Why is it that this huge *ss work truck blows the doors off my Ridgeline in accelaration? 5.9 seconds 0 - 60 MPH vs. 8.5 seconds 0-60.

Basically what I wanted in my Ridgeline is a re-envisioned El Camino - albeit with AWD, 4 x doors, and modern ammenities. I don't need to tow a ton or haul a bunch - just my toys. What's missing in the Ridgeline using this concept is that the El Camino was ferocious. There's no one making a decent vehicle for this particular segment.

IMHO there's no reason why trucks 30% bigger than mine smokes what should be the ultimate SUT. I do like the Ridge and have convinced three others to buy one too - decently quick, handles well, can haul my family of 4 comfortably, is safe, and, of course, the trunk. But... our Hondas get the sh*t kicked out of it by every full size truck (except the F150) in a race down the entrance ramp. Downside to the full size trucks - mileage 13 mpg, size is too big to fit in my garage, and their as wiggly as any other traditional truck. But... I want it ALL!!!

Give me a 350 hp V8, 6 speed tranny in my next Ridge. And... don't make me wait. This will shut the punks up in beater Fords who yell "get a real truck" as I blow their doors off.

IMHO there's no reason why trucks 30% bigger than mine smokes what should be the ultimate SUT. I do like the Ridge and have convinced three others to buy one too - decently quick, handles well, can haul my family of 4 comfortably, is safe, and, of course, the trunk. But... our Hondas get the sh*t kicked out of it by every full size truck (except the F150) in a race down the entrance ramp. Downside to the full size trucks - mileage 13 mpg, size is too big to fit in my garage, and their as wiggly as any other traditional truck. But... I want it ALL!!!If you are getting hammered, you must not have good reaction time off the line. :p:D To lose to a bigger class of vehicle by a truck length in a quarter mile is not getting the sh*t kicked out of you. Don't overreact.

Also remember that the Ridge is a mid-size truck, not a full-size truck. Heck, I'd easily run against a full size truck with their V6 engine in it, gotta compare apples to apples:
2007 Ford F-150 4.2L V6, 202 hp
2007 Chevy Silverado 1500 4.3L V6, 195 hp
2007 Dodge Ram 1500 3.7L V6, 215 hp
... almost doesn't seem fair. These three manufacturers need to drop V8 engines to be able to beat the Honda V6. Not bad.

When the full size truck-owners start shooting their mouths off, I say well your truck can't haul an 53' trailer. They come back with it wasn't meant to, I just say, exactly. :D only the smart guys understand what I am saying.

0-60 & 1/4 mi times
http://www.ridgelineownersclub.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4977

hp/liter
http://www.ridgelineownersclub.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11862

It all comes down to what you are wanting . More power or better gas mileage.

Why is it that this huge *ss work truck blows the doors off my Ridgeline in accelaration? 5.9 seconds 0 - 60 MPH vs. 8.5 seconds 0-60.

Basically what I wanted in my Ridgeline is a re-envisioned El Camino - albeit with AWD, 4 x doors, and modern ammenities. I don't need to tow a ton or haul a bunch - just my toys. What's missing in the Ridgeline using this concept is that the El Camino was ferocious. There's no one making a decent vehicle for this particular segment.

IMHO there's no reason why trucks 30% bigger than mine smokes what should be the ultimate SUT. I do like the Ridge and have convinced three others to buy one too - decently quick, handles well, can haul my family of 4 comfortably, is safe, and, of course, the trunk. But... our Hondas get the sh*t kicked out of it by every full size truck (except the F150) in a race down the entrance ramp. Downside to the full size trucks - mileage 13 mpg, size is too big to fit in my garage, and their as wiggly as any other traditional truck. But... I want it ALL!!!

Give me a 350 hp V8, 6 speed tranny in my next Ridge. And... don't make me wait. This will shut the punks up in beater Fords who yell "get a real truck" as I blow their doors off.

Go get yourself that super charger kit and a nitrous bottle. Then you can have the best of three worlds. Stock mileage, better highway performance (Super Charger) and Embarrass a few pony cars at the drag strip (SC & Nitrous)

Probably for less change than that big V8 would ding you in gas over the life of the truck.

Why is it that this huge *ss work truck blows the doors off my Ridgeline in accelaration? 5.9 seconds 0 - 60 MPH vs. 8.5 seconds 0-60.

Basically what I wanted in my Ridgeline is a re-envisioned El Camino.

There are several reasons. The first reason power. Plain and simple. The second reason is that the RL and Tundra were built for totally different purposes. Comparing a RL to a new Tundra is like comparing a Camaro to a Corvette. Both were meant to be sports cars but obviously one has a little more sport in it than the other. I'm not implying that the RL is not a truck, I'm saying it may be a little less of a truck if your definition is towing 10K lbs.
The 3rd reason is price. A comparably opted out Tundra costs more than $10k more than a RL sans motor.

The RL is not an El Camino and I don't believe it ever was suposed to be one. If you want something like an El Camino, buy a stripper 2 door model truck and lower it.

I'd rather be a little more environmentally friendly than trying to boost my ego with a bigger engine to "blow their doors off". Racing on the roads is not a good idea with kids in your car anyway.

I didnt buy an RL to race other trucks. The RL has enough power for my uses/needs.

The RL is not an El Camino and I don't believe it ever was suposed to be one. If you want something like an El Camino, buy a stripper 2 door model truck and lower it.

I agree with ChrisM, if you wanted an El Camino you should have looked around and bought one:rolleyes: And if you want a Tundra you should get rid of your RL and get one:p

You may not want it but... I do. Honda give me something that when I put my foot into it, it scares me a little. The Tundra gets 13 MPG and... according to the link someone posted the Ridgleline gets 15 MPG. 2 MPG is not a lot when I have a truck that is nearly 2 seconds slower 0 - 60. (why the crappy gas mileage anyway?)

I'll state my case again - it seems absurd that I have to buy a full size truck to get that kind of performance. Honda is supposed to make great motors - and they do make some ferocious street bikes. Apply this same knowhow to the Ridgeline. It seems as though this is a no-brainer. We've got the basis for a really awesome sport truck. Light, handles great, AWD, 4 x wheels disc brakes, solid. Yet... like I said, if you want something that is quick, then the Ridgeline is mid-pack.

And... finally for the person who says you shouldn't be racing - get a clue. We're human, we have egos and... if you're coming off the merge light onto the interstate at rush hour with a couple of friends and a Tundra eats your lunch, how frigging embarrassing.

Come on Honda - give me what I want. I promise you there's a lot more who feel the same way.

P.S. I haven't actually seen a supercharger available for the Ridgeline...

I rode in a Tundra today. It is a nice truck, seemed to have plenty of power but next to the RL it rides like a covered wagon. If the boys in the Tundras are eating our lunches I bet it's spilled all over their cab!

The Ridge is an SUV with a bed and a trunk...........not a truck, Trade it for a truck and you'll find the things you had, are lost. Listen to Ram Dass and "be here now". This vehicle is a zen experience that was designed to do exactly what it does. There are no "free rides". Trade up and in many cases, you'll find you traded down.

It's all what people want. Some want the torque, some want comfort, Eventually those who feel that the Ridge doesn't have enough umph will trade in.

For power, skip the tundra and get a Chevy/Ford/Dodge dually diesel, now that is true power with road-presence. :cool:

Funny, I just traded in a 2003 Tundra for my 2007 Ridgeline. It was an awesome truck, but wasn't fitting my needs. My vehicle in the family is usually the primary vehicle and the rear seat in the access cab (extended cab) just wasn't cutting it anymore. Plus, with the side steps and the bumper guard I added, the mileage had dropped considerably.

I had looked into the Tundra but it is a BIG expensive truck. A fully loaded 4WD regular cab was close to $40,000. A fully loaded Double Cab (extended cab) is close to $50,000! DAMN! WAY out of my price range and that of many others. But, the regular cab with the 5.7L V8 is a QUICK truck and definitely beats the Double Cab's 6.0 second 0-60MPH. My complaints with it is the overall size, which is not good with tight parking spots, and the barnyard door wide front doors. Again, they make it difficult to get out of tight spots.

I chose the Ridgeline because I wanted a mid-size truck with a good reliability record and could seat four to five people. I wanted the bed secondary, with people hauling the primary focus. I had looked at the new Tacoma, but the only Tacoma that I really liked was the X-Runner. Not a practical truck for more then two people. The Double Cab Tacoma is a nice truck, but the SMC bed is an issue for me. I've seen and read pictures of cracked and popped beds.

The Ridgeline is a mid-size truck with a plethora of features. It is for people like me who have a load in the bed anywhere from occasionally to hardly ever. The power isn't V8 quick, but it is good for passing and for light towing. Plus, the Ridgeline gets decent mileage for a V6 engine on a truck. On my second tank, I'm already getting about 17 to 18MPG!

Hey there Scarymyth

Nice to see you have everyone worked up on this recurring issue. (no sarcasm intended) Who knows, maybe someone is listening. God knows the topic of more horsepower has come up time and again. For the most part though, I think people are generally happy with the engine (although, mine is one that tends to lag on highway at times).

This is a forum, so keep the topics coming. Quite enjoy them. Again, If you don't ask, you'll never get.

Vicliner

And... finally for the person who says you shouldn't be racing - get a clue. We're human, we have egos and... if you're coming off the merge light onto the interstate at rush hour with a couple of friends and a Tundra eats your lunch, how frigging embarrassing.

Your ego is tied up in which truck is able to merge onto the interstate faster?

Seriously?

My RL meets my needs perfectly, that's why I bought it. If I needed a "race truck" I would have looked elsewhere.

I'll put my Ridge up against any other V-6 truck out there, lets compare apples to apples and since I'm not spending as much money on gas as those gas guzzling V-8s I have extra money to invest and make money on money:cool:

I'll put my Ridge up against any other V-6 truck out there, lets compare apples to apples and since I'm not spending as much money on gas as those gas guzzling V-8s I have extra money to invest and make money on money:cool:

I would vote for more HP if available. Even at a hit on gas mileage. But not really that important.
I saw the Tundra up close on Sunday. Have no interest in a beast that large at any horsepower. But if I needed a full size truck, I would look at the Tundra.

Yeah, The big new Tundra will haul more hay but it still rides like a big truck. The solid rear axle is simply too harsh for my old back and it doesn't fit very well in the parking lots or garage. It is really, really big but it is very nice for a full size though.

Yeah, The big new Tundra will haul more hay but it still rides like a big truck. The solid rear axle is simply too harsh for my old back and it doesn't fit very well in the parking lots or garage. It is really, really big but it is very nice for a full size though.

The regular cab 2007 Tundra I test drove did ride a lot firmer then my new Ridgeline, but it wasn't abusive like some trucks I've driven and ridden in. I like the styling of it, I just don't like the overall size. It isn't as practical for urban uses as the Ridgeline is, because of it's size. It will appeal to the blue collar worker who NEEDS a truck of the Tundra's calibre with it's capabilities and capacities. I think after seeing all of the storage spaces the Ridgeline had, and after hearing feedback from owners (like myself), Toyota went overboard with storage on the new Tundra. I love all of those little pockets, boxes, and cabinets!

The regular cab 2007 Tundra I test drove did ride a lot firmer then my new Ridgeline, but it wasn't abusive like some trucks I've driven and ridden in. I like the styling of it, I just don't like the overall size. It isn't as practical for urban uses as the Ridgeline is, because of it's size. It will appeal to the blue collar worker who NEEDS a truck of the Tundra's calibre with it's capabilities and capacities. I think after seeing all of the storage spaces the Ridgeline had, and after hearing feedback from owners (like myself), Toyota went overboard with storage on the new Tundra. I love all of those little pockets, boxes, and cabinets!

Yep! I've gotta agree with that as I got a little excited seeing the TV commercials and all but until I finally gave it a test drive. We found the new Tundra had tons of room and a 3/4 ton size that we just don't need and the ride is pretty close to my dad's F-150. I'm lovin my Ridge more and more as time goes by. I guess you don't really know how great the Ridgeline really is until you really start to compare it to other trucks.

I haven't gotten better than 14mpg since day one and my GMC Sierra with a 5.3 always got better mileage than that. However, my Ridgeline would dust the big GM through the twisties of SoCal. I still think the Honda powertrain is lacking. If I got closer to 18mpg I wouldn't be complaining.

I think you'd find that the RL would get as good or better mpg with more ponies and torque. I'm betting that will be the first change seen on a redesign. I have a '01 Dakota quad with a 4.7 4wd. It gets better mpg than the V6 version and has a lot more spunk. Actually I get better mpg than most of you report with your RLs. Unfortunately they detuned it for later year models. I'd drive this thing into the ground if I could but northern salt and southern coastal salt air have taken it's toll. I'll probably be getting a RL by month's end, but I sure wish the engine had a little more push for the truck. It does a lot of things well without breaking the bank.

I quess I have a full size truck with the mpg in my Ridge. This past tank was 13.6mpg The worst todate.

I have the Ridge for a family vehicle and a F250 for the heavy stuff. Rigde was never to be sporty or a workhorse. It was for the family man that needs to haul once in awhile.

You can't compare this to the big trucks. Stay with the Tacoma, Dakota, Ranger, Colorado. That is a fair comparison.

I quess I have a full size truck with the mpg in my Ridge. This past tank was 13.6mpg The worst todate.

I have the Ridge for a family vehicle and a F250 for the heavy stuff. Rigde was never to be sporty or a workhorse. It was for the family man that needs to haul once in awhile.

You can't compare this to the big trucks. Stay with the Tacoma, Dakota, Ranger, Colorado. That is a fair comparison.

Or, the 2000-2006 Access Cab Tundras which, by size comparison now, are about mid sized. The new Tacoma was just as big in many respects to my traded-in 2003 Tundra.

The Ridge is downright comfortable and can easily step into speeding ticket territory. It has the goods required of 80% of all daily truck drivers so....I'll take the Ridge like it is thank you.

It all comes down to what you are wanting . More power or better gas mileage.


Both....gimme a diesel RL

Honda tries to be very careful of how they compete. They are a company who never goes directly at competitors. It is not a heavy duty work truck so a V8 probably won't happen.

these threads r too funny to me, the rl is as competent or better than most compared in its class , and its nicer looking and sleeker , and drives like a cadilac compared to the others in its class, u guys seem to want a f250 workhorse in a compact truck , it isnt going to happen

my two cents

madi05

Tundra – there are a lot of variations possible. There are 31 different model types. Be careful looking at claims about towing and payload until you read the fine print. It all makes for good advertising line – but check the details.

The towing demonstration you see on the TV commercial is a little deceiving on a number on fronts. First off – it is not a 10,000 pound trailer – which is what you are led to believe. The commercial states “the brakes can stop 10,000 pounds”. That is true, however, the “10,000 pound” demonstration vehicle shown is the combined weight of the truck AND the trailer. The towing acceleration comparisons are also not done with a 10,000 pound trailer.

Let’s look at payload. According to the recent test in Motor Trend, a 4 door Tundra (yes an actual 4 door) has a GVW rating of 7183 pounds. Now let’s subtract the curb weight of THAT vehicle to calculate the ACTUAL payload of what was tested: 7183 minus 5845 yields a payload of 1338 pounds. Just for yucks and giggles let’s do the same calculation on the Ridgeline RTS: 6050 GCWR minus 4494 curb yields a payload of 1556 pounds. Hmmmm………sure isn’t very capable is it? According to my math it has more payload than the mighty 4 door Tundra (greater by 218 pounds). Does that mean the Ridgeline is a real truck???? By this definition, I would submit the answer is yes – it is an actual truck not an SUT. Using the same calculation method for the Ford Sport Trac: 6160 GVWR minus 5099 curb wt leaves a payload of 1061lbs. That result does not include the driver and passenger. If you subtract the occupants, you are left with a paltry 761 pounds. The Sport Trac is and actual SUT (SUV turned into a truck). The Ridgeline is not it was designed to take truck duties from the ground up. The body is 93% exclusive. The Sport Trac is an Exploder in drag. Go try renting a U-haul trailer in on and see what kind of reaction you get. It will leave you in stitches. Their official policy is to not let you any where near a U-haul trailer driving anything remotely related to the Ford Exploder.

Now let’s talk about towing. The bogus towing claims that are made are only possible with a load distributing hitch because the rear axle weight rating (RGAWR) is insufficient to accommodate the necessary tongue weight of the claimed trailer weight. A load distributing hitch can also not be used with any trailer that uses surge trailer brakes - like boat trailers, car hauling trailers and some cargo trailers. The Ridgeline specifically discourages the use of load distributing hitch. Again, I think truth in rating is a higher road to honestly rate the vehicles capability. Take the Ridgeline RTS again: GCWR (of the trailer and the truck): 10085 lbs minus the curb weight again (allowing for 2p) yields a towing capacity of 5291 lbs. (greater than the stated towing rating). Again, I think the truth in rating is the higher ground.

Now the discussion here once again turns to fuel economy. Every time this comes up the lowest possible fuel economy achievements are compared to the best possible scenario in a full size truck. Based on my experience, I have achieved a range of fuel economy which is dependent on speed, fuel, load conditions, terrain, etc, etc…………

The Ridgeline will achieve 21 mpg consistently driven on the highway at cruising speed. A full size truck driven under the same conditions will achieve 14-15 mpg. An actual difference of 6-7mpg in favor of the Ridgeline. Driven around town, I have typically achieved 12-14 mpg in a full size truck with a V8. On its worst tank, driven in very cold temperatures with a lot of idling, I have achieved 14 mpg in a Ridgeline. Normally I achieve 16-18mpg when driving around town.

When the Ridgeline was launched, it was faster than any of the full size trucks. That has now changed with the full model change of the GM trucks and of course the Tundra. In light of the latest fuel economy trends, I do not believe chasing the ultimate level of acceleration is the best priority. Full size truck sales are trending down for this very reason. Based on this data, it appears that the best solution is a mid-size truck. You are giving up some towing capability (although it is honestly rated), and you are giving up the growl of a V8 engine. However, you achieve refinement, unparalleled vehicle ride and handling, and full size cabin volume ((larger than any of the mid-size competitors). Throw in a flexible interior layout and an in-bed trunk; I believe you have the recipe for greatness.

Time will tell ad the market awareness of the Ridgeline improves and the market matures due to the impact of fuel prices. Environmental conciseness is a high priority at Honda. Throwing a higher displacement engine into a vehicle is not a very eloquent engineering solution.

Stay tuned, let’s chart a new course and see where to take the Ridgeline next. I don’t hear anyone stepping to the front of the line willing to give up fuel efficiency at ant cost. There is simply not a market for that set of priorities in the mid-size segment. I would agree it would be fun to drive if someone else is footing the fuel bills. However, that is not the case for the majority of the automotive market. It only works on company owned vehicles. (Ask GM – they are their own best customer.).

I need to ask this question...Does Honda Marketing have anyone with more than one creative bone in their body? While I like their commercials (mudflap girl, fish and bear, round up) they mean nothing to me. I would much prefer a comparision commercial against the Tundra or F150 or the Tacoma or other mid size truck than a "cute" commercial. While I think the marketing people got the demographics right, they did not even come close to getting the advertising correct to that group of people. I like the quote someone uses on here that they are "Too smart for NASCAR, too dumb for opera". I am guessing here but I think most ridgeline owners are metaphorically like that. They are educated, well informed consumers that recognize the value of this truck. The question is, however, how to get this message out to the POTENTIAL buyers of this truck. Regardless of what anyone says, it boils down to the $$$. Every company has to make dollars...selling more vehicles brings Honda more dollars...advertising with the correct message brings in more customers who have the dollars to spend. Right now your advertising is not hitting the target. Sorry, no hard numbers to back it up but if you think about it for a little while, there are more than a few hundred thousand Ridgeline customers in North America. Look at the demographics of your current buyers Honda.

Tundra – there are a lot of variations possible. There are 31 different model types. Be careful looking at claims about towing and payload until you read the fine print. It all makes for good advertising line – but check the details.

The towing demonstration you see on the TV commercial is a little deceiving on a number on fronts. First off – it is not a 10,000 pound trailer – which is what you are led to believe. The commercial states “the brakes can stop 10,000 pounds”. That is true, however, the “10,000 pound” demonstration vehicle shown is the combined weight of the truck AND the trailer. The towing acceleration comparisons are also not done with a 10,000 pound trailer.

Let’s look at payload. According to the recent test in Motor Trend, a 4 door Tundra (yes an actual 4 door) has a GVW rating of 7183 pounds. Now let’s subtract the curb weight of THAT vehicle to calculate the ACTUAL payload of what was tested: 7183 minus 5845 yields a payload of 1338 pounds. Just for yucks and giggles let’s do the same calculation on the Ridgeline RTS: 6050 GCWR minus 4494 curb yields a payload of 1556 pounds. Hmmmm………sure isn’t very capable is it? According to my math it has more payload than the mighty 4 door Tundra (greater by 218 pounds). Does that mean the Ridgeline is a real truck???? By this definition, I would submit the answer is yes – it is an actual truck not an SUT. Using the same calculation method for the Ford Sport Trac: 6160 GVWR minus 5099 curb wt leaves a payload of 1061lbs. That result does not include the driver and passenger. If you subtract the occupants, you are left with a paltry 761 pounds. The Sport Trac is and actual SUT (SUV turned into a truck). The Ridgeline is not it was designed to take truck duties from the ground up. The body is 93% exclusive. The Sport Trac is an Exploder in drag. Go try renting a U-haul trailer in on and see what kind of reaction you get. It will leave you in stitches. Their official policy is to not let you any where near a U-haul trailer driving anything remotely related to the Ford Exploder.

Now let’s talk about towing. The bogus towing claims that are made are only possible with a load distributing hitch because the rear axle weight rating (RGAWR) is insufficient to accommodate the necessary tongue weight of the claimed trailer weight. A load distributing hitch can also not be used with any trailer that uses surge trailer brakes - like boat trailers, car hauling trailers and some cargo trailers. The Ridgeline specifically discourages the use of load distributing hitch. Again, I think truth in rating is a higher road to honestly rate the vehicles capability. Take the Ridgeline RTS again: GCWR (of the trailer and the truck): 10085 lbs minus the curb weight again (allowing for 2p) yields a towing capacity of 5291 lbs. (greater than the stated towing rating). Again, I think the truth in rating is the higher ground.

Now the discussion here once again turns to fuel economy. Every time this comes up the lowest possible fuel economy achievements are compared to the best possible scenario in a full size truck. Based on my experience, I have achieved a range of fuel economy which is dependent on speed, fuel, load conditions, terrain, etc, etc…………

The Ridgeline will achieve 21 mpg consistently driven on the highway at cruising speed. A full size truck driven under the same conditions will achieve 14-15 mpg. An actual difference of 6-7mpg in favor of the Ridgeline. Driven around town, I have typically achieved 12-14 mpg in a full size truck with a V8. On its worst tank, driven in very cold temperatures with a lot of idling, I have achieved 14 mpg in a Ridgeline. Normally I achieve 16-18mpg when driving around town.

When the Ridgeline was launched, it was faster than any of the full size trucks. That has now changed with the full model change of the GM trucks and of course the Tundra. In light of the latest fuel economy trends, I do not believe chasing the ultimate level of acceleration is the best priority. Full size truck sales are trending down for this very reason. Based on this data, it appears that the best solution is a mid-size truck. You are giving up some towing capability (although it is honestly rated), and you are giving up the growl of a V8 engine. However, you achieve refinement, unparalleled vehicle ride and handling, and full size cabin volume ((larger than any of the mid-size competitors). Throw in a flexible interior layout and an in-bed trunk; I believe you have the recipe for greatness.

Time will tell ad the market awareness of the Ridgeline improves and the market matures due to the impact of fuel prices. Environmental conciseness is a high priority at Honda. Throwing a higher displacement engine into a vehicle is not a very eloquent engineering solution.

Stay tuned, let’s chart a new course and see where to take the Ridgeline next. I don’t hear anyone stepping to the front of the line willing to give up fuel efficiency at ant cost. There is simply not a market for that set of priorities in the mid-size segment. I would agree it would be fun to drive if someone else is footing the fuel bills. However, that is not the case for the majority of the automotive market. It only works on company owned vehicles. (Ask GM – they are their own best customer.).

Nicely Said Kodiak!

I traded a Nissan Titan for my RL. At the time of purchase it was the fastest 1/2 ton truck on the market and yes all that power was nice but you did pay for it at the pump. Like Kodiak said people seem to use best case mpg numbers for 1/2 ton trucks compared to worst case RL mileage. If you are getting worst case RL mileage then you will get worst case 1/2 ton mileage, it just depends on an individuals driving habits, conditions, and where they drive. I have seen close to a 6 mpg increase in my mileage with the RL with same driving conditions that I had in the Titan. I can live without the extra HP.

Just a side note, if you read on a forum about someone in a 300+ HP 4X4 H/T pickup getting 18 mpg while driving 80 mph pulling a 10,000 # trailer on the interstate they are full of $hit. I only mention this because there are people on the net making these statements. My point, don't believe everything you read in a forum

Nicely Said Kodiak!

I traded a Nissan Titan for my RL. At the time of purchase it was the fastest 1/2 ton truck on the market and yes all that power was nice but you did pay for it at the pump. Like Kodiak said people seem to use best case mpg numbers for 1/2 ton trucks compared to worst case RL mileage. If you are getting worst case RL mileage then you will get worst case 1/2 ton mileage, it just depends on an individuals driving habits, conditions, and where they drive. I have seen close to a 6 mpg increase in my mileage with the RL with same driving conditions that I had in the Titan. I can live without the extra HP.

Just a side note, if you read on a forum about someone in a 300+ HP 4X4 H/T pickup getting 18 mpg while driving 80 mph pulling a 10,000 # trailer on the interstate they are full of $hit. I only mention this because there are people on the net making these statements. My point, don't believe everything you read in a forumFor REAL towing mpg numbers, I would believe the RV forums much more than sport truck forums. PSEUDO-UNRELATED: My father has a Dodge Diesel 6 sp M/T and tows a (i think) medium weight 27 ft 5th wheel camper at 65 mph (tops, always 5 mph less than the speed limit no matter where he is) and gets 10-13 mpg HIGHWAY depending on terrain/wind. He is the typical RV'er slow and steady gets the best mileage.

HAHAHA... I remember when I moved to Florida, we traveled together and filled up at the same stations. He would go through his super large tank before I would use just over half a tank in my Accord.

My buddy in NY state just bought a new Tundra, loaded, for +$45K, and tells me he gets 16mpg around town, not towing. My '06 Ridgeline got an average of 20.8 mpg on a trip thru the NC mountains, where we kept pace with rt 40 traffic (speed limit 70; running 75-80!). The RL downshifts more than my old '97 Dodge but I had no problem keeping pace with traffic. I suspect the same if I was towing a trailer/load within the suggested limits. I guess if you want to pay for the ability to tow the big loads all the time or if you use it for HEAVY HAULING every day, I would look at the new Dodge diesel. I looked at Toyate, Nissan, and the Avalance before buying my certified used RL. I think I got the best vehicle for what I am going to use it for! If peoples are unhappy with their vehicle (RL or not) trade it in for something else!!! :)

The RL downshifts more than my old '97 Dodge but I had no problem keeping pace with traffic. There is a TSB for the shifting issue you mentioned.

The RL is not an El Camino and I don't believe it ever was suposed to be one. If you want something like an El Camino, buy a stripper 2 door model truck and lower it.

I understand exactly what Scarymyth is saying. And lowering a stripper 2 door truck does not an El Camino make. I drove El Caminos for 10 years and I drove them for all of the following reasons:
They were comfortable and drove like a car.
They handled great on a back road unlike a truck.
They had a bed like a truck and could haul a load.
They got decent gas mileage compared to a truck.
They could tow your toys around behind them.
And they had a sporty image and made a good platform for customizing and performance.

So although I didnt make the connection when I bought it, I actually bought the ridge for a lot of the same reasons I drove El Caminos for so long. So Scarymyth.. I get it.
Roy

I need to ask this question...Does Honda Marketing have anyone with more than one creative bone in their body? While I like their commercials (mud flap girl, fish and bear, round up) they mean nothing to me. I would much prefer a comparison commercial against the Tundra or F150 or the Tacoma or other mid size truck than a "cute" commercial. While I think the marketing people got the demographics right, they did not even come close to getting the advertising correct to that group of people. I like the quote someone uses on here that they are "Too smart for NA SCAR, too dumb for opera". I am guessing here but I think most ridgeline owners are metaphorically like that. They are educated, well informed consumers that recognize the value of this truck. The question is, however, how to get this message out to the POTENTIAL buyers of this truck. Regardless of what anyone says, it boils down to the $$$. Every company has to make dollars...selling more vehicles brings Honda more dollars...advertising with the correct message brings in more customers who have the dollars to spend. Right now your advertising is not hitting the target. Sorry, no hard numbers to back it up but if you think about it for a little while, there are more than a few hundred thousand Ridge line customers in North America. Look at the demographics of your current buyers Honda.


Ridgeline Demographics are very desirable compared to other trucks Age is slightly younger than Tacoma or Tundra, HH Income is 44% higher than Tacoma and 18% higher than Tundra. Compared to other Honda models as an aggregate, the household income is higher also.

The issue is not with the demographics - the primary issue is awareness. If you look at Allison Fisher data, the awareness is 50% lower than Tundra. This is surely an up-hill battle. I am not a marketing expert. I am also not an advertising expert. However, it does appear that there are opportunities for improvement.

I personally believe it should be marketed as more of a European Sport truck to emphasize its refinement and driving dynamics. The S2000 commercial was one of my personal favorites. However, it was not run for very long.

The issue is not with the demographics - the primary issue is awareness.

I would venture to guess that I do a better job selling thru awareness than the Honda ads. Yes, it is the key. Although my uses are hardly typical, my demographics generally are (is?). I show the truck (yes, truck) to my clients, friends and collegues, stressing the versatility, comfort and driving capabilities of this fine blend of beauty and brawn. Cute ads? We don't need no stinkin' cute ads. While Toyota and the others are pursuing the brawn, Honda should exploit the sophisication niche that has been abandoned. We (Ridgeline owners) are generally a group of experienced vehicle buyers that does research and comparasion shopping.

Honda should not be afraid to try a little throwback style ads that highlight the features and many hat wearing possibilities of the truck. It's a little bit country, a little bit rock and roll. (with all do apologies to Donny & Marie). Hey, now there’s an idea for theme music! NOT. :eek:

according to the link someone posted the Ridgleline gets 15 MPG.
Try more like 19-20 mpg (because that's exactly what I always get). It's only if you drive the truck like it's a dragster that you'll get low gas mileage. And that's true for ANY vehicle.

I didnt buy an RL to race other trucks. The RL has enough power for my uses/needs.
Absolutely! Works for me.

For that muscle car ego expanding experience, I bought a 3.0 Vtech Accord EX. A dual exhaust sleeper that runs circles around those little big exhaust "rice burners" and, for that matter, any domestic stock truck out there. Yes, I do have a big V8 Silverado that's fairly quick, except when it is stopped for refueling. :D

Work truck or Party truck. My daughter is ready to trade in her 97' Pathfinder for another SUV or Truck. She brings Artichokes and Asparagus mainly to several Farmers Markets around the central coast. She would take a Tundra over my Ridgeline for that purpose any day. She loads up with 4 or 5 tables, 1 or 2 Umbrellas, then fills the bed with crates of fresh vegies. The small bed is just not practical for a haulin work truck. She doe's however take the Ridgeline to party at the 3 to 4 day concert in Coachella or a Reggae concert anywhere in the western US.:cool:

I've noticed an interesting perception shift lately. I was one of the first in my area to buy my Ridgeline (yeah I know I paid a price for that but I don't give a ****). When I first got it, all sorts of people stopped me to ask me how I liked it. That lasted for about 6 months, then it was old news.

Lately people have been asking about it again, and about half of them are current Ridgeline owners that weren't driving it at the time. They wanted to know when I bought it, how many miles I have on it, and always, I mean always, what kind of gas mileage am I getting.

Next time I'm gonna tell them I just installed this fuel atomizer made by this guy up in Canada and now I'm getting 40mpg.

:)

It's only if you drive the truck like it's a dragster that you'll get low gas mileage

Very wrong. This truck is tuned for highway driving. It is not going to get much more than the 16 it states on the sticker for "city" driving and I do not understand why so many are in a state of denial when they drive mainly city style and get 16-17 mpg. That is what Honda says you will get and that is what you will get, so get a grip and deal with it.

Try more like 19-20 mpg (because that's exactly what I always get). It's only if you drive the truck like it's a dragster that you'll get low gas mileage. And that's true for ANY vehicle.

Sorry but that's BS. When I do mix driving, speed limit, I get 15mpg.
Highway at 75mph, I get 16mpg
City, I get 13.5mpg

This truck has SH*TTY mpg. I own the truck since 3/05 and have 42,000 miles. I love the truck but my gas mileage has been horrible. I have tried 87, 93 octane with no difference. I have drove it like I stole it and it made a 1mpg difference.

Sorry but that's BS. When I do mix driving, speed limit, I get 15mpg.
Highway at 75mph, I get 16mpg
City, I get 13.5mpg


Afraid not..........I've only got 1600 miles on mine and I have yet to get below 17.9. My last tank was 19.56. 356 miles on 18.2 gallons, and I topped it off. I drive it just like I did my Tacoma V6, which always got in the 20mpg range. 75/25 hiway city and I'm not babying it either. You should have bought the RTS--cloth is much lighter.:D

Next time I'm gonna tell them I just installed this fuel atomizer made by this guy up in Canada and now I'm getting 40mpg.

How coincidental! Last night after posting to the "did you inhale" thread, I was sitting out by the bayou, me & my pet gator Boudreaux, and this little guy about 3 feet tall came up & I swapped him some of my Abita Turbodog Ales for this little purple pellet that he said to put in my gas tank. Me an' Boudreaux drove all the way down to Houma (at an average speed of 215 mph) an' I swear there's more gas in the tank now than when we left!

While I have your attention, please contact me if you'd like to buy some beachfront real estate on the strip in Biloxi. The north boundary of the property is the beach...

Afraid not..........I've only got 1600 miles on mine and I have yet to get below 17.9. My last tank was 19.56. 356 miles on 18.2 gallons, and I topped it off. I drive it just like I did my Tacoma V6, which always got in the 20mpg range. 75/25 hiway city and I'm not babying it either. You should have bought the RTS--cloth is much lighter.:D

Ah there you go! When I bought mine I got 17-18mpg. Now, since 20,000 miles it has gone down and down. Those numbers I listed have above are at 42,000 miles. I have checked the plugs, wires, filters, etc... and it still sucks. I should have waited for the bigger Tundra.

boxsky..........something has got to be wrong with the ECU or something. MAF or O2 sensor? Car & Driver averaged 19 mpg over 40,000 miles, so something is definitely "off" with your RL. In desperation I'd probably disconnect the battery and reset everything, not that it would do any good. Hope you find out what's wrong, because that is simply not right going down in mpg as it breaks in. Good Luck.

boxsky..........something has got to be wrong with the ECU or something. MAF or O2 sensor? Car & Driver averaged 19 mpg over 40,000 miles, so something is definitely "off" with your RL. In desperation I'd probably disconnect the battery and reset everything, not that it would do any good. Hope you find out what's wrong, because that is simply not right going down in mpg as it breaks in. Good Luck.

I tried the battery reset with no luck. I had a 95' civic with 130000 and it was always getting better mileage with age. I'll check the o2 sensor next.

boxsky..........something has got to be wrong with the ECU or something. MAF or O2 sensor? Car & Driver averaged 19 mpg over 40,000 miles, so something is definitely "off" with your RL. In desperation I'd probably disconnect the battery and reset everything, not that it would do any good. Hope you find out what's wrong, because that is simply not right going down in mpg as it breaks in. Good Luck.
For an accurate charting of the "boxsky effect," take a look at post number 28 of this thread (or the thread in general):
http://www.ridgelineownersclub.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13834&page=2
My gas usage from day one is on a spreadsheet.
BTW, I have had my truck at the dealer for a complete computer check without finding anything wrong. My SM in a very small market said that he had seen this in some Pilots with the same engine. Maybe a reset would help?

Funny, I just traded in a 2003 Tundra for my 2007 Ridgeline. It was an awesome truck, but wasn't fitting my needs. My vehicle in the family is usually the primary vehicle and the rear seat in the access cab (extended cab) just wasn't cutting it anymore. Plus, with the side steps and the bumper guard I added, the mileage had dropped considerably.

I had looked into the Tundra but it is a BIG expensive truck. A fully loaded 4WD regular cab was close to $40,000. A fully loaded Double Cab (extended cab) is close to $50,000! DAMN! WAY out of my price range and that of many others. But, the regular cab with the 5.7L V8 is a QUICK truck and definitely beats the Double Cab's 6.0 second 0-60MPH. My complaints with it is the overall size, which is not good with tight parking spots, and the barnyard door wide front doors. Again, they make it difficult to get out of tight spots.

I chose the Ridgeline because I wanted a mid-size truck with a good reliability record and could seat four to five people. I wanted the bed secondary, with people hauling the primary focus. I had looked at the new Tacoma, but the only Tacoma that I really liked was the X-Runner. Not a practical truck for more then two people. The Double Cab Tacoma is a nice truck, but the SMC bed is an issue for me. I've seen and read pictures of cracked and popped beds.

The Ridgeline is a mid-size truck with a plethora of features. It is for people like me who have a load in the bed anywhere from occasionally to hardly ever. The power isn't V8 quick, but it is good for passing and for light towing. Plus, the Ridgeline gets decent mileage for a V6 engine on a truck. On my second tank, I'm already getting about 17 to 18MPG!

+1

Precisely why I traded in my TITAN. The 305 HP 5.7L was a monster, both on the street and on the wallet. I also had no need to tow 9200 lbs. just the occasional trailer full of wood. I got 16.9mpg (E-10) on the last fill up. The TITAN was consistent in town (E-10) 11.5-12.5. I like the roomy garage I have now as well.

Reliability was an issue as well. The list was too long with problems/recalls in the first 20k. I'm not worried about that with as much with a Honda.

I'll take the gs mileage over horse power, especaily these days, I usualy get 19 mpg, sometimes 20 mpg, sometimes 18 mpg, and this is mixed driving of highway and city.

Well it's not the gas mix. It is the same winter or summer, ac or no ac.
The one thing I didn't check was the o2 sensor. However it does pass emissions, so i doubt it is running overly rich. I may just swap the plugs and see if there is a change.

If you are getting hammered, you must not have good reaction time off the line. :p:D To lose to a bigger class of vehicle by a truck length in a quarter mile is not getting the sh*t kicked out of you. Don't overreact.

Also remember that the Ridge is a mid-size truck, not a full-size truck. Heck, I'd easily run against a full size truck with their V6 engine in it, gotta compare apples to apples:
2007 Ford F-150 4.2L V6, 202 hp
2007 Chevy Silverado 1500 4.3L V6, 195 hp
2007 Dodge Ram 1500 3.7L V6, 215 hp
... almost doesn't seem fair. These three manufacturers need to drop V8 engines to be able to beat the Honda V6. Not bad.

When the full size truck-owners start shooting their mouths off, I say well your truck can't haul an 53' trailer. They come back with it wasn't meant to, I just say, exactly. :D only the smart guys understand what I am saying.

11862[/URL]
Definitly agree with you. K . let the numbers do the talk.

The Ridge is downright comfortable and can easily step into speeding ticket territory. It has the goods required of 80% of all daily truck drivers so....I'll take the Ridge like it is thank you.

This is exactly why we bought our Ridgeline. What we need a pickup truck for the Ridgeline fits perfectly.