2006 Honda Ridgeline RTS: Introduction [2.6.6]

2006 Honda Ridgeline RTS: Introduction
Good First Impressions: Ridgeline is no beauty, but it's revolutionary

Read the Review! (http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/CW/20060206/FREE/60125006/1004)

JOE KOVACH
Automotive News / February 6, 2006

80 Miles per hour with a heavy load. Someone tell me when that guy is driving so I can stay off the road! He doesn't need a V-8, he needs some brains!

My favorite quote from that article: It’s a perfect tool for today’s world.

That says it all!

But no one should mistake this for a pickup truck.
A fairly decent review until they threw in this line, even if they did follow it up with this.
The Ridgeline could turn out to be bad news for the traditional pickup truck, though.

That second to the last sentence is a little out of place. Right after he says he will use the Ridgeline to do a number of truck chores he says no one should mistake it for a pickup truck ... :confused:

...How about posting the good things they said.

I did! See above :)

no one should mistake this for a pickup truck

This kind of boggles my mind too. What is a Ford Ranger then? Not a pickup because it has a small payload and no V8??? :confused:

Overall, though a very good article.

At the bottom they say if you own a Ridgeline, to contact them with your comments. So, why not do it? I'm going to.
Their best drag strip performance was a 16.91 @ 80.6 m.p.h. My personal best (so far), with a relatively "fresh" truck, was a 16.84 @ 81.76.

Overall a good review. But I find it odd that got a "dog slow" 8.9 seconds in the 0-60 test, when I have seen everywhere from 7.9 to 8.5, but nothing slower than 8.5. I think I am gonna have to go buy a stop watch and test my RL. I don't think it takes much more than 8.0 seconds to get to 60 from a standing start.

Anybody else test theirs?

As one editor wrote, "It’s not pretty, but none of these truck/SUV things looks good."
How does it not look good? I really don't understand these comments about the RL's looks. It's different, yes, but as Arby's says, "Different is good." I think what causes most of these comments is the tendency for most people to need to categorize something by simple traits, and things that don't fit get labeled "ugly" without justification. "Truck" to most people means "L-shaped cabin paired with a long, unconnected bed," and the RL has a more "sedan-like" profile, (which is why it gets the gas mileage it does.) And the industry knows this, so as the RL grows in popularity (and it will) we'll begin to see some serious knocking on the lack of "traditional" elements on the RL. They're going to flog this to death until they eventually have to start designing "traditional" trucks for the 21st century. And then they'll all bear more similarity to the RL than not - and we'll all be laughing about it because we're still driving the "real thing" that really started it all!

I like the looks of the Ridgeline...fell in love with it at first sight. Seems like beauty is in the eye of the beholder on this one! Also, the Green ones the best looking! :)

Great write up. Don't know how I missed this thread. Lot's of good things said, but I still don't get the need for a rear defroster. I know there has been plenty of talk about this subject in other threads, so no intention of re-opening that can of worms. I just don't understand why this is only an issue on the Ridgeline, and not the countless other trucks that don't offer this feature.

The model we selected would benefit from heated mirrors, if not seats and washer fluid, and a rear defroster

And as far as the styling goes...........who in their right mind would say this is an ugly truck? Not me!:D

fins