Hauling or Crawling?: 2006 Honda Ridgeline RTS

[regfootball]

AW

Hauling or Crawling?: 2006 Honda Ridgeline RTS

Blog Posting: 2:27 pm, July 12, 2006   |   Author: PHIL FLORADAY

Over the weekend I put our long-term Honda Ridgeline to work hauling my Jeep out to Amherst, Ohio, for some off-road fun. I checked the owners manual and was amazed that it specified towing be done in overdrive. I'm used to seeing something along the lines of D3 or "avoid overdrive at all costs." It also mentioned a 55 mph maximum speed when towing. There was, however, no mention of any tow/haul mode.

As soon as I hit the highway I realized how long this trip would be. With a roughly 4000-pound load the Ridgeline was working mighty hard to get up to cruising speed. Giving it more gas merely made the engine louder; it didn't really accelerate any more quickly. I was especially surprised at how hard it had to work given our load weighed just 75 to 80 percent of the Ridgeline's maximum towing capacity, I was the only person in the truck and I had gutted the Jeep's "interior" the week before.

This was the trail that took us to the real trail.

Once I got up to speed things calmed down, but any increase in speed meant a downshift from fourth to third and sometimes the transmission seemed to hang in third much longer than I thought necessary. Gas mileage for this adventure came in at about 9.27 mpg. Ouch.

Some friends of mine were also hauling their Jeeps, but they each had one-ton, Cummins-powered Dodge Rams. Not only did they have far more power (torque) than I, they also averaged 16.7 mpg. Now, most people understand that diesels get better mileage than gas units, especially while pulling, but one of my friends had roughly twice the load behind his truck and still squeezed another 7.5 miles out of each gallon. I didn't expect to compete with them in terms of mpg, but I thought I would be in double digits for sure, particularly because 99-percent of the trip took place on the highway. Luckily it lasted just over 200 miles roundtrip.

Stupid hurts. Too much throttle and a bad weld by the previous owner ended my fun early.

In all fairness, Honda did not design this truck to specialize in towing, but the automaker does equip all its Ridgelines with power steering and transmission coolers to aid in such an undertaking, and I'm positive I gave that tranny cooler a serious workout.

I'm sure somebody will jump all over me and say that this is a truck for people who don't need a truck most of the time, but I totally understand that. I still expected the towing to go a bit more easily. Perhaps if Honda had dropped in a V8 I would be singing its praises instead of vowing never to tow a Jeep with it again, but all that we have for now is the V6, and it simply doesn't cut it.

I will admit the trunk was nice for keeping my straps hidden when the Jeep was off the trailer, then again, a Chevrolet Avalanche would have done just as well with a hard tonneau cover in place-and it would have provided another pair of cylinders to help make highway merges far less scary.

The bottom line is it got the job done and kept me from driving a broken Jeep home, but it was far from the effortless experience I had in the Land Rover LR3 with the same Jeep and even bigger trailer last month. Hopefully I can pry the keys to our newest long-termer, a Suburban, from Wes Raynal's hands the next time I need to haul the Jeep. The extra wheelbase and increased power will certainly make future trips a bit less nerve racking.

Edited August 1, 2006 by regfootball

[regfootball]

9.27

[regfootball]

9.27

[Drew Dowdell]

12.9 with an entire two bedroom apartment worth of stuff in the bed and the biggest uhaul trailer I could get.... over the mountains of west virginia.... in a 2003 Avalanche.

edit: and save for a few extremely steep moutains, the Avalanche basically acted as if the trailer wasn't there.

Edited August 1, 2006 by Oldsmoboi

[76ChevyTrucker]

He probably could have gotten better mileage out of the Jeep TOWING the Ridgeline.

[pow]

That's horrible. I wonder how a Colorado would have fared.

[siegen]

That is bad. That doesn't look like a very heavy jeep either. He must have been going uphill the whole way :AH-HA_wink:

[regfootball]

i hope the 'frame' didn't get bent...LOL

[regfootball]

12.9 with an entire two bedroom apartment worth of stuff in the bed and the biggest uhaul trailer I could get.... over the mountains of west virginia.... in a 2003 Avalanche.

edit: and save for a few extremely steep moutains, the Avalanche basically acted as if the trailer wasn't there.

174156[/snapback]

there was a logbook entry on the avalanche i read also but couldn't find the link for. it said something like 'the new avalanche didn't even break a sweat'....

[Dsuupr]

And anyone expected anything different?

[Drew Dowdell]

there was a logbook entry on the avalanche i read also but couldn't find the link for.  it said something like 'the new avalanche didn't even break a sweat'....

174203[/snapback]

on that trip, the only thing that the Avalanche broke was it's winshield.....

@#$@ trucks throwing stones!

Edited August 1, 2006 by Oldsmoboi

[76ChevyTrucker]

I don't know if I've mentioned it here, but I saw a Ridgeline being towed in a few days back and it was actually "bent", looked like someone overloaded it and it just folded up like a tin can. No damage to the front or rear to indicate impact, it just folded up in the middle.

[regfootball]

I don't know if I've mentioned it here, but I saw a Ridgeline being towed in a few days back and it was actually "bent", looked like someone overloaded it and it just folded up like a tin can.  No damage to the front or rear to indicate impact, it just folded up in the middle.

174272[/snapback]

but the contents (2 shopping bags from macy's) stored in the trunk in the bed were ok I hope?????

[siegen]

but the contents (2 shopping bags from macy's) stored in the trunk in the bed were ok I hope?????

174354[/snapback]

I've seen some woman stuff a lot of clothes into those bags.... If it was a big weekend sale at Macy's, discount sweaters alone could exceed the 1,550 lbs payload capacity, not to mention shoes.

Edit: Can you imagine what wouldve happened if they took the Corolla? Three words... jaws of life.

Edit 2: And if they took a BOF truck, they would have probably rolled it!

Edited August 1, 2006 by siegen

[siegen]

I don't know if I've mentioned it here, but I saw a Ridgeline being towed in a few days back and it was actually "bent", looked like someone overloaded it and it just folded up like a tin can.  No damage to the front or rear to indicate impact, it just folded up in the middle.

174272[/snapback]

And you didn't get a picture?

Must have been a couple really overweight Americans sitting in the back seats...

[andretti]

I don't know if I've mentioned it here, but I saw a Ridgeline being towed in a few days back and it was actually "bent", looked like someone overloaded it and it just folded up like a tin can.  No damage to the front or rear to indicate impact, it just folded up in the middle.

174272[/snapback]

The Ridgeline has a higher payload capacity than an Avalanche. Imagine what would have happened if they had put the load in an Avy!

[ShadowDog]

The Ridgeline has a higher payload capacity than an Avalanche.  Imagine what would have happened if they had put the load in an Avy!

174400[/snapback]

Payload Capacity

Ridgeling - 1,100 lbs

Avalanche - 1,322 lbs

Towing Capacity

Ridgeline - 5,000 lbs

Avalanche - 8,100 lbs

Nope. The Avalanche would have made it almost effortlessly, sooner, and had more gas to spare. How tragic a purchase is the Avalanche!

Edited August 1, 2006 by ShadowDog

[funkypunnk]

Pulled my 4000Lbs boat plus trailer to the Ozarks and back and averaged 11.5mpg. I have a custom tune and the Av didn't even act like it was pulling anything, yet I got 11.5!!! Plus the Av was loaded up with 1000+Lbs of gear!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hondas are for enviro-nazis, chicks, accountants, and effeminate men!

Real Men want Real Trucks!!!!!!!!!

[Guest YellowJacket894]

The Ridgeline has a higher payload capacity than an Avalanche.  Imagine what would have happened if they had put the load in an Avy!

174400[/snapback]

What in the hell are you smoking?

[siegen]

Real Men want Real Trucks!!!!!!!!!

174420[/snapback]

I suppose your definition of a "real man" is someone who wears tight jeans, a flanel coat, and cowboy hat, huh?

Payload Capacity

Ridgeline - 1,100 lbs

Avalanche - 1,322 lbs

Do you know the total payload capacity of the Avalanche? The Avalanche is rated 1,258 lbs to 1,337 lbs depending on trim including "weight of driver, passengers, optional equipment and cargo". The Ridgeline is rated to 1,550 lbs total capacity, 1,100 lbs including passengers and cargo. I couldn't find the total capacity of the Avalanche on their website. I'm sure the Avalanche can haul more though. andretti just got the numbers mixed up, since it says 1,550 lbs on the main page of Honda's Ridgeline site, but if you click on Towing/Hauling info, it says 1,100 lbs.

[Drew Dowdell]

Hondas are for enviro-nazis, chicks, accountants, and effeminate men!

Real Men want Real Trucks!!!!!!!!!

174420[/snapback]

<- gay, skinny, computer geek.... who owns a GMT-800 Avalanche and would love a new 900 if he didn't beat the &#036;h&#33; out of them.

[ShadowDog]

The Ridgeline is rated to 1,550 lbs total capacity, 1,100 lbs including passengers and cargo. I couldn't find the total capacity of the Avalanche on their website. I'm sure the Avalanche can haul more though. andretti just got the numbers mixed up, since it says 1,550 lbs on the main page of Honda's Ridgeline site, but if you click on Towing/Hauling info, it says 1,100 lbs.

174458[/snapback]

Your numbers look more accurate at their maximum. I actually bothered to dig them up this time...there is a 167 lbs difference between the 2007 models at 1554 and 1387; however, payload capacity wasn't in question at all through this article, as towing capacity was.

When it comes down to it, looking at this with complete objectivity, I would still pick the Avalanche over the Ridgeline, even with the small 167 lb. disadvantage. The engine pulling on that weight is what makes the big difference in the end. A V6 would dog it up the hill, having that high-spooling DOHC in a lower and slower gear to keep it going. The V8 could chug along with the low-RPM torque and still could end up managing a healthier MPG figure in the end...if you don't romp on it to get to the top of the hill above the speed limit.

Edited August 1, 2006 by ShadowDog

[siegen]

Your numbers look more accurate at their maximum.  I actually bothered to dig them up this time...there is a 167 lbs difference between the 2007 models at 1554 and 1387; however, payload capacity wasn't in question at all through this article, as towing capacity was.

When it comes down to it, looking at this with complete objectivity, I would still pick the Avalanche over the Ridgeline, even with the small 167 lb. disadvantage.  The engine pulling on that weight is what makes the big difference in the end.  A V6 would dog it up the hill, having that high-spooling DOHC in a lower and slower gear to keep it going.  The V8 could chug along with the low-RPM torque and still could end up managing a healthier MPG figure in the end...if you don't romp on it to get to the top of the hill above the speed limit.

174468[/snapback]

Actually, I was saying that the Avalanche does indeed having a higher Haul rating as well as Tow rating, since the 1,550 lbs is a "Total" amount on the Ridgeline, while the Avalanche's 1,300 +/- lbs rating includes passengers and cargo. How much extra that is I don't know, since they don't have a Total cargo rating on their site. This was more in responce to the "bent" Ridgeline 76ChevyTrucker said he saw. It really doesn't matter. The Avalanche is a tougher vehicle, with a bigger engine and a higher tow and haul rating. The Ridgeline has more features, is safer, and is "tougher" in a crash (but not when it comes to towing or hauling so much).

[pow]

Real Men want Real Trucks!!!!!!!!!

174420[/snapback]

No, real men have X and Y chromosomes...

[cmattson]

I can add some perspective to this:

My old tow vehicle was a 1996 Blazer with the 4.3l engine (I pull a 32xx lb travel trailer + cargo + passengers, so roughly 4500-5000 lbs -- right near the Blazer's maximum tow rating for that year). When towing, I'd routinely get 7-8 mpg. The truck behaved much as this author describes the Honda: accelerating was slow, loud and cumbersome. Once upto speed, everything was good. Getting there was a chore. Towing the same trailer with the '03 Suburban couldn't be easier. Hardly know the damn thing is back there. Gas mileage? Almost always between 9.5-10.5 mpg. I'm guessing that the Suburban, even with the larger mass and the larger engine, just doesn't have to work as hard pulling that weight -- so a Chevy 5.3l barely breaking a sweat offers better gas mileage than a 4.3l or Honda 3.5l working it's *ss off.

[pow]

Hey, at least a Ridgeline is a better tow car than a Kia Cerato (Spectra) 1.5 diesel, the 2006 Caravan Club Towcar of the Year...

Top Gear Caravan Holiday (Part 1)

Top Gear Caravan Holiday (Part 2)

[Flybrian]

Hey, at least a Ridgeline is a better tow car than a Kia Cerato (Spectra) 1.5 diesel, the 2006 Caravan Club Towcar of the Year...

174528[/snapback]

Dude, linking only the first two and not the third? Pretty poor, mate; pretty poor!

[pow]

Dude, linking only the first two and not the third? Pretty poor, mate; pretty poor!

174529[/snapback]

My bad... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17AnVJfd_gA&NR

[siegen]

I thought about this some more. It says in the article he left it in normal D (which uses all 5 gears), since the manual didn't specify otherwise. If he had put it into D4, or even D3, I'm willing to bet he would have seen better mileage. Even cruising on the freeway would probably see better mileage in 4th gear.

Does the Ridgeline offer a tow mode where it holds each gear to a higher rpm before it shifts? If it doesn't, it should. Having the automatic shift too early will put a huge strain on the engine and possibly lug it, causing horrible mileage like that and cruddy acceleration. Counter to what a lot of people think, keeping the rpm's high can and usually does result in better mileage, as long as the throttle is kept about the same. That is, with smaller displacement engines.

[Paolino]

9.27

174135[/snapback]

But... Honda runs those commercials that say it's the most fuel-efficient company in the country?!

Speaking of fuel-efficient... took the Prius to Toyota today to have a recall taken care of and the battery checked out since it had been draining fast...

According to the Prius' energy consumption gauge: 32.8 mpg average fuel economy on his last tank of gas. Oh... and that is city driving... you know, where Toyota boasts 60 mpg.

Edited August 2, 2006 by Paolino

[AAS]

I thought about this some more. It says in the article he left it in normal D (which uses all 5 gears), since the manual didn't specify otherwise. If he had put it into D4, or even D3, I'm willing to bet he would have seen better mileage. Even cruising on the freeway would probably see better mileage in 4th gear.

Does the Ridgeline offer a tow mode where it holds each gear to a higher rpm before it shifts? If it doesn't, it should. Having the automatic shift too early will put a huge strain on the engine and possibly lug it, causing horrible mileage like that and cruddy acceleration. Counter to what a lot of people think, keeping the rpm's high can and usually does result in better mileage, as long as the throttle is kept about the same. That is, with smaller displacement engines.

174542[/snapback]

All that is covered in the first paragraph...

Over the weekend I put our long-term Honda Ridgeline to work hauling my Jeep out to Amherst, Ohio, for some off-road fun. I checked the owners manual and was amazed that it specified towing be done in overdrive. I'm used to seeing something along the lines of D3 or "avoid overdrive at all costs." It also mentioned a 55 mph maximum speed when towing. There was, however, no mention of any tow/haul mode.

[siegen]

All that is covered in the first paragraph...

174557[/snapback]

I am simply commenting on that, not trying to restate it.

I did miss the part about the tow mode. That is definately a feature they need to add.

[76ChevyTrucker]

I'm sorry, I wouldn't trust ANY transmission that has an overdrive to tow in it. That's just scary dangerous, unless you've got an add-on cooler with an auxilary fan blowing directly on it PLUS the factory radiator-based cooler. I'm sorry that I didn't have a camera to take a picture of the "bent" Ridgeline, I just don't normally carry it unless I'm going somewhere where I know I'm going to really use it.

[FAPTurbo]

As much as I don't like the Ridgeline, not for the brand, but for the styling and and FWD bias, I must say I am surprised at this test. 9.27 mpg is horrible for a V6 and I figured Honda would have done a little more homework before dropping their 3.5L in the bay.

I knew having the 3.5L in the truck wasn't the greatest idea, but then again, with the numbers Honda claimed in terms of towing and hauling, I was skeptical the day my Dad fell in love with it and gave the future Avalanche a run for its money.

[Farkas]

That is rediculous.

Our Dodge Dakota Quad Cab can get anywhere from 10 - 12 towing our 26 foot camper. I don't know how much a stripped Jeep and trailer weigh, but it must come in at less than 4.800 pounds.

It is a shame that our truck is only rated to tow 4.800 pounds because of the axle ratio and engine choice.

------------------------

And limited to 55 mph? That will get you horned and possibly high-beamed on the interstate.

Edited August 2, 2006 by Farkas

[regfootball]

But... Honda runs those commercials that say it's the most fuel-efficient company in the country?!   

Speaking of fuel-efficient... took the Prius to Toyota today to have a recall taken care of and the battery checked out since it had been draining fast...

According to the Prius' energy consumption gauge:  32.8 mpg average fuel economy on his last tank of gas.  Oh... and that is city driving... you know, where Toyota boasts 60 mpg.

174556[/snapback]

my buddy gets 15 mpg with his Pilot (either with or without his big wife) so the bad Ridgeline mpg doesn't surprise me.

[regfootball]

there is no reason to pick a Ridgeline over an Avalanche if you are hauling home anything besides a venti mocha. The Avlanche trounces the Ridgeline in virtually every way imaginable.

body shops are going to get rich fixing bent chassis' on these things.

I remember my brother in law (a farmer) telling me how non-tough the first aero ford pickups (late 90's) were. It must have been true since the current gen F series are tough as a brick shthouse. I can't imagine a Ridgeline having even half the toughness of those late 90's F series that could take real work on the farm. I bet if a Ridgeline was to serve duty on the farm in one month it'd be toast.

Edited August 2, 2006 by regfootball

[Snate]

my buddy gets 15 mpg with his Pilot (either with or without his big wife) so the bad Ridgeline mpg doesn't surprise me.

174761[/snapback]

I've heard that about average for the Pilot...I'm surprised how much worse MPG it gets than the Odyssey.

[Sixty8panther]

Yeah, well I've been saying from day one that the RIDGELINE is the

biggest piece of cr@p that Honda has ever unleashed on the

American public. The super-ugly interior is only upstaged by the

horrifically ugly exterior and the design/engineering of that thing

seems to have been done by a MR kid who got a D+ in Shop Class.

This truck must Die. I think the Subaru Brat was a better "truck."

Edited August 3, 2006 by Sixty8panther

[Drew Dowdell]

Yeah, well I've been saying from day one that the Avalanche is the

biggest piece of cr@p that Honda has ever unleashed on the

American public. The super-ugly interior is only upstaged by the

horrifically ugly exterior and the design/engineering of that thing

seems to have been done by a MR kid who got a D+ in Shop Class.

This truck must Die. I think the Subaru Brat was a better "truck."

174995[/snapback]

*ridgeline

?

[ShadowDog]

*ridgeline

?

174997[/snapback]

I'm ... uh ... thinkin', "yeah".

[siegen]

body shops are going to get rich fixing bent chassis' on these things.

Oh yeh, because a body shop can fix a bent chassis.

The Avlanche trounces the Ridgeline in virtually every way imaginable.

Does it? Or does it just tow/haul better? Does it have more features, better safety rating, better resale value, better mileage (when not towing), better handling, better acceleration (when not towing), better braking, better build quality, and better ride quality?

[Intrepidation]

Oh yeh, because a body shop can fix a bent chassis.

Does it? Or does it just tow/haul better? Does it have more features, better safety rating, better resale value, better mileage (when not towing), better handling, better acceleration (when not towing), better braking, better build quality, and better ride quality?

175042[/snapback]

I really wouldn't call either vehicle a great handler, so saying the Ridgeline handles "better" is like saying an 18-wheeler handles better than a dump truck. The Avalanche's interior is built very well, same with the exterior. Design wise, I think the Avalanche is better looking inside and out, and I'm pretty sure neither truck will set acceleration records, but the Avalanche will do better when you're hauling anything more than a person. Plus Avalanche has a lot of features. So Yeah.

[sciguy_0504]

The current-gen Avalanche eats the Ridgeline every way possible and then some.

[siegen]

I really wouldn't call either vehicle a great handler, so saying the Ridgeline handles "better" is like saying an 18-wheeler handles better than a dump truck.

Have you driven a Ridgeline? The guys at TOV have, on an AutoX course to boot (as well as an RL), they even have video's. It handles remarkably well for a truck or SUV, thanks to its independant suspension & unibody. You'll probably find just about every mag that has reviewed it comment on how it handles like an Accord.

The Avalanche's interior is built very well, same with the exterior. Design wise, I think the Avalanche is better looking inside and out

Styling is subjective, neither one is better, they're both mediocre in my opinion.

Avalanche will do better when you're hauling anything more than a person.

A bit of an overstatement? So if there are two people in the Ridgeline it suddenly becomes a dog?

I'm pretty sure neither truck will set acceleration records

Well you're right there, but that still doesn't mean one isn't faster than the other. Unfortunately performance times for trucks are hard to find. I found a 0-60 of 8.0 sec and 1/4-mile of 16.2 sec @ 86 mph at Car and Driver for the Ridgeline, but can't find times for the newer Avalanches. Only an 8.7s 0-60 from Motor Trend for a 2002 model, and MT usually has slower times than other mags.

The current-gen Avalanche eats the Ridgeline every way possible and then some.

175065[/snapback]

Care to elaborate?

Edited August 2, 2006 by siegen

[ocnblu]

Why must you feign cluelessness, siegen? There is no contest. The Ridgeline is a cardboard box compared to an Avalanche. Just look at the damned thing. It's a joke. An unfunny joke. There is no sense in even arguing about this. NO.CONTEST.

[siegen]

Why must you feign cluelessness, siegen?  There is no contest.  The Ridgeline is a cardboard box compared to an Avalanche.  Just look at the damned thing.  It's a joke.  An unfunny joke.  There is no sense in even arguing about this.  NO.CONTEST.

175081[/snapback]

You're right, Toyota Tundra all the way. Moving forward!

[regfootball]

Oh yeh, because a body shop can fix a bent chassis.

Does it? Or does it just tow/haul better? Does it have more features, better safety rating, better resale value, better mileage (when not towing), better handling, better acceleration (when not towing), better braking, better build quality, and better ride quality?

175042[/snapback]

auto body shops have large equipment that help them fix unibody car chassis / align them / build them back to spec.

[regfootball]

Why must you feign cluelessness, siegen?  There is no contest.  The Ridgeline is a cardboard box compared to an Avalanche.  Just look at the damned thing.  It's a joke.  An unfunny joke.  There is no sense in even arguing about this.  NO.CONTEST.

175081[/snapback]

the new avalanche interior is so far above the ridgelines horrific interior. i have no idea why siegen could even try to argue that.

i am not sure how chevy can build MILLIONS of trucks that can survive YEARS of TOUGH duty and then Honda introduces ONE TRUCK without a frame and we're supposed to believe it will hold up better.

as they say

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Intrepidation]

the new avalanche interior is so far above the ridgelines horrific interior.  i have no idea why siegen could even try to argue that.

i am not sure how chevy can build MILLIONS of trucks that can survive YEARS of TOUGH duty and then Honda introduces ONE TRUCK without a frame and we're supposed to believe it will hold up better.

as they say

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

175093[/snapback]

Even though the interior of the Ridgeline is based off the concept, it looks boxy and not that pretty, more 90's than anything else. The Avalanche's interior is far better.