quote:

Originally posted by ridewv:

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by NavyGuy:
Reading some of recent mid sized truck reviews, the top three were Ridgeline, Colorado followed by the Tacoma. Several reviewers gave the Tacoma lower marks because..... it's more like a truck! So that put me over the top and I bought a new Tacoma.

I like the Ridgeline (actually test drove it some time back and loved the ride quality) but it is not a truck in the basic sense of what a truck is. It is however a very good compromise for people who don't actually want a truck, but want some of a truck's utility.

I suggest anyone in the market for a midsize truck (who isn't interested in rock crawling and serious off-roading their new $35k+ vehicle) at least look at and drive a Ridgeline. And this coming from one who always felt a pickup should have low range and manual transmission.

For 13 years my truck had been an 04 Tundra 4x4, access cab 6'bed, V6, manual. When it came time to replace it the obvious choice was a Tacoma which is about the same size as the old Tundra which is as large a vehicle as I would go. In a nutshell it came to "why buy off-roadability which I'd very seldom use at the expense of ride quality, handling, and comfort which I appreciate every time I drive"? In my case the Ridgeline just made more sense. Also compared to a Tacoma or Ranger double cab it has a much wider bed as well as slightly longer so (with tailgate down) 4x8 material lays right on the floor which can't be done in any other midsize truck to my knowledge. And this truck handles like a sport sedan!

In all honesty I'm not missing the manual transmission at all. The 6-speed auto shifts so smoothly I can barely detect when it shifts and it's always in the right gear. Over the last 30 years manual transmissions have improved slightly while good automatics have improved on an order of magnitude, excepting the problematic ZF 9-speed auto which is a mess.

The mid size truck market looks have evolved to;
Tacoma and Jeep's new Wangler pick-up: focused on off-roadability.
GM Canyon/Colorado and Ranger: a little less emphasis on off-road and more on comfort.
Ridgeline: focus on ride, handling, comfort, quiet, best on-road traction in all weather, storage functionality.

I would argue that the ZR2 Colorado is THE offroad champ and the Taco is a distant second.

quote:

Originally posted by smlsig:



I would argue that the ZR2 Colorado is THE offroad champ and the Taco is a distant second.

Yes the ZR2 version does muddy my categorization a little (at the expense of mpg though), but comparing the rest of the GM and Tacoma lineups top to bottom I think as a whole Tacomas have better ground clearance, approach, and departure.
Of course if you really want to go off road get a Wrangler or better yet a side by side or ATV.

quote:

Originally posted by ridewv:
And this truck handles like a sport sedan!

Because its not far removed from actually being a sedan. Again, I like the vehicle for exactly what it 'is', a crossover with a small bed on the back, not a truck. The entire body is unibody, just like the last Ridgeline, with a perpendicular accent line along the side to give the illusion of a separate bed. That's designers paying attenion to what buyers see and want when they walk up to a new vehicle that calls itself a truck.

Ultimately, for anyone who doesn't really want a truck, but likes the idea of maintaining a bit of the utility a truck provides while offering a car like ride and comfort, the Ridgeline is hard to beat.

quote:

Originally posted by smlsig:
I would argue that the ZR2 Colorado is THE offroad champ and the Taco is a distant second.

I suspect the new Ranger FX4 may upset that order when all three eventually are tested against each other. The foreign born Ranger is quite adept off road, so I'd expect the new US Ranger to maintain that pedigree. At any rate, it will be fun reading/watching the head-to-head comparisons.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

...Ultimately, for anyone who doesn't really want a truck, but likes the idea of maintaining a bit of the utility a truck provides while offering a car like ride and comfort, the Ridgeline is hard to beat.

"a bit of the utility of a truck" ....maybe but I'll call it closer just so people aren't misled that "Ridgeline has a little bit of truck functionality and it's really closer to a sedan than a truck". In reality I have found it close to the same utility as my 4wd Tundra other than the Tundra's short cab had a 12" longer bed. And it's a truck when compared to its 4wd double cab mid size competition. Compared to the leader Tacoma, Ridgeline bed size is larger (can't lay 4'x8'panels in a Tacoma) and they have basically the same payload capacity. Ridgeline can't tow quite as much, 5,000 vs 6,500 pounds. But it can carry much more volume in the back seat area not to mention the huge in bed trunk

So if a truck is defined by how much it can carry get the Ridgeline. Ride, handling, acceleration, front and rear seat comfort, better traction in rain, snow, and on dirt roads, better mpg, are all bonuses.

But if you need the extra 1,500# towing capacity, extra ground clearance, and rock crawling get a Tacoma.

Some MPG numbers for the new Ford Ranger.

quote:

2019 Ford Ranger fuel economy officially announced

We got a sneak peak at 2019 Ford Ranger fuel economy last month when a Monroney window sticker was spotted by a forum user. But now we have the official numbers, including those for four-wheel-drive Rangers, which the forum user hadn't caught. The two-wheel-drive Ranger numbers are the same as in the leak, with 21 mpg in the city, 26 on the highway and 23 in combined driving. The four-wheel-drive models drop to 20 mpg in the city, 24 in highway driving, and 22 combined.

Since the Ford Ranger is only available with a 10-speed automatic mated to the turbocharged 2.3-liter four-cylinder with 270 horsepower and 310 pound-feet of torque, it's most comparable with body-on-frame automatic V6 trucks from the competition. Against these trucks, the Ranger edges them all out: Colorado, Canyon, Tacoma and Frontier. The two-wheel-drive Colorado and Tacoma are roughly tied for next best fuel economy. The Colorado gets 18 mpg in the city, 25 on the highway and 20 combined. The Tacoma gets 19 in the in the city, 24 on the highway and 21 combined. Adding four-wheel-drive reduces the Colorado V6's fuel economy by 1 mpg in each category. The same happens with the Tacoma's city and combined fuel economy, while highway mileage drops by 2 mpg.

Also impressive is that the Ranger outperforms the four-cylinder versions of the aforementioned pickups. The two-wheel-drive Chevy Colorado is the most efficient four-cylinder offering, and it manages 20 mpg in the city, 26 on the highway, and 22 in combined driving. However, for maximum fuel economy in the small truck segment, you have to go with the diesel Colorado, which with two-wheel-drive yields 20 mpg in the city, but an impressive 30 mpg on the highway and 23 mpg combined. Adding four-wheel-drive brings it down to 19 city, 28 highway and 22 combined.

https://www.autoblog.com/2018/...omy-mileage-ratings/

quote:

Not some ridiculous 10 speed automatic.

I have the 10 speed auto in my 2018 F150 and it is far and away the best transmission I have ever owned.

I've had manuals, I've had a Titan with the 5 speed auto, a 2010 F150 with the 6 speed and now this one with the 10er.

There is no comparison. It never hunts for a gear, it pulls like hell no matter the speed you are going, it is absolutely smooth; almost undetectable shifts unless you are deep in the throttle, and I get 18+ MPG in mixed, around town driving with the 5.0 Coyote motor and 4x4 package.

After driving this trans, I would not go back to a manual. Autos have now eclipsed manuals in performance.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by Black92LX:

Just give me a stripped down, non-driver assisted, lever activated 4x4, truck with a manual that does not cost 30k.

Bingo! That's what I'm interested in. Not some ridiculous 10 speed automatic.

That was always my stance, until recent hip / knee problems made it uncomfortable to use a clutch. Now I prefer automatic. Thankfully, modern automatics have come a long way in terms of efficiency and reliability.

If I did not have physical limitations I would still prefer a manual.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by ridewv:
And this truck handles like a sport sedan!

Because its not far removed from actually being a sedan. Again, I like the vehicle for exactly what it 'is', a crossover with a small bed on the back, not a truck. The entire body is unibody, just like the last Ridgeline, with a perpendicular accent line along the side to give the illusion of a separate bed. That's designers paying attenion to what buyers see and want when they walk up to a new vehicle that calls itself a truck.

Ultimately, for anyone who doesn't really want a truck, but likes the idea of maintaining a bit of the utility a truck provides while offering a car like ride and comfort, the Ridgeline is hard to beat.

Unibody is much safer in a collision than a ladder frame. Unibody also means better handling. Ridgeline tows 5k, 1500 lb payload iirc. Those numbers fall in line with the rest of the compacts with some compacts able to tow a bit more. Unibody vs. ladder frame as it pertains to compacts is only as relevant as you want it to be or don’t.

The Ridgeline has a sophisticated awd system with real torque vectoring in the rear. It handles better on pavement than any truck on the market, full size or compact. Dry, rain, snow, whatever, it handles on pavement better than any other truck made. He says it handles like a sports sedan because it doesn’t handle like a pig. It will actually oversteer (vs. understeer) and the awd system detects slip in milliseconds and redirect power to another wheel instantly. Together with the unibody makes it not only the best handling pickup, but one of the safest vehicles on the road.

The Ridgeline is for folks who don’t need large towing capacity. Towing recreational boats, recreational vehicles, etc. This is like 90+% of owners. Most don’t tow anything, and those that do, are usually less than 5k loads. So I think Ridgeline is made for reality whereas so many pickups are bought for capacity or things the owner will never ever do. It’s made for people who know they aren’t going to rock crawl or tow 7,500, 10,000 lbs, etc. So we actually have a realistic choice without the overhead (weight) and poor handling.

I owned the first gen and will own this newer 2nd gen soon. I’ve driven almost every truck out there, compact and full size. The Ridgeline is very much a truck, just not the conventional or traditional one. Honda made a truck for most owners, and a truck for what you’ll actually use it for instead of what you won’t. And it’s built in the USA.

quote:

Originally posted by ridewv:

quote:

Originally posted by smlsig:



I would argue that the ZR2 Colorado is THE offroad champ and the Taco is a distant second.

Yes the ZR2 version does muddy my categorization a little (at the expense of mpg though), but comparing the rest of the GM and Tacoma lineups top to bottom I think as a whole Tacomas have better ground clearance, approach, and departure.
Of course if you really want to go off road get a Wrangler or better yet a side by side or ATV.

The original comparison between the ZR2 was with a Tacoma sport, not the Pro so apples to oranges. Subsequent Apple to Apple comparisons the Pro does better (except when the diesel is involved) I will admit I’m extremely biased since I own a Pro, when I looked at the ZR2 it gave the impression it was just cheaply made with all flimsy olastic

I’m interested to see what the “mini raptor” brings to the table after its released

quote:

Originally posted by smlsig:



I would argue that the ZR2 Colorado is THE offroad champ and the Taco is a distant second.

In my experience it was the other way around. The TRD Pro walks the ZR2 6 ways from Sunday up on the serious trails.

The Tow/Haul, Sport button on my shift lever nicely addressed the lugging issues in my F-150. In Sport It simply won’t select 6th until you exceed 60 mph. Around town it’s very aggressive giving one lots of acceleration in addition to engine braking.

I’ve put in 15 years of metro delivery in class 8 trucks shifting gears. The last 7 have been in auto trans ( not really auto trans but auto shift ) I was very hesitant at first control of vehicle concerns and assault on my manliness and ability. In the end I just don’t care, I’m past my control issues. I drive in a manner that still puts me in control of how the tranny shifts.

If Ford has any problems selling every single unit they produce I’ll be stunned. That’s why they don’t care about you as an individual they must sell to the larger market. They’ll hang everything they can think of on that truck so long as it sells.

quote:

Originally posted by ridewv:

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

...Ultimately, for anyone who doesn't really want a truck, but likes the idea of maintaining a bit of the utility a truck provides while offering a car like ride and comfort, the Ridgeline is hard to beat.

"a bit of the utility of a truck" ....maybe but I'll call it closer just so people aren't misled that "Ridgeline has a little bit of truck functionality and it's really closer to a sedan than a truck". In reality I have found it close to the same utility as my 4wd Tundra other than the Tundra's short cab had a 12" longer bed. And it's a truck when compared to its 4wd double cab mid size competition. Compared to the leader Tacoma, Ridgeline bed size is larger (can't lay 4'x8'panels in a Tacoma) and they have basically the same payload capacity. Ridgeline can't tow quite as much, 5,000 vs 6,500 pounds. But it can carry much more volume in the back seat area not to mention the huge in bed trunk

So if a truck is defined by how much it can carry get the Ridgeline. Ride, handling, acceleration, front and rear seat comfort, better traction in rain, snow, and on dirt roads, better mpg, are all bonuses.

But if you need the extra 1,500# towing capacity, extra ground clearance, and rock crawling get a Tacoma.

Or sit on your hands (and cash) for a while and wait and see what the Ranger brings to the table.

Again, I'm not dissing the Ridgeline as it is a unique, capable, vehicle, but its not a 'truck' in the sense of what trucks have always been. Regardless the specs, I hung a 4x8 U-Haul trainer off the back of my wife's Honda Pilot (very similar platform to the Ridgeline) and with a very light load in it (maybe 1k pounds total), the performance and fuel economy was dismal to put it mildly. Again, the Ridgeline most certainly has its place in the utility vehicle ecosystem, but I will never view it as a truck.

quote:

Originally posted by Prefontaine:
Ridgeline tows 5k, 1500 lb payload iirc.
Those numbers fall in line with the rest of the compacts with some compacts able to tow a bit more.

That's what its spec'd to tow/haul, but I assure you, hang 5k off the back and you'll hate life until you can get that weight removed. Real world versus spec's are very different.

quote:

The Ridgeline has a sophisticated awd system with real torque vectoring in the rear. It handles better on pavement than any truck on the market, full size or compact.

Because...its not a truck in the standard sense of what a truck is.

quote:

The Ridgeline is very much a truck, just not the conventional or traditional one. Honda made a truck for most owners, and a truck for what you’ll actually use it for instead of what you won’t. And it’s built in the USA.

And yet I believe that to be the biggest weakness in the sales efforts for this 'vehicle'. It shouldn't be marketed as a truck, because it isn't a truck in most potential buyers minds. It is however exactly what you noted it is in your post. It fits the needs of a huge majority of the folks who would otherwise buy a traditional truck. I wish Honda would market it as an evolution of what small trucks 'used' to be, and highlight its advantages to that 90% of the population who don't really need a truck. Its no more appropriate to compare the superior ride and handling of the Ridgeline to a 1/2 ton truck than it is to compare the towing and hauling capabilities of that 1/2 ton truck to the Ridgeline's capabilities.

quote:

Originally posted by reflex/deflex 64:
If Ford has any problems selling every single unit they produce I’ll be stunned. That’s why they don’t care about you as an individual they must sell to the larger market. They’ll hang everything they can think of on that truck so long as it sells.

You my be right but I hope you are aware that the Ranger selling in huge numbers likely scares the hell out of Ford. Doing so could very well cannibalize F150 sales which would be catastrophic overall to Ford. IMO, that is the reason Ford has drug its feet for so long in bringing the Ranger back to the US. It will be very interesting to see how this whole thing roles out across the next year or two.

I my 17yo son is drooling over the ranger. We'll see. I hope it performs well.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
That’s what its spec'd to tow/haul, but I assure you, hang 5k off the back and you'll hate life until you can get that weight removed. Real world versus spec's are very different.

Max out the specs on any truck and it sucks. Max out the payload or towing on most and it’ll suck. That’s a silly argument.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
Because...its not a truck in the standard sense of what a truck is.

??? Man I heard all this same bullshit in 2006 when I bought my first one. So by your definition, it HAS to be a ladder frame to be a truck? If so butt hurt is coming because you’ve got the big 3 coming with new unibody truck offerings soon. They see the benefits of the chassis construction.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
And yet I believe that to be the biggest weakness in the sales efforts for this 'vehicle'. It shouldn't be marketed as a truck, because it isn't a truck in most potential buyers minds. It is however exactly what you noted it is in your post. It fits the needs of a huge majority of the folks who would otherwise buy a traditional truck. I wish Honda would market it as an evolution of what small trucks 'used' to be, and highlight its advantages to that 90% of the population who don't really need a truck. Its no more appropriate to compare the superior ride and handling of the Ridgeline to a 1/2 ton truck than it is to compare the towing and hauling capabilities of that 1/2 ton truck to the Ridgeline's capabilities.

So wrong. It is a truck in most potential buyers minds. They use it as a truck. They load the bed, they tow light loads. That’s a truck. Where I live I see full size trucks all the time, many with lift kits and 33’s. They aren’t towing dick, nothing in the bed, not a spec of dirt on them. So you’re buying something you’ll never use as intended? Well I don’t spend my money that way but many do. The Ridgeline is a truck for reality not fiction or imaginary crap you see in an advertisement. The people who are buying it or already own it is because of the way it handles and the ride it offers. Instead of buying specs they don’t need they are buying the specs that matter to them. 4 door cab, bed, towing ability, payload ability, check, check, check, check. Plenty of converts too, usually a test drive, and signature after.

It isn’t appropriate to compare the superior ride and handling? Why not? Joe Customer is going to drive it to work and use it as a daily driver and commuter first and foremost. In that capacity, the Ridgeline handles and rides better. Joe Customer is going to make HD runs, pick up furniture, mulch, garden crap, Ridgeline will do that as well as full size and yet it’s easier to park. In fact for 90% of what people actually do with a pick up, the Ridgeline will do it better. I don’t think owners or potential owners are under any delusion that they can tow a 10k lb tractor with it. The Ridgeline is a truck, sorry. It’s a truck made for most folks’ reality. The big 3 make full size pickups and market them constantly. Your big bad ass truck that will tow 10k lbs, drive up a dirt road on a mountain, none of which they’ll actually do. That’s marketing man. Many people can think and apply reality to their uses. The Ridgeline is called the thinking man’s truck for a reason.

Plenty of people need a full size truck to tow heavy loads, use it as a work truck, have real need for it. At least here, most don’t however. It’s their “car”. They never tow anything, they rarely load the bed with anything substantial. In that role, why not get something that murders it in handling and ride? I have a guy at work that spouted the same things you are. He drives a F250 diesel. We go to the local Honda dealer on a lunch break and go test drive it. I take an underpass at a high rate of speed to demonstrate the handling. Truck took it in stride with little effort. He tells me his truck would have flipped over. His need for a F250 diesel? Towing a small bass boat. He even admitted that the truck was bought more for image than reality. And he also admitted that most people are like him. They buy way more truck than anything they will realistically use it for. Honda realized this, and made a truck for realistic use. And it’s selling.

I own a Ford performance vehicle so Ford has offered me a test drive this Saturday on this new Ranger. It has the same block and motor (my car has a different head) as my car so I’m excited to drive the 2.3L turbo in it and see how it compares. I’m getting to drive it before most press. I’ll give it a chance but 99% sure I’ll buy the Honda anyway because of the chassis and drivetrain. I drove the 2.7 and 3.5 TT’s last year, new Raptor this year, ZR2 diesel this year. I really like my friend’s new GMC V8 4X4 since it has an auto mode for the drivetrain which makes it act like AWD but it doesn’t handle pavement nearly as well as the Ridgeline.

I'll bet the FX will scare the hell out of 50k.

quote:

Originally posted by Micropterus:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by Black92LX:

Just give me a stripped down, non-driver assisted, lever activated 4x4, truck with a manual that does not cost 30k.

Bingo! That's what I'm interested in. Not some ridiculous 10 speed automatic.

+1

A 10 speed? Seriously?

As everyone else said EPA. But I have the 10 speed in a new expedition eco boost. it is a GREAT transmission, it shifts instantly and the shifts are seamless, you don't even feel them and are always in the powerband accelerating. No negatives (except maybe rebuild price).

quote:

Originally posted by Ryanp225:

quote:

Originally posted by smlsig:



I would argue that the ZR2 Colorado is THE offroad champ and the Taco is a distant second.

In my experience it was the other way around. The TRD Pro walks the ZR2 6 ways from Sunday up on the serious trails.

You need to get off the gravel roads and really get out there then ;-).

Things that are much better on the ZR2 include:

1. Disc brakes in the rear

2. Much better crawl control. The taco is much too jerky.

3. A front locking diff.

Of course Toyota doesn't offer a diesel which has the best range of any midrange off-road vehicle...