Ridgeline - 2013, 14 & 15 - the future.

[Ledebuhr1]

The new RL will have to get MUCH better MPG than the current model. The 2013 Ram v-6 has over 300hp and it gets 25mpg. I know GM and Ford have new trucks in the works and they will have even higher MPG.

[Nutbread]

Originally Posted by speedlever

I certainly wouldn't want to give up any inches in width. I would hate for the interior to be any smaller.

Edit: I knew what the mpg was when I bought the RL. I gave up mpg to have a 4 door truck. The mpg has been right where I expected it to be. I am unwilling to give up functionality for mpg, if that is my choice. Sure, I'd love to have higher mpgs. But not at the cost of sacrificing room in either the cabin or the bed. The RL carries what I need it to carry and it still fits in my garage. It does so safely and with relative efficiency.

Well said.

[speedlever]

Originally Posted by Ledebuhr1

The new RL will have to get MUCH better MPG than the current model. The 2013 Ram v-6 has over 300hp and it gets 25mpg. I know GM and Ford have new trucks in the works and they will have even higher MPG.

According to Ramtrucks.com, the 2013 1500 SLT crew cab 4x4 is rated at 16/23 mpg.
http://www.ramtrucks.com/hostc/vsmc/...Code=CUT201313

It has a 5'7" bed and MSRP is 36,740.

The only one that's rated 18/25 is the regular cab 4x2 V6 version.

If you want the Hemi, it's rated 13/18 mpg in the 4wd version. 14/19 in 2wd.

The RL has a 122 inch WB and overall length is 206.9 inches. Fits in my garage.
The Ram has a 140.5 inch WB and overall length is 229 inches. Won't fit in my garage, unless I clean my junk out.

[phillyguy]

Originally Posted by speedlever

According to Ramtrucks.com, the 2013 1500 SLT crew cab 4x4 is rated at 16/23 mpg.
http://www.ramtrucks.com/hostc/vsmc/...Code=CUT201313

It has a 5'7" bed and MSRP is 36,740.

The only one that's rated 18/25 is the regular cab 4x2 V6 version.

If you want the Hemi, it's rated 13/18 mpg in the 4wd version. 14/19 in 2wd.

The RL has a 122 inch WB and overall length is 206.9 inches. Fits in my garage.
The Ram has a 140.5 inch WB and overall length is 229 inches. Won't fit in my garage, unless I clean my junk out.

I think his point was that in 4x4 fashion the Ram still is rated at 16/23 over the RL's 15/20, despite being larger in every dimension, weighing more, and putting out more hp/torque. The hemi numbers are not paired with their new transmission yet. Don't know if the new 8 speed will give it a little boost or not in its EPA numbers. I actually hate EPA numbers myself since a lot of vehicles get nowhere near them. I think that I got banned from a forum once for pointing out that the only worthwhile way to test fuel economy would be to put a lot of vehicles on a long track at the same time, and just drive them around and around. Moderator was an engineer and did not like this and insisted that EPA ratings were perfectly accurate, despite OVERWHELMING empirical evidence to the contrary.

[speedlever]

Understood... Except the RL numbers are 16/21. Had to laugh at your story. My real world experience puts the published RL mpg numbers at or better than published. I've heard a little about the EPAs testing methodology and I'm amazed that my numbers parallel the published numbers as closely as they do. I think your method would provide more accurate comparison numbers, if the mfgs wouldn't build to the test.

[xd9x19]

Anybody know if Honda has done much follow-up research on how their truck was received compared to what they intended or thought the original target demographics would be. From my understanding it was originally intended to be a truck for "weekend warriors" (home projects, hauling some stuff, hunting, etc.) with good features for the daily commute and hauling the kids around.

From what I've gathered here, there seems to be a lot of folks who would desire it to lean more towards the truck side (towing and hauling) than toward the family hauler with some truck capabilities.

Did Honda miss their target demographic? Or has it landed where they thought?

[speedlever]

All I know is they targeted me pretty much dead on.

[phillyguy]

Originally Posted by speedlever

Understood... Except the RL numbers are 16/21. Had to laugh at your story. My real world experience puts the published RL mpg numbers at or better than published. I've heard a little about the EPAs testing methodology and I'm amazed that my numbers parallel the published numbers as closely as they do. I think your method would provide more accurate comparison numbers, if the mfgs wouldn't build to the test.

Yeah. You have probably done a better job choosing vehicles than me. I never get the EPA numbers, much less better. I have almost gotten close a few times. I haven't checked super recently, but I know when I have checked fuelly in the past Chrysler vehicles (especially the ram trucks) never hit close to their EPA mileage. I also don't expect that to change for the new 2013 Ram trucks. I am really happy that they are making improvements and trying out new technology (on pickup trucks anyway) like grille shutters, but i bet there 18/24 or whatever is probably closer to 15/16 city and 22 highway. Still a big improvement, and it incorporates some ideas that hopefully Honda will adopt (if they work well), but still nothing close to what the dumb EPA numbers are.

[larryr]

Originally Posted by phillyguy

I think his point was that in 4x4 fashion the Ram still is rated at 16/23 over the RL's 15/20, despite being larger in every dimension, weighing more, and putting out more hp/torque. The hemi numbers are not paired with their new transmission yet. Don't know if the new 8 speed will give it a little boost or not in its EPA numbers. I actually hate EPA numbers myself since a lot of vehicles get nowhere near them. I think that I got banned from a forum once for pointing out that the only worthwhile way to test fuel economy would be to put a lot of vehicles on a long track at the same time, and just drive them around and around. Moderator was an engineer and did not like this and insisted that EPA ratings were perfectly accurate, despite OVERWHELMING empirical evidence to the contrary.

The EPA test is not real world - it is to compare hot engine MPG.

If they did the EPA mpg test with the vehicle at 32F for 8 hours, the Ridgeline would be 6/12 - The EPA had to change the test to hot engine to get the car makers to agree to the posting to the results (look at the 1973 Congressional Record - only Watergate and the gas crisis got more pages) - all vehicles get lousy MPG until the engine and transmission warm up. On my short drives ( I live 1.4 miles to a Walmart store - that trip and back never gets over 11 mpg and I park in the 1st parking space with an easy out - I walk a long ways to the entrance). I get a lousy 11 mpg - on my longer trips I get 25 mpg. I drive like an old man because I am.

I have owned 3 Honda Civic Hybrids ( don't ask my daughter has the last one now ) - I averages over 49 mpg on each, I learned to drive the hybrid like a hybrid to get the best fuel economy. I regularly get asked by the Honda Dealer to take another Honda Civic Hybrid and owner out to see if their car has an issue (they show up with 32 or 35 mpg on the dash). I take them out for a small drive - I always come back in the mid 40's. They do not understand that slowing down by light braking charges the batteries and not creeping forward to a red light keeps the engine off and the settings for the AC and window heaters can change the hybrid to a plain civic in 1 mile. Almost all get in the 40's after they learn to drive a hybrid like it was designed to be driven.

[Car Compulsive]

There are occasional times I wish for a larger bed, but that would mean giving up garage-ability or interior space. (Last Saturday it took three trips to transport 27 bags of shredded leaves for composting 2 miles away. I can live with that.) 90+% of the time, the Ridge is spot-on for my wants & needs - far better than any other truck.