I was in Florida last week and saw a prius converted into a truck. I've seen that done with volvo wagons, and VW's and many other things.....Still couldn't believe it. Must have been a 1/16th ton. edit: failed to mention it was in a Walmart parking lot.
Kreb wrote: In reply to SyntheticBlinkerFluid: I get a little red around the collar at all the truck dudes who go on about how it's not a "real" truck. Like somehow their manhood is threatened, or that Honda was trying to position it against a Cummings-powered truck.
I give the Ridgeline E36 M3 not because it's bad, but because I get the feeling that Honda wants you to think it's a Colorado or Tacoma, when it's really less capable than either (and the least capable truck on the market).
Kreb wrote: In reply to SyntheticBlinkerFluid: Well technically the Honda IS a half-ton truck. If you mean that it's a better choice for all the people who are using their body-on-frame trucks like station wagons, yes, we agree.
That's exactly what I mean.
The Ridgeline doesn't seem like a full size half ton to me, but it's a way better alternative.
rslifkin wrote:Kreb wrote: In reply to SyntheticBlinkerFluid: I get a little red around the collar at all the truck dudes who go on about how it's not a "real" truck. Like somehow their manhood is threatened, or that Honda was trying to position it against a Cummings-powered truck.I give the Ridgeline E36 M3 not because it's bad, but because I get the feeling that Honda wants you to think it's a Colorado or Tacoma, when it's really less capable than either (and the least capable truck on the market).
So how are those trucks (In quad-cab configuration) superior to the Honda? And can either beat the Honda as a day-to-day vehicle? I used to drive a quad-cab Dakota pickup. It had more jobsite cred than a Honda, but it was an inferior vehicle in practically every way.
Kreb wrote:rslifkin wrote:So how are those trucks (In quad-cab configuration) superior to the Honda? And can either beat the Honda as a day-to-day vehicle? I used to drive a quad-cab Dakota pickup. It had more jobsite cred than a Honda, but it was an inferior vehicle in practically every way.Kreb wrote: In reply to SyntheticBlinkerFluid: I get a little red around the collar at all the truck dudes who go on about how it's not a "real" truck. Like somehow their manhood is threatened, or that Honda was trying to position it against a Cummings-powered truck.I give the Ridgeline E36 M3 not because it's bad, but because I get the feeling that Honda wants you to think it's a Colorado or Tacoma, when it's really less capable than either (and the least capable truck on the market).
This. I'm looking at them as a possible third vehicle/winter vehicle when I get a Miata and a house.
I need a "truck" for towing a boat that is around 2500lbs, for putting dirty stuff in the back, and for moving large stuff. But I want a trunk too--which the Ridgeline has. That is the only real "truck stuff" that I'd be doing in it--oh, it would be a snowmobile too, which I'm sure it could handle admirably. So that 99% of the time that it wasn't doing truck stuff it would be doing car stuff, and frankly, I'd expect better than a "real truck".
There are 2 serious issues I have/had with it:
Real interested to hear the news on Monday!
All this small truck talk really makes me want to convert a 240 wagon into a truck and to swap in a 2.3L EB or 2.0L LTG
Kreb wrote:rslifkin wrote:So how are those trucks (In quad-cab configuration) superior to the Honda? And can either beat the Honda as a day-to-day vehicle? I used to drive a quad-cab Dakota pickup. It had more jobsite cred than a Honda, but it was an inferior vehicle in practically every way.Kreb wrote: In reply to SyntheticBlinkerFluid: I get a little red around the collar at all the truck dudes who go on about how it's not a "real" truck. Like somehow their manhood is threatened, or that Honda was trying to position it against a Cummings-powered truck.I give the Ridgeline E36 M3 not because it's bad, but because I get the feeling that Honda wants you to think it's a Colorado or Tacoma, when it's really less capable than either (and the least capable truck on the market).
Yes. In fact I brought about this entire conversation long ago when the RL came out. Compared to the CCSB GMC the Ridgeline was, and is, still inferior. Rides worse, got worse fuel economy, couldn't haul as many people, couldn't tow as much, couldn't haul as much and will NEVER make the V8 noises. Driven a couple RL's and I will take our 10 year old GM every day of the week and if it involves a cross country drive? No question. Best seats, best ride and mid 20's at real highway speeds.
Kreb wrote: In reply to SyntheticBlinkerFluid: Well technically the Honda IS a half-ton truck. If you mean that it's a better choice for all the people who are using their body-on-frame trucks like station wagons, yes, we agree. I get a little red around the collar at all the truck dudes who go on about how it's not a "real" truck. Like somehow their manhood is threatened, or that Honda was trying to position it against a Cummings-powered truck.
My issues have always been it's too much of a compromise in all aspects that it lost in every category. It wasn't an SUV any more, it wasn't really a truck.
The Ridgeline is the Honda version of the El Camino without the V8, mullet and awesomeness.
You mean the old generation Colorado? If you say so. But I'm dubious. Didn't seem that too many people missed that vehicle.
Gnash your teeth and wave your hands.. but Truck nuts will fit on it.
It's the perfect vehicle for me. 3 kids in the back a small boat and some camping gear. Maybe a trip to home depot or to get some bags of mulch. I don't need a "real truck" 98% of the time.....
Kreb wrote: You mean the old generation Colorado? If you say so. But I'm dubious. Didn't seem that too many people missed that vehicle.
Nope, the previous gen Sierra/Silverado. I always thought the prev gen colorado was a poor joke.
Bobzilla wrote:Kreb wrote: You mean the old generation Colorado? If you say so. But I'm dubious. Didn't seem that too many people missed that vehicle.Nope, the previous gen Sierra/Silverado. I always thought the prev gen colorado was a poor joke.
OK, full names are preferable. I might well side with you if I lived in a less densely populated area, but the Sierra/Silverado feels and is bigger, and it gets real old maneuvering something like that in the urban environment.
But I wasn't making a comparison to the Sierra/Silverado anyway. Someone said that the quad-cab Colorado and Tacoma were more functional vehicles, and I'd like to know how?
If it's not a V8 and RWD it's useless as a vehicle 
Stefan (Not Bruce) wrote: When I had my Dodge Rampage, I certainly used it quite a bit as a truck by filling the bed with car parts, tools, home improvement supplies, appliances, race tires, etc. Aside from towing a car on a trailer or more than two people, it did everything I ever needed, including autocrossing. It also got 30+mpg on the freeway.
I'd buy something like that if it exisited in the late model market.
I wish GM would bring these to the US. They only have them in South America.
So...Ridgeline is a hairdressers truck?
Did they fix the grille so looks even sorta like a truck and not an Accord with a bed? The picture I saw awhile back wasn't encouraging. I hope it was a rendering and not the real thing.
Edit. I "Binged" some pictures and it isn't as bad as I had seen previously. Not great, but not bad either.
Personally, I just wish Honda would make an Odyssey with about a 6k towing capacity. All the interior space and towing = win.
In defense of the stupid spare tire location...its not nearly as bad as the Caravan and Oddysey with stow'n'go seating.
Who needs a spare these days anyway? 
Gearheadotaku wrote:Stefan (Not Bruce) wrote: When I had my Dodge Rampage, I certainly used it quite a bit as a truck by filling the bed with car parts, tools, home improvement supplies, appliances, race tires, etc. Aside from towing a car on a trailer or more than two people, it did everything I ever needed, including autocrossing. It also got 30+mpg on the freeway.I'd buy something like that if it exisited in the late model market.
I actually saw one of these in person here in Illinois, it had Mexico license plates on it.
It was pretty neat looking.
Kreb wrote: Someone said that the quad-cab Colorado and Tacoma were more functional vehicles, and I'd like to know how?
There's a few things: they're available in a form that doesn't come across as very underpowered, manual trans is an option, you can trade cab size for bed length if desired when buying. They also have more ground clearance and optional skid plates for those who care about that use. And they're similar in overall size.
And there's the most important in my mind: they're RWD (or RWD based 4wd). This means that whatever weight you put in it is added over the drive wheels. Unlike an FWD based setup like the Ridgeline where you're adding weight, but not adding traction with which to move that weight.
I know it does about everything 90% of what people use a pick up for and yet it leaves me cold. I've got a few years on me and grew up on a farm. To me a pick up is an implement. A little rough around the edges and ready for work. Cross a river, run a pto pump, put stakes in the stake pockets and haul a heifer to market, use it to run over tractor tires to pop the bead...
It looks way better than the last one.
Neighbor has one. He's owned it longer than other vehicles in his driveway. That says something.
My son has one and loves it. The trunk under the bed, seating for his 2 young kids and capability to haul bigger stuff. I chose a new Tacoma Extended Cab because I didn't need the extra seating, preferred the longer bed and use the extended cab portion for storage.
Kreb wrote:Bobzilla wrote: Nope, the previous gen Sierra/Silverado. I always thought the prev gen colorado was a poor joke.OK, full names are preferable. I might well side with you if I lived in a less densely populated area, but the Sierra/Silverado feels and is bigger, and it gets real old maneuvering something like that in the urban environment.
Seriously, the wheelbase is 21.5" (!) longer on the GM fullsize crew cab. Its also a couple inches wider, ~23" longer and ~3" taller.
They do start around the same price, so it isn't totally Apples to Oranges. I haven't driven a Ridgeline, but I can't imagine the driving experience being any worse than a full size pickup.
I haven't owned a Ridgeline, but I have driven one a good bit (Have the critics? I wonder). For my needs as an urban construction project manager/family man/car guy, if I could only have one vehicle other than my Fiat, the Ridgeline would probably be it.
Kreb wrote: I haven't owned a Ridgeline, but I have driven one a good bit (Have the critics? I wonder). For my needs as an urban construction project manager/family man/car guy, if I could only have one vehicle other than my Fiat, the Ridgeline would probably be it.
A co-worker owns one and I've ridden in it quite a bit. I'll admit I don't 'get it' and it seems like too much of a compromise, but I tend to use my truck for more serious truck stuff than a lot of people that love the rl....long distance towing, heavy hauling, dragging stuff in and around remote areas that would probably kill a ridgeline, carrying a lot in the bed (I ditched the mounted tool box in my 8 foot bed because I needed the space). I have a little truck too, but consider it a toy more than anything, but it's proving to be a neat parts hauler for the small stuff. For me a large HD truck just can't be beat. And just like some of you guys with the 'truck snob' comments.....it annoys me to no end when the 'little truck snobs' see my cc dually and act like its such overkill and doesn't get used....if you only knew.
You'll need to log in to post.
