Honda Ridgeline Owners Club Forums banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ridgeline - 2013, 14 & 15 - the future.

282K views 1K replies 156 participants last post by  csimo 
#1 · (Edited)
I posted a few days ago that I'd post some updates regarding the future of the Ridgeline. I had hoped to get some approval to give out some info, but nothing yet. Here's what I can say and all is just my opinion (and you sure can't find the info anywhere else):

2013 -- The 2013 Ridgeline is currently in production and should show up at dealers within a month. I wanted to post a list of changes, but can't. It's essentially a carryover vehicle... but a few changes include a standard rear view camera on all models, and improved roof structure strength. A few mentions of Bluetooth changes.

2014 - 2015 -- Here's what I can tell you... the redesign for the Ridgeline is APPROVED and under active development despite what any other press source says. The Ridgeline is not discontinued. The R&D guys are working on the 'new' Ridgeline right now. This is NOT the same 'new' Ridgeline that was originally planned for a few years ago (which I described as evolutionary rather than revolutionary). I would not use that same description today. I do not know many details. There have been media reports that the next generation Ridgeline may be based off the CR-V, but I think those reports are in error. Why do I say "2014 - 2015"? Because I expect it to be late. Will it be a late 2014 or early 2015? I don't know. I do not expect the current generation of Ridgeline will be built as a 2014 model year vehicle (2013 is the end)... so there is a possibility that there will not be a 2014 Ridgeline. If I had to make a wild a** guess I'd say we'll see a 2015 Ridgeline around March of 2014. I expect to see a complete new driveline that includes the new Earth Dreams technology and a 6-speed automatic transmission (possibly even a hybrid). No diesel.

In the event there is no 2014 Ridgeline that does not mean the vehicle is discontinued. There will be a next generation Ridgeline but there are timing issues that seem to me will cause delay (only time will tell).
 
See less See more
#316 ·
...Or someone at the dealer swapped parts around. I've personally had this happen twice. Once with a set of wheels and once with a radio when the dealers had the exact vehicle I was looking for except for one thing. I paid the difference for these items, but I suspect the buyer of the other vehicle ended up paying for more than what they got. You know the dealer didn't discount the other cars for their downgrades! I don't know if it is specifically illegal, but it's almost certainly not proper.
 
#318 ·
I know honda is doing their earth dreams engines but with the 3.5 I don't think will produce what is needed in the Ridgeline. Just take the current 3.7 that they use in the Acuras direct inject it and give it a turbo for the low end. This vehicle is darn near perfect just tweak a few things and they will have a vehicle that can be competitive in its market.
 
#319 ·
I won't debate if the 3.7L engine would be better for the Ridgeline or not, but I can tell you with very high certainty that it is not being considered for the Ridgeline. As far as I know there are no plans for turbocharging in the V6 line.

It would be more likely that Honda will try and move to reduce V6 engine usage overall in favor of a direct-injected, turbocharged I4 engine.
 
#320 ·
If Honda puts in boosted I4 they better drop 500 lbs somewhere and offer the 3.5 boosted as well. The current engine, even with their dream tech isn't upto today's truck standards..... Not to mention 2015 IF there is a new ridgeline.
 
#323 ·
Earth Dreams as related to the Ridgeline simply means the existing 3.5L engine will get direct injection, lower friction, and improved variable valve technology. We'll also see the 6AT transmission.

Gasoline Direct Injection has the capability to significantly improve low end torque. If you combine this with vehicle weight reduction, and an extra gear in the transmission it should greatly improve the Ridgeline driving experience. A 10 - 15% improvement in fuel mileage will also be welcomed.
 
#324 ·
With all of the advances that will come to the 3.5 with Earth Dreams, we can pretty much expect to see about 290hp and an equal amount of lb./ft. The current engine is enough power for me for my everyday driving - although there are times when I do wish it had a little more grunt. An increase of 40hp and lb./ft. along with the 6th gear for highway driving, that would make this truck perfect. In all honesty, this is one of those times where I'm happy that Honda is very conservative with its new models. The 2013 Accord is not all that different from the previous version. An inch here, a different button there. The Accord was already a great car, but Honda actually made it better by addressing the previous gen's few faults. It's shorter end-to-end, weighs a bit less, better looking sheet metal and front-end, has a bit more power, gets better fuel mileage and handles a bit better. It's not an earth-shattering new design. They've just simply improved upon an already great vehicle. That's what I'm hoping they do with the new Ridgeline. Give it a little more power, better fuel efficiency and better amenities, but don't mess with the basics that make this truck great. A little more power, and extra gear and 18/24mpg's would be extremely well-received. From there, add things like a tilt/telescoping wheel, standard iPod and bluetooth capability, etc. I have high hopes for the 2nd gen RL. I really hope Honda doesn't let us all down.
 
#328 ·
I agree with that. There is a market out there for smaller, mid-sized trucks that is being neglected with outdated designs. These potential buyers are being shuffled into the full-size market due to this. True, from a business standpoint, it makes more sense to want to sell full-size trucks since there is more money to be made with them. Companies also don't want their full-size customers to settle for a lesser profit bearing mid-size. That has stifled the market for years. If Honda does give the RL a more powerful engine, 6-speed tranny and some updated features, it will have a winner with an evolutionary redesign. They don't need to reinvent the wheel - they already did that with the first gen RL!
By the time the new RL comes out the 8 speed transmissions will be all over the place. It may benefit Honda to jump straight from 5-8 gear ratios.
 
#329 ·
By the time the new RL comes out the 8 speed transmissions will be all over the place. It may benefit Honda to jump straight from 5-8 gear ratios.
Possibly, but Honda is very slow to react to trends and new, unproven technologies. I highly doubt we'll see anything like that anytime soon. There was rumor of a 7-speed dual clutch happening for the new Acura RL and maybe the NSX. That sort of technology won't filter into the Honda brand for many years.
 
#325 ·
The changes Ian has in mind are realistic and I also think they would make the Ridgeline near perfect in my book. My fear is that Honda might downscale it to achieve better fuel efficiency and end up making something along the lines of Subaru's last pickup experiment. If so, they will possibly pick up a different client type and lose some as well (including me).
 
#330 ·
I'm wondering if 18/24 mpg in the next RL will be good enough to compete in the 2015 truck market. Ford's F-150 EcoBoost is already getting close to that and may equal or surpass it by 2015. Many midsize truck buyers want a bigger fuel efficiency advantage in exchange for the capability trade-off with fullsize trucks. GM, Ford and Ram are facing pressure to improve truck mpg to meet the coming CAFE regs. Honda sells so many fuel efficient vehicles that it doesn't have to worry much about the RL's mpg to meet CAFE, but the next RL does have to compete with other trucks.
 
#333 ·
If I wanted a Dodge, I would buy a Dodge. However, I wanted a Honda, and bought one. ;)
 
#334 ·
The Pentastar V6 is extremely new and untested and the 8-speed transmission is even more new and even more untested. Plus, they're Dodge products. On the other hand, variations of the 3.5 engine and 5-speed auto, although considered outdated technology, have been reliably powering RL's, Pilots and Odysseys for the better part of a decade. The 6-speed auto is newer, but has still been proving itself for much longer than the Dodge products. There is quite a bit more power and efficiency that can be found with the 3.5 liter. Which would you rather have - a fancy, powerful, expensive turbo truck that claims 22mpg and gets 16 or a fancy, less powerful, less expensive V6 truck that claims 21mpg and can actually see 23-24 on the highway?
 
#335 ·
The transmission is actually from ZF, not from Dodge. The Pentastar has already had some big problems with cylinder heads, but I think they have fixed it now. Within a year or two though the pentastar is going into enough vehicles that they will have worked their kinks out and it should be a damn good modern V6, which was allegedly designed from the getgo to get turbo'd up like the ecoboost V6. A motor like that would not be a bad thing for Honda to have in its arsenal.
 
#340 ·
The Pentastar engine is an excellent design that has yet to reach its potential. From what I hear they're working on adapting Fiat's Multi-Air technology to the engine. I don't think they've even released a direct injected version yet.

As for the ZF-8HP transmission. It's well proven and is used by many manufacturers. The list I see include Audi, Bentley, BMW, Chrysler, Dodge, Jaguar, Lancia, Land Rover, Ram, Rolls-Royce, and Volkswagen. That's an impressive resume for a transmission.

Can you keep a secret? (lol) I have heard a rumor (hint, hint) that Honda has been working on licensing the ZF-9HP transmission. It would be the ZF design but Honda will build it themselves. The 9HP is a very advanced transmission and I hear numbers that it's at least 15% more efficient than the current Honda 6AT. Don't get your hopes up because it's not a done deal and this is at least a couple of years away and would probably hit Acura for a couple of years before migrating to the Honda brand.

ZF also has a really nice (but expensive) 7 speed dual-clutch transmission... that would be very, very nice.
 
#341 ·
Why can't Honda just leap ahead and do something revolutionary? Why must they creep along evolutionary style?

Maybe that was covered in Business 101... never do tomorrow what you can do next week so that your existing sales stay steady as you milk the existing technology for all it's worth. ;)
 
#342 ·
Why can't Honda just leap ahead and do something revolutionary? Why must they creep along evolutionary style?
Because anything new has inherent risks. Will people buy it? Was something overlooked in design and engineering that will make it less reliable? Was something overlooked that will initiate an expensive safety recall - or worse - result in injury or death? There is a fine balance between "cutting edge" and "proven technology". Some people still prefer carburetors while others won't buy a vehicle unless it will display live weather and traffic and park itself and get 50 MPG. In most cases, evolution bests revolution. It's rare to have your cake and eat it, too.
 
#343 ·
But I want it all!

What inherent risks are there in using the 3.7l engine from the Acura line? Or the SH-AWD system? Well, other than taking sales away from Acura maybe.
 
#345 · (Edited)
Well, I have been out of the RIDGELINE game for about 3.5 years now. I would love to be able to jump back in with the redesign.

Here is what I am hoping for:

Composite bed/body like it has now for good handling with the IRS. I would like it to be about 25% smaller. I think it would compete better as a small truck which is now in the dwindling phase except Nissan and Toyota.

I like the trunk in the bed and the bed material.

I want it to be less ugly and more aggressive. Wider fenders and more chiseled with fewer expanses of large sheet metal panels.

I loved the handling and ride and performance. I never felt the MPG's were bad.

I want a smaller, lighter, more fuel efficient performance truck. I like the passenger space but would like to give up width in an effort to reduce weight. Same length would be fine. Bed width would suffer some. Maybe trim up body width by about 6 inches (3 each side)

The AWD system was fine for my needs. I had my 2006 for 3.5 years and have thought about getting another as I felt it was a SPORT TRUCK vs. a TRUCK TRUCK. If HONDA goes the sport route, I think they will have a unique product.

I would like to move to a DI engine with the 7 speed transmission for better highway MPG.

I don't need a large heavy hauler but a DO IT ALL smaller utility vehicle. People, cargo, towing etc. but want more MPG's like in the mid 20 range.

AWD and same steering and braking type performance or even BETTER than we have now.

A more aggressive body (flared fenders and more chisled styling and lose the wing look to the bed and they have a winner. I loved the tailgate setup.

This is a niche vehicle anyway, IMO, better to take it to a unique place. It never really competed as intended but is so close to being something NO ONE ELSE offers if they would maintain the sport and improve the look and get better efficiency.

I want a bad ass mall crawler essentially that has a great ride, solid AWD and GREAT performance capabilities. Think MINI RAPTOR type styling but less hardcore running gear.
 
#346 ·
Well, I have been out of the RIDGELINE game for about 3.5 years now. I would love to be able to jump back in with the redesign.

Here is what I am hoping for:

Composite bed/body like it has now for good handling with the IRS. I would like it to be about 25% smaller. I think it would compete better as a small truck which is now in the dwindling phase except Nissan and Toyota.

I like the trunk in the bed and the bed material.

I want it to be less ugly and more aggressive. Wider fenders and more chiseled with fewer expanses of large sheet metal panels.

I loved the handling and ride and performance. I never felt the MPG's were bad.

I want a smaller, lighter, more fuel efficient performance truck. I like the passenger space but would like to give up width in an effort to reduce weight. Same length would be fine. Bed width would suffer some. Maybe trim up body width by about 6 inches (3 each side)

The AWD system was fine for my needs. I had my 2006 for 3.5 years and have thought about getting another as I felt it was a SPORT TRUCK vs. a TRUCK TRUCK. If HONDA goes the sport route, I think they will have a unique product.

I would like to move to a DI engine with the 7 speed transmission for better highway MPG.

I don't need a large heavy hauler but a DO IT ALL smaller utility vehicle. People, cargo, towing etc. but want more MPG's like in the mid 20 range.

AWD and same steering and braking type performance or even BETTER than we have now.

A more aggressive body (flared fenders and more chisled styling and lose the wing look to the bed and they have a winner. I loved the tailgate setup.

This is a niche vehicle anyway, IMO, better to take it to a unique place. It never really competed as intended but is so close to being something NO ONE ELSE offers if they would maintain the sport and improve the look and get better efficiency.

I want a bad ass mall crawler essentially that has a great ride, solid AWD and GREAT performance capabilities.
I think that any chance of a sport truck went out the window with the huge upsurge in crossover sales and popularity. I know they aren't trucks, but they seem to cover "enough" of what people want in terms of seating position and cargo capacity, while preserving truck like handling/acceleration.
 
#347 ·
None have a bed and most have a CRAPPY AWD system that can't get a vehicle out of its own way. Very few CUV type vehicles perform well at all outside of TURBO variants and certainly cannot handle off road work at all outside of say SUBARU OUTBACK, FORESTER and XV CROSSTREK all of which cannot haul much of anything except people and suitcases. OK, you can load mulch in your nice carpeted hatch area if you want, but not for me.
 
#348 ·
Oh I completely agree with you. I just think that a lot of the market segment that would have gone for a smaller sport truck have instead opted for crossovers at this point. They are definitely en vogue. I really wish we had a variety of small trucks of all sorts to choose from, but the market seems to want crossovers now. I'm hoping that Jeep makes their gladiator pickup sometime soon, and I am still hoping that one day Hyundai will make a RL like truck off of their Genesis platform. Time will tell, I certainly hope someone brings your sport truck to market, I just have my doubts about any automaker going that route.
 
#349 ·
If you wait around for a "sport truck" from Honda, you'll be continuously waiting. I'm sure Honda has no intention whatsoever of actually creating such a vehicle. There are many production factors that would limit this. Plus, with the axing of the S2000 and Element in the last few years, you can pretty much rule out Honda having a want to produce sporty, unique niche vehicles. It just doesn't make business sense nor does it help Honda meet the CAFE requirements forthcoming. From what I've read and what Joe has reported so far, the new RL design will have nearly 300hp and get better fuel mileage. It'll still be pretty heavy as it will be around the same size of chassis as the Pilot and Odyssey, but I have no doubts it will be a little more spunky than the current generation. You won't win many drag races with it and there still won't be much of an aftermarket demand, but it will be a step in the right direction.
 
#350 ·
Personally, I hope Ian's right. I'd like the size to remain the same. The cabin size was a major plus to me, and I'd hate for anything to change except for a little more power and a little better mileage. I love the fact that the current model is three inches wider than my old Trailblazer. The transmission could use a six or seven speed. This, along with a forty or so increase in HP, would probably give at least as good or probably better mileage. I hope they don't monkey around much with the body dimensions. I would rather have the RL as is as opposed to something sport-truck-like (ala Subaru Brat). If the re-do ends up being a lot smaller I'll drag out my current RL as long as I can.
 
#351 ·
Same here bluewater1.
 
#352 ·
I can't imagine Honda downsizing the RL. Subaru's latest experiment with a compact sport truck -- the Baja -- ended with poor sales and it seems unlikely they even recovered their development costs for the vehicle. It might have been too small and too car-like for the niche market of small truck buyers that still exists out there. Neverless, that maket is apparently not big enough to interest the major carmakers. Maybe Scion will pull it off.

Regardless, the new RL will surely be based on a shared platform with the Pilot. That's just the new economic reality of a competitive global market: build vehicles from a limited number of versatile, well-tested platforms and stay flexible to changing demand. Conceivably, a sport truck could be designed from the CRV platform, but where's the market for it? The vast majority of Amercian truck buyers now want 5 passenger capacity and comfort, plus some towing and open hauling capability. Otherwise, they'll buy an SUV or CUV.

With all the new technology and the ever-rising bar to meet CAFE regs, I'm hoping the new RL will get a LOT better mpg's, despite keeping similar dimensions to the current RL. I think the competition is pushing hard to increase fuel efficiency for trucks.
 
#353 ·
It wouldn't be too far-fetched to think that a smaller sport truck type vehicle could be made from the CR-V chassis. Just look at the new RDX - Honda has proven they can shoehorn a version of the 3.5 liter V6 into a CR-V-like frame. However, as was suggested, the R&D needed to produce an essentially brand new vehicle like that would be very expensive and the sales forecasts are just not there to justify such a vehicle. Now, simply taking an already great truck, adding some tweaks to an already great engine and giving it a new transmission and sheet metal??? THERE is where the cost-to-benefit ratio is. Relatively low cost to produce a vehicle that can easily sell 15-20k units per year.
 
#354 ·
You guys really expect HONDA to perform physics miracles. More power (many want 300hp) and still get a LOT better MPG's?? I guess if they lose the brick that is the front end the aerodynamic advantages are obvious.

That is why I want a more chisled looking vehicle. Sleek and muscular. Not block and boring. I can even live with the size but I think a 500lbs. curb weight reduction would do wonders for the 3.5 and help MPG.s Giving up a few inches in width will not hurt anything. I guess you still need the plywood crowd to have their width though.

The BAJA is a CRUCK, not a TRUCK. I was in no way suggesting something that small. The BAJA was way too expensive.
 
#356 ·
Most crossovers are appreciably smaller in all dimensions than the Ridgeline, can handle far smaller payloads, tow a lot less, and still weigh about 4K pounds. I'd be surprised if Honda could really drop the weight of the RL all that much. I'm not even sure if it would be a good idea if it would alter how it handles a payload or how it tows (don't know if it would or not, just speculating).
 
#355 ·
I looked at a Baja before the Ridgeline, but at 6' 3" I just wasn't comfy and it didn't even come with a tilt steering wheel. Back in the 90's I saw a concept El Camino that it sounded like GM was sure to be going ahead with (it was a Camaro with a bed) but it never did come. One thing I'll say about the Baja you don't see many on Carmax or any used lots and I've read where they are actually keeping their value. I still see quite a few SporTrac's on the road, I just think Ridgeline fits the bill perfect for what I was looking for. Had I been comfy in the Baja I might have actually jumped at it (I'd have sure wanted the Tubo version though), but I'm glad I didn't.
 
#358 · (Edited)
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.
 
#359 ·
Maybe, but don't discount the evolution of high strength steel, lightweight composites, new transmissions and other engine refinements. Most folks who want to see the RL get a power boost would probably settle for a more modest improvement in fuel efficiency. I'm hoping for more than that but I know it's a tall order. I'd be fine if they gave the RL an Eco button that resets the computer to maximize fuel efficiency at the expense of acceleration and power. Then when you need the power boost, just turn off the Eco mode. I guess that's kinda Ford's idea behind the EcoBoost engines, but according to Consumer Reports, there are reliability problems with some EcoBoost engines. Anything new will likely have bugs to work out.
 
#363 · (Edited)
According to Ramtrucks.com, the 2013 1500 SLT crew cab 4x4 is rated at 16/23 mpg.
http://www.ramtrucks.com/hostc/vsmc/vehicleSpecModels.do?modelYearCode=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. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top