Since then I’ve met my future wife, gotten married, moved to a new city, had two kids, and three different jobs — and when I walked into the Mazda dealership a few weeks ago to look at a new car, lo and behold, there was the Mazda B-series. It was like reaching into a pocket of a brand new jacket from a store and pulling out one of my old business cards from the last century.

And the best part is, I didn’t even buy mine in the first few years of production — I bought it in 1998.

jmhm2003: Believe it or not, Ridgelines aren’t very common in Texas. Sometimes I go for weeks without seeing one. It must have to do with our bountiful real estate and Honda’s $27k asking price.

It is the most sensible pickup for this day and age. If you actually need a bigger truck for work then buy American, but if you want a truck that does everything well then buy the Ridgeline.

Yes $8888 with 5 speed and a/c. Good basic transportation that none of the imports can come close to in value.

MG Kelly you could probably find a 1995 Silverado for that price down here.

I own a 91 Ford Ranger with 181k on it, and I can’t kill the damn thing!

As for the B4000 (and Ranger twin), it seems that they’re not so great as cars, but as basic tools, they’re pretty decent. It’d be nice to know that Ford had something planned, an eventual redesign or something, but at the same time, they’re still competent as trucks.

Syke
Deranged Few M/C

I second the 3 spoke thing – they just look wrong to me.

Make that Double Yuck.

And to the gentleman that called me effeminate and metrosexual… you’re off the mark.

Regardless — these seats feel like wood covered in egg-foam. In other words, awful. Imagine a bench seat with the middle part chopped out.

Leslie — I’ve never talked to anyone with a bad thing to say about the Ridgeline after they’ve driven it. Except for the looks.

3 spoke wheels were long a well-executed design element on Saabs. They climaxed with the 17″ “klingon” wheels that were standard on 2000-2001 9-5 Aeros.

http://saab.jie-net.com/Misc/9-5/aero_wallpaper_2_1024.jpg

Oddly, my ‘94 Toyota has a mere 130-odd HP 4-cylinder, and can easily get to 90 on the freeway, if I’m not watching how fast I go. 80 is nothing, unless it’s fully loaded and going uphill.

Perhaps the extra 300-some pounds of the Mazda somehow counteract the extra 70hp and 2 cylinders, so that unlike a 12 year older Toyota it can’t manage to easily hit 80?

(Or, more accurately, perhaps it can easily exceed 80 mph, and this is more than usual hyperbole from our reviewer?)

On the Ridgeline, I will never, ever buy one, but that’s mostly because I need a bare minimum 6 foot bed and the ability to take a completely enclosing canopy. I’m already drooling over the idea of Toyota finally making a truck with an 8′ bed and an extended cab, for when I eventually retire my current truck. (Which will happen when it falls to pieces under me, most likely.)

The Ranger is a strong value proposition, and fleet buyers might object to paying $1k-3k more for a similar Taco. I think that is changing rapidly, however.

As for the retail buyer, the Tacoma offers more of everything, and that seems to be what moves product. I see plenty of these new Tacos, the freshened (ha-ha) Ranger front end is not a common sight on the road these days.

Sajeev,

I’d argue that a Toyota/Ford comparison actually makes my point:

According to Edmunds:

Ranger 2wd, extended cab, 4cyl, 5m

$16200

Tacoma 2wd extended cab, 4cyl, 5m

$17520

Which is pretty close in price, although it doesn’t include the fact that Ford is likely to give out hefty discounts while Toyotas often sell at MSRP (or over due to not having many stripped-down models on the showroom.)

But when you get to the 4wd models (preferred in many parts of the country where people swear by their trucks), the difference is more dramatic: You can get a basic Ranger, 4×4, with the 4.0l v-6 and a 5 speed for $19070 (and, again, at a dealer you could probably expect a discount off that) while the equivilent Toyota will set you back $21355 and at least at my local dealers, your chances of finding a 4×4 Tacoma with a sticker under $25,000 are about zero.

IOW, in real-world terms, there’s a $3000-$5000 difference in price between the two and while some might argue that Toyota’s superior engineering makes it worth it, it’s a huge obstacle to the typical truck buyer, whether he’s buying for himself or a fleet.

My (highly informal) observations indicate that the Ranger is a pretty popular platform for small businesses. I certainly see quite a few of them in business livery all over the place. I see very few of the newer Tacomas (although the old, mid-80’s Toyotas are still a fairly common sight as business vehicles.)

I get the impression that Toyota and Nissan consider their trucks to be “lifestyle” or “recreational” trucks first (especially the 4×4s) and so the dealers tend to order the models with every bell and whistle you can imagine. I glanced at a line of crew-cab 4×4 trucks at my local Toyota dealer and the lowest sticker was around $28k. They had everything: Off-road package, towing package, power package, leather seats, etc. OTOH, the local Ford dealers will typically have quite a few base, or close to base-model Rangers on the lot for under $20k (which is still too expensive, IMO but it’s a start.)

Like a lot of “truck people”, I don’t mind the tarted-up toys that have everything, I just wish they’d still leave a few of the stripped down versions for those of us on a budget. “Compact” trucks are getting bigger and bigger, and more and more expensive. Sooner or later, some enterprising auto maker is going to realize there’s a huge market out there that is not being served.

Maybe in this crowd, $10,000 is no big deal, but I’d save the dough and get a real truck that can do some work and will run for years and years.

Is it just me, or are automobile reviewers getting more and more effeminate anymore? Oooh – the car’s seat doesn’t caress my butt the way it should, and is not heated, nor adjustable 17 ways.

In essense, the Ridgeline target market – metrosexuals.

Not really, Martin. The Tacoma has all the wholesome trucky engineering most buyers want, but has a fresh (if bizarre) style and technical updates the Ranger lacks. It gives the best of both worlds.

I’ll admit that living in Houston isn’t the real world either (urban sprawl with no decent mass transportation) but the small fleet truck of choice seems to be the Tacoma regular cab these days. I see a few Ridgelines here and there, but its a lousy value in the truck market compared to the Tacoma, which covers all bases better than the Ranger.

Regarding the Ridgeline – I’ve seen an increasing number in my neck of the woods (Vancouver) and the look is actually growing on me. Maybe in another year I’ll actually like it. One design issue I find particularly odd is how the top of the tailgate is not even with the sides of the bed. My guess is that they wanted to avoid an excessive reach over the tailgate when lowered. It looks bad, though.

As ugly as the Avalanche is (and I agree it’s homely) I have to admire the ingenuity of the disappearing midgate and fold-flat seats. I only wish Subaru had used the same idea when they came up with the Baja but instead they have the teeny little “switch back” hatch that supposedly allows for longer cargo.

But this gets me to the point I really wanted to make which is that on the one hand we have people like Jonny and others saying “This thing is in serious need of some ‘updating!’” and on the other hand we have people like Mikey and me saying “what the US needs now is a good, basic, affordable, economical small truck.” Those goals are, to some extent, mutually exclusive. Updating every couple of years (the way car lines are done) would significantly add to the price of trucks without truly adding to their utility.

I think the cultural difference between “car people” and “truck people” is that “car people” are likely to think “why not add an extra feature if it adds performance/convenience/looks?” while “truck people” are more likely to think “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”