These are much heavier than CR250's and it looks pretty level to me. Not mine, just a pic I found on the net.

 

Meh.

No longer worth the effort.

It's like arguing with a piece of lawn furniture.

 

All of it's supposed vehicle capabilities aside,


God that is one ugly truck.

 

I never liked the Avalanche either. Better though without all the plastic.

 

Ballpark, that's about 900 lbs. wet, give or take 40 or so... It's squatting in the rear pretty significantly. That's about half of what 2 CR250's would weigh in at wet.

Regardless...
Wimpy pseudo-fast bikes, wimpy pseudo-truck minivan.

It fits.

 

So then people are laughing that it was squatting holding 1800 pounds? Hell, my 2000 Silverado didn't have quite 2000 pounds of dirt in the rear a couple times and looked like a damn lowrider.

 

What else would you expect from a city truck?

You won't find these "trucks" doing work on the farm any time soon.

 

Do you repeatedly let inaccurate half-truth drivel come out of your mouth for the fun of it, or are you just that dumb?

It's AWD, and if you want to get down to the car platform its unibody chassis is historically derived from it's the Accord... the Pilot is a reinforced and extended version of this chassis with modified suspension and drivetrain. The Ridgline is then extensively modified from there including the use of frame rails. Hardly an Accord, and definitely nothing in common with the civic platform.

Furthermore we've already established that the passport is unfortunately loaded even starting out sticker price. Compare apples to apples. Show me a GM truck with all the same features as the Ridgeline for half the price. You can't, it doesn't even remotely exist. Even a stripped out crew cab 4x4 colorado isn't even close, much less one with all the comparable features included.

 

A CR-250 dry weight; 213lbs.

http://www.bikez.com/motorcycles/hon...250_r_2005.php

 

Technically, I guess, but its a FWD architecture, transverse mounted engine with "afterthought" rwd. When the front tires take more than 50% of the power, which they do in a FWD-based transverse AWD application, that is a car-based FWD based powertrain.

True truck AWD or 4wd is a RWD based architecture.

I guess Lexus could put a mini bed on the back of the RX300 and call it a "truck" too...its got the same FWD/AWD drivetrain architecture as the Honda.

 

Complete engine power is driven only through the front wheels after 18 mph. It is only an AWD truck at very low speed.

 

That's only when you lock it into 4 wheel drive mode (and that's distributed to front and rear). Anything below 18 mph would be pulling a boat up a ramp, or if you actually got stuck. It adds power to the rear wheels automatically anytime it senses a loss of traction in VTM4 mode, which is automatic.

Anyway, all this is really insignificant. If GM had built it, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

If you don't beleive me, tell me how you really feel about the Cobalt SS.

 

That's what I said.

213 * 2 = 426... which is about half of 900.

Since the bikes are most likely wet in both cases, the two bikes in the pic provided are going to end up weighing in at around 900 lbs. 600cc bikes go in the neighborhood of 450lbs. wet, but the first one is a Honda 600, and Honda motorcycles tend to run a bit heavier than the equivalent Suzuki or Kawasaki models.

BTW, the bed capacity for the Ridgerunt, taken from Honda's site:
• Half-Ton (1,100-lb) Bed Capacity

TOTAL payload for the Ridgerunt is 1500 lbs. NOT BED CAPACITY. That's the weight of everything you've got with you... including you. Concurrently, the payload rating for the lowest end Avalanche is ~1400 lbs., but Chevy doesn't care where you put it... or you...

Trailering rating for the least well equipped Avalanche is fully 2100 lbs. more than the Ridgerunt.

 

I would rather have an SRT-4 over a Cobalt SS, if I were in the market for a fwd sh!tbox. Thanks for trying to generalize me as a GM sackriding nuthugger though. If GM made a truck like Honda did, I certainly would think it is garbage. Me not liking this truck has nothing to do with it being a Honda, I don't like this truck because it is not a real truck.

 

The payload capacity of the Avalanche is 1346 which includes the driver and all cargo. The Ridgeline's payload is 1500 pounds. Compare apples to apples however you want, just don't compare apples to oranges.

The av tows 2100-3000 pounds more than the Ridgeline, but again we're talking about a true full size V8 truck compared to a large V6 compact truck. And you're also well aware that the people who buy it are not too interested in out-towing their next door neighbor anyhow. We're talking about the large majority of buyers here, not the minority 'manly men' who think their tow capacity is a direct representation of the size of the tool in their pants.

I don't think we have to worry about the manly men looking at this truck anyway, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a truck by definition - which is that it's intended to tow and haul cargo. Nowhere in the definitions I've ever seen does it say "must tow at least X amount and haul X amount without more than X amount of squat in the rear". Nor have I seen any definition state it has to use traditional frame rails without the use of any unibody architecture reinforcement - but that's what so many people were saying when unibody SUVs first started hitting the market. "They're not really SUVs, they're lifted cars " Let's see if anyone still holds that opinion 20 years from now when the traditional ladder frame probably won't even exist anymore on new vehicles. Probably nobody but stubborn old men leftover from this board.