Ridgeline - How Does It Work?

"HammerheadFistpunch" (hammerheadfistpunch) 01/11/2016 at 16:53 • Filed to: Truck Yeah, Ridgeline, Honda

9

100

The new Honda Ridgeline. Love it or hate it. Me personally? I like it and I agree with !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! that its actually a good fit for many truck buyers, especially the ones with enough self confidence to admit to themselves they don’t need to be seen as lumbersexual who slays giants with pelvic lasers axes in order to get some real work done. Trouble is, its not a truck...or at least not in the traditional sense...and that leads to a lot of confusion regarding what it is, where it comes from and how it works. Honda is pretty much worthless for providing these answers so I went looking for myself and now I’m back to report on my findings.

Being a new truck I can’t tell you all you want to know about it but I can give you a few details and hopefully silence the typical dumpus comments this kind of truck invites. I Should say that I’m not here to defend the truck, or detract from it, just to lay it down as best I know.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

1. Its a minivan!

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Yeah, its got shared component architecture with the odyssey platform. So. no really...what of it? I share genetic components of my mother, but my mother I am not. Its not meant to be HD but it has more payload than some FS trucks. Its going to be a fine platform for its intended uses.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

2. FWD?!

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Yup, its transverse engine just like the pilot and the truth is that really only has one downside: No easily adapted transfer case. And no, the Ridgeline doesn’t have one, its either FWD only...Which will be fine for anyone who needs a 2wd truck...or i-VTM4 which is single speed semi-full time AWD (more on that in a minute) and as such its not going to be well suited to off-road pursuits were low range is required. That’s fine, there are better trucks for this task anyway.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

3. i-VTM4

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

What it is? How does it work? Torque vectoring? Yeah. This one is trickier. If you aren’t intimately familiar with how AWD/4WD works you should read !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! and !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! first. Okay now onto VTM4 and i-VTM4. Lets just make this clear right now, these are [more or less] just different names for SH-AWD but tuned differently. Here is an overly simplified rundown on how these systems work

The VTM4/SH AWD unit is a single piece unit that replaces both the center differential and rear differential.

It has a ring and pinion that is physically connected to the half shafts only by clutches

Those clutches open and close to deal with speed bias AND torque bias for both the rear wheels individually AND the rear axle as a whole. Basically if you want more rear axle torque you lock up the 2 clutch packs progressively either using electromagnets and ball ramps (VTM4) or with hydraulic pressure (i-VTM4). If you want more torque to a single rear wheel you lock up that wheels clutch pack more. Simple, effective.

i-VTM has torque vectoring on the rear axle. The VTM [SH-AWD] unit in addition to separate clutch packs for each half shafts has small planetary gear set on each half shaft with a tiny overdrive ratio of 1.027:1 (up from 1.016:1 in previous generations). The advantage of this system is that it allows for individual half shaft output speed to be greater than the input speed. If you apply this to a system that can engage or disengage a output shaft individually means you can introduce a yaw by over-speeding the outside wheel. Neat!

The advantage of this system is that it weighs very little (220 lbs) its very adaptable to many different vehicles and has low noise/vibration/harshness characteristics and is very easily tailored to meet a wide variety of performance targets. But its not without faults.

Rear axle torque transmission limits from 10% - 70% engine torque. This means that the rear axle will never get 100% of the engine torque...though once at the rear the VTM4 unit can send 100% of the torque to either rear wheel. Compare that to a “true 4wd” system that is able to shift torque from 0-100%, though with the disadvantage of radius scrubbing on tight turns on high traction surfaces.

VTM4 ( and I assume i-VTM4   Nope, no button anymore ) can “lock” the engagement of the clutches manually through a dash switch though its limited to only 70% torque to the rear axle (60% on VTM4) and not a full lock  as is implied [as in true 4wd systems] and its only able to do this (VTM4 system and i-VTM4 presumably similar) at speeds up to 6mph, and in 1st, 2nd and reverse gears. The lock function gradually ramps out to a low lock state by 18 mph, but it will re-lock as speeds come back into the speed zones as defined by the map.

The clutches are 100% responsible for bias (both axle torque/speed as well as rear wheel torque/speed) and they are required to constantly slip in normal driving due to the overdrive gear sets. This creates heat that needs to be mitigated with fluids and pumps and it also means constant clutch wear, which may be an issue in the long haul if you abuse the system.

READ MORE HERE

Does this mean the Ridgeline/Pilot/MDX are not true off-roaders? Yes it does. Does it mean they can’t go off-road? No it does not.

The truth is that this isn’t a “truck” in the way we are used to, and that’s okay in my opinion. This is a new (or at least remake) class of vehicle that is capable enough to meet the needs of a vast majority of the market, but doesn’t have the penalties that come with meeting the needs of the smaller part of the market that genuinely needs the additional capability.

There are still lots of questions that needs answering, such as price and mileage, but the real question that I think this raises more than any other is up to you to answer:

Are you secure enough in who you are to admit you really only need a Ridgeline? I hope so.

d15b > HammerheadFistpunch 01/11/2016 at 17:00

1

The new Ridgeline answers the question “What do I NEED?” instead of “What do I WANT?”

JR1 > HammerheadFistpunch 01/11/2016 at 17:01

3

It is perfectly acceptable for most truck related things. However the towing rating is down right sad

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > HammerheadFistpunch 01/11/2016 at 17:01

1

I have an uncle who’s been trying to find a hunting truck in the mysterious nexus between 4wd/AWD, very good mileage, some bed, four door cab, and minimal size platform. I’ve been telling him that the truck he wants largely doesn’t exist in this country. Would this be ideal for him? Sure. Will he be getting a new truck of any kind? Not a chance. Maybe he can wait a few years...

HammerheadFistpunch > JR1 01/11/2016 at 17:02

0

What is it? 5000? I haven’t heard.

JR1 > HammerheadFistpunch 01/11/2016 at 17:06

1

4500 I believe. That isn’t enough for my needs anyway. For most it is probably enough though

HammerheadFistpunch > JR1 01/11/2016 at 17:12

4

I haven’t found any reliable source on the new model, but I would guess 5000. There is more to it than pure towing number though. I mean, If you think about it if you had a 4 door Tacoma TRD V6 4x4 and tow 5000 lbs you end up with a tongue weight of 500 lbs minimum which leaves only 675 lbs for people and cargo. If you tow the limit at 6500 assuming minimum tongue weight of 650 that only gives you 525 lbs, or 2 guys and their bags. In the Ridgeline you would have 1100 lbs still (towing 5000 lbs). Which means that even though the Tacoma can tow more, you can’t bring your friends and gear with you when you do.

Sampsonite24-Earth's Least Likeliest Hero > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 01/11/2016 at 17:14

0

Ford F150 4x4 2.7 ecoboost

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > Sampsonite24-Earth's Least Likeliest Hero 01/11/2016 at 17:18

2

We’re talking someone who is being slightly unrealistic about target price and mileage.

JR1 > HammerheadFistpunch 01/11/2016 at 17:19

0

That is a good way to look at it. And I imagine it will be more convent and get better mpg than the Tacoma. And I have to say the speakers in the rear for tailgates while a little gimmicky was a very cool idea.

4muddyfeet - bare knuckle with an EZ30 > HammerheadFistpunch 01/11/2016 at 17:20

2

“the ones with enough self confidence to admit to themselves they don’t need to be seen as lumbersexual who slays giants with pelvic lasers axes in order to get some real work done.”

Welp, this pickup’s not for me.

HammerheadFistpunch > JR1 01/11/2016 at 17:20

7

I hate it. The last thing I want for truck owners to have is another excuse to blast music outside.

HammerheadFistpunch > 4muddyfeet - bare knuckle with an EZ30 01/11/2016 at 17:21

1

JR1 > HammerheadFistpunch 01/11/2016 at 17:25

0

Unfortunately that is likely what it will be used for with makes me cringe. But at least it was a good idea

LionZoo > HammerheadFistpunch 01/11/2016 at 17:25

0

That feature is gonna end up being highjacked for unintended results.

4muddyfeet - bare knuckle with an EZ30 > HammerheadFistpunch 01/11/2016 at 17:25

0

¿

gin-san - shitpost specialist > HammerheadFistpunch 01/11/2016 at 17:28

0

I’ve always kind of liked the Ridgeline because it’s weird that Honda makes a pickup. Honda doesn’t even have a V8 as far as I know. I’d imagine many who don’t regularly tow stuff or work with their pickup would do just fine with a four-cylinder pickup like this one.

Nothing wrong with simplicity and utility, and that’s what I see here. People with heavy-duty needs already have plenty of options available.

HammerheadFistpunch > 4muddyfeet - bare knuckle with an EZ30 01/11/2016 at 17:29

0

yup.

4muddyfeet - bare knuckle with an EZ30 > HammerheadFistpunch 01/11/2016 at 17:31

0

I thought so.

Going back to work now.

Birddog > HammerheadFistpunch 01/11/2016 at 17:31

2

Need and Want are two separate worlds.

Sure, this may be all the “Truck” I need. I have an F150 because I want an F150.

LionZoo > HammerheadFistpunch 01/11/2016 at 17:32

0

I had a similar discussion with some of my friends this morning. Basically, there seems to be a view that a “proper” truck must have body-on-frame construction, live axles, (insert your favorite item here), etc. However, unibodies, independent suspension, etc. etc. are more “light duty” more because of implementation and manufacturing considerations than inherent advantages. I can make a unibody just as robust as a body-on-frame, and there are very few situations where the inherent advantage of a live axle is just going to be better than an independent suspension, period. However, because our favorite trucks have body-on-frame and live axles, a lot of times we just end up assuming that those are features of a “proper” truck.

HammerheadFistpunch > Birddog 01/11/2016 at 17:33

0

No one is faulting you for that. I don’t “Need” to explore in my truck like I do...but I want to.

HammerheadFistpunch > LionZoo 01/11/2016 at 17:34

0

Now I will say that I will be the first to defend body on frame. If you are torsionally stretching your vehicle often and severely...than BoF is better 100% of the time. Most people aren’t so it aint no big thing.

Steve in Manhattan > HammerheadFistpunch 01/11/2016 at 17:35

0

This truck does a lot of things really well, and a bunch more things pretty well. I have always been fascinated by these things, and I am glad that Honda continues to build them. If I needed a vehicle with a bed, this would most likely be it.

LionZoo > HammerheadFistpunch 01/11/2016 at 17:42

0

As in... flexing the frame for more travel?

HammerheadFistpunch > LionZoo 01/11/2016 at 17:46

0

less for travel and more for durability. BoF allows for the frame (which was designed with a certain amount of flex about its longitudinal axis) to absorb those stresses without degrading the life of the vehicle. Stretch and twist a unibody enough and it will start to get creaky and soft.

nermal > HammerheadFistpunch 01/11/2016 at 18:19

0

It not that you NEED to always carry a chain around in your truck, so you can pull down random buildings, then come back towing a big-ass trailer full of raw materials and power tools, just to build something bigger in the place of the building you just pulled down....

....but the idea that you COULD, if needed.

It’s doubtful that a large number of full-size owners will downgrade to the new Ridgeline, but that doesn’t mean that it won’t sell well. It will be seen as a “softer” alternative to the Tacoma and little GM trucks. Probably rides better, tows less, and doesn’t have a “real” 4x4 system.

nermal > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 01/11/2016 at 18:23

0

I would not want dead critters bleeding all over the speakers and bunk (bed trunk = bunk?) in this truck.

HammerheadFistpunch > nermal 01/11/2016 at 18:25

0

Hopefully there is a proper bunk drain this time.

HammerheadFistpunch > nermal 01/11/2016 at 18:25

3

I wonder if this even appeals to people buying trucks. I feel like this appeals to people who are thinking about buying a truck...but just can’t.

LionZoo > HammerheadFistpunch 01/11/2016 at 18:28

1

While currently true, I think your example just illustrates my argument that it isn’t about the inherent design, it’s about implementation. Unibodies suffer from weakening due to stress concentrations within the body design, which results in metal fatigue at those points. Such stress concentrations are due to how current unibodies are built from a cost standpoint (namely, rivets and spotwelds). Over time, the metal in those areas fatigue. Body-on-frame designs don’t have or have less of these stress concentrations. However, I can easily design a unibody that avoids such stress concentrations (e.g., a fully seam welded body) and thus avoids metal fatigue issues.

nermal > HammerheadFistpunch 01/11/2016 at 18:30

0

The Ridgeline will serve a different market. Very few buyers will be conversions from other trucks. My estimate is that the majority of the buyers will be exising Honda owners upgrading from a car or CRV. Possibly owners of other brands of cars or crossovers here and there.

HammerheadFistpunch > LionZoo 01/11/2016 at 18:32

0

I think its less about construction method and more about the inherent nature of the beast. its really hard to design in compliance in one direction and stiffness in another on a unibody, at least with current techniques...hell its tricky to get it right with Carbon bicycles. The truth is that BoF is superior for vehicles with heavy loads that flex

HammerheadFistpunch > nermal 01/11/2016 at 18:33

2

yup, exactly. Its the truck for people who don’t into trucks.

E92M3 > HammerheadFistpunch 01/11/2016 at 18:34

0

It’s more useful than one of these. It’s more than enough truck for a lot of people.

Based solely on the number of full size pickups I see with no tow ball, and pristine bumper (meaning there’s never been a tow ball installed)

HammerheadFistpunch > E92M3 01/11/2016 at 18:35

0

just cause they don’t tow doesn’t mean they don’t haul. Though I agree that the Ridgie will be perfect for many.

LongTravel > nermal 01/11/2016 at 19:15

0

The speakers are the bedsides. No way to damage them with critter entrails.

jvirgs drives a Subaru > HammerheadFistpunch 01/11/2016 at 19:21

0

I actually really like it. For me, I don’t plan on towing anything or needing to haul ridiculously heavy objects, but would like to have the functionality of a pickup. So if the price is right, I would totally buy one. Bet it gets good gas mileage too.

HammerheadFistpunch > jvirgs drives a Subaru 01/11/2016 at 19:41

0

I’m guessing 20 city 26 highway

LionZoo > HammerheadFistpunch 01/11/2016 at 19:51

1

But why would you want compliance (flex) in the frame? The flex isn’t what is extending the frame’s life. In fact, flex (deflection/deformation) would, if anything, hurt the life of the frame. While it may appear that compliance is extending the life of ladder frames, it’s actually more that the stress concentrations within parts of the unibody are shortening its life. In an ideal world, where a unibody doesn’t have any stress concentrations, minimizing flex is the key to extending the life of the frame.

The name of the game is different in bicycles and motorcycles as those vehicles have “suspension” that only works in one direction, while the bike/motorcycle may absorb large stresses in other directions (e.g., when leaned over). In such situations, frame compliance is necessary to absorb the forces.

This is a very interesting discussion. I wish we could talk about it over beers as I used to design racecar frames in a previous life and vehicle chassis is one of my favorite subjects to talk about.

Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer > HammerheadFistpunch 01/11/2016 at 22:38

0

I am secure enough to admit that a Ridgeline is more than all the truck I need.

However I would buy a traditional truck because reasons. Mainly the rwd and real transfer case. I prefer those greatly to the fwd/awd setup in the Ridgeline, no matter how well it works.

Birddog > HammerheadFistpunch 01/12/2016 at 10:05

1

That’s just my go to whenever I see a “this is all you need” post on the FP and Oppo (which happens too often IMO).

shop-teacher > HammerheadFistpunch 01/12/2016 at 12:32

0

The Ridgeline is all the truck I need right now, but I plan on upgrading to a larger camper. At which point it wouldn’t cut the mustard anymore. It’s definitely enough for your average homeowner who wants the convenience of an open bed and needs a real back seat.

HammerheadFistpunch > shop-teacher 01/12/2016 at 12:34

0

Frankly, if it wasn’t for the overlanding, this truck would suit me exceptionally well as I tow a few trailers ranging from 1500-5000 lbs, have occasional need for hauling heavy loads, have only 2 kids and would need to daily drive it. The bummer for Honda is that a Tacoma gives me all that too at about the same price, plus the ability to tour.

shop-teacher > HammerheadFistpunch 01/12/2016 at 12:38

0

I think it comes down to a compromise between a comfy on-road ride, and capability. The Honda is biased towards the ride end, where as the Tacoma is more focused on capability. My ‘06 Sierra crew cab has been a fantastic truck, and I don’t intend to get rid of it anytime soon (or possibly ever). That said, the ride is pretty rough.

HammerheadFistpunch > shop-teacher 01/12/2016 at 12:40

0

yeah, even though the cruiser is pretty darn smooth all things considered, it would be nice to daily something with a little less “carry the world” in its springs.

shop-teacher > HammerheadFistpunch 01/12/2016 at 12:45

0

I bought a cheap ‘94 Buick Roadmaster wagon this fall that I drive roughly half the time. I’ve gotten spoiled by the way it rides :)

willconltd > JR1 01/12/2016 at 12:46

0

If it will tow a couple of PWCs then that’s all you need it to do.

Blake Allen > HammerheadFistpunch 01/12/2016 at 12:56

2

“a good fit for many truck buyers, especially the ones with enough self confidence to admit to themselves they don’t need to be seen as lumbersexual who slays giants with pelvic lasers axes in order to get some real work done.”

Am I the only one on this site that’s sick and tired of this idiotic opinion? Yes I drive a full size truck (F-150). No I do not have a crazy, manual labor job (I’m a Realtor). No my truck is not compensation for any other deficiency. I just like it. I’m 6'4" and my last car, a Volvo S40, killed my knees getting in and out and I felt like I could never see around me. I use the bed of my truck for projects or helping a friend out at least once a month. I off road in it, and it’s an extremely comfortable road trip vehicle.

Basically my question here is why is my truck ownership stigmatized? Just because I don’t tow to capacity or haul gravel in the bed all day everyday, automatically my commuting needs could be “better” served by a Toyota Camry. Why isn't the Mustang owner, the BMW 5 series owner, or the Miata owner looked at the same way? For the most part all of their needs for a vehicle could be served my something as bland as a Camry as well.

People don’t just buy vehicles on “needs” it’s also highly fueled by “wants”. And I’d rather drive something that I enjoy rather than something I wouldn’t.

HammerheadFistpunch > Blake Allen 01/12/2016 at 13:10

0

There is simply no denying that the pickup truck has a stigma and its just something you, as a pickup driver, will have to deal with. In the same way that I have to drive a cheating TDI around town and have to deal with the looks I get, or the gas hog that is my daily that I’m sure people think I’m some off road poser for driving. I can handle it cause I am of the general opinion that peoples opinions on what I drive are as valuable to me used up shop towel. What like 5 series driver, mustang owner and Miata hairdressers...er...drivers aren’t treated with their own stigmas?

Ted Ladue > HammerheadFistpunch 01/12/2016 at 13:25

0

I’m not going to pretend I’m smart enough to fully understand how the AWD system works, but am I wrong that this: “The VTM [SH-AWD] unit in addition to separate clutch packs for each half shafts has small planetary gear set on each half shaft” is theoretically similar to a portal axle in that both have half shafts with some gearing in them?

Blake Allen > HammerheadFistpunch 01/12/2016 at 13:30

0

I’ll agree with you there. I’d rather drive something that far exceeds my needs but makes me happy than to drive something that just meets my needs and I could care less about. I suppose that’s the point I was trying to make with all that rambling. I read a lot of auto blogs and the truck guy stigma just seems to stand out on here more.

HammerheadFistpunch > Ted Ladue 01/12/2016 at 13:31

0

yes, except in the case of portals its a massive reduction versus a tiny overdrive. The biggest difference is that the half shafts in the Honda system don’t physically connect to the ring and pinion except by the clutches. Its kind of like the Ferrari FF system actually.

HammerheadFistpunch > Blake Allen 01/12/2016 at 13:33

1

its there, just like Miata stigma exists more heavily on other sites, or domestics vs foreign on others or prius on others...its just the way of the world. The trick is, and the secret of the Ridgeline buyer, is to not give two flying craps about what other people think of your car choice.

PilotMan > HammerheadFistpunch 01/12/2016 at 13:35

2

The 1500s have gotten so good that there’s no reason to buy the Ridgeline. They all are getting 21+MPG highway (29MPG Ram 1500 diesel). They all have 350-400 HP. They use 5-link coil rear ends now and ride very well. They can be had as basic or optioned up with anything that you could want. They aren’t priced that much more with comparable models and with the usual domestic dealer discounts they can be purchased at probably less than the cost of the Ridgeline.

HammerheadFistpunch > PilotMan 01/12/2016 at 13:37

3

The also have less payload than a ridgeline (4x4 quad cab), are way too big for many people and are built like...well...like an FCA vehicle.

BringBackTheCommodore > HammerheadFistpunch 01/12/2016 at 13:40

0

Not fond of the fascia but times are changing, as is automotive design. Eventually, it’ll be commonplace. Not everyone needs a 1/2-ton pickup (let alone a 3/4- or 1-ton pickup), and this would fit the bill nicely for someone who needs a runabout but doesn’t have a need to tow a trailer that weights in at 8k+ lbs.

HammerheadFistpunch > BringBackTheCommodore 01/12/2016 at 13:42

1

Basically I see this as a vehicle you buy if you were going to buy a pilot but didn’t need 7 seats. Perfect for the small family with a boat or camp trailer on the weekends and needs a little yard work or home improvement during the week.

BringBackTheCommodore > JR1 01/12/2016 at 13:42

0

This would be good for a pair of jet skis, some lawn care equipment, even a car if it’s light. It could handle a Civic (or even a mid-90s model Accord) on a tow dolly.

It could even handle some of the smaller travel trailers without breaking a sweat - some of those are under 4K lbs.

PilotMan > PilotMan 01/12/2016 at 13:43

0

Comparing the Pilot/Ridgeline here is their historic MPG ratings

2015 Pilot AWD 18 city 25 highway = Ridgeline 15 city / 21 highway

2016 Pilot AWD MPG: 18 city / 26 highway

Based on the 2016 Pilot, the Ridgeline will probably get 16 city / 23 highway. They both weigh fairly similarly, but the Ridgeline must gain a ton of drag with the rear bed.

Nonster > HammerheadFistpunch 01/12/2016 at 13:49

4

My dad was a contractor, so while working for him in high school I was always driving a variety of heavy duty trucks, mostly Chevy 2500HD’s but we also had 1500's, an International flatbed, and a half dozen S10's and Rangers.

That said, from what I’ve seen, I really like the new Ridgeline. The capability of most fullsize trucks is so far beyond what most people need. I need a truck that’s a compact, comfy, and fuel efficient daily driver that can handle hauling stuff every now and then and that has enough towing capability to handle a hauling some motorcycles or maybe even a 2000lb racecar.

I live in an urban area where it sucks driving a big vehicle and on top of that even the current mid-size trucks are about the size of the old 1500 I drove and don’t get great mileage anyway. So hopefully the new Ridgeline will fill that niche

PilotMan > HammerheadFistpunch 01/12/2016 at 13:49

0

They are half-ton trucks, by definition you carry less than a ton in the bed (1,600Ibs for Ram). Does the Ridgeline had a higher payload than 1,600 pounds? The 1500s also tow 10,000+ pounds which the Ridgeline can not do with only 280 horsepower.

HammerheadFistpunch > PilotMan 01/12/2016 at 13:57

0

There is no “definition” on half ton that actually involves payload (i.e. some rams have REALLY high payloads (3000+ lbs as do F150's and GMs), but yeah. Also, not all are worse in payload...but many are and by the time you build up a 4x4 quad cab v6 truck with the eco diff (3.21) and all the options you would get in a ridgeline you end up with less payload (between 1100-1600 lbs), less towing (less than 5000) and less mileage (presumably) and a lot more money.

HammerheadFistpunch > Nonster 01/12/2016 at 13:58

1

I agree except the old trope of “the new compacts are the old full size” they aren’t. Sure the are as long but they are much less tall, narrower and lighter.

Textured Soy Protein > HammerheadFistpunch 01/12/2016 at 13:58

0

I bought my Grand Cherokee Hemi because I’m a big believer that getting extra traction thru fancy differentials is better than fancy traction/stability control. I didn’t care about the Hemi, I just wanted Quadra-Drive II because it’s got 3 eLSDs, and it’s only available on the Hemi.

This setup is total overkill for what I need, which was just something particularly competent on snowy roads. I do not go off road. I freely admit this. I deal with the absolutely horrendous fuel economy because the overall price I paid for the Jeep wasn’t that high, and here in Wisconsin, old Jeeps hold their value insanely well.

But it seems like more car companies are deciding to go with trickier differentials, which is an idea I fully endorse. For winter driving, I would be totally fine with a crossover with some kind of center & rear LSD action going on, some kind of ability to lock the system for sticky situations, and proper tires. It’d probably be a huge improvement over my Jeep’s usual 11-12 mpg (and friggin 15-16 mpg highway) and have all the winter capability I need.

Nonster > HammerheadFistpunch 01/12/2016 at 14:01

0

True, they aren’t that big, but a new Colorado was parked next to my old Ranger at work and it looks massive in comparison

Mane > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 01/12/2016 at 14:02

0

Sounds to me like he wants a Subaru Baja.

HammerheadFistpunch > Textured Soy Protein 01/12/2016 at 14:03

0

In terms of traction internal actuation is always better than external and Quadra drive ii is a great system. The ridgeline system should also be amazing in the snow but it won’t hold a candle to your jeep in the rough stuff

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > Mane 01/12/2016 at 14:03

1

Thought about that. Just barely shy of enough bed and ground clearance.

HammerheadFistpunch > Nonster 01/12/2016 at 14:05

0

Oh they are big, no question, just not THAT big. Still mid-sized

PilotMan > HammerheadFistpunch 01/12/2016 at 14:13

0

If you are someone who really wants to use their Ridgeline to haul 1500 pounds then you are probably really going to hate using it that way.

3.92 gears don’t destroy your mileage either with the 8 speed transmission. A v8 crew 4x4 with 3.92 gears is rated at 15/21 MPG.

Mane > HammerheadFistpunch 01/12/2016 at 14:13

0

If by much less, you mean a few inches then yes. If you pull the dimensions and weight of a late 1990's F150 and a 2016 Tacoma, they are pretty damn close to each other.

JR1 > BringBackTheCommodore 01/12/2016 at 14:14

1

I know the limit it probably safe but the heavier the load the more concerned I would be as it reaches the maximum limit.

Mane > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 01/12/2016 at 14:15

0

The bed size I can’t defend... it’s small. They are disturbingly solid off road however. The GC is misleading on these, unless you are rock climbing. They are certainly a no go in that environment.

HammerheadFistpunch > Mane 01/12/2016 at 14:23

2

I did, they aren’t. 6 inches narrower is not a small difference

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > Mane 01/12/2016 at 14:26

1

Can’t speak to his hunting area, not having been there, but around here at least it’s easy to accidentally the whole thing when offroading. Lots of little surprise rocks. A farmer acquaintance got one of the previous gen Ridgelines and found a way to tag the oil pan on something and crack it in nothing more than a *field*. He got it fixed, but his confidence in it was lost.

I absolutely like the Baja and would have recommended it, but between not thinking the gate is wide enough for two dog boxes, his tendency to work on his own cars (and/or drag other people in), and the near certainty he would find a way to belly-land it, it was a no-go.

HammerheadFistpunch > PilotMan 01/12/2016 at 14:34

1

Im not saying you shouldn’t cross shop between a FS truck and this, especially if the price is right, but I think that a massive best case scenario 21 mpg truck vs a more reasonably size city mileage 21 utility thing may not be apples to apples. Also, you don’t have to haul 1500 lbs all the time for it to be usuful, you would be amazed how quickly you can get to 1500 lbs at home depot and at the end of the day, the lighter RAM’s (the ones that are closer, apples to apples) wont legally be able to handle it.

The other thing that’s less relivant to outright hauling is that “payload” isn’t just things in the bed, its all people and cargo. Its one thing to be able to tow 10,000 lbs but with a minimum tongue weight of 1000 lbs and a payload of 1479 that leaves less than 500 lbs for you and anyone else you want to bring along. Even with a 5000 lb trailer you have less than 1000 lbs payload with the ram, which means you will have to choose your lightweight friends and their gear if you want them all to come along.

It’s all a giant back and forth but the long story short is that the ridgeline is the “truck” for people who aren’t “truck people”. And thats okay.

Textured Soy Protein > HammerheadFistpunch 01/12/2016 at 14:35

0

For me, “rough stuff” is deciding to go to the gym or grocery store when there’s 8+ inches of snow on the ground. With QDII and General Grabber AT2s this is absolutely no problem, I just get in and go. But something like a Cherokee Trailhawk would probably suit my needs just fine. I’m a city (suburb) slicker. I just want something more capable than the typical basic on-demand awd system with open front and rear diffs.

Mane > HammerheadFistpunch 01/12/2016 at 14:36

0

I guess it’s perspective. 5 inches, 4 inches and 200 lbs at most is a huge amount on a trail rig. On a work and hauling pickup, not so much.

Mane > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 01/12/2016 at 14:38

0

A well thought out argument against. Agreed.

HammerheadFistpunch > Mane 01/12/2016 at 14:39

1

I drive a relatively small (by todays standard) 7 seat suv...roughly the same size as a midsized truck...and I used to drive a 90's burb all over the place. Wow, its a big difference in terms of day to day. That being said, it sounds small on paper and I agree that its actually a really big deal on the trail. I wouldn’t fit on a few trails I’ve done in my cruiser if i was in the burb

Nothing > HammerheadFistpunch 01/12/2016 at 14:45

0

Cool that the Ridgeline soldiers on. What’s THAT different about it though, other than it’s exterior appearance? It appears that this is the only difference that’s spurring people to suddenly exclaim “Honda makes a pickup!” I hardly ever see articles claiming that the previous Ridgeline was "all the truck most people needed". New and shiny vehicle, I guess.

Mane > HammerheadFistpunch 01/12/2016 at 14:46

0

Oh I agree. I just offed my 2002 Burb for something smaller... it’s a revelation... And I’m even an inch narrower and 4 inches shorter than your 80 series.

And to think the Burb is a hair small on the grand scheme of full size pickup sizing.

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > HammerheadFistpunch 01/12/2016 at 14:49

1

The original Ridgeline drove like a dreamboat . Visibility was poor, and the gas mileage was nothing to brag about.

But FWD?? Pass.

HammerheadFistpunch > Nothing 01/12/2016 at 14:50

0

I think the main differences are that it actually looks like a truck now.

HammerheadFistpunch > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 01/12/2016 at 14:51

0

yeah, Honda is going to really have to offer some decent MPG in order for this to win.

Satoshi "Zipang" Katsura > HammerheadFistpunch 01/12/2016 at 14:52

0

Not exactly sold yet on this SH-AWD hype... Then again, I may have been handed a lemon RL when the second generation AWD model came out (2005?)

HammerheadFistpunch > Mane 01/12/2016 at 14:52

1

I’ve driven a few crew cab super duty long beds. Wow. I though the burb was a lot to manage. How people deal with that as a daily for the giggles is beyond me.

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > HammerheadFistpunch 01/12/2016 at 14:53

0

A comparison of gross vehicle curb weight would be interesting. But FWD makes this car none of the above . If I want something FWD/utility, I’ll buy one of the European or Asian van options.

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > HammerheadFistpunch 01/12/2016 at 14:54

0

And if I want a minivan, I’ll buy a f$#@ing minivan.

HammerheadFistpunch > Satoshi "Zipang" Katsura 01/12/2016 at 14:54

0

The best way to think about SH-AWD is that its a very clever way to add AWD to a FWD vehicle with a few added perks. From what I understand the GNK twinster thats going into the new focus RS is basically the exact same thing as the 2nd gen SH-AWD [and i-VTM4] and you know people are going to be all over that thing.

HammerheadFistpunch > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 01/12/2016 at 14:55

2

good for you, seriously, minivans are killer utility vehicles...stigma be damned.

Satoshi "Zipang" Katsura > HammerheadFistpunch 01/12/2016 at 15:01

0

Might be an interesting thing to see, then - if it’s any feasible than Subaru’s AWD system, then why not.

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > HammerheadFistpunch 01/12/2016 at 15:03

0

Nothing wrong with ‘em. I owned a Caravan, which was very nice, but under powered. But it could only tow Class II. Now I have a GMC Safari, which tows Class III. Goodwrench reman engine, transmission rebuilt by an expert shop, and I just got the rear end rebuilt and the guy upgraded it to posi-traction for no extra charge. I guess he had a set of the right rear end guts somewhere in his shop. And RWD. I maintain it diligently, but all of the paint is falling off.

I’ve driven that van from the Pacific to the Atlantic and back three times. Got 15 mpg towing the pop-up trailer, and I get around 18 on a highway trip.

HammerheadFistpunch > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 01/12/2016 at 15:13

0

I really REALLY like AWD safaris, BTW.

MrEvil > E92M3 01/12/2016 at 15:15

0

You don’t see the tow ball on my truck because it’s tucked under the back seat when not in use. I’m fairly certain I’m not the only pickup owner that does this. They could also tow a Gooseneck or 5th wheel trailer in which case you will likely NEVER see the hitch unless you peered into the bed.

Highlander-Datsuns are Forever > HammerheadFistpunch 01/12/2016 at 15:25

0

Great Northern has made a lumber sexual scotch ale. The guy in the video is a mtb buddy of mine.

http://unofficialnetworks.com/2015/12/video-…

E92M3 > MrEvil 01/12/2016 at 15:54

0

But it would leave marks on the bumper where you once had it installed. ; )

libbyfib > HammerheadFistpunch 01/12/2016 at 16:16

0

If I launch my jetskis on a sandy beach, will this thing be able to get me out?

(and I mean jetskis, the actual stand up kind, not the gigantic 4 seater boats they have bloated into)

HammerheadFistpunch > libbyfib 01/12/2016 at 16:25

0

maybe...I can’t say. I’ve dug into beaches with vehicles many times more capable than this.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > HammerheadFistpunch 01/12/2016 at 16:28

0

Not bad. The spare tire is still an issue, as I would not want to unload an appliance or load of brick pavers out of the bed to change a tire, and re-load again.

I make no illusions that this should be a heavy hauler, or rock crawler. Most people who don’t live on a working farm or ranch, or do construction work, etc... mostly just drive their trucks around on the streets, with light cargo duty, and a cowboy cadillac interior.

Transverse drivetrain with FWD or AWD, and independent rear suspension gives a lot of room to the cargo bed, not having to deal with a huge frame and live axle articulation under that. Plus, the unloaded truck has a distinct front weight bias, and performance isn’t the emphasis, so understeer and a bit of torque steer isn’t going to spoil the lack of dynamics, and will get better static traction while unloaded. AWD may not be great for mud or flat-glazed ice, but light soft roading on trails or open ground, it should do acceptably well.

The convertible tailgate is innovative, I couldn’t care much less about an external stereo, but others might like it... I could see maybe listening to it while the truck is close and I might be working outside, as long as it doesn’t drain the battery too quickly in accessory mode.

The under-bed storage is good for tools and jumper cables and such, not to have it inside the cab, under people’s feet, or sliding around all over the bed, or requiring a separate box to take up what bed space there is, I just wish the spare and jack weren’t subject to being accessible only if the bed isn’t fully loaded.

I also can’t help but think this thing would look better with a slant-back cap.