Interesting midsize truck comparison / test

[Clutch]

Did they fix the transmission issues with the Ridgeline. TFLtruck did a test comparison on it and the trans overheated on a dirt up hill during the comparison. It's basically a mini van with the back converted to a bed. No thanks.

Saw a Ridgeline fall victim to the Alpine Loop this summer. Lack of clearance and underbody protection led to a punctured oil pan. And one of the P-rated tires popped and they were on the donut spare. And at the time, they were coasting down the trail (no oil in crankcase).

And the trail isn’t tough by any stretch of the imagination.

Like the looks of the Honda over all of the other trucks, everything else appears like it is trying to make up for some inadequacies...makes ya wonder if they give you a couple bottles of Viagra with purchase.

It wouldn't take much to fix the Ridgeline, lift, proper tires and low range. All of the other's have engines out of sedans too, not sure why people dog on the Honda's drive train/chassis so much. Is it because it doesn't look manly, and that effects their ego?

So what if it is based on a mini-van. I would rock one of those too if you could get 4WD with low range in them. Prolly never happen in the States since we are too concern on how we are perceived to others. Has to make 1000 ft/lbs of TQ and sit on 37" tires, right??? Or otherwise....

 

[Wallygator]

You can fast forward to 11:19, then 15:08....The Ridgeline is not for me, YMMV.

 

[luthj]

A modern powerplant requires $10s of millions in development. Its the height of madness to suggest that an engine in a sedan or van can't be used in a truck or vice versa. Many of these engines are providing very long service life. Just because the core engine design is the same, doesn't mean that changes aren't made for the truck service regime.

Tradition and tribal identification are part of the reason that the big three dominate the pickup offerings in the USA. Honda, Nissan, or Toyota could offer equivalent functionality in a mid-sized at 3/4 the cost, and it would be rejected by 75% of buyers simply because it doesn't "look" right.

I always thought the frame/unibody argument on the ridgeline was strange. Since when does a light duty truck with 1500lb payload need a fully boxed frame? I will take the weight savings and better ride personally.

 

[Clutch]

You can fast forward to 11:19, then 15:08....The Ridgeline is not for me, YMMV.

Yeah I have seen it, was really considering the Ridgeline...dig the dual opening tailgate, the inbed trunk, the fold rear seats so I could fit my mountain bike and/or moto gear bags. If you can fit a couple dirt bikes in the bed it is a truck to me.

They just missed the mark on the off-roadiness for me. Would do a Subaru too, but again...no low range and not enough clearance. If they did a highrider version with lowrange...would be about perfect.

What I love about 1st gen Tacoma and earlier Toyota trucks, they are totally unassuming looks-wise but super tough underneath. All the new ******** looks ridicolous to me....gotta remember I used to have a VW Westy for 8 years, early Toyota trucks for the last 26...I have nothing to prove. Current styling is too machismo for me.

 

[jadmt]

Like the looks of the Honda over all of the other trucks, everything else appears like it is trying to make up for some inadequacies...makes ya wonder if they give you a couple bottles of Viagra with purchase.

It wouldn't take much to fix the Ridgeline, lift, proper tires and low range. All of the other's have engines out of sedans too, not sure why people dog on the Honda's drive train/chassis so much. Is it because it doesn't look manly, and that effects their ego?

So what if it is based on a mini-van. I would rock one of those too if you could get 4WD with low range in them. Prolly never happen in the States since we are too concern on how we are perceived to others. Has to make 1000 ft/lbs of TQ and sit on 37" tires, right??? Or otherwise....

has nothing to do with insecurities of my manhood. I have have owned or currently owned 4 subarus outbacks (voted GLBT vehicle of the decade), at least 14 hondas including 4 odysseys (biggest wuss vehicle on the planet) and 3 CRVs I just find them ugly and worse yet honda reliability is not what it once was.

 

[Clutch]

has nothing to do with insecurities of my manhood. I have have owned or currently owned 4 subarus outbacks (voted GLBT vehicle of the decade), at least 14 hondas including 4 odysseys (biggest wuss vehicle on the planet) and 3 CRVs I just find them ugly and worse yet honda reliability is not what it once was.

Oh, my comment was a generalization, wasn't directed at you personally.

If it didn't have to do with insecurities of manhood, people wouldn't complain so much about how the Ridgeline looks or say it isn't a "real" truck, and the flamboyant machismo styling of the other trucks wouldn't sell as well as they do. As most people don't haul anything....I live in Idaho....lots and lots of trucks running around here, but very few actually being used as trucks. It is mostly about image....it is the the same as those lumberjack beards and wearing flannel...yet having no idea how to mix 2T fuel.

Shoot look of what has become of the Tacoma...they used to have a tough chassis, and soft exterior...and now it is the other way around.

I mean, geebus...look what they have done to the Rav4...you can't begin to tell me it isn't about looking tough.

What is up this looking angry styling as of late? **********' thing looks pissy...

You can build a tough truck without all the machismo fascia.

This lays down 600 ft/lbs TQ and has a 3000-4000 lbs payload.

https://www.navistardefense.com/Nav...erations_vehicle/special_operations_vehicle_b

 

[ExplorerTom]

those lumberjack beards and

They are called ************ Beards.

 

[warwickscout]

you think the rav4 looks tough

 

[rruff]

They just missed the mark on the off-roadiness for me. Would do a Subaru too, but again...no low range and not enough clearance. If they did a highrider version with lowrange...would be about perfect.
What I love about 1st gen Tacoma and earlier Toyota trucks, they are totally unassuming looks-wise but super tough underneath. All the new **** looks ridicolous to me....gotta remember I used to have a VW Westy for 8 years, early Toyota trucks for the last 26...I have nothing to prove. Current styling is too machismo for me. Hey man, nice truck! So sorry about your penis...

Yep. 1st thing Honda did that was "bad" for the market is tame but functional styling. 2nd thing is unibody. 3rd is no low range. All these actually make it a better vehicle for 99% of the people that have trucks. Truck buyers don't want practicality though, they want ego boost! That's where the big $$$ are.

I still have a '86 Toyota truck. The "fancy" SR5 extra cab with EFI. It weighs literally half what the Tundra weighs, has <1/3rd the power, and the payload is the same! For driving around town, I'd pick the '86 every time. It's more maneuverable, easier to park, easier to get in and out, better visibility, and has enough power. Only reason I have the big Tundra is for camper duty, but I'd be a lot happier with it if it was just a larger version of the '86.

I don't think a low range is needed much, but for offroad use a lower 1st gear would sure come in handy.

What is up this looking angry styling as of late? **********' thing looks pissy...

Lot's of angry people these days! And since your vehicle is supposed to personify your inner self, then....

 

[Clutch]

Yep. 1st thing Honda did that was "bad" for the market is tame but functional styling. 2nd thing is unibody. 3rd is no low range. All these actually make it a better vehicle for 99% of the people that have trucks. Truck buyers don't want practicality though, they want ego boost! That's where the big $$$ are.

I still have a '86 Toyota truck. The "fancy" SR5 extra cab with EFI. It weighs literally half what the Tundra weighs, has <1/3rd the power, and the payload is the same! For driving around town, I'd pick the '86 every time. It's more maneuverable, easier to park, easier to get in and out, better visibility, and has enough power. Only reason I have the big Tundra is for camper duty, but I'd be a lot happier with it if it was just a larger version of the '86.

I don't think a low range is needed much, but for offroad use a lower 1st gear would sure come in handy.



Lot's of angry people these days! And since your vehicle is supposed to personify your inner self, then....

Can't stand the bloat and grumpy codpiece grills of the new trucks....just so ridiculous looking. So much chest thumping these days...

Wish we could get the 70 series, understated looks but super tough chassis. Except we get weak chassis and bloated tough guy looks instead.


With the Ridgeline or even the Subarus...don't even need a 2 speed transfer case. A granny low 1st gear would work just fine like the old Toyota 4WD Tercels.


https://autoweek.com/article/junkyard-treasures/junkyard-treasure-1984-toyota-tercel-4wd-wagon

you think the rav4 looks tough

Well look at it, furrowed brow, grill looks like the charactor Jaws from James Bond...and an underbite. Grrrr...trying to look tough but it isn't. I actaully like the Rav4....but they loose me on the front clip. Like most of Toyota's styling these days, just off the rails....think it means I am getting old.

It is like when the Jeepers do the angry headlights/grimacing grill thing...so ********** stupid. Watch out....he comes Mr Tough guy! Ha ha!

 

[tennesseewj]

Amazing how ugly the new Silverados are, reminds me of how bad the Pontiac Aztek turned out. It really makes me appreciate the understated styling of my first gen Tundra.

I agree with you guys on the Ridgeline having some neat features and adequate payload for most buyers; however, I would have a hard time buying a truck or SUV without low range. East TN has a fair amount of steep hills and backing trailers up them is way more comfortable in low range, even when it isn't needed for traction purposes. My wife's Grand Cherokee is all time 4x4 without low range and while it is manageable, it leaves a little to be desired.

I noticed the new 2wd GMs have a mode that raises the RPMs to simulate low-range. That would be a good features for manufacturers to add in place of low range on Subarus/Ridgelines/etc.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[Clutch]

A modern powerplant requires $10s of millions in development. Its the height of madness to suggest that an engine in a sedan or van can't be used in a truck or vice versa. Many of these engines are providing very long service life. Just because the core engine design is the same, doesn't mean that changes aren't made for the truck service regime.

Tradition and tribal identification are part of the reason that the big three dominate the pickup offerings in the USA. Honda, Nissan, or Toyota could offer equivalent functionality in a mid-sized at 3/4 the cost, and it would be rejected by 75% of buyers simply because it doesn't "look" right.

I always thought the frame/unibody argument on the ridgeline was strange. Since when does a light duty truck with 1500lb payload need a fully boxed frame? I will take the weight savings and better ride personally.

There is thread about the Tundra's and others frame being too flexy, if you want a super stiff chassis, Unibody is the way to go. There is a video of rocks being dumped into the bed of the Ridgeline...do that with a steel or aluminum bed, going to dent the heck out of it, where the Honda is barely phased.

It has great payload and towing capacities. So not calling it a real truck is a little weird. What hurts it is low clearance and no low range. Otherwise seems good. There is one running around here with a Phoenix popup camper even.

Honda missed the mark just a little. Like they all seemingly do.

 

[Clutch]

Amazing how ugly the new Silverados are

Just when you think they can't make them any uglier, they do...

 

[rruff]

....if you want a super stiff chassis, Unibody is the way to go.

If I could design my perfect offroad long term camping vehicle it would have a steel space frame, with foam and fiberglass panels. A big 4cyl engine... maybe front wheel drive, with electric rear drive when needed? Room for 37" tires, 14" ground clearance. A 6' tall person can get in without climbing (or steps). Manual transmission. 6+ gears with 1st being plenty low. Light on creature comforts and light weight.

Speaking of mild hybrids, I kinda like what Ram did. Haven't heard much about it but it seems like an interesting concept. Plus you have a big lithium battery pack for camping!

 

[Clutch]

If I could design my perfect offroad long term camping vehicle it would have a steel space frame, with foam and fiberglass panels. A big 4cyl engine... maybe front wheel drive, with electric rear drive when needed? Room for 37" tires, 14" ground clearance. A 6' tall person can get in without climbing (or steps). Manual transmission. 6+ gears with 1st being plenty low. Light on creature comforts and light weight.

Speaking of mild hybrids, I kinda like what Ram did. Haven't heard much about it but it seems like an interesting concept. Plus you have a big lithium battery pack for camping!

The Ram mild hybrid looks interesting. Noticed on the new Rav4's the hybrid makes the most power of the line. Electric motor assist in a truck/van I can see being able to have a smaller petrol engine, and having gobs of torque "boost" from the electric.

Your perfect rig has me thinking it would look like a Merc 814...