*Motor Trend: 2006 Honda Ridgeline First Road Test [5.5]

First Test: 2006 Honda Ridgeline (http://motortrend.com/roadtests/pickup/112_0505_ridgeline/)

By Chris Walton

Not Bad..............

I wonder how fast they were going to get that kind of air.

First hint that the Ridgeline may turn out as a sales dud.

They drove it like they borrowed it. :rolleyes:

That was a very even keeled review. It was not overly negative nor was it gushingly positive.

I think the review was spot on. It had the same concerns I have had -

Torque steer
V6 adequate but a tad more power would be nice
Price
Could be a giveaway next year on Honda lots

HOWEVER, I like the styling, I like the Honda name, I like the fact that Honda has met with owners, appears to be trying to make this an even greater little truck.

I feel VERY comfortable buying this vehicle at $500 over factory invoice for an RTL w/moonroof. I wouldn't have paid MSRP personally

I have to drive it back 450 miles from the dealer to my house so will let you know if I still feel the same way when I get back. BET I WILL.

AND WHAT THE HELL IS THIS COMPARING THIS TRUCK TO A BAJA :mad:

MAYBE IN THE SAME BALL PARK (AT LEAST SAME TOWN :p) AS AN AVALANCHE OR FORD BUT A BAJA :eek: YA RIGHT

Oh ya, and the gas mileage

15,000 miles/year @ $ 2.50/gallon @ 16 (that's what I'll get) = $ 2,350 gas

15,000 miles/year @ $ 2.50/gallon @ 20 (I don't believe it) = $ 1,875.00

SO.....

$ 475 over a year is $ 40 a month extra I will have to pay to have my toy :p

I'll know in a year if it was worth it. But is Toyota or Nissan any better? (my only other option)

I have to laugh a little about the spare tire part in the review (flat tire, trunk has object over it, having to unload object to get spare out of trunk).

Honda did address that issue, though not the greatest idea mind you, but they did put a small hole in the passenger side of the bed where you can externally mount the tire for long distance hauling of materials in the bed... I had wondered about it too, until I picked up the good ole manual and saw it in there.

You read the owner's manual? What's the matter with you???? ;)

For all those NON-Ridgeline owners that whine about the spare tire location as being a big problem, consider where the spare is located on comparable vehicles. Ususlly it is under the vehicle, between the rear axle and the rear bumber, covered with years worth of road debris, and the lowering mechanism is likely to be rusted and inoperable. If you are that concerned about the very, very, very rare times when you might actually need the spare, put it beside you in a seatbelt. If you are going cross country with a bed full of stuff that would really be difficult to unload, plan ahead, (a foreign concept for too many people) and carry the spare elsewhere like TXridge said. If you choose not to relocate it under those conditions and you get a flat, suffer, but dont complain! Sheesh!

I thought that the report was reasonable. I want to see the real long term test reports on the Ridgeline and comparable vehicles. I think that current owners can anticipate what those results will look like. Honda has raised the bar FOR THE MARKET SEGMENT THAT THE RIDGELINE TARGETS.

Motor Trend, has been, and I suspect, always will be, focused on American automobiles.

ok review for the Ridge.
Poor overall performance by motor Trend. Compare it to a Chevy and Subaru. Toy ans Nis would had made more sense. Of course reading the article the pop ups were for chevy trucks. I can tell where Motor Trend gets their ad money. They're a joke. Now I know why I don't buy it.

Did anyone see consumer reports new article/comparison???

This review does not compare with any of the other reviews i have read.
It takes a glass half empty attitude with its points on trunk loading and cargo managment. I do agree about the engine and would of prefered a V 8 other than that I think this review is in the minority compared with what has been said by the other experts. Honda should have put a better bed cover on the truck somthing like to Retrax for water proof storage but to assume that the cool rear seat storage is a burden because someone may need to sit there is a stretch.

It makes me wonder about the motives of a review's when I read somthing like this that is puts a negative spin on the positives that other reviews have been raving over.. I have heard in the past that Mags like Outside and Consumer Reports base opions on moneys from ads and endorcements.

I think I will leave Motor Trend on the shelf since I do not trust their reporting any longer.


Baja

I have heard in the past that Mags like Outside and Consumer Reports base opions on moneys from ads and endorcements.
I hope you meant to say Motor Trend rather than Cons Reports. CR doesn't do ads or endorsements, that is their whole point for existence!

Do some research, they are known for biased reports.

In your earlier post, you stated, "I have heard in the past that Mags like Outside and Consumer Reports base opions on moneys from ads and endorcements." In your subsequent post, regarding Consumer Reports, you stated, "Do some research, they are known for biased reports."

Consumer Reports does not accept advertising and takes aggressive legal action against any business that uses Consumer Reports ratings in its advertising. In other words, if a company that is favorably rated by CR uses that rating in advertising, CR goes after them and stops them. Hence, you do not see mainstream advertising referencing positive CR reviews and you see no advertising whatsoever in CR or on the CR website. Conversely, just about every other "rating" entity allows itself to appear in advertising (e.g. J.D. Power). Consumer Reports' entire raison d'etre is to be the consumer's advocate and to avoid even the slightest implication that they slant their reviews in accordance with commercial support.

Some do believe that CR is biased. Subaru sued them for years regarding a negative rating on the rollover potential of the Sidekick. Sharper Image has it in for them regarding their review of the Ionizer.

Some suggest that CR reports are poorly designed. There is no meaningful evidence, to my knowledge, that CR is in any way biased.

If you have such evidence, kindly state it.

can't compare it to the avalanche my buddy owns one and it has 38,000 miles on it and its falling apart typical gm the bulk head leak with a heavy rain or a car wash visit it makes all kinda rattling noises going over bumps and the interior is kinda chinsey compared to the Ridgeline. I love the Truck i use to have a 1999 Ford f 250 7.4 powerstroke before this and although its not in the same class as the ford but for what i need it for it better suits my needs

I could be wrong, I cannot now recall where I got the Impression but it must have been from the litigation you mentioned.

I stand corrected.

Thanks

Baja.

Some do believe that CR is biased. Subaru sued them for years regarding a negative rating on the rollover potential of the Sidekick.
Er, Suzuki Sidekick.

I won't go as far as to say that CR is biased. However, I will say that people are led to believe that CR reliability data is scientifically determined, when it is not. Their reliability surveys are driven by empirical data (subscriber surveys).

CR is known as the ultimate testing house. They take things apart in their labs and investigate how they are made, in a scientific fashion. So people think that all the data they produce is based on discovery, when it is not. CR has not gone out of their way to point this out. Their subscribers don't care.

Firstly, mea culpa. Suzuk Samurai was the vehicle around which all the litigation took place. It was rollover testing by Consumer Reports that got them going. They sued, but ultimately bailed on the lawsuit, coming to terms with some bland, somewhat meaningless wording agreement.

Second, I concur about some of the limitations of Consumer Reports reliability surveys. They survey their own members (subscribers basically) on an annual basis and the reports on reliability are based thereupon. One might postulate that Consumer Reports members are not representative of the general public, but I'm not sure why their auto reliability experience would be any less representative than that of anyone else. From a purely scientific standpoint, a random survey of the general public would be best, but who would do that for all cars and would it yield some different results? Not only that, but they survey 675,000 people. That's a big sample of car buyers.

The great value of Consumers Union, which publishes Consumer Reports, is that they are rabidly independent, nonprofit, and seemingly as unbiased as any entity could be. The amount of money they could get for allowing their seal of approval to be marketed would be substantial, but they will not do it, for it would taint their objectivity and appearance thereof. So I believe that one can fairly fault their testing methods or approach (though I don't), but I don't believe one can fairly fault their objectivity.

The following is from the Consumers Union president's message:

"Consumer Reports has been covering autos for 68 years. We drive each vehicle for several months and 6,000 to 8,000 miles. We test performance, fuel economy, safety, comfort, and convenience. We measure trunk space with suitcases, so we can tell you what will really fit inside. We measure reach, width, and illumination patterns of headlights, but we consult moon charts first. How else would we determine which are the darkest, most scientifically appropriate nights for headlight testing?

By the time a vehicle earns our “Recommended” check mark, we’ve track- tested it and road-tested it. We’ve analyzed its reliability and factored in
accident-avoidance performance and crash- and rollover-test results, if the vehicle has been crash-tested by the government or the insurance industry. Unlike one competitor, which sells its seal of approval to automakers for use in their advertising, we do not put our “Recommended” check up for sale.

Interested in how a particular new or used car will hold up over the years? Our latest Annual Questionnaire drew responses for 675,000 subscriber-owned vehicles covering 14 trouble spots over eight model years. The reliability data we present are broader than anything else available and come from the deepest pool of actual consumer experience."

Consumer Reports is imperfect. Consider that they imply that both the driver's seat and passenger's seat in the Ridgeline are electric. Nevertheless, you don't have to worry when you read their ratings that they haven't done their best and ignored outside influence.

I can make a wild guess as to where you work
Mr. Lifesaver----

Lifesaver1,

I understand the facts you stated behind the CR reliability surveys. I'll stand by my point, though. The data is empirically based. It is of limited value to me.

Do you think there is a better source? I assume the self-reporting by consumers is about the most objective source available. Is there another or are there other sources that you think are more reliable? I'm genuinely curious.

There's no question that when you buy a car, new or used, the careful consumer wants a sense of its reliability. One source is other people you know who have owned the vehicle. One source is ads and company reputation. I've always thought though, that the CR service essentially provides a huge source of real information from other buyers who are presumably unbiased.

I am ignorant as to how JD Power, for example, does its ratings. Is that, for example, a somehow more reliable source in your view.

If CR really did do it's research on the RTL, then they would have known that there is no way you can fit 3 sets of golf clubs in the trunk! Maybe if they were in Sunday shag bags, but not regular size golf bags. Only 2 fit in my RTL.

I'm certainly not complaining as you can just throw the other 2 sets in the bed. Or all 4 for that matter.

Don't know much about golf bags, but they did indicate, I believe, that the passenger's seat is electrict, which is not the case. Clearly, CR is imperfect. :eek:

Like me they ass-u-me-d it was at $30k plus... :rolleyes:

I agree CR is imperfect in their data collection however when I have followed their reliability reports I have not be disappointed in the product and the times I have ignored them or chosen a lower rated model they are about 90% of the time correct and I developed a problem or 2.
I know when I get the survey I don't mind filling it out truthfully hoping that the manuf of the item is listening or reading the data and will correct the problems for future buyers.

I never thought mentioning CR would get this response. :D

I never thought mentioning CR would get this response. :D

Me either! I am genuinely interested in knowing if there is a better source of objective reliability data. And for Baja, just to let you know, I don't work for CR. I've got other work to do: www.lifesaver1.com.

Regardless, few on this website would disagree, I suspect, with CR's rating of the Ridgeline. Indeed, it may be one of the best marketing tools Honda can't use. ;)

Subjective data:

CR subscriber surveys
Internet forums

Objective data:

Manufacturer recalls
Dealer techline publications
Independent mechanic repair data

If you can't understand the difference, that's fine. Believe what you want to believe.

IMO CR reliability data is just one point of information in a vehicle purchase.

Subjective data:

CR subscriber surveys
Internet forums

Objective data:

Manufacturer recalls
Dealer techline publications
Independent mechanic repair data

If you can't understand the difference, that's fine. Believe what you want to believe.

IMO CR reliability data is just one point of information in a vehicle purchase.

I humbly suggest that I do understand the difference. We just perhaps disagree over the value of these sources of information. The only skew I can think of in the CR survey data is the survey sample (i.e. CR subscribers). I can't personally think of a reason that the opinions of CR subscribers with respect to the vehicles they own would be any more or less valid than those of the general population. One would imagine that everyone would have a tendency to report their gripes more or less equally.

With respect to manufacturer recalls, I personally think that these are a reflection of the level of responsibility of the manufacturer (widely variable), the concern of the manufacturer about possible litigation, government intervention, and the like. Bottom line, many manufacturers will hold off on a recall until they are absolutely caught red-handed and have no choice, while others will do so in a genuine effort to be good to their customers. The cost and black eye that recalls generate though, is a major disincentive. I'm not sure this is all that helpful.

I suspect techline publications are similar to recalls, inasmuch as of late any such publications immediately hit the Internet and everyone knows it, so there is a reluctance to send them out. I don't personally suspect that reluctance is the same as a recall situation, partly because the reason therefor can be cloaked, as in, "It is recommended that the tires on the Model X be kept at maximum inflation at all times, as adverse consequences may occur at lower levels of inflation within the normal range." (fictional example)

Independent mechanic repair data seems to me to be potentially very valuable. Where do you find this information?

Independent mechanic repair data seems to me to be potentially very valuable. Where do you find this information?

I don't know if it exists, but it sure would be easy enough to create.

Torque steer.

I have not noticed any torque steer. Honda does a great job of eliminatine this on their cars. Some front wheel drive cars Volvos for one exibit this annoying tendancy.

Today on the way to work I took off from a light accelerated stongly and left my hands off the wheel, it just goes straight. No torque steer. My accord you feel a slight pressure on the wheel with strong acceleration but it is a feel only, again if you let go of the wheel the car tracks straight.

Steve

I humbly suggest that I do understand the difference. We just perhaps disagree over the value of these sources of information. The only skew I can think of in the CR survey data is the survey sample (i.e. CR subscribers). I can't personally think of a reason that the opinions of CR subscribers with respect to the vehicles they own would be any more or less valid than those of the general population. One would imagine that everyone would have a tendency to report their gripes more or less equally.


This is a very interesting thread. I really don’t want to get involved so this is my only opinion on the matter….. My father has been an avid reader of Consumer Reports for his entire life. He’s 56 now. Everything in his house was purchased on the advice of Consumer Reports. So you can imagine my dismay when CR reviewed BEER. Their favorite was Milwaukee’s Best. Now, I have consumed a fair amount of beer in my life. I even made a short-term hobby of brewing my own. I learned a lot about beer and it was a great experience. There is one thing I know without a doubt…. None at all…. CR is full of engineers and geeks. They are scientific folks who test things like cars, vacuums and washers with the expertise you would expect from geeks and engineers. I have never found them to be lacking... In fact, you can almost predict what will fail on your car from their reliability ratings.

But, they don’t know CRAP about beer. Anyone who chooses what beer to drink based on the Consumer Report’s recommendation is a nut case! Needless to say, even though Milwaukee’s Best got the “Best Buy” nod from CR, it got the toss by me and my brother and was quickly replaced with something drinkable.
(If you happen to like Milwaukee’s Best and I have offended you… You truly do need a life.)

Cheers,
SY
Lighten up, drive free, this truck rocks!

Milwaukee's Best?????? Bwahahahahahahahahahaahaha!!!!! :D

I wonder what their reliability ratings are on that swill.

http://www.internetautoguide.com/reviews/45-int/pickups/honda/ridgeline/2006/

This is a nice review and read I found. Don't know the date of review.

Milwaukee's Best?????? Bwahahahahahahahahahaahaha!!!!! :D

I wonder what their reliability ratings are on that swill.
It's guaranteed....to make you pee

This is a very interesting thread. I really don’t want to get involved so this is my only opinion on the matter….. My father has been an avid reader of Consumer Reports for his entire life. He’s 56 now. Everything in his house was purchased on the advice of Consumer Reports. So you can imagine my dismay when CR reviewed BEER.

I agree with you completely on this one. It is impossible to objectively rate something like beer, as this is really a matter of personal taste. Same goes for wine, although some of the ratings are useful in that your alternative is to buy something crummy and to be unable to put it back cheaply. This is similar to rating the look of cars. Plenty of people I've talked to think the Ridgeline is really ugly. Others think it is trend-setting and really neat. How do you rate that? I think CR should stick to items that can truly be objectively rated and, in the case of items that need repair, can be rated for reliability. I personally think they did a pretty good job with the Ridgeline.