I want both. Figure it out Honda.

 

Not absolutely accurate, but funny none the less:

Understeer is when you hit the wall with the front of the car.

Oversteer is when you hit the wall with the rear of the car.

Horsepower is how fast you hit the wall.

Torque is how far you take the wall with you.

Honda does not have a history of producing engines with a lot of low end torque. I loved the way my 2001 Jetta 1.8T GLS would pull from say 1700rpm all the way to the redline. I sometime wish the Ridge had more low end torque (Below 2000rpm), but that is only on rare occasions as I do not tow much at all.

 

I'm not looking for towing power either, but enough low end power to not have to downshift at every little hill you come to would be very attractive.

 

Historically, most American drivers have preferred low-end torque over high-RPMs and cloud-like suspensions. Mechanically, a smaller, high-RPM engine can do just as much work as a larger, high-torque depending on gearing. Many studies have been done, but I remember watching a television show several years ago that studied feel and sound of automobiles. The conclusion was that the sound and torque of a V8 was more pleasing to the human brain and ears than a buzzy I4. Higher frequencies tend to be associated with "bad" sounds like flying insects and screams. Low frequencies tend to be associated with "good" sounds like thunder (rain).

horsepower (work) = torque * RPM / 5252

Personally, I prefer the sound and feel of a larger-displacement, high-torque engine, but those days continue to be numbered in the interest of fuel economy and the environment as we now have full-size cars with 4-cylinder engines. The current Chevrolet Impala is one example - and it's 2.5L normally-aspirated. The Ford Fusion is mid-sized, but still a large vehicle and offers a 1.6L turbocharged engine. Both are slow as molasses in the winter. "Pleasing" is a not a word that could describe the sound or feel of acceleration in either.

 

You guys and your need to compensate with big engines are pathetic. Hey, let's ask the ladies ... whoops, I'll take that back. http://www.wired.com/autopia/2008/09/weve-got-some-b/

 

A Honda Accord v6 has it all.

 

If you want low end then you need to buy a 'real pick-up'. My 2500 chevy with a 6 liter and 4:10 rear end in low range 4X4 would pull stumps with ease.

I traded that for the Ridgeline. No longer need a sledge hammer to drive a tack.

 

I don't see why it would be necessary to get something that large. I don't see why Honda can't put an engine with low end torque in a truck. I think Honda needs to do that.

I don't need or want to pull stumps. I think it will make the RL more drivable by having much (not just a little) improved torque on the low end. I suspect both the Pilot and the Odyssey would benefit as well.

 

To get more torque, they'd need to increase the displacement or use forced induction. Honda has neither large displacement engines nor turbochargers in their stable. Honda relies on small displacement engines running at high RPM and gearing for usable power. The continuing trend is to decrease displacement in the name of fuel economy and weight savings. Unless forced induction is used, torque will continue to decrease. As the old saying goes, "there is no replacement for displacement"!

I'm not involved in the "tuner" crowd and have no idea what the real-world power limits of Honda's engines are, but I'm sure they could easily create a beefed-up 3.5L that was turbocharged similar to Ford's V6 EcoBoost. Problem is, Honda's preference leans towards normally-aspirated gasoline engines. They don't like diesels. They don't like turbochargers or superchargers. They don't like large displacement. The fact is, they don't like torque at all! With such old technology, I'm surprised the 3.5L V6 does as well as it does. GM's new V8 truck engines compare power-wise to Ford's V6 EcoBoost and gets better fuel economy, but this is partly due to variable displacement resulting in the the 5.3L V8 operating as a 2.7L 4-cylinder at times.

 

Well that sounds like a pretty good summary of the pros and cons. Unless Honda has a change of mindset (management), we are stuck with high RPM motors to get any power. On a different scale, it reminds me of a turbine engine... lots of rpms to generate power. But they work... very effectively... in their application.

 

...Or is that a historical function of working with small displacement engines and carries over from that mentality?

I think you just answered your own question speed!

The Ridgeline for the size has a relatively small engine. The Taco has a 4.0L, and let me tell ya it makes a difference in the torque department.

One thing about the RL motor that always had question marks in my head is that a similar engine goes into the 2008-2012 accord... but the accord makes more power? I think they are around 270HP and 254 ft-lbs? These accords have no lack of low end torque in my opinion. I drove a few while in my RL search.

I guess the RL is much heavier...

 

Not only is the RL heavier, but the gear ratios and spacing are different. The engines are also tuned to make peak torque and HP and different RPMs. Then, there's the mapping of the accelerator pedal to actual throttle blade opening and the stall speed of the torque converter among countless other parameters. There are so many variables that determine how a vehicle performs on paper and in the real world that it is beyond most of our comprehension. Unfortunately, manufacturers play on this general lack of consumer knowledge by throwing out relatively meaningless numbers that are more for marketing than anything. For example, a 300 horsepower engine in the Ridgeline doesn't mean much if that power is only available at at 6,000 RPM while only 200 is available between 2,000 - 4,000 RPM.

Horsepower is certainly something to consider, but given the same horsepower, you must choose between torque or RPM. Since high torque comes from large displacement and forced induction, you're left with high RPM in a small-displacement engine. The downside to large displacement is lower fuel economy.

http://www.motortrend.com/classic/features/c12_0603_1964_chrysler_turbine_car/viewall.html

"With no carburetor, you don't pump the throttle as you would for other cars of the era. Reduction gears lower the output speed to 5360 rpm, but the max speed of the second-stage turbine is 45,700 rpm. It winds up with the big vacuum-cleaner sound of a jet, idling at a McLaren Mercedes F1-worthy 15,000 rpm."

 

Make no mistake about it Honda manufactures some of the best engines in the world. A few standout examples are the C30A in the NSX and the F20C in the S2000. Great power, compact size and high efficiency are all Honda Trademarks. Plus IMO, they just run so smooth, they never sound thrashy or gritty.

That being said it is true that Honda is not known for high torque motors. That's because the are not big into diesels, FI, or large displacement. Still their technology revolves around variable valve control, variable plenum/intake geometry and well designed combustion chambers to create efficient operation across a wide RPM range.

All things considered the 3.5 in the RL is quite a performer. I wish the gearing in the 1st 3 gears was lower and they added a 6th gear. Also it seems like they could of had the peak torque come in sooner than 4k, but again its a good overall engine. Considering the weight, its a pretty spry truck. It would light up my old supercrew with a 5.4 V8. That's not bad for a little 3.5 liter.

 

Well, the 3.5l V6 in the RL is certainly a step up from the 3.4l V6 I had in my T100. The Toyota 3.4l V6 put out 190 HP at 4800rpm and 220 lb-ft of torque at 3600rpm. However, it made 80% of its torque at 1200rpm. It weighed 4110 lbs with a 6000 GVWR. It had 9.3 inches of ground clearance and was rated to tow 5000 lbs with a GCWR of 9500 lbs.

And finally, since the T100 did NOT have lockers, it would most likely have stumbled on the same split mu test that stumps my Pilot and RL, unless the greater articulation (assumption) of the T100 suspension would have circumvented the issue. But I didn't have any clutches in the rear diff to worry about.

 

I drove a t100 for a while and I would say it was a more capable truck than the RL. I think you are doing the RL a disservice by comparing it to a full frame truck with a solid rear axle. That is a different vehicle, even though they compete in the same class.

I would prefer a traditional rear drive architecture, but the RL does pretty well for what it is. The RL is not an offroader nor is it for towing heavy loads. That aside it does everything else better. It carries more than most in the bed and is actually quite a performer in deep snow. What else seats 5 comfortably, has a bed and get 18mpg. Maybe a new eco boost or chevy but those are 40k plus. I bought my RL for 12k and it is as reliable as anything else.

 

A small diesel would make the ultimate RL IMO. Isn't going to happen though.

 

Having lived with a Ridgeline for over 3 years now, I can honestly say I find myself wishing it had more low-end torque. I love the sound of the engine, especially while accelerating, and it is definitely smoother than any V6 I've ever driven. But where I have issues with the engine is when I go up in the mountains on camping trips (I live in Colorado), driving on winding dirt roads with steep grades, I find that I have to mash the pedal all the way to the floor to make it up short/steep climbs. Otherwise, it just bogs down and feels like it has no power whatsoever. I don't like the way it feels in that situation at all, and really wish it could have more low-end torque to keep from having to floor it just to keep it going. My next truck will probably be a V8 (5.0 F150 hopefully). I think it would be better suited to my needs.

 

Throttle mapping. There are devices out there (Sprint booster) that changed the throttle mapping to give you more throttle with less pedal movement.

 

Comparison wise, the T100 and the RL are virtually the same overall length. Yep, the T100 had a solid axle, but rode pretty well considering. The mpgs was no better than the RL, and maybe a bit worse. But the RL is head and shoulders above the T100 when in comes to rear interior room and safety.... amongst other things.

But really, the comparison was in the engine department.. .both nearly the same displacement, but radically different power

 

Engine options like every other truck in the world has