Honda scores with new pickup line

[BigPontiac]

You should read my other posts. I drive an 04 Sierra (1500) almost every day. Up until about 3 years ago, I felt the same way most of you do, and would never own a foreign car.

I see a lot of people comparing the mileage of the Ridgeline with American trucks, and claiming that their V8's and 4.3L V6's only get marginally less mileage while having more power. I could say the same thing, since my GMC Sierra (V8) gets about 20mpg mostly freeway driving. That is really good mileage for a truck, but the Sierra comes with very minimal features, which include a tape player, manual windows, single cab (not extended), no ABS, no A/C, it's pretty bare bones to say the least (2wd). Even the base model Ridgeline comes with a lot of features including awd. I'm not going to browse around Chevy or Ford's sites to look for features, but I'd imagine the mileage of the Ridgeline should be compared more with something like a fully-loaded awd SUV (like a Denali or something?).

Since I'm coming into this argument with little backing (most of the articles I read, I toss or do not save the links), only what is in my memory and my personal experience, I took the time to look at a bunch of Ridgeline reviews, and tried to find as many from Domestic-based magazines or organizations (of course ignoring anything directly from Honda). Most of the reviews ended up liking the Ridgeline. Its safety and road-going features are important even for a truck. I know a lot of you put off these things, but the ability for a vehicle to not get in a wreck is very important. Not only for the occupants, but for the people in cars driving around the truck (like me), and pedestrians.

As far as body-on-frame, unibody, and ladder frame construction goes. My comment saying that current trucks are out-dated, is exactly that. They've been using the base technology for over 50 years, with improvements of course, but nothing completely different. Why fix it if it isn't broke? Because it costs too much money to develope a new way of doing things. The way trucks and SUV's are built right now works, and it is certainly the most cost-effective way. The majority of Americans believe so much in the way things are done right now anyway. Honda is giving them an alternative for light-duty truck use, despite its infancy, and everybody has very closed minds about it.

Here's some reviews:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

[post="45091"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

The Sierra you're describing has a list MSRP of $21k...the Work Truck (WT) with optional 4.8 V-8 and 4-speed auto. Add in the incentives and the owner of your business probably paid about $15-16K to add it to his/her fleet. The cheapest Honda Ridgeline starts (RT) starts at $28K and has most of the amenities you described you liked. However, are all of the "wants" you described worth $10K+ to the owner of the business you work for that's paying you? If it was, I'm sure he/she would have purchased an SLE or SLT trimmed Sierra...

As for your specific complaints on the Sierra you're driving: the transmission has a service bulletin out to correct the "abrupt" shifting issue from 1st to 2nd gear (software fix), the "rattling" in the bed is probably the spare tire...make sure it's inflated and torqued tight under the truck. The brakes could use improvement (improved on 2005 Sierras) but a few hard stops every once in a while gets the self-adjusters to improve the pedal feel and decrease the stopping distances. There are a whole list of aftermarket vendors who've filled the gap on brakes for GM trucks, just like they have for Honda/Acura owners to "personalize" their rides.

If your basis for driving comparison to the Sierra is that Acura Integra in your signature, you will be disappointed. Expecting the Sierra to handle like the Integra is about as fair as asking the Integra to haul a few yards of mulch. Both vehicles are intended for different purposes, so will have different compromises in handling dynamics. Pickups always ride better with at least a few hundred pounds in the bed.

[siegen]

The Sierra you're describing has a list MSRP of $21k...

[post="45387"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I believe it was around 20K after it was said and done, this was back in 2003, and I don't think there were as many incentive programs. Also, even though this is the company truck, I take very good care of it (it's the truck I drive to and from work every day), like I do with my car, so it does not receive any abuse (as most "company vehicles" do), I pay for insurance and maintenance on it. The brake problem is more than just stopping distance, and the rattle is not the spare, but this isn't a maintenance forum. I'll look into the service bulletin though and hopefully get that 1st-2nd shift worked out.

I took a look at new truck models on nada.com, and found this, which I think is a pretty close match to the Ridgeline. Chevy Silverado Crew cab, 4wd, LS model (cheapest model they had listed), and the MSRP is around 30k. I'm sure the incentives and givin the current economy, you could get one from a dealer for several thousand less. It doesn't appear to have near the features of the Ridgeline, although I couldn't find MPG, vehicle weight, or the load capacity of the Ridgeline. The towing capacity was the same at 5000 lbs. The Ridgeline looks expensive, but when you consider everything, it's not bad.

I'm not saying a Ridgeline could do the work I need my Sierra to though, because it can't. I need the large bed, and a relatively high load rating (600-1000 lb runs are pretty common, sometimes a little more).

Ridgeline:
247hp/245 ft-lbs
16/21mpg
5000 max towing
5 speed transmission

1500 Silverado 5.3l
295hp/335 ft-lbs
15/19 mpg
7000 max towing
4 speed transmission

Transmission gearing and vehicle weight play a big part in their performance though. I couldn't find any numbers, but I'll bet the Ridgeline weighs a bit less (due to the unibody frame), and the additional gear allows for more tq multiplication in the first 4 gears (instead of 4th gear having to be an "overdrive" freeway gear). And again, the Ridgeline may only get marginally better MPG, but if you were to take one and strip away all of the features down to what that Silverado has, I'll bet you'd see hundreds of pounds shaved and several mpg better. Go to the Honda site and look at just what it comes with, you won't see traction, stability control, 6 air bags, heated mirrors, or any of the like on that Silverado.

[ocnblu]

Oh you'll see plenty of traction, enough to pull this pathetic excuse for a "truck" (it's really a cardboard cutout of a truck) backwards. Let's hook 'em together with a chain and see who yanks who!

The Ridgeline is the ugliest "truck" on the road, inside and out, it has a transverse engine, FWD biased driveline that is totally wrong-o. It has piss-poor fuel economy for what it is, and that spare in the trunk? STOOPID! You want to bolt it upright in the bed? Then it's even more worthless for hauling. It's also been bashed in the press for the harsh ride and blind spots because of the rear pillars and high bed sides.

What is wrong with the way a Silverado, F-150 or Ram are put together? A separate bed makes the vehicle soo much more versatile... how in the hell could anyone put a work box or stake bed on a unitized playtoy like a Ridgeline? American trucks are made for work, and they are also extremely civilised if the buyer chooses. There is no more versatile platform on the road than an American fullsize pickup truck. Period. :P

[pow]

Oh you'll see plenty of traction, enough to pull this pathetic excuse for a "truck" (it's really a cardboard cutout of a truck) backwards.  Let's hook 'em together with a chain and see who yanks who!

The Ridgeline is the ugliest "truck" on the road, inside and out, it has a transverse engine, FWD biased driveline that is totally wrong-o.  It has piss-poor fuel economy for what it is, and that spare in the trunk?  STOOPID!  You want to bolt it upright in the bed?  Then it's even more worthless for hauling.  It's also been bashed in the press for the harsh ride and blind spots because of the rear pillars and high bed sides.

What is wrong with the way a Silverado, F-150 or Ram are put together?  A separate bed makes the vehicle soo much more versatile... how in the hell could anyone put a work box or stake bed on a unitized playtoy like a Ridgeline?  American trucks are made for work, and they are also extremely civilised if the buyer chooses.  There is no more versatile platform on the road than an American fullsize pickup truck.  Period. :P

[post="45479"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

My sense of humor ain't that great... are you trying to be serious or humorous? :huh:

[ocnblu]

Both, hon. Prius and Ridgeline are the two most offensive vehicles on the road. They are today's Yugo. :AH-HA_wink:

[Cadillacfan]

In response to Empowah's first post: Last time I checked, it was based off the Honda Pilot which was essentially an Odyssey with a higher suspension. Prove me wrong. Edited November 20, 2005 by Cadillacfan85

[VenSeattle]

In response to Empowah's first post:

Last time I checked, it was based off the Honda Pilot which was essentially an Odyssey with a higher suspension.  Prove me wrong.

[post="45489"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I looked into this question myself. According to several sources, the Ridgeline is a derivative of Honda's "Global Light Truck" platform that's shared with the Pilot, Odyssey, & MDX. To meet the structural requirements, 93% of the structural components were modified. So it’s not the exact platform as the others, but it’s not entirely original either. It’s more like Honda’s light truck platform on steroids. From what I can tell, even Honda classifies the Ridgeline as a "Global Light Truck" platform derivative.

[sciguy_0504]

Before I read another comment that says something along the lines of "the Ridgeline is not a real truck!" I'd like to say something: I think everyone (other than Honda, possibly) can agree that it is not a real truck in the sense of a BOF 1/2 ton that can take a beating and keep on going. Got it? Good.

[siegen]

I think everyone can agree that it is not a real truck in the sense of a BOF 1/2 ton that can take a beating and keep on going.

[post="45494"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

So for a vehicle to be classified as a truck, it has to be body on frame? According to the dictionary, both Webster's and American Heritage, a truck is "any of various heavy motor vehicles designed for carrying or pulling loads" or "an automotive vehicle for hauling loads" (among other non related definitions).

This still isn't completely clear, as "heavy motor vehicle" and "load" are not defined, but it didn't say anything about vehicle specifics. Apparently any vehicle can be considered a truck, so long as it fits under those guidelines. A load can be anything that's not a passenger, but I couldn't find a specific classification for "heavy motor vehicle" unfortunately, and I'm not about to go looking through government sites. Maybe somebody knows this answer.

Regardless, the thing that gets me is that people constantly say that the Ridgeline is not a real truck, based entirely off the thinking that a real truck has to be body on frame, rear wheel drive, and have a V8 in it.

[Imaj]

So for a vehicle to be classified as a truck, it has to be body on frame? According to the dictionary, both Webster's and American Heritage, a truck is "any of various heavy motor vehicles designed for carrying or pulling loads" or "an automotive vehicle for hauling loads" (among other non related definitions).

Lingustics :P what do they know about trucks :rolleyes:

[sciguy_0504]

So for a vehicle to be classified as a truck, it has to be body on frame? According to the dictionary, both Webster's and American Heritage, a truck is "any of various heavy motor vehicles designed for carrying or pulling loads" or "an automotive vehicle for hauling loads" (among other non related definitions).

This still isn't completely clear, as "heavy motor vehicle" and "load" are not defined, but it didn't say anything about vehicle specifics. Apparently any vehicle can be considered a truck, so long as it fits under those guidelines. A load can be anything that's not a passenger, but I couldn't find a specific classification for "heavy motor vehicle" unfortunately, and I'm not about to go looking through government sites. Maybe somebody knows this answer.

Regardless, the thing that gets me is that people constantly say that the Ridgeline is not a real truck, based entirely off the thinking that a real truck has to be body on frame, rear wheel drive, and have a V8 in it.

[post="45546"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

So we'll get a Ridgeline and a Silverado, both comparably equipped, beat the hell out of them, and see which one is a real truck. That's the only way we're going to end this argument.

[balthazar]

...the thing that gets me is that people constantly say that the Ridgeline is not a real truck, based entirely off the thinking that a real truck has to be body on frame, rear wheel drive, and have a V8 in it.

That's only part of it, not the entirety. It has to be overengineered and intended to work. It can also provide comfort & convinence, but it must be able to work beyond it's capacity and last doing so.

Recently I looked in the manual to see how much my F-150 is rated to tow. A measely 2300 lbs. Oops: last summer with 130K on the clock I towed 5400 lbs 45-minutes, bringing my '40 Ford COE back to my house from my brother's. Many other times I have towed double the factory rating with no strain or struggle. That's a 'truck'.

[Sixty8panther]

Balthazar & Ocnblu have said it all. I saw nothing humorous of funny about Ocnblu's post. It was dead on. I feel exactly the same way. And this is coming from someone who actually likes the Element. Balthazar: "last summer with 130K on the clock I towed 5400 lbs 45-minutes..." That's the long and short of it right there.

[Endo]

That's only part of it, not the entirety. It has to be overengineered and intended to work. It can also provide comfort & convinence, but it must be able to work beyond it's capacity and last doing so.

Recently I looked in the manual to see how much my F-150 is rated to tow. A measely 2300 lbs. Oops: last summer with 130K on the clock I towed 5400 lbs 45-minutes, bringing my '40 Ford COE back to my house from my brother's. Many other times I have towed double the factory rating with no strain or struggle. That's a 'truck'.

[post="45599"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

My friend and I did something very similar once, towing his stalled 3500 lbs. Taurus 15 miles back into town with his '88 4-cylinder Toyota pickup.

What makes you think the Honda can't do the same? I imagine any truck can tow more than its limit, you just risk breaking things every time you do it.

[Sixty8panther]

Call me a skeptic but I doubt Honda actually over enginered the chassis/suspension/transmission/engine on this vehicle. I'd love to see some dumb prick tear a Ridgeline right in half trying to tow an Airstream uphill in Colorado.

[tmp]

Well. I haven't seen that many here in LA, but I am seeing a lot of commercials offering "special lease rates", which usually means one thing this early in the model year: flop sweat. When I finally wsaw one, I could see why it might not be setting the world on fire. It needs to be about 25% bigger to be a real truck, and about 25% smaller to appeal to people who don't want a real truck. Actually I was shocked- it managed to look too tall and yet too narrow at the same time. My friend (who is 5 foot nothing) for years had a Ford Ranger pick-up that she loved. We'd go to the garden center wiith it or Costco and she'd just drop the bags over the side and off we'd go. I (at 6'2") would have problems getting bags over the side of a Ridgeline.

[sciguy_0504]

That's only part of it, not the entirety. It has to be overengineered and intended to work. It can also provide comfort & convinence, but it must be able to work beyond it's capacity and last doing so.

Recently I looked in the manual to see how much my F-150 is rated to tow. A measely 2300 lbs. Oops: last summer with 130K on the clock I towed 5400 lbs 45-minutes, bringing my '40 Ford COE back to my house from my brother's. Many other times I have towed double the factory rating with no strain or struggle. That's a 'truck'.

[post="45599"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Many times trucks/SUVs are listed as being able to tow under a certain weight when not properly equipped (low number) and are able to tow under a certain weight when properly equipped (high number). You sure you didn't confuse the two?

[Sixty8panther]

I rode in Balthazar's truck last week when we hung out durring my road trip. Not to knock it but it's a Ford F150, 4.9 liter inline six and automatic trans... not exactly the kind of truck that is massively under rated. And if it IS, then think what a F350, powerstroke diesel Dooley can do?

[balthazar]

Tho I did not confuse tow package/non-tow package rates (my truck has no factory tow package), I did apparently misread the 9 owner's manual pages of towing capcities. Seems it's the manual trans version of my truck that is only rated to tow 2300 lbs, the auto trans is good for 4700, so my 5400 plus me was only 900 lbs over rated GCWR. Still, I would tackle just about anything without worries.

Honda in no way deserves the benefit of the doubt in the segment of trucks- they've never built any before. It'll take the better part of 20 years of competitive product before a major slice of the truck consumer even considers it as a viable choice.

[SDB1]

I don't want to convince anybody of anything. I bought my Ridgeline for my own reasons. The sad part is that it seems as though alot of you that hate the Ridgeline are saying that nobody should buy it because it can't carry 3 tons of bricks to the jobsite or it won't pull a 45ft 5th wheel. All of these arguments are utterly rediculous because they are things that 85% of the truck buying community will never do, even if they own a V8 4 wheel drive 2ton Dually behemoth! I know that of the 6 American Trucks that I've owned over the years I've never loaded anything larger than a Big Block Chevy Crate motor in the bed. I know the Honda would have no problem fulfilling this task if I should need it. The other argument is gas mileage. I for one never even looked at the gas mileage for the vehicle. All modern engines get similiar fuel mileage now days so 1 or 2 mpg isn't going to sway me one way or the other. If I was really that concerned with mileage I would have bought a hybrid! I bought the Ridgeline because it offered more utility than my Pilot and was cheaper than a Silverado 4wd Extra Cab LT by $6K. Not that price was the deciding factor either, I just like trying a new vehicle every year or two so that when I get into a forum like this I can speak from experience instead of ranting like a fool about something I know nothing about!

[Sixty8panther]

The sad part is that it seems as though alot of you that hate the Ridgeline are saying that nobody should buy it because it can't carry 3 tons of bricks to the jobsite or it won't pull a 45ft 5th wheel.

[post="45973"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

You're obviously not listening.... I can't speak for everyone else but here's my reasons:

- Huge compromise over typical 1/2 ton truck, but advantages in MPG are minimal

- Pathetic attempt at a "rugged" look: Gross exterior

- Hideous interior that look like a Transformer puked up a VCR on the dash.

- Retarded proportions, it tries way too hard to lok like an Avalanche

- Pathetic transverse mounted V6

- Front wheel biased AWD: obviously Honda is clueless about what makes a truck a truck

- "Trunk" where there shoulkd be an uninterupted bed

- Spare locked inside bed instead of accesible from under the bed

- Lack of a boxed or C-channel frame, no real hard anchor points like a real truck.





A prediction if you will:

The beds will all rot out die to the fact that dirt, sand etc. will get into the weatherstripping and cause leaks, then water will seep in soaking the spare and rusting it solid in its anchor point while the water sloshes around and rotts away the trunk.


If this truck was a Chevy or GMC or whatever I'd still say it is a huge stinking pile of Cow $hit. Edited November 21, 2005 by Sixty8panther

[The O.C.]

You're obviously not listening.... I can't speak for everyone else but here's my reasons:

- Huge compromise over typical 1/2 ton truck, but advantages in MPG are minimal

- Pathetic attempt at a "rugged" look: Gross exterior

- Hideous interior that look like a Transformer puked up a VCR on the dash.

- Retarded proportions, it tries way too hard to lok like an Avalanche

- Pathetic transverse mounted V6

- Front wheel biased AWD: obviously Honda is clueless about what makes a truck a truck

- "Trunk" where there shoulkd be an uninterupted bed

- Spare locked inside bed instead of accesible from under the bed

- Lack of a boxed or C-channel frame, no real hard anchor points like a real truck.
A prediction if you will:

The beds will all rot out die to the fact that dirt, sand etc. will get into the weatherstripping and cause leaks, then water will seep in soaking the spare and rusting it solid in its anchor point while the water sloshes around and rotts away the trunk.
If this truck was a Chevy or GMC or whatever I'd still say it is a huge stinking pile of Cow $hit.

[post="46033"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

IMHO, I think your arguments are ridiculous and smack of "Ridgeline/Honda-bashing, just because...." and have no basis in fact or logic.

"Compromise over a typical 1/2 ton truck?"
"Pathetic attempt at "rugged" look?"
"Hideous interior?"
"Retarded proportions?"

Those are critical comments from you based solely on YOUR opinion.....which you are allowed to have. However, the tone of your post seems like you are trying to spew them as "factual" criticisms of the new Ridgeline. Many would disagree with you on the above points.

"Pathetic V6?"

Have you EVER driven the Honda 3.5L V6 in the Pilot, MDX, or Ridgeline? I bet you haven't....it's a sweet motor, quiet, refined, with good power and a torque curve that feels like it's been nicely boosted on the low-end (compared to the 3.0L car-version.) In the C&D comparo (June '05), Ridgeline shot from 0-60mph in 7.9 seconds....that compares (C&D, Feb '04) to Silverado (8.8), Ram Hemi (8.0), F150 (9.3), Tundra (8.8) and the Titan (7.6) was the only one to beat it.

"Front-wheel biased AWD....Honda clueless as to what makes a truck a truck?"

Funny......I remember lots of people saying that 15 years ago about unibody SUVs......gee, let's look at how many unibody SUVs are out there of all sizes (from tiny RAV4 to BMW X5) compared to the number of BOF SUVs? Doesn't seem like the front-wheel-drive based SUVs have been hurt in the marketplace because of frame or drivetrain configuration....people still have no problem considering them all "SUVs."

As far as the beds rotting out and dying....don't make absurd claims about that kind of stuff unless you have engineering facts to support it. You are clueless if you don't think Honda looked into those sorts of issues before coming to market with this type of vehicle.

No matter what ANY of you say about the Ridgeline, none of your rants can take away the fact that it is a unique entry into the segment and is selling (incentives or not) close to Honda's original targeted production capacity.

AND....for the record? I DON'T like the looks of the Ridgeline at all.....and would never buy one. BUT, I don't let that cloud my interpretation of it's unique mission in life and its positioning in the segment.

[Sixty8panther]

Fuc#ing-A, this will go on forever. I'm done. Talk to me in 20 years when the Ridgeline is about as plentiful as a Subaru Brat is today.

[BrewSwillis]

The original Ridgeline:




:lol:

[Sixty8panther]

Wow, 53 Cadillacs and '67 Camaros look retarded all jacked up but this ElCamino looks awsome! :D

[Endo]

"Pathetic V6?" 

Have you EVER driven the Honda 3.5L V6 in the Pilot, MDX, or Ridgeline?  I bet you haven't....it's a sweet motor, quiet, refined, with good power and a torque curve that feels like it's been nicely boosted on the low-end (compared to the 3.0L car-version.)  In the C&D comparo (June '05), Ridgeline shot from 0-60mph in 7.9 seconds....that compares (C&D, Feb '04) to Silverado (8.8), Ram Hemi (8.0), F150 (9.3), Tundra (8.8) and the Titan (7.6) was the only one to beat it. 

[post="46087"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

But OC it's a V6... obviously it's inferior to a V8... it's 2 less ^_^

And mounting it sideways... what losers. All the other trucks will laugh at it for its transaxual orientation :lol: Edited November 21, 2005 by Endo

[The O.C.]

But OC it's a V6... obviously it's inferior to a V8... it's 2 less    ^_^ 

And mounting it sideways... what losers.  All the other trucks will laugh at it for its transaxual orientation  :lol:

[post="46177"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

There's no WAY that the Ridgeline could be a transaxual....most transaxuals know a little bit about GOOD fashion.....

:P

[SDB1]

You're obviously not listening.... I can't speak for everyone else but here's my reasons:

- Huge compromise over typical 1/2 ton truck, but advantages in MPG are minimal

- Pathetic attempt at a "rugged" look: Gross exterior

- Hideous interior that look like a Transformer puked up a VCR on the dash.

- Retarded proportions, it tries way too hard to lok like an Avalanche

- Pathetic transverse mounted V6

- Front wheel biased AWD: obviously Honda is clueless about what makes a truck a truck

- "Trunk" where there shoulkd be an uninterupted bed

- Spare locked inside bed instead of accesible from under the bed

- Lack of a boxed or C-channel frame, no real hard anchor points like a real truck.
A prediction if you will:

The beds will all rot out die to the fact that dirt, sand etc. will get into the weatherstripping and cause leaks, then water will seep in soaking the spare and rusting it solid in its anchor point while the water sloshes around and rotts away the trunk.
If this truck was a Chevy or GMC or whatever I'd still say it is a huge stinking pile of Cow $hit.

[post="46033"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

It is obvious from this post that this person is under the age of 16 therefore probably isn't driving yet and therefore can't really form any unbiased opinions in the first place.

By the way the bed is made of composite. It's not going to be rotting away any time soon!

[sciguy_0504]

The only good point Sixty8 made was the FWD-biased AWD. This is a huge mistake on Honda's part and hopefully they'll program the AWD system differently in a few years. OC, the X5 does not have FWD-biased AWD, I believe.

[siegen]

The only good point Sixty8 made was the FWD-biased AWD.  This is a huge mistake on Honda's part and hopefully they'll program the AWD system differently in a few years.

[post="46434"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

For a serious towing/hauling or off-roading vehicle, they shouldve made the system work a little differently. For mileage and average consumer driving skill, being in FWD the majority of the time while driving is a good thing (but still having realtime AWD if traction is an issue). Under 19mph I believe, you can push a button that locks the torque distribution to 70% rear, 30% front. Not sure exactly how that works though, obviously it's not very viable if you have to use it at every stop light :blink: . I think they should offer a button that keeps it at about 30/70 all the time (gotta love buttons) for extended towing through both city and highway.

[The O.C.]

The only good point Sixty8 made was the FWD-biased AWD.  This is a huge mistake on Honda's part and hopefully they'll program the AWD system differently in a few years.

OC, the X5 does not have FWD-biased AWD, I believe.

[post="46434"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

No, it doesn't....but I believe the majority of unibody/car-based SUVs are....

[BrewSwillis]

A guy at work really wanted to get a Ridgeline.........but then he went and looked at one last night. :lol: He said that blind spots were so bad, and the interior was so cheap looking that he decided against it. He ended up getting a used loaded Mercedes ML320, :huh: and says it feels as solid as a bank vault.

[Sixty8panther]

It is obvious from this post that this person is under the age of 16 therefore probably isn't driving yet and therefore can't really form any unbiased opinions in the first place.

By the way the bed is made of composite. It's not going to be rotting away any time soon!

[post="46378"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Listen you llittle F%$#ING Punk, I was Born in 1979, do the math. I have worked as a Salesman at several GM dealers and have driven all kinds of cars & trucks of every description. Hundreds of cars & trucks. I've owned dozens of beaters over the years but I've also driven some really fine semi-exotic cars that I'll never afford to buy.

You have 5 post on C&G, four of them being in THIS thread. Before you start attacking people get a lay of the land. You may be older than me but I've been around the block a few times. I've driven all this so called superior junk from Honda & Acura. The S2000, Civic Si, Acura RSX, they're all pretty unappealing to me. That's my opinion, don't try to put me down, this did nit get personal until you had to get involved.


And BTW: you mention in one of your posts how inferior GM's interiros are.... and how (and I quote)

On a side note I don't know why GM doesn't fire their entire interior design team. I have walked away from more GM cars that were otherwise superior mechanically just because of dated interiors. Heck thats where you spend most of your time, give us something nice to look at! The CTS is one of those otherwise perfect cars that is just ruined by the nasty interiors...

DId you even look at the Ridgeline's interiro before you bought it? Seriously? It's got to be one of the most gross interiros of MY 2005.

Anyway please don't make things personal. You don;t respect my oppinion? Great. Beat a dead horse but don't try to tell me I'm ignorant or a snot nosed brat.



http://www.cheersandgears.com/forums/index...sult_type=posts

[toyoguy]

There is a good reason why the Ridgeline is failing in the marketplace. If it wasn't so overpriced and ugly, it might have faired better.

[Sixty8panther]

This is a high quality interior? WTF is there 17 differetn shades of gray plastic? :huh:



Toyoguy: I like the new IS350 signature, make it bigger. :) Edited November 22, 2005 by Sixty8panther

[cmattson]

Not to beat a dead horse, but the interior on that truck features some of the lowest-quality, hard plastic surfaces I've ever seen. Makes the Colorado interior look luxurious. I can't believe that Honda can justify the pricetag they are seeking for that thing.

[Sixty8panther]

Cmattson: Don't forget the lacksedasical and apathetic layout that resembles an interior on a Koran car from the 1990s.

[Cory Wolfe]

This is a high quality interior? WTF is there 17 differetn shades of gray plastic? :huh:

[post="46819"][/post]

Really... the plastics in my POS 95 Grand Am match better than that (and no, it's not because it's all black; it's two-tone). The plastics may suck, quality-wise, but atleast they match better than that and the dash isn't ugly as hell. It's quite simplistic and driver oriented with the classic layout.

[sciguy_0504]

Perhaps Honda took their ideas from the GMT800's? :P Actually, I think the 800's look a lot better.

[CSpec]

It looks better when it's not in rediculously harsh light, but not great:

[Flybrian]

True. Honda knew from the get-go that this truck wasn't going to be used and abused like a real truck, so a luxurious interior would've been very appropriate and welcomed given the price tag. Unfortunately, it looks more Element than Accord, which is a huge mistake.

[siegen]

Well I'll tell you that interior looks a lot better than the interior on my Sierra. The interior is very cheap on the Sierra as well, but I wouldn't expect it to be nice looking considering its usage.

Funny how a picture can make or break a vehicle, literally. Anybody who photographs cars often knows never to use the flash!

The guys at TOV just posted a bunch of new Ridgeline pictures here. They haven't posted a video yet, but expect one to come soon. They also show the in bed trunk being used to its fullest! (I'll give you a hint, it starts with a b, ends with an r, and gets you drunk... oops I think I gave it away).

They also have a nice autoX video taken from the inside of the Ridgeline (these guys get to romp on pretty much any new vehicle Honda puts out). I'll look for it since it's in the archive, because it's pretty nice, and the engine sounds great at WOT.

[Cory Wolfe]

Funny how a picture can make or break a vehicle, literally.

Well, I've seen it in person and it doesn't much better than those pics. It still looks terrible unlike the Civic's which looks good in person, but not in pics. Anyways, it just seems as if they didn't try... Honda has the ability to make a much nicer interior than that. Why they didn't is beyond me...

Anybody who photographs cars often knows never to use the flash!

That isn't always possible, though. I can't turn the flash of my camera off.

[BrewSwillis]

The guys at TOV just posted a bunch of new Ridgeline pictures here. They haven't posted a video yet, but expect one to come soon. They also show the in bed trunk being used to its fullest! (I'll give you a hint, it starts with a b, ends with an r, and gets you drunk... oops I think I gave it away).

[post="47056"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Do those undercarriage and open wheel well pictures show the broken struts after all that "off-roading"?? :huh:

:P

[siegen]

Do those undercarriage and open wheel well pictures show the broken struts after all that "off-roading"??  :huh:

:P

[post="47095"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I'd hope not. I think that other Ridgeline that supposedly had 4 blown shocks (according to the Honda Stealership) after very "light" use by one magazine was a bit odd.

I found the AutoX video, it's at this article. It's the 3rd video down, "One Lap in the Ridgeline".

[balthazar]

That is an absolutely awful interior...

[cmattson]

Pictures can make the truck look better than it actually is. Seriously -- go find one and sit in one. I can virtually guarantee you won't think $35k when you see the interior (perhaps $3.5k, but I'd doubt even that). The interior of the GMT800's were designed to be rugged: they were designed with hard surfaces so that they can be scrubbed. They were designed so that you could operate the controls with work gloves on. That being said, there is NO excuse for the panel gaps. There is no excuse why a Suburban/Tahoe must have the same interior a Sierra/Silverado has either. At least GM can say that their design is 6/7 years old (& will be history in the next couple of months). What's Honda's excuse for the interior of this thing? There's no way that this interior is befitting a $35k+ vehicle.

[dumluk]

I think all you guys that compare this car to full size trucks are missing the point. Think Ford Exploder Sport-trac. It's the only comparable vehicle: just an SUV with an open bed in back. Obviously that car isn't expected to do what the F150 can do. And for the record, I don't drive a Honda, just an old beat-up S-10 PU.

[Sixty8panther]

That makes it that much more useless... if it competes wiht the Sport-track then why is it much more closer in size to an Avalanche?

[The O.C.]

That makes it that much more useless... if it competes wiht the Sport-track then why is it much more closer in size to an Avalanche?

[post="50065"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Why do we have compact/midsize pickups and fullsize pickups?

Because some people might want a Sport Trac-type vehicle that's quite a bit larger...and Ridgeline gives that to them.