Honda Ridgeline Owners Club Forums banner

1 - 20 of 37 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
461 Posts
Interesting read. I always explained to others that the AWD system on the Ridgeline was the same as SH-AWD found in the Acura even though I was not 100% sure. It's just that everyone has heard of SH-AWD and it makes more sense and a good comparison for understanding. Looks like I was right after all.

For the 2016 and up Honda Pilot, although Honda is marketing its AWD system as “i-VTM4”, it is in fact identical to the latest SH-AWD.
 
  • Like
Reactions: G2RL

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,146 Posts
Interesting read. I always explained to others that the AWD system on the Ridgeline was the same as SH-AWD found in the Acura even though I was not 100% sure. It's just that everyone has heard of SH-AWD and it makes more sense and a good comparison for understanding. Looks like I was right after all.
So I thought there is some difference is the SH-AWD that the current MDX is using compared to iVTM4 current Pilot/Ridgeline? I have loaner 2015 3.5L 290HP TLX SH-AWD while my old 00 3.2TL is at dealers. So what's difference in it from Ridgeline with iVTM4.
I thought SH-AWD was able to split torque from side to side on 4wheels front and front to back. While system in Pilot/Ridgeline was able to go front to back with side to side on rear wheels.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
55 Posts
Yea the article indirectly states that the G2 Ridgeline has the latest SH AWD (marketed as iVTM4). G1 has the VTM4, which is prone to overheating and can't send too much power to rear wheels. So everything you read on top in regards to the latest SH AWD applies to the G2 Ridgeline.

It's a nice system and I don't think many give it enough credit. I'd argue it's probably one of the best out there and just as good as suburu.

Electric cars like tesla don't have to worry about clutch packs, gears etc, but they are really simple. The motor puts equal power to both front wheels and can't torque vector or do anything else fancy.

The main problem with the Ridgeline + AWD is that really the truck and system is best for pavement. However, it's a truck is really nose heavy and has a light rear end when not loaded. This is about th worst thing for cornering or acceleration and power is often best served using the front wheels. Though this is a capable system that will do any reasonable off-roading, a heavy duty old fashion controllable 4x4 system with locking difs is truly better for hardcore off-road. Kind of leaves the Ridgeline in a weird place...it's got a really nice AWD for pavement, but it's a truck chassis, typically bought to do truck things (off-road etc). It's the nature of the Ridgeline...it's a car...not it's a truck...no it's a crossover...no an SUV with no back....no what is it???

I can definitely vouch that the AWD truck corners well for truck AND RWD car standards. Many people will not notice this because they'll be scared of body lean and putting their foot down through a corner, which means that more or less they don't even utilize AWD/torque vectoring. I'm used to sports cars and am not scared. If you do reasonable acceleration through a corner, you will feel the back end come out just a little similar to oversteer to fight off the understeer (front end flying off the road). The truck maintains neutral balance through the corner which is kind of amazing because the truck chassis is horrible at this. It's like a zombie skateboarding down a stairway hand rail. Granted if the system doesn't do what it should, you panic brake, let off the throttle, or upset the balance too much (hit pothole gravel jerk the wheel etc) mid corner, you'll end up with snap under or oversteer and likely rolling off the road, so I DO NOT recommend anyone to try gunning it through a corner unless they know what they're doing. Light to moderate acceleration and you'll still feel it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
461 Posts
it's got a really nice AWD for pavement, but it's a truck chassis, typically bought to do truck things (off-road etc)
I do not agree a truck is typically bought to off road more so to load and haul some of the time unless purchase for commercial use. I would like to see a survey of how many trucks actually do off road in a way that a true 4x4 system would be a better choice. My guess is a measly 5% and I am being generous.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
142 Posts
The off-road look is "cool looking" for many. Look at all the 2WD Tacoma TRD's out there. Stroke of genius for Toyota marketing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
487 Posts
So its not a FWD biased system like many have claimed.
I'd argue its more a slip and grip transfer of torque from front to rear.

After I installed my winter tires I had to get them balanced because the rubber slipped on the rims during hard acceleration. Both front rims required a ton of weights while the rear only needed a bit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
159 Posts
So its not a FWD biased system like many have claimed.
Not really. I downloaded and read the SAE presentation that Honda gave on the system. The only time it goes into FWD mode is during coasting and braking, in order to save gas. The rest of the time there is some power being applied to the rear wheels, 10% during cruising, and more during acceleration (even in a straight line). I think it is fair to say that it really is a full-time system.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
153 Posts
I do not agree a truck is typically bought to off road more so to load and haul some of the time unless purchase for commercial use. I would like to see a survey of how many trucks actually do off road in a way that a true 4x4 system would be a better choice. My guess is a measly 5% and I am being generous.
Trucks are inherently terrible at any sort of real off-roading. They have terrible break over and departure angles, both of which are essential in any real off-road situation.

It always strikes me as interesting to hear people talk about how good this truck or that is, off-road. They are literally about the worst design - by necessity - for off-road. Unless you mean "muddin'" or hitting sand dunes.

I recently towed my 3,000 pound trailer and SxS to a trailhead, and about 3 miles of it was on a very rutted, washboard road. I was so happy to have the Ridgeline, with it's compliant independent suspension. I previously have driven that same road in my previous 2013 Tundra and my current 2015 Land Cruiser - and both of those vehicles will rattle your teeth out and make you want to lower your air pressure to 20psi. Not in the RL though!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,332 Posts
The current iVTM-4 and SH-AWD systems are mechanically identical, but the logic is different. The SH-AWD system is programmed for more aggressive torque vectoring than iVTM-4. The difference is in the software.

The previous generation VTM-4 and SH-AWD systems were different both mechanically and in logic, and neither have anything in common (other than in name) with the current generation systems.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
566 Posts
Why would the Truck NOT have the most aggressive torque vectoring software? Considering a truck should be "MORE" capable than a crossover type vehicle...

Now my question is: Is it possible to update the software to use the MORE aggressive torque vectoring software?

I would totally be willing to try it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,332 Posts
Why would the Truck NOT have the most aggressive torque vectoring software? Considering a truck should be "MORE" capable than a crossover type vehicle...

Now my question is: Is it possible to update the software to use the MORE aggressive torque vectoring software?

I would totally be willing to try it.
Honda doesn't want a Honda product having the same features of an Acura. It dilutes the Acura brand image.

The G2 has the same cruise control module as the MDX, but the slow speed follow feature is disabled because they want Acura to have something Honda doesn't. The logic is there, but just disabled.

As far as modifying the software... I won't say it's impossible but it would take someone like Hondata to do it... and as far as I know they don't do much that Honda doesn't want them to do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
153 Posts
Honda doesn't want a Honda product having the same features of an Acura. It dilutes the Acura brand image.

The G2 has the same cruise control module as the MDX, but the slow speed follow feature is disabled because they want Acura to have something Honda doesn't. The logic is there, but just disabled.

As far as modifying the software... I won't say it's impossible but it would take someone like Hondata to do it... and as far as I know they don't do much that Honda doesn't want them to do.
Cruise controls modules disappeared with mechanical throttle linkages years ago.

The various sensors like the camera and radar unit must somehow communicate with the PCM, ABS, and power steering instead to control acceleration, braking, and steering, respectively. Does Honda use a dedicated "Honda Sensing computer" for all these functions or do the sensors communicate directly with the system that needs to be controlled?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,332 Posts
Cruise controls modules disappeared with mechanical throttle linkages years ago.

The various sensors like the camera and radar unit must somehow communicate with the PCM, ABS, and power steering instead to control acceleration, braking, and steering, respectively. Does Honda use a dedicated "Honda Sensing computer" for all these functions or do the sensors communicate directly with the system that needs to be controlled?
I actually have no idea where the cruise control logic is held. I just used the term cruise control module in error. I was paraphrasing a conversation about the issue about the slow follow feature. The bottom line is that all the hardware is already there on the Ridgeline to enable the feature, but to preserve the Acura brand image they won't enable the feature on the Ridgeline.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
18,284 Posts
The current iVTM-4 and SH-AWD systems are mechanically identical, but the logic is different. The SH-AWD system is programmed for more aggressive torque vectoring than iVTM-4. The difference is in the software.
Why would the Truck NOT have the most aggressive torque vectoring software? Considering a truck should be "MORE" capable than a crossover type vehicle...
I'm responding to this old thread because a new video was published today on the subject.

 
1 - 20 of 37 Posts
Top