2017 Ridgeline
- Thread starter kennith
- Start date
I dunno man. The first one was at least trucky.
Like Erik said, this is literally a minivan with a bed.
I think it might be a very convenient around town and general utility vehicle.
I use pickups a lot, so obviously I like the bed, but there are times I need more interior space, and that trunk would be used a lot as well. It's a darn good design, and if you pass by a Honda dealership I encourage a few minutes of exploration.
A lot of people I know have Avalanches, and use them in the same manner I'd be using the Ridgeline. I don't think it looks bad; it's certainly not overly "truckish", but it's not offensive. We've got enough big rectangles rolling around already.
That trick tailgate has always been an eye-opener, but on this revised bed it's even better.
Cheers,
Kennith
I use pickups a lot, so obviously I like the bed, but there are times I need more interior space, and that trunk would be used a lot as well. It's a darn good design, and if you pass by a Honda dealership I encourage a few minutes of exploration.
A lot of people I know have Avalanches, and use them in the same manner I'd be using the Ridgeline. I don't think it looks bad; it's certainly not overly "truckish", but it's not offensive. We've got enough big rectangles rolling around already.
That trick tailgate has always been an eye-opener, but on this revised bed it's even better.
Cheers,
Kennith
Considering it is the Honda Pilot front end that is pretty much the perfect example of the "modular" body design they are claiming the new Defender will have for different body styles.
We looked at the 2017 as well. On paper it has everything I'd like in a new DD - convenience, seating, AWD, bed, in-bed trunk, MPG OK - plus it's a Honda (that's the part I really like). Something just didn't jive with me though, part of that was the $38k out-the-door offer.
I'm on the edge of needing a truck, currently I use the LWB to tow our Scout Troop trailer (3500lb gross, but only ~2000lb actual). Anything more in the "truck" direction is over-priced too (think Taco or full-size).
Don't know what I'll do, but I'm in no hurry.
I'm on the edge of needing a truck, currently I use the LWB to tow our Scout Troop trailer (3500lb gross, but only ~2000lb actual). Anything more in the "truck" direction is over-priced too (think Taco or full-size).
Don't know what I'll do, but I'm in no hurry.
I think it's astute for Honda to offer a "truck" for people who think they need a truck but don't really need a truck. Folks like the visibility, cargo space, and added traction of a truck, but many drivers also dislike the ride quality and fuel consumption of trucks. To offer some of the functionality of a truck with the comforts of a car is clever.
And to be clear, Kenneth is talking about the revised body style Ridgeline. This is the old version:
This is the updated version:
Jesus H Christ on a Popsicle stick. The new version is now battling the Pontiac Aztec for ugliness supremacy.
I haven't even seen one with that plastic cladding yet. It's a Honda accessory, and I found it when I was looking through their on-line catalog to see what sort of crap the dealerships will be installing.
This is how the Ridgeline tends to look:
It makes a pretty big difference. I kind of like the styling; it's not pretending to be a dump truck like everything else out there now. I miss those sail panels aesthetically, but they were in the way from a practical point of view.
The only real criticisms I'm encountering are a few quality issues to be expected with a new production run, rear doors that should open wider (certainly true), and a lot of people who seem to be against it because they either don't like the styling or because they think it's girly.
That last point has raised a lot of dander. Some people are aggressively defensive as soon as the vehicle is mentioned, as if it's going to sneak in their kitchen and steal cookies every Saturday morning. It's actively divisive as hell for some reason.
I could understand if it was the new replacement for the 2500HD, but it's not. It's just another vehicle on the market.
Ford sold a hell of a lot of 1997-2003 F-150s, and they weren't exactly butch. That makes me wonder what the big deal is with the Ridgeline's styling.
Cheers,
Kennith
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcqATDtSRi0
Mild offroad test.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5eE697aqEg
Little harder test and the ridgeline couldnt continue.
Personally I dont like the looks, but I guess it does appeal to the people that think they need a truck, but really dont. So they buy this..
Mild offroad test.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5eE697aqEg
Little harder test and the ridgeline couldnt continue.
Personally I dont like the looks, but I guess it does appeal to the people that think they need a truck, but really dont. So they buy this..
It's not just for people who think they need a truck but don't.
I'm not the only one who uses the hell out of a truck bed, but would really like more interior space and easily accessible waterproof storage. I'm forever hauling chainsaws and logs around tinkering with land, as well as packages to be shipped, and large purchases of strange stuff. I also tow my Kubota diesel mower around, as well.
Now, nobody needs anything, but I do use trucks of all kinds. Right now I've got two; they're small but they work well enough. I've always been a fan of small trucks that are easy to load and unload. These massive pickups on the lots nowadays have beds that are damned near nipple height for even a tall person.
That's stupid as hell. It's absolutely fucking stupid, and serves no purpose beyond making them look big and "manly".
While the Ridgeline still won't allow super-easy access to the bed from the side, as found on older American and import trucks, that side-hinge capable tailgate bellies you right up to the bed. It makes a big difference. Screwing with it for some time, I determined the vehicle would be quite easy to load and unload.
I've seen the video from those guys where they received the transmission warning. He clearly wasn't familiar with how a wet clutch mounted in a transmission works. Even in their other video, the guy wasn't smooth at all.
None of them even gave the most basic attempt at explaining what happened, or what steps they took to learn what was happening. Didn't even quote the manual, let alone call the dealer or Honda for an examination before posting the video. They just had to get those clicks in. Bad reporting.
Long, scrambling climbs at low speeds will heat up a system like that, but driving smoothly will help alleviate the issue. You'd heat up a limited slip in a solid axle doing the same thing.
Note that the truck was indeed present at the end of the video. I doubt they towed it down, or relocated the final scene where they stopped the Honda and left it there. It either cooled off and made it up, or cooled off and made it down.
It's not pretending to be a trail rig or an F-250. It's just a pickup with added convenience and apparently questionable styling. It's not going to bog down on a job site, and it'll haul more than enough for even the most dedicated contractor. People would be surprised just how much capacity they don't use.
The fact that you can lay plywood flat in a vehicle that compact (by modern standards) is a very nice thing. I just wish the rear doors opened wider. That really is a stupid issue. They should have used double hinges to get a full ninety degrees. That's something easily sorted with a slight next run revision, though.
Cheers,
Kennith
How exactly do you drive smooth? Not pump the gas? Not stop and go? If so it's bad engineering for a utility truck. I think it's pretty clear the thing it not made for mild off road driving. This video showed it and one member here has already attested to the fact the Honda transmissions overheats easily. I think most importantly the words Honda and Truck just don't go together.
The old Ridgeline at least was ugly in a sort of good way. The new Ridgeline is plain hideous. I don't care about any of the capabilities; I just couldn't drive it.
Well, apparently Honda swung and missed epically with the styling, because that's the most common gripe. I have yet to see a reasonable argument anywhere against the capabilities.
I personally rather like the look, and wouldn't want it to look like anything else currently on the market.
Cheers,
Kennith
I personally rather like the look, and wouldn't want it to look like anything else currently on the market.
Cheers,
Kennith
A sort of reiterating an earlier gripe, but I dont like FWD-centric awd systems. Its obviously better than 2wd only, but it just feels like a lame cop-out; especially on a truck/SUV. I kinda like the 2nd gen MDX, but I would never get one because of that.
Snow-wise, it will get you moving from standstill almost as good, but cornering is more of an art. Yes, the rears trigger in whatever fraction of a second, but that fraction is all it takes to start the understeer towards curb. Because you dont automatically kinda slide into drift position, you kinda have to prepare/anticipate shit a little more and really pound the throttle at the right moment.
I dunno, I just think they should eat the 3-4 mpgs or whatever and put a real awd system in.
I actually noticed the same thing in the video. The Ridgeline driver was "jerky". He didn't keep a steady pedal or maintainin a steady speed and momentum. Let's face it, they weren't rock climbing. It was a steady incline on slightly more than a gravel road.
The Ridgeline driver stopped every time he came to a tiny pebble and felt a little resistance. Then he'd give it some gas, lurch over the pebble, and stop again. Then repeat. Slow and steady would have kept him moving and might have kept the transmission happy.
That would obviously be better, but it was never going to happen, because they'd have to start from scratch on an entirely new drive system, and it's not required for that vehicle to do what it's intended to do.
If Honda was going to do that, the best move would have been a partnership with Subaru.
Cheers,
Kennith