simulated. But the point was (ignoring the fact they choose a lower level tacoma to compete) The Tacoma had better performance numbers more capability but they choose the RL because of it's car-like properties.
Which is not a bad thing for Ca & Driver mag.
"The problem is, I subscribe to half of them and have not read a single comparison article which included the Ridgeline. I know that several of them favored the Tacoma or Frontier before the Ridgeline was available for testing."
As I said, I'm waiting for Consumer Reports to come out with their comparison (next month) which will include the RL.
"As for your assertion that the lower truck wins in the C&D comparison, I have a hard time believing that they ignored the skidpad, lane change, and other testing data, instead deciding to use a tape measure and see how high the vehicle's frame is from the ground."
Thats not what I was saying. You made some vague statement about the Frontier having higher ground clearance numbers, which isn't exactly true.
"Finally, when you start writing about the NISMO and TRD packages, we're no longer talking about comparable trucks. I'm certain that without such packages, the Frontier and Tacoma are better off-road than the Ridgeline. There's no need to add those packages. But it's not all fun and games if you do."
If you going to compare trucks It's nice to have comparable prices as well. Since these trucks hover in the 29,000 to 30,000 range, right around where RL pricing starts how is that not comparable?
Not only do the TRD and NISMO packages smooth out the ride considerably, they also add mechanical accessories that make the trucks realitivly equal (such as a locking differential and stability control).
Oddly, I never got one in my '66 GT mustang even though it could lay a big stripe if needed.
Now, after my mid-life crisis, I dislike solid rear axles and want precise handling and car like ride.
Maybe 20 years from now I will be wanting a Lincoln Towncar.
John
No way.
John
I'll be getting the Taco.
The RL does look a great truck, for what it is. And I'm a huge fan of Honda (I own 4 of their motorcycles). The problem is one of my main uses for the truck will be hauling my dirt bikes out to the desert. The bed of the RL is tall! Call me lazy, but I really don't want to have to load my bikes into that thing. I also don't like the high sides surrounding the bed. I'm sure they work well to provide an aerodynamic flow over the bed (better mileage) but I load way to much stuff over the side when I'm out in the desert.
I'll never use the max towing capacity of either of these trucks, and the off-road performance is more important to me than ride comfort (and I mean off-road, like the Baja peninsula).
Just my $.02 ...frankly, as long as you aren't buying an H2 or some other stupid-truck like that, I say enjoy!
Don't laugh, this is another thing that turned me off about an F150 and towards the Taco. The F150 bed rails, and floor, for that matter, are too high to use as a truck. I'm not exactly shrimpy @ 6'1'"!
The Tacoma isn't exactly low slung, but the competition is up there!
You may not like the feel of a solid axle but MANY people do.
"The Ridgeline, Honda's first pickup, is the best one we've tested."
They hate the Jeep Wrangler, which I can't pry my wife's hands off the wheel after seven years. They also called older Tacomas "Not Acceptable", because the 4x4's lifted a wheel during slalom manuvers. This is the same Tacoma that has a HUGE, well-earned, off-road following.
If your main cargo is the family and kids, CR is an excellent resource for a vehicle. Just remember, not all pickup buyers want a back seat, "car-like" ride, leather, etc... Others don't bother to touch up scratches in the bed, they expect them.
You payz your money...
The Ridgelines somehow look better than at the auto show.
I was able to get the seat and steering column in a comfortable position (one of my initial concerns during the hustle and bustle of looking at it during the car show). I took a test drive for a few miles, and they offered (after I insisted), to allow me to drive it for several hours to really check out the comfort and ride on different roads.
I had ordered a 2005 Tacoma and then cancelled the order, and I am glad that I did not buy one (I did buy a Sienna).
A truck (or anything else) with a solid rear axle will never ride as smoothly as a vehicle such as the Ridgeline with an independent rear suspension. For those who think a solid rear axle means "tough truck for off roading," I suggest looking under a Hummer H1 or military Humvee to view the independent rear suspension.
Agreed. It's an old wive's tale that needs to be put to rest.
Besides the Hummer H1/Humvee, check out the following Oshkosh severe-duty trucks that have fully independent suspensions.
http://www.oshkoshtruck.com/defense/products~wtanker~home.cfm
http://www.oshkoshtruck.com/airportmunicipal/products~striker~home.cfm
Bob
But, yes, the discussion will lead to opinions. You are not required to like them.
Bob
My patience with ALL of you is getting really stretched.
STOP with the personal attacks, and STOP responding to the personal attacks.
I don't care WHO starts this crap next time - discussion will be closed for good.
Grow up and knock it off!
kcram - Pickups Host
Off-roading capability is certainly something I would enjoy in a truck. I'm not so sure about acceleration. My 1999 CR-V with a wee little 2 liter engine will match or better the times posted by these trucks. But I think C&D's "fun to drive" ratings probably included some handling characteristics. That's why the Ridgeline scored so high.
For an apples to apples comparison with the Ridgeline, folks should probably look to the Ford SportTrac. Trouble is... that vehicle is so dated, there's just no comparison.
But it appears that many people in the market for a personal use truck are giving the Ridgeline a look along with the Tacoma, Frontier, Dakota, and others. So, even if the comparison isn't apples to apples, it's still happening.
"Off-roading capability is certainly something I would enjoy in a truck."
How does this explain the fun-to-drive rating? Since it's obvious you read what I wrote, how about commenting on why the Ridgeline scored so high? Handling hardly makes it FUN (not enjoyable, pleasant, whatever) to drive.
It suddenly becomes obvious why you like the Ridgeline so much. You consider it a truck probably the same way you consider a CR-V an SUV. Personally, and I'm sure I'm not alone, the CR-V is a slightly jacked-up station wagon.
Unfortunately, the Ridgeline, which i don't doubt is a nice "truck", doesn't really fit into a category. I would compare it to the Subaru Baja or an el Camino. You want a truck, buy a truck. You want a soccer dad vehicle (cart the kids around, buy groceries, tie your mother-in-law to the back), buy a Ridgeline.
I don't care if Consumer Reports or C&D or Better Homes & Gardens compares the Ridgeline to any truck on the market. They aren't the same, so take all these head-to-head match ups with a grain of salt and stop quoting the articles.
PS.. CR-V (0-60) - 9.9sec.
"My 1999 CR-V with a wee little 2 liter engine will match or better the times posted by these trucks"
Good call on that one, do the research.
"And so is the driving experience [first rate]. Although the Nissan was considered pretty good in this group, the Honda "is in another league," according to one test driver. The ride is on the firm side, but the payoff is a clear communications line between the road and driver. We're not talking sports-car feel here, but it's head and shoulders above its competitors. The Honda topped the chart in every subjective handling category."
I'm sure the Ridgeline lost a few points as a result of its lack of off-road capability. It simply made up for that deficiency with stronger handling when driven on-road. Essentially, I think they disagree with you. The handling did make it fun.
As for my opinion of the Ridgeline, I like it because it represents something of a paradigm shift in trucks. If asked whether or not the Ridgeline is a real truck, I'd say "No". It does not have the same utility offered by the best of the traditional trucks. It does not share the same durability for activities like off-roading. However, I think that's going to be fine for many of the buyers out there. While it gives up some of the absolute utility "real" trucks offer, it also makes the buyers sacrifice far less to get enough utility for their purposes.
You can call it a "quazi-truck", a "wannabe", or a "wagon on steroids", but I'm willing to bet a good portion of the market is going to call it "the right tool for the job". And those buyers will take one rather than a truckish truck. The Baja does not offer anything like the same capability as the Ridgeline. The El Camino is no longer around. So buyers will compare with the Ridgeline with something. The closest they'll find are the trucks in C&D's article.
For reference, cross-over SUVs have taken up 49% of the SUV market. I think there's potential for cross-over trucks to do some business in the truck market.
p.s. You're right about my CR-V remark. My 1999 5MT has been clocked between 8.6 and 9.3 seconds. I recalled the 0-60 times for the C&D test incorrectly. (My bad.) But the point is still valid. These trucks ain't setting any track records. Today's RAV4 can match them on a track and several V6 "family" sedans would smoke them.
I don't care WHO starts this crap next time - discussion will be closed for good.
Grow up and knock it off!
well someone is angry, thanks, i have been waiting for this.
I do think the Tacoma is targeted more for a younger crowd while the Ridgeline is targeted more for the family.
Yep, I agree.
Bob
Because the Ridgeline had so many features and my local Honda dealer had three of them in stock, I had looked at them twice before deciding on the Toyo.The bed looked awful small and the high bed sides behind the "C" piller made it look like it would be difficult to place anything into the bed from the side. Although the grill reminded me of the cooling coils on the back of the fridge at my camp, I found that an accessory grill was available through Honda which in my opinion, looks much better.
The only other concern that I had with the Honda was its weight. At just under 4500 lbs. empty, I would have to register the truck as a 3/4 ton here in Pa. if I intended to haul more than 5,000 lbs (three adults, my four wheeler etc.) At 4100 Lbs., the Toyota isn't much better but at least I can transport my wife and son without being over my registered gross weight of 5,000 lbs.
I'm not sure that the Ridgeline is going to take off yet (the local dealer still has those 3 units on his lot) but if it does, you can bet that others will copy its design. I can already see Pacifica and hybred Highlander SUT's running around.
With its 18 differant models, the Toyota appeals to a wider audience. The Prerunner and TRD options appear to be very popular with the younger buyer.
Bottom line; if the Ridgeline had a 6 foot bed, there would be truck in my garage with a big "H" on it's grill rather than a Toyota emblem.
With the bed extender, it would have met your requirements.
With the bed extender, it would have met your requirements."
Maybe he needs 7 1/2' with the extender?
If Honda ever expands this platform, my hope for them is that they shorten the cab and offer a six foot bed.
Bob
I assume they'd have to play with the wheelbase of the Ridgeline to make it happen. Yet, the Ridge already has the longest wheelbase of any vehicle made on Honda's light truck platform. And adding to the overall length of the truck would increase its already substantial weight.
It's not impossible. I just think it might be a bit trickier than it seems at first glance.
The other issue is the turning circle, which already large, would become even larger because the wheelbase would likely be stretched perhaps 6" or so as you mentioned. To counter that Honda could also offer 4WS (again), but that would add to he costs.
Even so, I think if anybody could pull this off, it would be Honda. Maybe in the HD model I suggested some time back, as a bigger bed usually means more payload?
Bob
Overall payload for the Ridgeline is 1,550 lbs, which is already pretty good for a compact/mid-size. It's better than the rest of the pack by a reasonable margin in most cases. Payload for the bed itself is 1,100 lbs. As long as they kept the same payload, I think they could do a 6' bed without trouble.
However, if the longbed design adds weight to the vehicle, payload will come down. I think just adding the NAV and some other niceties drops the payload 15 lbs. Too much of that could be a problem.