Honda Ridgeline Owners Club Forums banner

Fuel-Economy Info Released :)

8K views 40 replies 20 participants last post by  colorider 
#1 ·
2017 Honda Ridgeline's fuel economy trumps all other midsize pickups - Roadshow

Trying to keep track of fuel-economy for trucks can be a handful, given the ridiculous number of possible configurations for most models. But not for the 2017 Honda Ridgeline! Because it's meant to be a truck for people that only occasionally need a truck, it's got a very simple lineup. The EPA just released fuel-economy figures for the new Ridgeline, and the numbers are looking solid.

According to the feds, the front-wheel-drive Ridgeline will achieve 19 mpg city, 26 mpg highway and 22 mpg combined. Move up to all-wheel drive, and you only lose 1 mpg in each of the categories, for a rating of 18 city, 25 highway and 21 combined.

Compared to other trucks in its segment, it's the king. It trumps both the Chevrolet Colorado (17/24 in V-6 4x4 guise) and the Toyota Tacoma (18/23, with the same engine and drivetrain layout). You can't rightfully compare the four-cylinder models, because Honda lacks an analogue. Suffice it to say, the four-bangers are a bit more efficient.

The Ridgeline is also surprisingly close to its brother-in-control-arms, the Honda Pilot. The two vehicles share the same chassis, but the Ridgeline is hot on the heels of the 20-mpg-city, 27-mpg-highway crossover. It'll be interesting to see how all these vehicles compare in real world testing, which, as we've learned in recent months, is a bit different than the EPA's lab.
 
See less See more
#4 ·
2017 Honda Ridgeline's fuel economy trumps all other midsize pickups - Roadshow

...

According to the feds, the front-wheel-drive Ridgeline will achieve 19 mpg city, 26 mpg highway and 22 mpg combined. Move up to all-wheel drive, and you only lose 1 mpg in each of the categories, for a rating of 18 city, 25 highway and 21 combined.

Compared to other trucks in its segment, it's the king. It trumps both the Chevrolet Colorado (17/24 in V-6 4x4 guise) and the Toyota Tacoma (18/23, with the same engine and drivetrain layout). You can't rightfully compare the four-cylinder models, because Honda lacks an analogue. Suffice it to say, the four-bangers are a bit more efficient.....

What a load of crock. Let's save folks the time of sifting through other threads and put these ridiculous claims to bed right now. The 2017 RL is NOT best in class for fuel economy.

The Chevy Colorado/GMC Canyon with Duramax offers more power, 50% more towing capacity, and better fuel efficiency than any version of the RL:


EPA Mileage Comparison 2017 Ridgeline v. Colorado Duramax


-
 
#11 ·
What a load of crock. Let's save folks the time of sifting through other threads and put these ridiculous claims to bed right now. The 2017 RL is NOT best in class for fuel economy.

The Chevy Colorado/GMC Canyon with Duramax offers more power, 50% more towing capacity, and better fuel efficiency than any version of the RL:

EPA Mileage Comparison 2017 Ridgeline v. Colorado Duramax

-
Would the crocks in that load be full or empty? The answer might change MPG expectations cuz full crocks be heavy, ya know? :act024:

In the same way the Smart car ain't so smart in the iddy-biddy car class, offering little in the measured parameters of fuel economy, seating capacity, ETC, the Gen2 doesn't pretend to be a truck for all or class leading in this-or-that parameter. At least, not as FAIK it doesn't. What the Gen2 IS, is unique in its class offering a few nifty attributes not found elsewhere.

Seems to me those expressing deep disappointment in Gen2 specs are disappointed for very personal reasons. If anyone thought the Gen2 would burst onto the scene wearing a big red S on it's grill breaking records in "truckiness", they were fooling themselves - hence disappointed.

As a recent Gen1 convert, totally new to the Honda brand, I can see why certain elements of the Gen2 disappoint "real truck guys" and current Gen1 drivers BUTT, real truck guys never understood the Gen1 so it makes sense the Gen2 is perceived with similar misunderstanding. Insisting on comparing the Gen2 to other trucks is fallacy, a waste of time, false on its face. Gen2 doesn't fit the truck mold. Simple as that.

If Gen2 mechanical performance parallels Gen1, it will be a reliable driver with great road manners & high comfort, an open bed for medium truck duties plus a capable but limited set of off road capabilities.

Honda's engine portfolio is finite. WTF would ANYONE expect "class leading" fuel economy and quantum leaps in tow capacity from Gen2 is contrary to reality.
 
#5 · (Edited)
OK…. but have you researched what this Canyon/Colorado is going to cost? There are several articles about how GM is making you configure the truck in order to get the popular options. I think C&D just tested the Canyon, it was over $43K and it was not fully loaded. For that money I go looking at a full-size truck.

We all know that in the end manufactures are the best "spin doctors" out there.
 
#8 ·
OK…. but have you researched what this Canyon/Colorado is going to cost? There are several articles about how GM is making you configure the truck in order to get the popular options. I think C&D just tested the Canyon, it was over $43K and it was not sully loaded. For that money I go looking at a full-size truck.

We all know that in the end manufactures are the best "spin doctors" out there.
You're absolutley correct, it's marketing spin.

As for researching the cost of the Colorado Duramax diesel... I test drove one last week that had absolutely every option I would ever want on the vehicle. It had an MSRP sticker of $38.5K, and the dealer said to figure roughly 15% off that for a final sales price.


...

26 mpg for front wheel drive on the highway, 25 mpg for 4 wheel drive on the highway.
Just to be clear, I happen to think those numbers are quite respectable. My only gripe is with their bogus claim of best in class.
 
#9 · (Edited)
Not tooting my own horn but TOOT! TOOT! From a Jan 15th post by me:

So if Honda got to 18 city/25 hwy with the AWD they'd have their claim covered...and probably 19/26 with the RL FWD...That makes sense...If it got close to these numbers and around 21 combined, that would be a 20% plus improvement on the Gen I RL.

Although once we knew it was a current Gen Pilot with a bed, it didn't take an engineer to figure it out...

And vs. the GM Twins diesel, it is just about how Honda wants to spin it...Are we considering 4 cylinders and/or diesels to be 'in the class'? RAM markets the 1500 as best in class for half-tons at 29 mpg using the HFE 2WD version of the EcoD...so counting the GM Twins diesel option, 'no' the new RL is not best in class...

Still need to see REAL WORLD Fuelly type numbers on the Gen II. The diesels will almost always hit the EPA numbers (I do in my EcoD) where as gas will not. See Fuelly for the 2016 Pilot. Averages are closer to the city rating than anything else. IF I could get 1 mpg better than city in mixed i.e. 19-20 mpg in the Gen II RL, I'd be okay with that. I get 22.3 mpg in my 19/27/22 rated RAM EcoD, so operational costs would be pretty close...

Diesel is the same or less per gallon here in Western NY but I have my 8 gallons of DEF every 10k miles at $23-$24 total and 10.5 quarts of full syn per oil change every 10k as well...Plus the $40 oil filters. Net-net I'd be close although I'd lose some capability with the RL vs the RAM of course.
 
#13 ·
Agreed. Can you compare a super duty gasser to a diesel? I mean you can, but they are not the same thing.

"Class" has a loose meaning for every automotive manufacturer. To me, gas and diesel are true different classes. Extended cab vs Crew cab is not. Look at how many trucks advertise their best gas mileage in their 2wd standard cab with the highest rear end gearing. How many of those are actually purchased? What would a fwd Ridge as a standard cab get for gas mileage? Probably a few mpg higher just because of the weight loss. Then imagine that they offered a higher gearing for gas mileage as well. You'd probably be looking at another 1-2 mpg rating. So you could have a standard cab fwd Ridge with a 29-30 mpg highway rating. But would anyone be buying them?

In reality, all manufactures should be required to list their highest gas mileage option, and their lowest within the same model when they advertise on TV, radio, social media, etc.
 
#14 · (Edited)
It will be interesting to see how closely the Gen II RL will be able to mimic the 2016+ Pilots (granted the new RL is going to be rated at 1 mpg less). Fuelly is starting to get a respectable sample size of 2016 Pilots...Below are 2016's vs the previous generation Pilot. Recent Gen I RLs on Fuelly have been in the same 17-18 mpg range as the older Pilots...Regardless, anything close to or even 1 mpg less than the combined EPA rating is solid.



Also, as long as we were on the subject. Below are the 3.6L V6 Colorado and new Tacoma 3.5L results...Pretty consistent and overall, when all is said and done, you'll probably end up with the Gen II RL getting slightly better mileage that either of below - if only by 0.5 - 1.0 mpg of so...



 
#19 ·
The biggest problem Honda has is that the truck gets one or two miles per gallon more then the F150 but lacks most of its capabilities. The RL rides better and has that awesome trunk that I love on the gen 1. Unfortunately for everyone in the midsize space you get more truck with very little mpg penalty for about the same price in a full size.
 
#20 ·
If you guys believe Honda's gerrymandered "best in class fuel economy", nothing I can say will dissuade you.

But these are the facts:

Honda offers one engine in it's Ridgeline model.

Chevy offers three engine options in its Colorado model.

Honda compares it's Ridgline model to the Chevy Colorado.

The Coloroado offers two engine options, one gas and one diesel, that both get better fuel economy than the Ridgeline.

The Ridgeline gets better fuel economy than the LEAST fuel efficient engine option in the Colorado.

Honda's claim that the Ridgeline is "best in class" for fuel economy is based on a comparison against Chevy's worst fuel economy option in the Colorado.





Yep. And if one of these competitors would add the Ridgeline's very clever trunk to their product, it would be a no-brainer. On the flip-side, if Honda would just invest the R&D to give the RL a true 6K lbs tow capacity, the RL would be a viable option for a lot more customers.
 
#21 ·
Whats the big deal it gets the best gas v6 MPG available, its a bit misleading i agree but not worth fighting over, im happy with the MPG
 
#22 ·
.... its a bit misleading i agree but not worth fighting over, im happy with the MPG
I absolutley agree that the fuel economy is great in the new RL. No complaints whatsoever, and Honda should be commended.

The complaint is with the "best in class" fuel economy claim.

Honda can gerrymander the "class" all it wants, but there is no escaping the fact that the Chevy Colorodo Duramax gets better fuel economy, and is rated to tow 50% more.

Consumers are savvy. By making the "best" claim Honda only invites unflattering comparisons while losing credibility as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MR.Z06
#25 ·
There are multiple comments in this thread regarding Honda claiming best in class fuel economy. Not that I did any deep searches because it doesn't matter all that much to me personally, but I see no reference in Honda web marketing materials, car show coverage or industry publications to support the claim that Honda makes that claim.

What I do see is EPA ratings, known to be significantly out of sync with reality - regardless of OEM. If someone took the time to understand EPA criteria of OEM supplied data in compliance with EPA regulations, it would be abundantly clear why the OP is "accurate". After all, EPA = federal government, so what else does one need to know about the topic? Think "legal wiggle room" and it'll become clear every producer of everything offered in the consumer market is "spun" for the purpose of SALES.

Can someone point to the the claim that Honda makes such claims? And even if they are, the claim that Honda is employing "marketing spin" might be accurate but every other OEM is playing with the same government sanctioned submission criteria to derive their numbers, so the "argument" is bogus on its face.

IMO: bashing one OEM's numbers in favor of another is nothing more than cheer leading for a favored brand.
 
#26 ·
There are multiple comments in this thread regarding Honda claiming best in class fuel economy. Not that I did any deep searches because it doesn't matter all that much to me personally, but I see no reference in Honda web marketing materials, car show coverage or industry publications to support the claim that Honda makes that claim.
If (as you said above) it doesn't matter to you, then WHY do you then advise that Honda did not make the claim? A cursory two minute search
brought me to a YouTube video that shows a guy named Chris Martin (Honda Spokesman/Regional Public Relations Manager at American Honda Motor Co., Inc.) saying the following @ the Detroit Auto Show in January of this year: "With class leading fuel economy..."



*Go to the 1:04 mark and listen to what Chris Martin (Honda Spokesman) says.

Can someone point to the the claim that Honda makes such claims?
See ONE (1) example above. That is a Honda Spokesman at a Honda-model-revealing-event.

Maybe that was your plan, have others do your research for you? OK, I fell for it.

Here's Chris Martin's LinkedIn profile for further background:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/chris-martin-0185aa5
 
#33 ·
How does one go about getting invoice price on a new vehicle let alone a new generation that just came out and dont know how well it might sell. I tried all I could 12 years ago on mine and didnt get anywhere after several hours of tryin. Yup I paid a lot on my truck just under m.s.r.p. but I wanted it bad, it just came out. They wouldnt even offer a lower interest rate like the others so I went to my bank and got a better rate.
 
#34 ·
How does one go about getting invoice price on a new vehicle let alone a new generation that just came out and dont know how well it might sell.
One word: Patience. It takes more than a few hours. Good thing is you have the interwebs at your disposal to contact Honda dealers both near and far. My last two vehicle purchases were basically made via online sources.
 
#35 ·
"Patience" is a pliable term.

Right now, dealerships around the country are investing in events spreading the Honda gospel to show room floor sales staff. Hotel meeting rooms are rented, big screens are filled with marketing @ sales propaganda all set to music, overdubbed with official Honda produced materials, read by and acted out by spokes people - most of that paid for by market development funds. In the meantime, dealership owners have worked hard to make deals, leveraging their sales history for allotment during initial allocation, flooring cost offsets are bartered as "risk management", and marketing swag is sought after as if made of gold.

All of that translates to pumping up your sales guy/gal whose paycheck depends on their ability and enthusiasm to encourage release of MAX_$ from the wallets of eager buyers of new stuff.

When an OEM brings a new model to market - or - a badge returns to retail, a buyers patience must extend well into the future. That is, unless a few hundred $ "discount" is sufficient.

Even the teeny dealer is rural Podunk is gonna hold fast to MSRP (as a minimum) for the single Gen2 RL on his lot. That's a reality in the retail world with new product introduction.

So... buyer be patient. It'll be a while before wheelin' n' dealin' comes to your local sales floor.
 
#37 · (Edited)
I just traded my 09 ridgeline in on an f150 for this exact reason. Twice the power, twice the torque and twice the towing capacity. And it's pretty darn close in fuel economy. I just can't see the current crop of mid sized trucks being that popular when you can the performance that you can with the current crop of full size trucks
I was hoping that the new ridgeline would be the way to go but sadly I think Honda is taking a step backwards with the this.
 
#38 ·
Apples and oranges comparison. I went with a Tundra years ago vs a Gen 1 and eventually wished I had gone with the Gen1. Yeah, these days you can get comparable fuel economy in *some* full-size, but not gonna fit it in your garage. Or maneuver around tight parking lots and parking garages easily, that's where mid-size has the advantage.

Sounds like your needs pushed you to go with full-size but you're trying to compare 2 classes of truck and leaving out some of the biggest reasons there is a mid-sized class.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top