PacerX

Now do your comparison with a full-size extended or crew-cab.

My guess is that the trade-off that will be found is one centering on capability. Either you want a truck for what a truck can do, or you want a minivan with a bed because you don't need the capability of the truck (a dubious decision in my view... trucks seem to find all sorts of uses after you buy them), or you want a warmed-over minivan because you are more worried about comfort (another dubious decision in that modern trucks, when you get down to it, are pretty comfort-friendly).

In short, if you want a truck, buy a truck. Don't call a warmed over minivan a truck, because it simply isn't one.

centric

Why are we having an argument about the relative merits of a Metrosexual Utility Vehicle with someone who doesn't own a single performance car?

I thought this was an enthusiast board.

Chris 96 WS6

The Ridgeline is for Yuppies who want to pull up at the local Starbucks and impress their friends with their newfound ruggedness, LOL.

Its no different than dressing in full LL Bean attire but never actually going outside. In fact the Ridgeline buyers probably buy a lot from LL Bean.

Its not a real truck, period. There's no amount of Honda propaganda or rated tow numbers or bed size stats that can change that. At best its an SUV with a bed....its unibody no matter what you say about the add-on frame. I would have added a support frame too if I were trying to take a FWD car-based SUV and turn it into a pseudotruck.

I'm not sure why all the debate/defense has centered around the frame anyway. Honda has obviously worked out a workable, even if not ideal, solution for a "truck".

The bigger issues are with the tq-less "truck" engine, the laughable FWD-dominant powertrain architecture, and the apparently severely inadequate towing suspension.

And I will say again what I said 6 mos ago...I'd love to see how that "innovative" bed compartment fares after a load of bricks or landscaping rocks gets dropped on the bed.

Now where's that LL Bean catalogue..........Oh, that will be one Grande caffe latte please.

Threxx

For clothing I buy primarily Arc'Teryx for my hiking trips, and I am not somebody who would consider a Ridgeline (though I don't think it's nearly as bad as you guys say it is). So I guess your theory makes sense, eh? But I do like Starbucks coffee from time to time.

BTW... do you have a dynograph for a stock I5 to compare to a dynograph of the 3.5L V6 from the Honda? Or are you just assuming it's 'torqueless' because it's a Honda?

Chris 96 WS6

Honda slashes Ridgeline production:

http://www.autoweek.com/news.cms?newsId=103486

Chris 96 WS6

I'm not the one comparing the Ridgeline to the Colorado, that's you. So personally the comparos with the I5 are meaningless to me. I'm fairly confident, however, that the Ridgeline is severely lacking from adequate low RPM torque to tow at its rated capacity for any meaningful distance. VTEC doesn't help tow a boat.

Your whole premise here seems to be that the Ridgeline can't be crap because its better than the Colorado. I don't see a lot of people here saying the Colorado is a sterling example of truckdom. IMO your argument is pretty weak, therefore. The Ridgeline can be better than the Colorado in some respects and still be a joke for a truck. That's the flaw in your logic.

Threxx

Actually it does. Guess you don't understand how VTEC (iVTEC, really) works. It creates two variably implemented cam profiles. Thus an engine can essentially have one cam profile made for low end torque, and another made for high end horsepower. In a lot of sportier low displacement vehicles they use the two profiles for mid range power and high range power and still mostly ignore low RPM torque, but I doubt they did that for a 'truck' like the Ridgeline. Is it a night and day difference? No, but it absolutely does help. Check the power curve, for example, when Toyota added VVT-i to the 4.7L V8... hp and torque increased both at low RPM and at high RPM (though more at high RPM because the previous cam profile was already biased for low rpm torque)

Threxx

By my logic if the Colorado is a joke then the Ridgeline is less of a joke in terms of 'truckdom', but also a well equipped and expensive joke for those still seeking to get as much many man truck for their dollar as they can without regard to feature content. (again, not saying there's anything wrong with that train of though, just saying it's an apples to oranges perspective on what somebody might value in a truck, and fact is the Ridgeline will do what probably 90% of the compact and full size truck buyers out there require from a truck which is very little towing or hauling or offroad, and do it with more comfort and feature content to boot.

For the 10% who are truely going to be towing 5000 pounds with regularity and off roading in their truck of course, go with a 1500 4x4 crew cab- you'll be missing some of the posh features, but then again you probably don't care, so fair's fair.

PacerX

TeeHee.

Chris 96 WS6

You're right, I apparently don't understand variable valve timing.

Honda motors, VTEC or not, are not engineered for low end tq.....low end tq is essential for towing capacity. My point was simply that VTEC can't fix this fundamental problem for them in this application.

Chris 96 WS6

OK, torque comparo:

No charts,but enough data to support my point.

Ridgerunt: 245ft-lbs @ 4500 So much for useable tq in the towing powerband.

Colorado: 225 @ 2800. Much better peak RPM. Less tq yes, but I'd wager that if graphed the colorado is making more Tq at 2800 than the ridgeline.

And you've not even attempted to offer up a defense of a FWD truck....which, BTW I think is indefensible. Toyota wasn't even that stupid.

I guess my biggest beef is how its marketed. As the ultimate truck. The commercials have it hauling ATVs and driving around on mountains, etc. etc. Threxx I'm totally fine if what is intended is a crossover SUT that's enough truck for the yuppie masses. However, that's NOT what Honda is trying to pass it off as. That annoys me, so it causes me to rip the product as a joke, which it is if you're considering it for the applications Honda markets it for.

PacerX

***GASP***

Data.

Let's see Japan-o-saurus Threxx argue with the data.

RPM at... say... 55mph in top (and whatever the gear previous is, 3rd, 4th, 5th...) gear would be a critical statistic for performance while towing. It would be interesting to note if the transmission is going to be forced to run in a lower gear due to the lack of torque... critical for efficiency too.


Well, let's not discount Toyota's stupidity, if at all possible.

Ken S

Threxx has a point. VTEC/variable valve timing is to optimise power across a larger rpm range... in otherwords, improve tq with a wider, bigger curve... Hence why they switch cam profiles.. One for low rpms, one for high.

What we all really need to see is the actual dyno charts to end this once and for all.

Also, if that Honda engine is smoother in operation, crusing say at 3000 rpm may be acceptable..


Also, If i remember, GM light duty 1500 trucks, with the 5.3's and such, all have their tq peaks relatively high in the rpm range too.. These engines usually make more than enough tq down below though, thanks to displacement.

raven05649

I don't make fun of the compact (midsize?) Colorado because its built as a truck, by a company who's made trucks long before you were a glimmer in your mothers eyes. IMO a truck with a trunk is NO truck to me.

Chris 96 WS6

More "data"

Curb weight:
Ridgeline 4500lbs
Colorado I-5 4150

That's 350 lbs kiddies....or 35 hp in the old maxim about 100lbs off a car is as good as 10hp added. That puts the hp:weight ratio (and presumably the tq: weight ratio) of the two equal.

EPA MPG:
Ridgeline 16/21...rotten MPG for a Honda...could be gearing for sure
Colorado I-5: 19/23