By on January 11, 2016

2017 Honda Ridgeline - EMBARGO til 1.11.16

Few segments are as hot as mid-sized trucks right now, and the 2017 Honda Ridgeline couldn’t come at a better time for Honda. After a two-year hiatus, Honda is propping up its new truck on a massive stage to sway mid-size buyers unfazed by the new General Motors twin midsized pickups, or Toyota’s new Tacoma, or Ford’s coming Ranger, or … you get the idea.

The truck, which is likely powered by a 3.5-liter VTEC V-6 mill borrowed from the Pilot, capitalizes on the same truck-like looks plunked on a unibody chassis that the made the last generation profitable — albeit a bit of a slow seller compared to others in the segment. For the first time, the Ridgeline will be available with front-wheel drive, and all-wheel drive models will get Honda’s i-VTM4 torque vectoring tech — contrary to what we heard last year.

Like the Pilot, the Ridgeline will have six forward cogs — the last generation only had a five-speed automatic transmission — likely in a bid to improve upon the last truck’s 16/21 mpg rating. (The Pilot manages 18/26 mpg, if you’re wondering.)

The Ridgeline’s distinctive body lines are gone this time around, eschewing cladding between the cab and bed of the prior truck for a boxier look. The 2017 Ridgeline’s bed is more than 5 inches wider and 4 inches longer than the outgoing truck, big enough to lay flat 4-foot wide plywood or drywall, according to Honda.

Honda didn’t divulge many details about the new Ridgeline including horsepower and payload capacity, other than to say the latter would be close to 1,600 pounds — similar to others within the class, including the Tacoma. The Pilot’s V-6 makes 280 horsepower and 262 pound-feet of torque, so it’s reasonable to expect something similar in the Ridgeline. It would be reasonable to assume that the 3,500 pound tow rating will carry over to the Ridgeline as well.

Apparently, Honda anticipates that many Ridgeline buyers will party in parking lots with their trucks. The Ridgeline sports a 400-watt power inverter in the bed, an in-bed lockable trunk and in-bed audio pumped through six speaker-like “exciters.” Honda said the Ridgeline’s tailgate opens from the bottom or its left hinge for easier loading.

The Ridgeline will go on sale later this year.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

191 Comments on “NAIAS 2016: 2017 Honda Ridgeline is Your Party Truck Right Cha...”


  • avatar
    caltemus

    This beats out the Hyundai Santa Cruz in my book. I’m curious how this would stack up against a Cherokee Trailhwak off-road. Glad they dropped the frankenstein pilot-avalanche look of the last gen.

  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    “an in-bed lockable trunk and in-bed audio pumped through six speaker-like “exciters.””

    Are we in 2006? Do the people who didn’t get an H2 SUT need an alternative? The Ridgeline is bought solely by old people who haz a sad when they see a 2wd Tacoma without a cap on it.

    Also, I realize it’s not good for hauling or anything, but the Ridgeline always seemed a bit larger than the Colorado/Canyon class. Maybe that was just all the cladding?

    I couldn’t get over the interior of the prior Ridgeline, nor the sub-par fuel economy for what it was. Honda tends to make their interesting looking vehicles have terrible fuel economy (Ridgeline, Element, ZDX/Crosstour).

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      The first-gen Colorado/Canyon was the last compact pickup, while the Ridgeline has always been mid-size. So yes, it was bigger at the time.

      • 0 avatar
        CoreyDL

        I meant the current Colorado! ha

        • 0 avatar
          Drzhivago138

          Well, now that you mention it, yeah, it still does look bigger than the new C/C twins. It’s definitely wider. I mean, assuming the new Ridgeline is the same width as the new Pilot (78.6″), that’s full-size width right there. And in my experience, width contributes the most to how big a vehicle feels on the road.

          • 0 avatar
            davefromcalgary

            Agreed, it always did/still does look bigger than the midsize.

            If thats as a result of width, thats great. The Canyon feels small.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        The first-gen C-twins were true mid-sized trucks like the Frontier and Tacoma, even then the Ridgeline was larger and now it’s grown to upper-mid to lower-full-sized proportions as clearly demonstrated by having 49″ between the wheel wells. This thing simply will not compete with rigs like the Santa Cruz as it is far, far larger in nearly every dimension and will likely challenge even the current C-twins as to which is larger and by how much.

        People who want a true compact truck (and you’d be surprised how many there really are) will not be looking at the Ridgeline.

    • 0 avatar

      “The Ridgeline is bought solely by old people who haz a sad when they see a 2wd Tacoma without a cap on it.”

      Someone is staring at me through my office’s glass wondering why I’m LULzing so much.

    • 0 avatar
      tresmonos

      LOL

      Capability of an Accord, with a tow hitch mounted cooler tray, that has the fuel economy of a F150.

      • 0 avatar
        bball40dtw

        Hahahahaha

      • 0 avatar
        bumpy ii

        This one fits in a garage, unlike the F150 which is the garage.

        • 0 avatar
          tresmonos

          The garage queen can’t do anything that I bought my truck to do. I willingly call the trucksters of the early 80’s trucks (Chevy Luv, etc). This just isn’t a truck. There is nothing utilitarian about it. It embodies everything that differentiates modern trucks versus trucks of the 80’s: refinement in ride and handling. Minus any semblance of capability.

          If the truck can’t tow or haul anything in the bed, give it a remarkably compact size and have it be efficient. This had the mid size truck bloat without any of the guts. It’s utterly useless. It’s the truck I see every mid forties male that has given up on owning a boat or RV who tailgates at SEC games with their kid’s college on little flag things that get pinched in between the glass and window flock. The most it will ever haul is a over priced YETI cooler with a goddamned pop up tent and mini weber grill. Heaven forbid we get the RX350’s rear cargo area greasy.

          It’s a CUV without the passenger utility. It’s more sacrilegious than the FWD Explorer (Give me a Flex any day of the week). These gutless compromised filled vehicles with terrible fuel economy is what is wrong with America: we want to feel like we are working and playing hard when the truth of the matter is we are not.

          F*ck this POS bloated inefficient Accord with a bed off the face of the planet.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            Shh, shh. It’ll be okay.

          • 0 avatar
            CJinSD

            It’s got double the payload of a 13 MPG Hemi Ram 1500 that Car and Driver tested. It can’t tow as much, but towing the rated capacity of the Ram would have meant eschewing a second passenger or having less than optimal trailer balance to keep weight off the hitch.

            Until recently I spent some of my time driving a doublecab Tundra with an 8-foot bed. This truck could do most of what I used the Tundra for while being infinitely easier to park. Some of Honda’s new products leave me cold, but I’d consider a Ridgeline. If the new Pilot is anything to go by, this one will get class-leading mileage too.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            “This had the mid size truck bloat without any of the guts. It’s utterly useless.”

            I know quite a few Ridgeline owners who will argue that with you; they consider it a far better utility vehicle than any full-sized pickup simply because of the inventive use of space and superior fuel economy compared to its full-sized peers. True, they may not have been the most popular rig on the road, but those who bought one on average would not move up to a full-sized truck even with $10K incentives on them.

          • 0 avatar
            George B

            tresmonos, the Ridgeline is a car-based open-bed utility vehicle for people who hate the way traditional trucks drive, but want a separate cargo area that you can clean with a garden hose. It can’t compete with traditional trucks because it’s not a truck. On the other hand, it’s well suited to hauling the stuff a suburban home owner would buy at Home Depot.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            The “bloated inefficient Accord” is closer to a Honda Pilot than an Accord.

            Honda is not going to spend a billion bucks to create a body-on-frame truck when there is already so much competition for a limited market. (It’s not as if anyone outside of North America would possibly be interested.) In this particular case, it’s smarter and cheap to spend far less to develop a niche vehicle that amortizes costs for other models.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            “If the truck can’t tow or haul anything in the bed”

            It can haul as much in the bed as anything else in the segment, and tow as much as anything except the trucks that are specifically kitted for towing.

            Anyone familiar with overseas compact work trucks and vans doesn’t suffer the jerky knee just because something is transverse-engined and unibody.

            It’s too big for my taste, but if it were a bit smaller something like it would be super-handy for everything for which I’d use a truck.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            Looks like tresmonos is channeling his inner DeadWeight ;)

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Pch makes probably the most concise points whereas mine were more verbose. Honda isn’t going to spend to adequately compete, so they throw something together with what they do have on the cheap in order to gain a piece of the lucrative market.

            “Who’s the more foolish, the fool, or the fool who follows him?”

          • 0 avatar
            tnk479

            @tresmonos

            Thanks for the angry, old man, get-off-my-lawn take on the Ridgeline.

            When you say “given up on owning an RV”, are you implying that it should be every American’s dream to own an RV or boat? Boats and RV’s look like complete money pits to me. Why tie up so much money in something that only facilitates domestic travel? Maybe your snow bird migration pattern is the American Dream for you but I have other plans.

            There are many perfectly reasonable use cases for the Ridgeline. Kayaks. Canoes. Scuba gear. Wood boards. Materials for home improvement projects. None of that requires body on frame truck.

            Regarding the fuel economy: I bet it actually hits its EPA rating versus the Ford EcoBoost motors are a total scam. 26 mpg highway is outstanding for a truck. My BMW sedan barely manages 27.

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            But for those who only need weekend Home Depot, Ikea & even larger home improvement runs, the average engine of this Honda will last 2x as long, and be 300% less problematic, than Ford engines (especially of the ecoboost variety).

            I’m not stating an opinion, but a fact based on LITERALLY tens of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) of responses used to compile Consumer Reports Reliability Index (some people trust its methodology and results, as I do; others knock it and try to claim that it’s somehow flawed, without citing psecifically why this is the case).

            Don’t get upset, Tres. I highly doubt my claims about whether the Honda or Ford motor will prove to be more reliable are remotely controversial to most.

            You can still proclaim the opposite of the data, though, if it “feels right.”

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            Just to add to my comment:

            CR has an index that breaks down reliability by system, i.e. “Engine,”Transmission,” “Suspension,” etc.

            Not a single ecoboost motor, as of the latest edition of the CR Annual Guide (2015) gets better than a “worse than average” rating, while every other ecoboost motor gets a “much worse than average” reliability rating.

            IOW, NOT even one Ford ecoboost motor achieves even an “average” reliability rating.

          • 0 avatar
            tresmonos

            tnk479, I have a boat because I like enjoying myself on the water. It isn’t a money pit and cost less than 5k. When I was single, it was probably the best 2 years of dating I’ve ever had in my life. When you’re in your late twenties and early thirties, think of a boat as an investment in your future. You’re gonna find a better mate through it.

            Ridgeline has 400lb less payload than my truck that cost the same. Has 4k less towing capability. Fuel economy will likely be 4 mpg superior to my V8. My truck is going on 4 years old, has yielded a lot of good times that a 2013 Ridgeline could not have. You guys are giving a limp dicked sale of this Aztek with a bed.

            DW, do you think that I wouldn’t buy the Coyote 5.0?

            Now when it comes to buy a Bronco, I’ll probably roll the ecoboost dice. Hopefully they bring over the nice diesel and manual transmission of the global ranger. 8k towing with over 30mpg and a true BOF.

            Keep this dead bedroom mcmansion faux-trucklet away from me.

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            I am a fan of the FoMoCo 5.0, and especially the Coyote.

            The ecoboost V6s hold no appeal.

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    Well, at least it’s better looking than the last one.

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      I mean, it wasn’t that difficult to do.

      It should be on Honda’s talking points. Right under “Class exclusive Honda Box”, and above “Weird tailgate thing”, should be “Well, at least it’s better looking than the last one”.

    • 0 avatar
      JMII

      Better looking but that’s about it. Doesn’t seem to offer any compelling advantage over the GM twins other then it is a Honda. I need a mid-sizer to replace my old Dakota, fingers crossed the new Ranger is real deal. I don’t want a full sizer (way too big) but I need towing capacity thus a small diesel or Ecoboost would fit the bill. My current Dakota is the 4.7 V8 and tows great, but gets all of 12 MPG while doing it.

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        New mid-sized Ranger is all but in the bag.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          … and the new mid-sized Ranger is much too large to be called ‘mid-sized’. It will be physically the same size as the 1997 F-150.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            The size difference between the ’97 F-150 and the ’16 is a lot less, and the difference between the mid-size Ranger and ’97 F-150 is a lot more, than people like to think.

            2012 compact Ranger SuperCab:
            OAL: 203″
            WB: 126″
            W: 71.3″
            H: 67.7″

            T6 Ranger SuperCab or Double Cab:
            OAL: 211″
            WB: 126.8″
            W: 72.8″
            H: 71.5″

            ’97 F-150 SuperCab/6.5′:
            OAL: 225.8″
            WB: 139″
            W: 79.5″
            H: 75.5″

            ’16 F-150 SuperCrew/5.5′ or SuperCab/6.5′:
            OAL: 231.9″
            WB: 145″
            W: 79.9″
            H: 77.2″

            The “ceiling” for width of full-sized pickups was reached all the way back in the early ’60s. F-150 cabs got 6″ longer in 2004 (well, regular and SuperCabs–SuperCrews had to wait until 2009) but have essentially reached the “ceiling” of usable length too.

            The Ranger is perfectly-sized when compared to its main competition, the Colorado/Canyon and Tacoma.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            Drzhivago138 – good post. The whole too big commentary tends to irk me. I owned an ’84 Ranger reg cab 4×4 and a ’98 Ranger Extended cab. I’ve also owned a 1990 F250. and now a SuperCrew F150. The biggest thing I notice between my F150 and the other trucks is the thickness of the doors. I suspect that is partially due to better impact standards and blending in the space needed for airbags.

            I would not go to an 80’s era sized Ranger EVER again.
            TOO SMALL.

            Great for NO KIDS and the need to carry ONE BUDDY or GF/Wife.

            That is why I ended up selling the 84 Ranger and getting an F250. The F250 believe it or not was vastly superior as a back-country explorer. You can carry 2 – 3 weeks worth of gear in the Ranger if you went “spartan” or went the “freeze dried” hiking gear route. No fun and too expensive.

            True compact trucks as well as the current midsizers all have a place in the market. So do current “full sized” pickups.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        “Doesn’t seem to offer any compelling advantage over the GM twins other then it is a Honda.”
        ————

        How the bed is laid out is one of its strongest (and also weakest) points. I understand many pickup owners complaining about the spare tire under the bed but at the same time the locking ‘trunk’ is something nearly every full-sized pickup should already have. The closest anybody else even comes to that is Ram with its Ram Box side ‘trunks’.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          Vulpine – Ridgeline’s trunk is superior to the Rambox since it does not interfere with box volume. The Rambox narrows the box to the wheel wells. The “trunk” is next to impossible to integrate with BOF and solid axle rear drive construction.

          • 0 avatar
            stuki

            The Rambox narrows the bed to about the size of the bed of a Ridgeline…. And allows you to get to your cold ones “after” you have secured to atv and/or bikes for the trip home…..

            OTOH, it does drive like a truck, gets all crossed up on slippery and twisty uphills, and burns almost as much fuel as Al Gore’s jet.

            Trucks can be made to perform as cars, but they suck at it. While the Ridge is a car at heart, hence don’t suck so bad. That it sucks a bit more at being a truck, is just part of the tradeoff.

  • avatar
    davefromcalgary

    I like the look of it.

    I have always really appreciated the CONCEPT of the last Ridgeline. Comfortable 4-door cab with minivan like ride, a box for bulky things, in box trunk, decent clearance and decent front biased AWD with low speed rear selectable rear wheel lock. I’ve said, I want to see more unibody midsize trucks, as they would absolutely fit my needs.

    However… if Honda insists on making their centers stacks totally unusable, this will be another “no way!” for me.

    In 2.3 years, when I’ll be shopping for a vehicle to tow a 3500# travel trailer, this could be on my list, if it has a freaking volume knob.

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      You’re buying a Silverado/Sierra. The suggestion of anything else is merely a ruse.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      @dave

      4Runner.

      • 0 avatar
        gtemnykh

        @28 cars

        I like the way you think. After that Verano’s slew of issues a tried and true Toyota truck will heal all that emotional scarring lol

      • 0 avatar
        davefromcalgary

        No way, not a chance. 4Runner has never appealed to me. I don’t have anything against it or people liking it, I just have no desire for one.

        Dont know why.

        • 0 avatar
          bball40dtw

          http://www.chevrolet.com/content/chevrolet/northamerica/usa/nscwebsite/en/index/all-vehicles-nav/trucks-and-vans/2016-silverado-1500/photos-and-videos/exterior/jcr:content/mm_gal_c2/thumbnailArea/mm_gal_item_c2.img_resize.img_stage._3.jpg

          “Just buy me Dave!”

          • 0 avatar
            davefromcalgary

            bball,

            Got a 404, but just no. I like the 14-15 Sierra, the current Silverado is ugly as heck, the facelifted Silverado is ugly, and the facelifted Sierra is ruined.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            Boo links!

            Then buy an F150. :)

            (I really want a 1/2 ton truck)

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I see you in a Sierra.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            Dave, are you thinking Colorado/Canyon now?

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            The lack of LS in Colorado saddens me.

          • 0 avatar
            davefromcalgary

            I wanted to like the Canyon (I don’t like the styling of the Colorado front end its and not available with auto 4×4.) I REALLY wanted to like it. I’m even ok with the fact that a fully loaded V6 Crew cab Canyon is deep into nice V6 Sierra territory (V8 Sierra with a good rebate)

            But I have come to loath what GM released. I like the front end, the 3/4 Sierra look is quite nice. Had they made the whole truck a 3/4 Sierra, I’d probably already be driving one. But, the front bumper chin is lower than the Verano. The beltline has that stupid upward swoosh through the back window, the box cutline is neither straight nor perpendicular to the ground. The box sides and beltline seem very high in relation to the roof, which compounds the not flat beltline nonsense. The truck just doesn’t have the right proportion of cab height to box height. It looks tall and awkward from EVERY angle. SO, right off the bat, its an ugly truck that I don’t want to own.

            Moving under the hood, I could live with the powertrain of the 3.6, 6AT and auto AWD. That said, I think the 4.3L belongs there. Its a truck motor, it should be in the trucks.

            Moving inside, the Canyon is cramped. You can get them decently loaded, but they seem to have a very high floor and a comparatively low roof, they feel cramped in terms of width. At hand storage, which is excellent in the half tons barely exceeds the Verano. So, awkwardly bg on the outside, small on the inside.

            So, as I said. I wanted to like the Canyon, I really did. But its a failure in my books, and I dont want one.

            (And yes, I’ve driven a few)

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            So the Sierra/Silverado are ugly and the Canyon/Colorado aren’t good enough. What is a GM truck man to do?

          • 0 avatar
            davefromcalgary

            Find something else to tow a 3600# trailer.

            Become a former GM truck man.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            F150? Ram?

            Too bad you can’t buy an F150 with the GM 6.2L. :)

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            If we’re spending money, Tundra. If we’re playing rebate games, probably Ram (but then you have to deal with legendary hit and miss Chrysler Kwality).

          • 0 avatar
            davefromcalgary

            Thats funny. I was mentally building my perfect frankentruck.

            I want a RAM truck body (best looking truck on the market, just without the new gawdawful grill and badging), with RAM levels of equipment at RAM discount pricing, but make that a GM interior (I just like the way they design it), with the GM 6.2L engine and 8 speed. That would be ideal.

            Again, nothing against the F-150, I respect them but they just dont call to me in any way.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            You know my answer already…

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Ford is probably offering you more pound for pound but Chrysler’s per unit cost is probably much lower and thus they can offer more incentives I imagine. I’d still look hard at Toyota but down here they don’t have to offer incentives on Tundras or the other truck (senior moment).

            This random website is quoting $2500 in Ram rebates for Jan 2016. Personally, I want like $10K off before I’m even talking to them. This is still a fake economy and a fake “recovery” after all. Pay me to take your overpriced vehicle.

            http://www.lotpro.com/incentives/ram/

            The other thing you need to consider is the Loonie took a nose dive and will be headed lower as oil continues to fall, so el camión es muy caro, no? Since many in Alberta were over-leveraged to the hilt because of the “fracking miracle”, here is my advice:

            1. Get someone to pre-qualify you for a nice note in CDN or if you can USD assuming you have steady income/credit etc.

            2. Low ball the hell out of some now broke frackers for a truck. They need you more than you need them, after all. Plenty of broke people, not as many with liquid assets for purchase in your neck of the woods from what I read.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            bball, if you want to remain a GM man, step up to the 2500 or 3500, with the biggest V8 available.

            Love’m or hate’m, you will not be inconspicuous driving up in a 3500 4-dr 4×4 long bed Duallie.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I think you mean Dave. Bball is like executive vice president of FoMoCo.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            LAWL

            Bball drinks at the Fountain of EcoBoost in front of Glass House, and drives there in his Navigator whilst towing his C-Max!

            I’ve seen it.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            Hahaha.

            I like both the Ford and GM trucks. I prefer the F150 to the Silverado, but I do love the GM 6.2L. Just like the Ford trucks don’t do anything for Dave, the Ram trucks don’t do anything for me. Some of the details on the RAM trucks bother me.

        • 0 avatar
          Drzhivago138

          @dave: By “gawdawful grille,” can I assume you mean the one that’s on the Limited model only?

          • 0 avatar
            davefromcalgary

            Yup, Limited and Rebel. Ill take the standard crosshair grill and no tailgate badging taller than 2″, please and thanks. In otherwords, a 2015 Sport.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            I think I’ll go outside for a drive now
            The summer sun’s callin my name
            I just can’t stay inside all day
            I gotta pull a trailer on the plains
            Dave is smiling
            GMC Day
            Dave is laughing
            GMC Day
            Dave just seems so happy today
            It’s a GMC Day!

        • 0 avatar
          davefromcalgary

          28,

          Im just not interested in any Toyota trucks. Never liked the Tundra, I think the Taco is ok, but I like how comfy modern big 3 trucks are. Again, respect, dont want. Nor am I in any way interested in buying some broke rig truck. Thats a recipe for failure, low price or not.

          I also agree with your Chrysler Quality comment, which is a big reason why RAM is not really on the table, and same with why we are off the JGC wagon.

          HDC, dont really want to DD an HD truck just to tow a small trailer. Rough ride, pricey parts.

          Bball, just buy an F-150 already!

          1st gen Ridgeline looks dumb, second gen Ridgeline has an all touch center stack, which is a total deal breaker.

          Titan? No.

          Honestly, in 2.25 years when the Blue Turd goes back to GM, the landscape will have once again changed. Spitballing now doesnt really make sense. I’d take my brothers 14 Sierra SLT off his hands…

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            But speculating is so much fun!

            And my next vehicle will be a Bronco or some sort of Lincoln.

          • 0 avatar
            davefromcalgary

            Oh!!!! Duh. Obvious answer.

            How much can the SS tow?

          • 0 avatar
            davefromcalgary

            Apparently the Commodore when properly equipped can tow 2200kg. Thats decent!

            Too bad like the Marauder, its artificially lowered in its high performance form. I’d have no concerns towing 3500# with either a Marauder, G8 or SS, as long as I could equip a trans cooler, maybe some HD springs and the right receiver. Heck, solid axle would likely accept some auxiliary airbags to level it out.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            I have no problem towing 3500 lbs with my MkT. However, it does have the 3.5TT and tow package. If that’s all you need to tow, there are CUVs out there. Now, you may tow through the mountains, so I dunno how that would go.

          • 0 avatar
            davefromcalgary

            Don’t want a CUV.

            RAV, CRV, Equinox, Terrain, Escape, Rogue, CX5 no thanks. None of these interest me in the slightest. The only one that even kind of interests me is the Forester XT. These are all capped at 3500# and generally have I4s. THey will be working way too hard.

            I especially dont want or have any need for a full size, even though they can generally tow around 5k. Its just the two of us, so Flex, Acadia, Highlander, Pilot would be way overkill. I just have no use for that size of CUV. At least with a pickup I can throw bikes, whatever in the box.

            Thats why a big full size RWD solid axle car with a V8 actually has a ton of appeal.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            I say you live with the ugly on the Sierra. It looks fine from the side and back. I’m sure there are trims where the front isn’t atrocious.

            (edit: after looking at the website, no, there is no way to make a Sierra’s front look good. The All-Terrain model with the body colored bumper looks the best)

          • 0 avatar
            davefromcalgary

            The right answer is probably in April 2018, I will look for a 2015 Denali, to get the 6.2 and 8 speed, as I like the 2015 look.

            And then try and find some sensible 17 or 18″ rims for it.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            The pull of GMC was too strong.

          • 0 avatar
            davefromcalgary

            Yes, 28, I will accept my fate.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I like the GM 6.2 as well, pity about the rest of the truck.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            When Dave has his Sierra, it will always be a smiling GMC day!

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            When you’re smilin’ / the whole world smiles with you!

  • avatar
    indi500fan

    Looks like they divorced the bed from the cab like everybody else? So does this have a frame underneath?

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      I wanna say no, even though that’s exactly what Jeep did making the Comanche off of the Cherokee. But don’t quote me on anything. I know about as much as you.

    • 0 avatar
      cammark

      It looks like that is just the cutline for the rear door seam.

      EDIT: my mistake, closer inspection does show two cut lines there. maybe just a rear quarter/bed side line. Couldn’t imagine anything other than a unibody style construction under the bed.

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        Naw, if you look just ahead of the dark line, you can see a fainter line. That’s the door seam.

        • 0 avatar
          derekson

          It just looks like a cutline for styling to make it look like a real truck to me. It doesn’t look big enough to be an actual gap between separate cab/bed.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            Remember that what you’re seeing isn’t the (possible) gap between the cab and the bed–it’s the gap between the panels.

            Look on any OBS (’96 or earlier) Ford pickup. The gap is a straight shot of daylight to the other side. Then look on a ’97 or newer. The bed panel is brought forward to cover the gap and make it look more streamlined, although of course the gap still exists.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      If it had a frame, you’d see it. And it wouldn’t allow for its sideways engine. The gap is just for show, nothing else. And it was the seamless sail-panel quarter panels of the old Ridgeline that let you know from a distance, exactly what it was and wasn’t.

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    Well it looks like a truck and naturally it only comes in the most popular body style – crew cab.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    I do find it funny this trucklet keeps being a thing. Ridgeline in its original iteration was interesting, because it tried a non-traditional configuration which was appropriate in a non-traditional “truck”. But now we’re really hitting the poser button hard. Look at my tough Accord, I mean “truck” everyone. You can say what you want about the previous Ridgeline but now its lame sauce to the extreme because of how hard it tries to look the part of a real truck, Honda engineering aside.

    • 0 avatar
      davefromcalgary

      I don’t get it 28… the Ridgeline is arguably more truck than most people need, and offers features, such as usable in bed storage (even just for say a winter kit and shovel, my brother has random crap rolling around the bed of his truck all the time, the bed floor trunk makes all kinds of sense). The vehicle makes sense.

      Honda got bashed for the first gen Ridgeline being ugly, now they make it more mainstream and they are posing? Its a hell of a lot better looking in that picture than the Colorado, which also has a “butch car” front end, and this Ridgeline at least has the decency to have a flat beltline!

      (Disclaimer: I think a Ridgleline-esque vehicle would be perfect for me, it would just need to be aesthetically and ergonomically pleasing. 5k tow rating, and boxes, not gravel in the bed. Bulky not dense cargo, essentially. As an example, 4 people camping for a weekend. Need lots of cargo space but not necessarily payload capacity)

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        Someone in my parking lot has a Ridgeline. I don’t care for the styling at all and I say to myself, why is this a thing? But then I say its trying to straddle the line between pickup truck and alternative vehicle while having realistic HMC design constraints and just a bit of funk for being different. Ok I can grant it basic respect then. Now HMC has apparently realized their funky not-a-truck needs to *look* like an actual truck but of course won’t be an actual truck. Evidently zee buyers they are stooopid and zhey will fall for dis trick, no?

        Let’s also not forget this:

        “Despite all of this, the Ridgeline was one of Honda’s more profitable vehicles due to the company’s frugal nature that allowed them to develop the Ridgeline for under $250 million (half of what General Motors would normally pay), maximizing Honda’s profit margin.”

        That’s what I want in a pickup. No development budget and parts bin all the way. Oh don’t forget to toss in front wheel drive! I love that 90% of every “SUV” offering is transverse gas motor and has limited upgrade capability. We wonder why 4Runner, Expedition, and GM’s SUV twins hold their values and have a following?

        Thoughts on Ridgeline:

        “According to Bloomberg Business, Honda hoped buyers would find it an attractive alternative to large SUVs, and conventional pickup trucks.[68] Some in the press that have evaluated the Ridgeline, such as PickupTrucks.com, consider it “one of those odd vehicles.”[102] They wrote, “The Ridgeline can’t really do what most people who like trucks need it to do.”[102] While AutoTrader.com wrote, “Sure, some homeowners and weekend warriors may actually need a 10,000-lb towing capacity, but the Honda Ridgeline is probably just right for most.”[103] Others in the automotive press, such as The Driver’s Seat TV, call the Ridgeline, “the Swiss Army Knife of trucks,” due to its functionality, and “the anti-truck,” due to Honda’s lack of following the rules when it comes to truck design; they summarized the truck as scoring “high on practicality but very low on image.””

        “According to Bloomberg Business, early slow sales can partly be attributed to the expense of the vehicle, which some considered “over-priced.”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Ridgeline

        I’ll conclude based on the Ridgeline comments from Wikipedia. For the right money, I’m still not buying it but I can see the argument. You will pay quite a bit though for the Ridgeline and if I’m already out significant coin I’d rather buy more truck for the same money even if I don’t need it. If we see a decent Ridgeline for say, mid-level Accord money, I’m more interested but won’t be holding my breath.

        • 0 avatar
          davefromcalgary

          I agree that it needs to be priced according to its capacity. No point in paying more money for less capability, especially for some parts bin engineering.

          And that is the issue, Ridgelines are expensive new, and expensive used! Which sucks because I think something like the Ridgeline is the right amount of truck for a lot of people.

          That said, I’m not falling for any tricks, I know exactly what the Ridgeline is, and have no problem with it looking like a “real truck”, because it looks good! But I for sure lots of people who dont know any better will think they are buying a halfton.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Cars.com lists the MY14 Ridgeline as such in terms of lowest to highest trim:

            “RT”

            $29,575/$27,050
            Destination charge: $830

            “SE”

            $37,505/$34,283
            Destination charge: $830

            http://www.cars.com/honda/ridgeline/2014/snapshot

            In MY14 Honda only offered a V6 on the Accord in EX-L trim, for 30Kish however a V6 does not cost Honda 7K more before incentives than an EX sedan which started at 23151. Therefore there was at least 5K straight margin between a base Accord and base Ridgeline and the base Accord was already profitable per unit at its lesser price.

            http://www.cars.com/honda/accord/2014/

            Honda made you pay dearly for Ridgeline and probably will again. Do I want to pay a premium for an Accord trucklet with less capability than a Tacoma or a Colorado? If HMC undercut the competition by offering the model at a lesser price than Taco/Colorado, I have an easier time seeing the model as a real proposition.

        • 0 avatar
          SOneThreeCoupe

          My father-in-law has owned a Ridgeline since 2008.

          It is, by far, the least useful truck-like-thing that I have ever had the displeasure of borrowing. Slow, with dead steering and spongy brakes. Made for old people who want the “practicality of a truck” but don’t want to rent from Home Depot or uHaul. Surprisingly uncomfortable seats for anyone who has a butt- if you’re buttless, they’re not bad.

          I’d like to take a sofa to the dump. Nope, bed too short.

          I’d like to get rid of old exercise equipment. Nope, bed too short.

          I’d like to pick up a 4×8 of MDF. Nope, at least not without overhang that I consider significant.

          I’d like to pick up a ton of gravel. Nope, and you’d probably damage the bed lighting.

          If I was carrying something small in footprint, but tall, I’d STILL have to be wary of the 3rd brake light, because it sits proud of the rear of the cab.

          We used it as a tow vehicle for our business. It was not well-suited, and was honestly more than a little sketchy but didn’t get horrible mileage with an aluminum trailer carrying a long-hood 911 on it.

          In other words, I don’t consider it a truck. I consider it a confused SUV that is less useful when weather is inclement and more useful when carrying relatively small but tall things.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            It’s not for any of those things, though. It’s not a “truck” truck, and that’s okay.

          • 0 avatar
            SOneThreeCoupe

            A friend of mine pointed this out: this is the perfect truck for picking up pieces to fix a wrecked car. You can stick the electronics and trim in the weatherproof “trunk” and toss the suspension and oil-soaked mechanicals in the bed without needing to worry about getting grease in the carpet. Plus, on the drive there, you can enjoy vehicular Ambien.

            Not for me. A truck is a specialized vehicle to me, used to tow and haul- not a daily driver thinly veiled as something useful.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      Is this actually less capable than a Canyon/Colorado/Tacoma? Unless you’re talking off-road chops, I don’t see it. Payload and tow capacity will be about the same.

  • avatar
    davefromcalgary

    Everyone: I like the concept of a crew cab midsized unibody truck. Please come and tell my why I am wrong.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      I don’t thing it’s wrong, but I thought we’d be seeing more unibody /compact/ trucklets by now.

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      What holds its value better a 1995 Subaru or a 1995 K10?
      Unibody vehicles don’t hold their value very well at all, there aren’t too many people willing to put up with the problems that crop up on old unibody vehicles. BOF vehicles are much easier to keep on the road, accept modification, and take abuse above the norm. If you take a look through pictures of car wrecks you’ll notice a few cases of cars being completely ripped in half between the front and rear seats. These are engineered to tight tolerances for what is expected. Unfortunately expected stresses aren’t always as high as reality. BOF is much more capable of dealing with unexpected stresses.

      If someone jumps a Ford Raptor and bends the frame, they replace the frame, if someone jumps this and bends the unitized frame, they replace the truck.

      ***
      If someone over loads a Silverado they may replace the axle shafts and possible leaf springs depending on the weight, if someone overloads this? Jeez can you imagine the havoc that would reek on the IRS? It would be a disaster zone down there, and the possibility of bending the body cannot be left out of question.

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        This is all true, however, what does that have to do with how 99% of Ridgeline owners use their vehicles now? To meet MPG standards, any new compact pickups will have to be unibody FWD, and that will not be an issue for any of their potential buyers.

        • 0 avatar
          Hummer

          99% was how many last year? 990 Ridgeline owners?
          Also this is midsized manufacturers rectified the problem you noted by getting rid of the segment.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            Sorry, I should have indented to show that was a new thought, related to my first comment about not seeing /compact/ unibody trucklets.

            But answer the question: Why should BOF matter to Ridgeline owners?

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            BOF doesn’t matter to Ridgeline owners, and off-road prowess doesn’t really matter to Ferrari owners, the difference is that one of those low volume vehicles is meant as a mainstream vehicle, where sales should matter.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            No, I don’t think BOF matters much to Honda buyers; it apparently doesn’t mean anything to JGC buyers.

            This won’t replace a Raptor or Rebel or Silverado 2500, and it doesn’t need to. Honda thinks there’s a market for Pilots that have a big open trunk rather than a third row. So what’s the problem?

            I expect that the biggest issue for the new Ridgeline will be fuel efficiency. Our Odyssey gets 19/26 for us. If Honda can improve on that with the Ridgeline, they’ll find many buyers.

      • 0 avatar
        gtemnykh

        “What holds its value better a 1995 Subaru or a 1995 K10?”

        What tastes better, an apple or an orange? Makes about as much sense as your question.

        I like BOF, no doubt. But making the case for it having better resale is asinine. An Accord has massively better resale than a Crown Victoria, a Highlander has massively better resale than an Expedition, etc. Safety has likewise been proven at this point to be totally fine with well engineered unibody vehicles.

        Durability wise and long term maintenance/repair wise, yes I’ll take a traditional BOF truck with a solid axle on leaf springs over Honda’s reinforced IRS. But for the kind of use many suburban crew cab trucks see, Honda is not at a disadvantage here.

        • 0 avatar
          Hummer

          We’re really splitting atoms when you try to tell me this truck meets what the average pickup owner “needs”.

          I’m sorry but this isn’t Communist China, consumers don’t want to live a life that is suitable to the bare minimum, if that’s the idea that’s selling this truck then it’s bound to fail. ~95% of the people on this site could get by with a Moped, but that’s not the point, we don’t want Mopeds, and if we did we probably wouldn’t be on a car website.

          To have to live with the bare minimum of anything isn’t a kind of life anyone I know wants to live, you don’t want to tell yourself that is the best you can do everyday, no you want something that’s better that makes you happy that you can succeed and don’t have to settle.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            Reductio ad Sinis.

            So if BOF doesn’t matter to Ridgeline owners, why did you try to tell Dave he was wrong in liking it?

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            Many casual truck owners wanting better ride and handling means the country is headed towards Communism? That’s a new one.

            The beauty of our market economy is that a manufacturer (Honda) sees an opportunity to sell a product that takes a different approach to a market need. The market will determine whether Honda is successful or not.

            Watch out, I hear Obama’s got an executive action lined up to ban all solid axles.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            No one is wrong in liking it, I’m just saying that it’s been tried and failed, unless Honda does something unexpected I don’t see much of a future for the unibody pickup.

            Gtem-
            I’m simply saying using the argument that it meets the needs of X percent of buyers as an excuse and reason that it should out perform the rest of the segments offerings is a misguided way to justify this trucks existence.

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            How do you reconcile the fact that it actually beats out a BOF, solid rear axle Ram on payload?

            Again, I just don’t understand the massive indignation at their engineering choices. Yes it’s different, no it’s not for everybody. Much like Honda refused to build a V6 for a long time, or refused to license any Aisin/Borg Warner technology for their automatics, them choosing to march to a different drummer results in interesting results sometimes (not always good). I say good on them to offer an alternative that isn’t just more of the same, and I say this as someone who prefers dirt simple tried and true tech.

          • 0 avatar
            Carlson Fan

            ” I say good on them to offer an alternative that isn’t just more of the same, and I say this as someone who prefers dirt simple tried and true tech.”

            +1 to that. I’ve always liked that Honda took a different route with the Ridgeline. My biggest complaint with it was only that the box was just to small(short) to be useful. So good to see that the new one is a little longer. I think the idea is great but the execution with the 1st gen. left a lot of room for improvement. When I’m older a truck like this may suit my towing/hauling needs just fine which means I will have come full circle as I started out with a compact PU.

            Personally, I think styling wise the new one looks great.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            gtemnykh, I’m right with you. Everyone is freaking out about unibody on this truck and not explaining why it matters. It has disadvantages (off-road capability and modifiability) and advantages (ride, handling, and packaging — it’s the unibody that allows the underfloor trunk). It’s still a capable entry in the midsize truck segment.

        • 0 avatar

          The funny thing is here in CT a mid 90s outback and I’d 90s Chevy 1500 are worth about the same based on a look at craigslist of course the best selling new car in ct is a sibarubeo your mileage may very they love their subies up here

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        Hummer – weak argument.

        Who jumps Ridgelines?
        BTW…..Only a few jump Raptors for that matter.

        Overloading IRS?

        1/2 ton pickups have independent front suspension – how is that an issue?
        Many military units also have independent suspensions.

        I find it unlikely to overload a Ridgeline due to a few simple facts:
        1. small box and
        2. 1,500 lb cargo rating (previous model)
        That is better than many 1/2 tons. Ram’s coil 1spring 1/2 tons aren’t any better unless you get a stripped down unit.

        Leaf springs tend to fair better with overloading.

    • 0 avatar
      tresmonos

      I think for the price this thing goes for, you are overpaying for what you get.

      I rarely tow anything close to my vehicle’s maximum rating. Towing anything above 3k with this thing would be terrifying. If your load is less and you need a bed, then I don’t see why not.

      • 0 avatar
        davefromcalgary

        I agree that these things are generally overpriced for their capability against their competitors, which is a shame because it makes the concept overall seem less viable.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        I couldn’t agree more Tres.

      • 0 avatar
        gtemnykh

        RE overpaying

        The Honda badge is worth a lot to some people. Say what you may about their run of transmissions in the early 2000s, but Hondas in general cause a lot fewer headaches and niggling issues for owners, and many buyers value that highly. Same holds true for Toyota trucks. Not the best in capability, fuel economy, design, or comfort but they command a premium both new and used, and few buyers are disappointed with what they get in terms of a long term ownership experience (reliability wise). A big asterisk there for Tacomas with DANA corp. frames LOL. I don’t know many details about how well Ridgelines hold up over time, but I haven’t heard too many horror stories.

      • 0 avatar
        iMatt

        To say that towing anything above 3k lbs with this would be terrifying seems rather hyperbolic.

        What’s it’s biggest disadvantage? IRS? FWD based? Unibody construction? Low curb weight? Short wheelbase? V6 engine?

        Half of those things aren’t even disadvantages and the others don’t really apply to the Ridgeline.

        • 0 avatar
          tresmonos

          Curb weight, braking, torque, transmission. I’d say this can tow 2k all day long. Towing my ~4k boat through the Appalachians on I-75? I’ll pass.

          • 0 avatar
            Carlson Fan

            “Towing my ~4k boat through the Appalachians on I-75? I’ll pass.”

            Around MN, it would tow 3K all day long without any issues. I did it with my compact ’93 Toy PU. But towing through the Appalachians might be something all together different. If I was pulling my 25′ SeaRay Sundancer through the rockies out of Denver on I70 every weekend you bet I’d have the dirty max and not the 6.0 gas under the hood of my Sierra HD.

          • 0 avatar
            tresmonos

            I have a gas fed 5.0 Coyote and it handles 4k really well. Granted, my fuel economy goes from 18 down to about 12 mpg.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      davefromcalgary – it is “wrong” because it isn’t a rear drive body on frame powered unit by a V8 or boosted facsimile of a V8.

      BTW – I was being sarcastic (not to you).

      I suspect that this will do much better than the previous Ridgeline since it is more orthodox in shape.

  • avatar
    Shane Rimmer

    The previous generation used a modified Pilot platform with a steel reinforced unibody that gave it a 5,000 pound tow rating. I’d be surprised if the new version didn’t continue in that vein and offer at 5,000 pounds this time around.

  • avatar
    callmeishmael

    If someone said “Honda” in a word association test, “truck” would not be a response. The original Ridgeline could have been a contender if Honda had taken the trouble to evolve it. This truckalike may appeal to Honda fans, but to me it looks like Honda jumped into the water to fight the sharks.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      Honda has never been serious about trucks, it doesn’t seem to fit their culture. However since they like money, they decided to phone something in. First it was the Isuzu models, Honda Passport (Isuzu Rodeo) and Acura SLX (Isuzu Trooper). Later it became Ridgeline, a home grown frankenstein built from existing Honda components and platforms on a small budget. Looks like the tradition will continue.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    The cosmetic gap between the cab and bed is straight-up posing.

  • avatar
    gtemnykh

    I only wished VTM-4 worked as well as advertised, and wasn’t such a mechanically complex thing that needs diligent maintenance (30k mile fancy Honda brand diff fluid changes). I’ve browsed RidgeLine and Pilot forums before and these things get stumped by some pretty laughably minor cross-axle situations with minor traction issues. It’s always an issue of enough torque being transferred to the wheel with grip. The electronics seem to always be the downfall.

    Having said that, I think it’s incredibly handsome (much more so than the first gen), and if I’m honest I never really use my current 4×4’s capabilities to the limit anyhow. Honda’s VTM-4 would perform great in more realistic low traction scenarios like slick highways, aided by a much better ride that allows for better control in such low traction scenarios compared to a traditional truck with a ‘reactive’ part time 4wd system (Auto setting).

    • 0 avatar
      iMatt

      I was off the beaten path the other day in my 98′ Rav4. 5 spd, AWD with locking centre diff (and in some cases a limited slip rear) is as honest an AWD system as you can get and makes beating up on that little trucklet a blast.

      I long for the days of basic AWD/4wd and simple transmission setups. As far as I know, it’s just Jeep and Subaru that still offer these types of basic vehicles – CVT excluded.

      • 0 avatar
        gtemnykh

        I love those 1st gen Rav4s. Some pretty legit geometry (approach/departure/breakover/clearance), with surprisingly sturdy and effective 4×4 hardware. I’d love to find one like yours with the optional rear LSD. I’m also a connoisseur of Suzuki’s old sidekick and Grand Vitaras, unsuspecting little mini-SUVs that would show up a lot of much more expensive and complex 4wds on the trail.

        The newest Toyota AWD system abaondoned the old full-time mechanical system in favor of one with a bunch of “brains.” Apparently it can anticipate needing power in the rear before you even take off, but the proof will be in the pudding (or in the mud/snow).

        • 0 avatar
          iMatt

          It can anticipate needing power by selecting “gravel driveway mode” on the MTS knob – might add that’s different than the wet grass mode.

          Edit: Best thing about those mini-utes is the ablility to squeeze down some narrow trails. As capable as full size 4wd trucks are, I haven’t come across too many bush trails I’d want to drive one down.

  • avatar
    iMatt

    Maybe this will inspire GM to base the next Silverado/Sierra on the Lambda platform.

    As with davefromcalgary, I like the idea of the Ridgeline, I just think this 2nd gen is trying too hard to look like every other fullsize pickup truck – something it is obviously not.

    Perhaps Honda got tired of taking the alternative approach and half baked this thing.

  • avatar
    zip89105

    Different lipstick, same pig. Knowing Honda, the latest and greatest will be out about 3 years and then discontinued.

  • avatar
    shedkept

    Fuel mileage on the Ridgeline was never it’s strong suite. Ours struggled to get 17.5 mpg. A small (22gal) gas tank didn’t matters as range was “limited”. Road noise was abundant.
    Handling was “sporty” compared to most other pickups of its size and class.
    Pleased to see they kept the trunk in the bed as it would hold a lot of luggage.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    There’s nothing wrong with a CUV with a balcony. It’ll at least thoroughly cannibalize other Hondas left and right.

  • avatar
    Rday

    My 06 Ridgeline [bought 3-05] has 90K on it and is running just great. It is the most enjoyable vehicle i have ever driven. And it has pulled a trailer across the US several times and gets reasonable mileage. We have loaded the truck to extreme heights with junk, carpet, trash etc. I really never intend on selling this vehicle. I just hope that the new one is just as good. It is expensive because it is loaded. can carry 16′ lumber, bed doesn’t rust, etc.

  • avatar
    ponchoman49

    They need to change the name as it no longer sports ridges. Something like slabline would suit it well.

  • avatar
    TEXN3

    It’s disappointing that tow ratings decreased from the previous Ridgeline and new Pilot by 1500 lbs. or are we making assumptions?

  • avatar
    JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

    I find it hard to understand my fellow B&B. Honda did exactly what everyone wanted with the Ridgline this time, yet almost everyone here hates it. Just like the Lincoln Continental. Everyone said they needed a different look, so they ditched the split grille and now its a Jaguar/Taurus/Kia/Audi/1981 Escort or whatever other car that can be thought up. They cant win for losing. The car can be fantastic and hit every note perfectly, but itll always be crap according to the armchair quarterbacks who wouldnt consider it even if it was given to them. But the bass-fish mouthed Avalon? Oh yeah baby! Gimme DAT!

    Its the same story with the new Ridgeline. Most of you hated it before you saw it, and now you are trying to justify that hatred by picking it apart.

    Its a unibody truck! So? The Jeep Cherokee (XJ) and its pickup variant were unibody. The Grand Cherokee is unibody. Nobody complains about them.

    Its FWD! Yeah? So are most vehicles in the class once dominated by BOF and RWD (SUVs). Nobody seems to have trouble buying an Explorer or GM’s Lambda triplets or Nissan’s Pathfinder. Are they off-road machines like those they replaced? No. And noone seems to have a problem with that.

    But OMG! WtF?! Now add an open cargo area and suddenly being FWD and unibody is a huge problem. Honda isnt trying to challenge the Ford F-250 here, theyre making the right truck for the right people. People who worry more about ride quality and comfort than payload or off road ability. Is Honda trying to topple the Silverado? No, not even close. If you DONT need to carry heavy loads or venture very far off the beaten path, but you DO want/need an open cargo area, its a good choice.

    Its not for everyone. Hummer is making an ass of himself, trying to imagine ways that someone might ruin the unibody stucture by heavily over loading the truck. You know, I dont see too many Ridglines at construction sites. I dont often see them at loading docks. I have yet to see one loaded down with cinder blocks or being fitted with a 5th wheel reciever.

    The people buying these are not the kinds of people who constantly haul heavy items, they are the kinds of people who haul light loads (an ATV or dirt bikes for example). Nobody walks into a Honda dealer expecting to replace their Cummins Ram 2500’s abilities with this. Suggesting that SO MANY people are going to be working this truck like a borrowed mule is obtuse. You know damn well the customer this truck is targeting. It isnt you? Great. Why spend so much energy “proving” what is a given in the first place: This isnt a hardcore work truck, and Honda never said it was. Its boxy now, and that suddenly makes it a poser? Lol c’mon. Its more “traditional” looking, and that isnt a bad thing. Its mission is the same as before, only now not nearly as many people will dismiss it simply because its ugly.

    Would I buy a Ridgeline? No. Not because I hate it, but I do expect more off road ability and payload than it offers if Im dropping that much coin on a new truck. Id rather have a basic 4X4 F-150 XL crew cab, and if I wanted a unique 2wd “light duty” truck, Id get a Transit diesel chassis cab and put a UTE box on it (Im talking only new vehicles here).

    I dont fault those who buy the Ridgeline. Just because it doesnt really fit my needs doesnt blind me into thinking that nobody will find it useful. Honda built the right truck for the right person, and if that isnt you, there are plenty of other choices.

    • 0 avatar

      If Honda doesn’t make the exact truck I as an online poster demand they make, then I’m taking my $7500 I plan on spending on a used truck in 2024 elsewhere!

      • 0 avatar
        CoreyDL

        Hahah.

        The real TTAC with regards to this site.

        • 0 avatar
          frozenman

          Very good points john. Some people just do not get that this is an AWD vehicle and most of the competition does not offer a true AWD system in a light truck package. Having varied road conditions and wondering if you are damaging your transfer case leaving it in 4HI is not any fun, the biggest problem of the last model was the gas mileage and styling. If Subaru built something like this off their outback platform it might be taken seriously, but when Honda tries it they don’t have the AWD street cred to convince people they are serious.

          • 0 avatar
            George B

            frozenman, I’m pretty sure the Ridgeline is being offered with either FWD or AWD like the Pilot. Of the 16 Pilots on the lot at Lute Riley in Richardson, TX, 12 are FWD and 4 are AWD. Here in Texas AWD is a net negative in that it adds complexity and expense while reducing fuel economy.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            In Washington I don’t think there is a single FWD Pilot on any dealer lot in the state.

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      I’m doing no such thing, I’m just pointing out the obvious, these don’t sell well, and there isn’t a good chance of that changing.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      @John – Hate?? Where are you getting that from? Chill a little. Pickups are like luxury cars. OEMs face a tough crowd with either and they bring on lots of predetermined expectations.

      So they ask for it!!

      Do they want to play the game or not? There absolutely nothing wrong with bringing an alternative to the usual or mainstream. There’s room for all and Honda is just making do with existing parts and platforms.

      If I was already about to buy a CUV, Honda especially, I’d be all over it.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N – agreed

  • avatar
    thegamper

    Love it!!!! The perfect truck for people who haul or tow nothing, will never take it off road……should sell like hotcakes since that’s most of the truck buying public.

    • 0 avatar
      thegamper

      Ahhhh, but then there is the whole urban cowboy wannabe thing and the whole overcompensation aspect of truck ownership. This truck does absolutely nothing for those buyers so it will probably languish on dealer lots.

      • 0 avatar
        derekson

        This is why it won’t sell. Not because it doesn’t beat most truck buyers’ needs, but because it doesn’t project the image they want to project.

        • 0 avatar
          VoGo

          I guess Honda is betting that there is a minute sub-segment of men who are so comfortable with their penis size as to be willing to match their buying behavior with their actual needs.

  • avatar
    Carlson Fan

    “The Pilot’s V-6 makes 280 horsepower and 262 pound-feet of torque, so it’s reasonable to expect something similar in the Ridgeline. It would be reasonable to assume that the 3,500 pound tow rating will carry over to the Ridgeline as well.”

    The AWD Pilot is rated to tow 5K, so I would expect the same for the new Ridgeline.

  • avatar

    Pilot already has an option of the old 6-speed and the new 9-speed transmission, the later giving it about the same 1:20 total ratio as Jeep Renegade gets. I would be quite surprised if there wasn’t a version of Ridgeline with the 9sp.

    I’m not a fan of the location of the spare. Otherwise it looks great.

  • avatar
    RideHeight

    I like the idea of an FWD pickup. There hasn’t been one since the Rabbit pickup, has there?

  • avatar
    whynotaztec

    For such a small piece of the market, compact trucks always generate the most comments here

  • avatar
    Oberkanone

    quote -The Ridgeline’s distinctive body lines are gone this time around, eschewing cladding between the cab and bed of the prior truck for a boxier look. -end

    There was no cladding on the previous Ridgeline. The distinctive body lines were stamped in steel. Nope, that ugly was not just skin deep, it was ugly to the unibone.

  • avatar
    RideHeight

    Overall, this disturbs me. It’s like Honda quitting school to work full time. You don’t end up mixing with the Nicest People that way.

    On the other hand, I’ll toss a couple of bucks at Powerball next time just like the mouth-breathers. What the hey… as Pch said, it’s not like they’re risking a lot to play in the ephemeral mid-size truck game.

  • avatar
    madman2k

    Depending on cost, it might make a good vehicle for us. Looks well-designed.

    If a comparably equipped model costs more than a Chevy or GMC 1500, though, it’s a tough sell. I’m guessing highway MPG will be competitive with the V6 in full size trucks.

    I think all of the big-3 have crew cab models that get over 22 on the highway, at least in 2WD configuration.

    The MPG difference is only maybe 10-15% when they’re all in the 20’s.

    Assuming 20k miles per year and assuming the gas averages $1.75:

    26mpg would be $769 of gas per year
    24mpg would be $833
    22mpg would be $909

    Easy to swallow up that delta with cash on the hood from the domestics.

    Of course it’s notable that the FWD Ridgeline would probably have an easier time in snow than a RWD pickup without weight in the bed, but that’s not an impossible to solve problem.

    Right price, right advertising, and they’ve got a foot in the door, but it’s an uphill battle.

  • avatar
    FalconRTV

    Objectively it’s dull to look at, but there’s something appealing about the design. It possesses a car-like quality that will appeal to people who secretly wish for the return of comfortable motoring, but who want to be seen riding in a truck. It would do well in Australia, but as usual the RHD issue will prevent that from happening (sad face).

    • 0 avatar
      RideHeight

      Given the gene pool represented by many pickup drivers I don’t know how much social coin is paid to being seen in one.

      But for nice, genteel tasks like bringing home big box and taking yard waste to the dump this will permit such while driving like a car and giving Honda quality and resale.

      Of all the pickups out there, I think the any Ridgeline will attract the fewest poseurs.

  • avatar
    igve2shtz

    The Honda Ridgeline has been, and will forever be a cult-following type truck. You will either love it, or hate it. It’s the Mazda5 of the truck world.

    For me, on paper, it is damn near perfect. Honda clearly did their homework researching how 75% of light-duty truck owners use their vehicles. In execution, it has always looked a bit geeky. But, I am the design target. Suburban home owner with a 40 minute commute. I need utility without 12 MPG. A SUV/CUV doesn’t cut it for me. Need to haul bulky items that don’t fit in a cargo compartment (drywall, plywood, pavers, scoops of dirt etc). The Ridgeline is built exactly for those things on the weekend, and a capable commuter on weekdays. A CUV with a trailer hitch would probably work, but isn’t the setup for me.

    Everyone loves to hate what isn’t considered the social norms. I don’t need 10K pounds of towing. I don’t want to spend $40K on a truck that will do everyday tasks poorly.

    I will use 90% of the capabilities of the Ridgeline. Why spend more to only use 50% of the capabilities of a full-size?

  • avatar
    jcisne

    “It would be reasonable to assume that the 3,500 pound tow rating will carry over to the Ridgeline as well.”

    This is incorrect, the old Ridgeline had a 5,000 pound tow rating, not 3,500.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • SCE to AUX: 84-month loans are sought by people who can’t afford a 48- or 60-month loan, which means even 0%...
  • MiataReallyIsTheAnswer: When the rate is zero percent, WHO CARES!?? You think a brand new ANYTHING will not last 6 or...
  • pathfinderdoorhandle: Yes, but Jennifer Grey did the opposite: she went from being distinctive in an attractive way...
  • Mackie: All these giant grilles (love them or hate them) look terrible once a license plate gets slapped on....
  • RHD: The Chinese supply the methamphetamine trade as well, with all the ingredients exported to Mexico in massive...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Matthew Guy
  • Timothy Cain
  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber