Keith Tanner wrote: With my job, I only dress up on weekendsEven though I work behind a desk, I know I'm gonna be installing some tires and digging around in a suspension at some point.
You say that like it is a bad thing. "Oh, no, I had to test the Paco lift in a mud pit, woe is me!"
Bobzilla wrote:Kreb wrote: There are words I don't want to read on this site: Trump, Clinton, Cruz and Bernie or any of the verbage associated with them. Clear enough?How about star wars themed?
these are not the trucklets you were looking for....
Bobzilla wrote: Funny, the most "it's not a true truck" comments I've read are coming from the people defending the RL. The rest of the people (myself included) that the RL doesn't work well for aren't saying that at all. All I've ever said is there are other options that are just as good or better for less money. Honda's require a premium, and if you're going to pay a premium you should get something more. I just don't think the RL does that. If it suits your needs and you want to pay the Honda tax, good on you. I don't and it doesn't, so I won't. I don't know when or how having a different opinion suddenly became such a terrible thing. Different strokes for different folks and all that.
I don't really see Honda's (any of them) as being priced at a premium. The old Ridgeline, when new, wasn't any more expensive than other mid-sizers. We don't even have the price of the new one but I don't see it being any different.
Yep, I acknowledge that the segment isn't a screaming deal when you compare it to the millions of full-sizers being sold, but I wouldn't just segregate the Ridgeline on that point. Sometimes you just want a can of Coke even when the 2 liter is only 20 cents more.
I was talking used market. I truly have no idea how anyone can afford new trucks these days. Our GMC stickered at 26,400 in 2006. Same truck today would be 38k. blows my mind. A similar mileage RL used runs about $3-5k more than the domestics. So $10k compared to $13-15k. That's the Honda premium. Because it has that non-slanted H on the nose, resale is really high. Not saying that is good/bad/earned/not just that it is.
My biggest issue with the import trucks in general is their lack of options/building. Toyota has gotten better, but Nissan was horrible. One engine. EXT cab or CC and 2 wd or 4. Where as GM I Could build 100 different trucks out of their catalogs to fit my needs to a "T". The RL suffers that as well. One engine, one style, no flexibility to tailor it to your needs. That's my biggest beef with all of the imports.
In reply to Bobzilla:
Ah..gottcha. Yeah, they are pretty high on the used market (especially in the PNW). The Tacomas are just insane! However, I got my Ridgeline for $7K with 117K miles on it and I'm pretty sure I could drive it another 100K and sell it for the same amount. Here's to hoping that resale works in my favor!
Actually, this is somewhat off topic, but I wish Honda did something really quirky, like taking one of their side-by-sides and scaling it up into an actual on-road truck/utility vehicle. I like the transformer looking styles that they have, along with the suspension in full view.
So the "Honda premium" is only on the used market... that means I can call it the "Honda savings" since I bought new. It wasn't crazy expensive... in the upper 20's.
ultraclyde wrote:jv8 wrote: I don't get how this board seems to embrace the odd and unusual but dumps on the RL so much. FWIW I would also buy a minivan that could tow 5K pounds and had some sort of super roof hatch that would allow transport of large odd shaped stuff. All this "it's not a real off-roader" talk is falling on deaf ears here.THen what you are looking for is an early 2000s GMC Envoy XUV
Yes.. but I don't think that is based on a unibody minivan. Wasn't it a body-on-frame Chevy truck?
The idea is car-like handling 90% of the time and mild hauling/towing for the 10%.
Bobzilla wrote: Funny, the most "it's not a true truck" comments I've read are coming from the people defending the RL.
There is a significant difference between those saying "it's not a true (LOL) truck" and those saying "it's not a traditional truck".
Bobzilla wrote: My biggest issue with the import trucks in general is their lack of options/building. Toyota has gotten better, but Nissan was horrible. One engine. EXT cab or CC and 2 wd or 4. Where as GM I Could build 100 different trucks out of their catalogs to fit my needs to a "T". The RL suffers that as well. One engine, one style, no flexibility to tailor it to your needs. That's my biggest beef with all of the imports.
Toyota has not gotten better. I cannot purchase a 2wd with a v-6 and a manual transmission. But I can spend thousands more and get a 4wd with a v-6 & manual trans. I don't need 4wd if I can get a v-6 manual in 2wd...
One thing that I appreciate about the styling of the new Ridgeline is that they didn't try to out-macho everyone. The unceasing chest-thumping from the big three plus Toyota about their trucks is annoying. A truck is a tool, not a fashion statement.
Kreb wrote: One thing that I appreciate about the styling of the new Ridgeline is that they didn't try to out-macho everyone. The unceasing chest-thumping from the big three plus Toyota about their trucks is annoying. A truck is a tool, not a fashion statement.
A truck is a lifestyle, ask every bro dozer or kid living in the country.
Let me paraphrase "The Devil Wears Prada."
"A truck is not about utility anymore. A truck is merely a piece of iconography used to express individual identity." Just like the boys on Duck Dynasty selling coon-ass stupidity it's all an act of a lifestyle.
Just like our little sports cars. The problem is the truck crowd won't admit that they are just using them as style statements.
Honda just never bought into that and are still trying to get something the average family can use daily. Mini-van with a tow rating and ground clearance is the best description I have seen yet.
How much weight is on the front wheels once you put significant tongue weight on the back of the truck?
This is convenient! I have an answer. I helped my dad load 3000+ lbs of wood onto a 16' open deck trailer. He went across scales before and after dumping it. The scale showed that 'front axle weight' of his truck only changed by 140 lbs. I read this off his scale printouts all of 5 hours ago. Now, accuracy issues aside, i think we can say that when a trailer is PROPERLY loaded the effect on the front axle weight should be relatively small. It was probably 300-500lbs of weight on the ball. Only 140 came off the front, and this is with longer overhang 'leverage' than a Ridgeline would have. Considering what kind of tow rating and tongue weight would be recommended for a Ridgeline, i'd say the front wheel traction difference wouldn't be any different than if you had two people sitting in the back of the bed.
But that's besides the point anyway because if you're worried about traction BUY THE AWD VERSION instead of bench-racing an argument about how FWD is insufficient, right?
Vigo wrote: But that's besides the point anyway because if you're worried about traction BUY THE AWD VERSION instead of bench-racing an argument about how FWD is insufficient, right?
Totally agree. Actually I thought this was a pointless argument because they are all AWD?
In reply to Vigo:
The issue isn't that you took 140 lbs off the front wheels. It's that you added a few thousand pounds of weight to move and only added weight to the secondary drive wheels, not the primary drive wheels. So you're going to apply more power to get moving with 140 less pounds on the tires to put it to the ground. And if you start to slip those tires, then it'll feed power to the rear end and actually get you going decently. Point it uphill and add some rain and that's when it can start to become an actual issue.
Could your secret be in here?
In reply to Flight Service:
Not to everyone, I work in construction. My trucks are tools
Antihero wrote: In reply to Flight Service: Not to everyone, I work in construction. My trucks are tools
Yes they are. To you a tool. To the manufacturer a marketing device to sell as many high option bro-doozers as possible.
The Circle of Capitalism...
Flight Service wrote: C&D 2017 Honda Ridgeline HONDA'S NEXT CRACK AT THE CIVILIZED PICKUP LOOKS MORE PEDESTRIAN—AND PROMISING. Could your secret be in here?
I didn't find any secrets in there - only confirmation that it's an improved evolution of the original idea.
My grand parents had a self sufficient farm and they didn't own a pickup or any truck. Just a wagon and a couple of horses. excellent traction in the mud. Not sure how this is relevant to the thread.
Good discussion except for the political attempts. I enjoyed it.
The issue isn't that you took 140 lbs off the front wheels. It's that you added a few thousand pounds of weight to move and only added weight to the secondary drive wheels, not the primary drive wheels. So you're going to apply more power to get moving with 140 less pounds on the tires to put it to the ground. And if you start to slip those tires, then it'll feed power to the rear end and actually get you going decently. Point it uphill and add some rain and that's when it can start to become an actual issue.
I have no idea what issue you mean. I'm pretty sure the AWD with a 5000 lb trailer is still going to hook up at WOT (~240 TORKS!!!) and not spit its guts on the ground, so what's the issue?
Good review available here too: linky
We now have a story on our site as well and will have more in the next issue of the magazine. Wow, what a lot of passion on this subject. In typical internet fashion, it goes a long way to replace real knowledge on a topic. The new Ridgeline seemingly is based on the Pilot. One interesting display Honda showed us was the front and rear suspensions for both Pilot and Ridgeline laid out on a table. More than 50% of the front and rear components are different between the two. The Ridgeline pieces that were different, are heavier duty than those on the Pilot. Off the record, one of the Honda engineers told me while the towing rating was left the same, the new Ridgeline would tow your 5000 pound rig a hell of a lot better than the old Ridgeline would.
Hey Tim, did they increase the rear suspension travel on the RL? That was always something I never understood with the Oddy/Pilot/MDX/RL. The rear suspension has so little travel and when compressed had hella camber. It wasn't unusual to get one with 20k and the inside of the tires were gone because they used them like they were designed, to haul people and stuffs.
Bobzilla wrote: Hey Tim, did they increase the rear suspension travel on the RL? That was always something I never understood with the Oddy/Pilot/MDX/RL. The rear suspension has so little travel and when compressed had hella camber. It wasn't unusual to get one with 20k and the inside of the tires were gone because they used them like they were designed, to haul people and stuffs.
That's a good point. I totally forgot about the independent suspension camber gain problem in the rear.
Moving heavy stuff is the one time where a solid axle just works better. The same camber gain that's good for cornering with an independent suspension is a problem for carrying weight, as you now have excessive camber while going straight due to the suspension being compressed.
Nice article on how the AWD setup works under various conditions.
http://truckyeah.jalopnik.com/heres-how-the-2017-honda-ridgelines-trick-off-roading-m-1775651261
I'll just voice it again. GRMS, why don't you have articles as detailed or as technical as this?
You'll need to log in to post.
