Honda Ridgeline Owners Club Forums banner

2017 Ridgeline specs directly from Honda

10K views 39 replies 16 participants last post by  phineas 
#1 · (Edited)
  • Like
Reactions: thearborbarber
#2 ·
From a reliable source, I just learned that the turning circle of the 2017 Ridgeline is 44.4 feet, nearly 2 feet longer than that of the 2014 RL, and nearly 4 feet longer than the Tacoma Double Cab 4 x 4 short bed. I was hoping they'd hold it to 42' when they lengthened the wheelbase. The new Ridgeline's wheelbase is about 1 inch shorter than that of the Tacoma. Even though they've narrowed the Ridgeline's front track slightly, it's still roughly 3 inches wider than the Tacoma's. It's the price we pay for extra stability and interior space.
 
#3 ·
One of the complaints I had about my three G1 Ridgelines was the "huge" turning radius making it difficult to slip into tight parking spaces. I always joked about parking the "school bus" to my passengers. I can't imagine the G2 being even worse. Early on, I believe we were told that this was one of the things that was significantly improved over the G1. No?
 
#5 · (Edited)
Turning diameter of Gen2 is 40.8', which is shorter than Gen1 according to Press Kit:

2017 Honda Ridgeline Press Kit - Chassis - Honda Automobiles - Honda News

Tires are light truck all-season 245/60X18 105H. Auto show trucks had larger phony tires to make the trucks look beefier, and an underbody photo showed rub marks on the inside of the over-sized 265/60's (yeah, I'm still pissed about that).
 
#19 ·
DogOnBoard, I hope your number is the right one. But there seems to be a difference of opinion between two Honda documents. The one you cited certainly says 40.8 feet. But I just dug out a Gen2 Honda spec sheet that shows the same information my source, someone in the automotive press, gave me earlier. It reads "turning diameter: 44.4 feet." Check it out.

2017 Honda Ridgeline U.S. Specifications & Features - Ridgeline - Honda News

Maybe Joe could shine some light on this, if he knows?
Bump. Anybody have any new information about the turning diameter of the 2017 Ridgeline? The two links above lead to contradictory specs on this data point. Has anybody driven it? I would think the difference between 40.8 feet and 44.4 feet would stand out.
 
#6 ·
DogOnBoard, I hope your number is the right one. But there seems to be a difference of opinion between two Honda documents. The one you cited certainly says 40.8 feet. But I just dug out a Gen2 Honda spec sheet that shows the same information my source, someone in the automotive press, gave me earlier. It reads "turning diameter: 44.4 feet." Check it out.

2017 Honda Ridgeline U.S. Specifications & Features - Ridgeline - Honda News

Maybe Joe could shine some light on this, if he knows?
 
#12 ·
The 2016 Pilot's curb-to-curb turning diameter is 39.4 feet. But its wheelbase is 111 inches -- 14 inches shorter than that of the 2017 Ridgeline. (The two vehicles have nearly identical front and rear tracks.) That's why the 44.4 foot turning diameter could be more realistic. But the way they crow about the short turning diameter in the press release makes Honda look really foolish if it's actually bigger than the G1's.

It's certainly possible for a Ridgeline-size vehicle to have a 40-foot turning diameter. My soon-to-be-traded 2013 Toyota Tacoma Double Cab short bed has a 127.4-inch wheelbase and a slightly wider track. Its curb-to-curb turning diameter is 40.7 inches, a 10th of an inch smaller than the Ridgeline's PR stat. No question about it, the 40.8 inch spec is real. It was either a goal they didn't accomplish or one whose achievement missed the deadline for the deep spec sheet.
 
#13 ·
On the tailgate:

When I was a kid my parents had a 1968 Dodge Coronet 440 station wagon complete with wood colored decals to make it look like the ugliest Woody on the planet. It had a tailgate that swung both ways. I remember that it had a key lock. One of the engineering problems that Honda faces is dealing with locking both articulations of the door. But obviously if they could do it in 1968 they can do it now. You'd hope that Honda would also want to tie it into the power lock/unlock feature that the trunk has. It's as if Honda gave up on this last piece of wizardry.

It's been a long time since I've owned a Honda. Is it likely that the company that makes PopLock will come out with a tailgate-locking solution for the Ridgeline? Toyota put a backup camera in the tailgate latch handle of its pick-ups and the company behind PopLocks just designed the camera right into their solution.
 
#15 ·
On the tailgate:

When I was a kid my parents had a 1968 Dodge Coronet 440 station wagon complete with wood colored decals to make it look like the ugliest Woody on the planet. It had a tailgate that swung both ways. I remember that it had a key lock. One of the engineering problems that Honda faces is dealing with locking both articulations of the door. But obviously if they could do it in 1968 they can do it now. You'd hope that Honda would also want to tie it into the power lock/unlock feature that the trunk has. It's as if Honda gave up on this last piece of wizardry.

.
I hate to drift too far off the Honda tailgate issue, but are you sure it was a Dodge Coronet 440? Ford offered the two-way tailgate on the some of the full size wagons in that era, but not Dodge. I owned a '67 and it was just a basic, one way, tailgate.

Now back to the tailgate lock!!!!
 
#14 ·
I believe PopLock and at least one other aftermarketer built a tailgate lock for the G1, so it's completely possible. I remember a local detailer telling me he could install an electronic lock on the G1 RL tailgate and program it for the key FOB "unlock" button. It should be a piece of cake for Honda.
 
#29 ·
You'd best test-drive a Tacoma before you plunk down cash. It rides like a truck with a constantly-hunting automatic transmission. The Colorado/Canyon far out-drives it in my taste. And the Ridgeline is supposed to be even more car-like than the GM twins. Just my $.02!

I wonder if it's possible there's a difference in 2WD vs AWD version?

I understand that the FWD set "should" be the same, but I also suppose it's possible that something up there might be configured differently, given previous testimonials regarding excessive torque steer when members have disconnected the rear drive shaft (propeller shaft).

Total speculation, but maybe food for thought.
Excellent point. I've seen that in other FWD/AWD optioned vehicles in the past.
 
#27 ·
Well that would make complete sense. If it's established somewhere about the G2 Ridgeline specifically, I'd love to know where. Because in the two specifications documents that I linked to earlier in this thread, both read "curb to curb."

My gut tells me that 40.8 feet has got to be right. But Honda isn't exactly known for tight turning circles.
 
#26 · (Edited)
To put this in perspective, these are the curb-to-curb turning circles of the major players in the mid-size truck segment in the crew cab with short bed configuration (in other words, comparable to the Ridgeline):

43.3 ft - 2016 Nissan Frontier
42.6 ft - G1 Honda Ridgeline
41.3 ft - 2016 Chevy Colorado/GMC Canyon
40.8 ft - 2017 Honda Ridgeline ??? or 44.4 ft ???
40.6 ft - 2016 Toyota Tacoma
 
#28 ·
I wonder if it's possible there's a difference in 2WD vs AWD version?

I understand that the FWD set "should" be the same, but I also suppose it's possible that something up there might be configured differently, given previous testimonials regarding excessive torque steer when members have disconnected the rear drive shaft (propeller shaft).

Total speculation, but maybe food for thought.
 
#30 ·
Mmmhmm - even pulling the VTM-4 fuse in the G1 makes for "interesting" handling. With a numerically higher first gear ratio and more power in the G2, I can only imagine the tire spin and torque steer that might be possible in the 2WD version.
 
#32 ·
I am new to this forum and the reason I joined is because up until a few weeks ago I was dead set on getting a Subaru Forester 2017 Touring trim.

After seeing Ridgeline 2017 reviews I am reconsidering my decision to buy Forester and currently weighing out Ridgeline to decide if I should buy this instead.
I did some specs digging but couldnt find all the info or maybe I just didnt look properly.

Can anyone tell me what is the ground clearance for Ridgeline and what is the ride height ?
I know Forester is 8.7inches ground clearance. I am mostly outdoorsy type and go Hiking/Camping, Mountain biking, Kayaking. Not hard core off roader so Forester or Ridgeline is perfect for that IMO

Also is Ridgeline ride height taller then Forester ? If Ridgeline's gas mileage was slight higher, I would be way more inclined to buy it, but I am still weighing things out at this stage
 
#34 · (Edited)
kaiviti:

The RL boasts 7.8 or 7.9 inches of ground clearance, depending on which media info source you look at. So the Subaru has almost an inch more ground clearance than the RL and is likely to have better approach and departure angles because of smaller overhangs front and rear. The Forester's break-over angle is also likely to be less because of its shorter wheelbase. These angles can be very important when you leave the pavement and drive on backroads with gullies and stream crossings.

Remember too that a single minimum ground clearance number hardly tells the whole story about a vehicle's ability to travel in deep snow or offroad on deeply-rutted roads with rocks, exposed tree roots, log debris or other hazards. It matters greatly how much of the total underbody, rocker panels and components are close enough to the ground to get hung up on hazards or otherwise damaged. Another issue is that those ground clearance numbers are for the vehicle unladen. How much ground clearance is lost when you put people and gear into the vehicle will vary depending on the suspension. To really compare two vehicles, you need to drive them both fully-loaded on the same offroad course and see how they handle these challenges.

If mpgs are important to you, the Forester with its CVT transmission and lighter weight will handily beat the RL every time. On the other hand, you will have a lot more room for gear and much better towing capacity with the RL. If by ride height you simply mean vehicle height at the roofline, it shouldn't be hard to find out. If, OTOH, you mean how high are the seating positions WRT to road visibility, that may take an actual test drive to see for yourself.

Some people would be inclined to rate the Subie's symmetrical AWD system as superior to the RL's i-VTM4. I think the jury will be out for awhile on that one. Good luck with your deliberations!
 
#35 · (Edited)
Cheers for the info Dnick & Dogonboard. Appreciate that.

And yes by ride height I meant how high you find yourself from ground to seat position so I can have an idea as to how much high riding / visibility you have.

I really like how i can just setup my tent in the RL bed :) ...and so much space in back seat to put in my bike. Not to mention be super handy for occasional Home Depot trips

I m hoping to test drive a Ridgeline before deciding. Hopefully they have Demo models at Dealership coz it looks like they will be selling out as soon as any new ones come in.
 
#37 ·
Tech debates notwithstanding, real world experiences vary and it's hard to separate out biases without some well-controlled testing. Subaru has continuously updated its multiple versions of AWD in the Outback and Forester and they do in fact perform incredibly well in deep snow and on slick winter roads, not to mention some impressive split-mu tests. I noticed that Consumer Reports scored the Forester significantly better than the competing CR-V and RAV4 for winter driving. Two friends have new Outbacks and nothing -- snow, ice, mud, sand -- seems to hold them back.

But the RL's iVTM-4 is a different animal entirely, and it will be interesting to see it prove itself for all manner of "roads" and driving conditions. The multi-mode settings seem to offer more versatility for offroad conditions, assuming ground clearance doesn't become a limiting factor first. It's not clear to me how useful rear torque vectoring will be for increasing offroad competence. I get the sense that it's primary benefit is improving performance on the curve rather than increased traction, but I'm probably missing something.

If I bought a G2 RL, it would be to replace a 2010 Forester and 2002 Ranger 4WD, so I have high hopes for the versatility of the i-VTM4, both on-road and off-road. Now about that 10AT...
 
#38 ·
I joined only to get some specs off for the new G2, mainly ground clearance. After much thought and scouring of the forum I am going to pass Ridge line and get a Forester 2017 Touring.

I know its not truck but for what I need at this point, it will suffice.

From the very early impressions i am seeing elsewhere on forum, it seems the rear door opening angle is very small. This is not deal breaker but is bit inconvenient loading my bike in rear. I couldnt get any dealers in my area to tell me when they might get one in for test drive. And I dont have the luxury of time on my side so I am gonna order Fozie this week.

The biggest factors swaying towards Forester was Gas mileage when I did some calculating for my daily commute and the higher price for RL. If they made mid range AWD trim under 30k I would be more inclined to buying and while i do have the $$ to pluck one, I feel uncomfortable putting 40k plus on a mid size pickup which is the first batch of its new generation.

I will be keeping an eye though on this forum in next couple of years for feedback on G2 from first round of buyers for a potential future G2 mid-cycle model refresh buy

Happy trucking to you Ridgeliners :)
 
#39 ·
I predict you will love your new Forester and when you're ready for something else (maybe an RL), you will get great resale value on the Subaru. I've got 3 friends lurking to buy my 2010 Forester whenever I decide to move on. And BTW, I checked my Fozie's rear door opening and it really is nearly 90 degrees -- all my backseat passengers love the easy access and great seat comfort.
 
#40 · (Edited)
I can attest to that. Isn't the Forrester based on the Impreza platform? It sure didn't seem like it the other day. I rode in the backseat of a friend's roughly 2013 Forrester and I was shocked at how much legroom there was and the width of the vehicle overall. My wife's begun thinking about her next new car. Her vehicle is 10 years old and it's in a hybrid so we don't want to wait too long. After test driving the Pilot before the Ridgeline was available, to get a feel for the Ridgeline, I've been suggesting the Pilot as an alternative for her. Last night she told me she felt the Pilot was too big. And I started thinking about cars with a fifth door and a decent size backseat and it hit me that the Forrester might be the solution for her. She wasn't so sure. Her first car was an American pickup truck. For several years more recently she happily drove a Suburban. She thinks the Forrester is a little too cute. I think she'd love it. So anyway, I would also commend your decision to buy a Forrester if it will work for you, kaiviti.
 
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