I think the elimination of the wings in the bed is a plus. But man, the front/grill is disappointing to me. Very unimpressive and un-truck-like. No reason they couldn't have made it tougher or sportier or flat out better looking. I don't see how making it blend into the crowd is going to really help sales, although its looks aren't going to be as divisive as Gen1 (which grew on me). Make a good truck and market it well, that will help sales. But I think they missed the mark in terms of turning heads.
Ridgeline Looks - Success or Failure
My Opinion - Long Post
Soft. Girly. Bland. Round. Blah. These are just some of the words I have read in this forum over the past few days. Are they true? Maybe, but everyone has a right to their opinions and the famous quote "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" has never been more true than with the introduction of the Gen 2 Ridgeline right? Wrong, and here's why:
From when the first generation of Ridgeline was introduced to the day the last one was sold, the looks were NOT described using the adjectives shown above. It was either A) Nice looking or B) It's ugly. There was very little middle ground with the Gen 1 Ridgeline looks. Now some people who thought it was ugly ended up buying one because of the clever features and utility and "Honda." If the Gen 1 Ridgeline was anything it was polarizing in the looks department. We can all say what we want but we all know that if you don't like the looks of a vehicle you won't enjoy owning the vehicle. Personally I pride myself on owning practical, well made vehicles but even I want the thing to look decent!
Now, many (most) of the previous and current Gen1 owners blame the lack of sales of the Gen 1 squarely on the shoulders of Honda marketing and advertising. I don't know how many times I have heard "Honda should have had more commercials" or "Honda should have more internet ads." True, to a point. What you guys are forgetting is the LOOKS of the Gen 1 Ridgeline. Like it or hate it... there is no in-between. We have forgotten this in the past 10 years. In my opinion the Gen 1 low sales numbers were low mainly because of the body design and the "look" of the vehicle. How many times have you heard or read about that "sail" or the "high bed" or all the other descriptive words people say? I heard "It's ugly" more times than I could count. Sure, when they rode in it they loved it. When they got out they hated it. Many vehicles have been wildly successful with minimal advertising and marketing. My 4Runner is a prime example. They have run a few commercials over the past six years (four I think) and they sold 100K units last year. Word of mouth is much more valuable than advertising and vehicle looks trumps them all.
With that said I have read several comments in the past few days lamenting the fact that the Gen 2 does not look like the Gen 1! Really? You don't want Honda to sell many of the Gen 2 Ridgelines?
Honda designs are typically bland. The Gen 1 Ridgeline was bold and you see what happened. Tacoma's got redesigned last year and you have to look hard to see what they changed. Why screw with a good thing? The CR-V and the Pilot are two of the best selling vehicles in their class. If looks are so important (and they are) why NOT make a truck with the same basic look as their successful siblings! Your argument is going to be "In the truck market, things have to be manly and tough." I call BS on that. There is nothing tough or manly about the Chevy Colorado. Heck, what is a tough or manly look anyhow? Put muscles and a mustache on it? Make it tall and rugged with a few scars?
The new Ridgeline is fairly bland, true, but apparently America wants bland. Look at the top sellers in each class. Bland is king. Even the F series truck (which hasn't changed significantly in years) is bland, yet they sell a bunch of them. For all those that feel miffed because they think the past and current Ridgeline owners aren't getting what THEY want? Think for a minute: How many are there? Enough to make the Gen 2 successful? I think not. Also you are getting most everything you had (pass through excepting) in hopefully a broader appeal package. If I were Honda I wouldn't listen to me when it came to the looks department... I thought the Gen 1 looked nice lol. Yeah, me and not very many others.
Bottom line is this: The Gen 2 Ridgeline is basically a Pilot with a bed. Sure, it has some clever features and a few different styling ques but in essence it is exactly that: Bland, not over the top, no wild colors, in other words, comfortable. So some of you can criticize the look as bland or girly or even "meh." The truth is the "bold" experiment of the Gen 1 didn't work so well. The proof on how successful the Gen 2 Ridgeline will be is in the sales numbers. I think they will succeed precisely for the reason some of you think they will fail... looks.
Soft. Girly. Bland. Round. Blah. These are just some of the words I have read in this forum over the past few days. Are they true? Maybe, but everyone has a right to their opinions and the famous quote "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" has never been more true than with the introduction of the Gen 2 Ridgeline right? Wrong, and here's why:
From when the first generation of Ridgeline was introduced to the day the last one was sold, the looks were NOT described using the adjectives shown above. It was either A) Nice looking or B) It's ugly. There was very little middle ground with the Gen 1 Ridgeline looks. Now some people who thought it was ugly ended up buying one because of the clever features and utility and "Honda." If the Gen 1 Ridgeline was anything it was polarizing in the looks department. We can all say what we want but we all know that if you don't like the looks of a vehicle you won't enjoy owning the vehicle. Personally I pride myself on owning practical, well made vehicles but even I want the thing to look decent!
Now, many (most) of the previous and current Gen1 owners blame the lack of sales of the Gen 1 squarely on the shoulders of Honda marketing and advertising. I don't know how many times I have heard "Honda should have had more commercials" or "Honda should have more internet ads." True, to a point. What you guys are forgetting is the LOOKS of the Gen 1 Ridgeline. Like it or hate it... there is no in-between. We have forgotten this in the past 10 years. In my opinion the Gen 1 low sales numbers were low mainly because of the body design and the "look" of the vehicle. How many times have you heard or read about that "sail" or the "high bed" or all the other descriptive words people say? I heard "It's ugly" more times than I could count. Sure, when they rode in it they loved it. When they got out they hated it. Many vehicles have been wildly successful with minimal advertising and marketing. My 4Runner is a prime example. They have run a few commercials over the past six years (four I think) and they sold 100K units last year. Word of mouth is much more valuable than advertising and vehicle looks trumps them all.
With that said I have read several comments in the past few days lamenting the fact that the Gen 2 does not look like the Gen 1! Really? You don't want Honda to sell many of the Gen 2 Ridgelines?
Honda designs are typically bland. The Gen 1 Ridgeline was bold and you see what happened. Tacoma's got redesigned last year and you have to look hard to see what they changed. Why screw with a good thing? The CR-V and the Pilot are two of the best selling vehicles in their class. If looks are so important (and they are) why NOT make a truck with the same basic look as their successful siblings! Your argument is going to be "In the truck market, things have to be manly and tough." I call BS on that. There is nothing tough or manly about the Chevy Colorado. Heck, what is a tough or manly look anyhow? Put muscles and a mustache on it? Make it tall and rugged with a few scars?
The new Ridgeline is fairly bland, true, but apparently America wants bland. Look at the top sellers in each class. Bland is king. Even the F series truck (which hasn't changed significantly in years) is bland, yet they sell a bunch of them. For all those that feel miffed because they think the past and current Ridgeline owners aren't getting what THEY want? Think for a minute: How many are there? Enough to make the Gen 2 successful? I think not. Also you are getting most everything you had (pass through excepting) in hopefully a broader appeal package. If I were Honda I wouldn't listen to me when it came to the looks department... I thought the Gen 1 looked nice lol. Yeah, me and not very many others.
Bottom line is this: The Gen 2 Ridgeline is basically a Pilot with a bed. Sure, it has some clever features and a few different styling ques but in essence it is exactly that: Bland, not over the top, no wild colors, in other words, comfortable. So some of you can criticize the look as bland or girly or even "meh." The truth is the "bold" experiment of the Gen 1 didn't work so well. The proof on how successful the Gen 2 Ridgeline will be is in the sales numbers. I think they will succeed precisely for the reason some of you think they will fail... looks.
21 - 40 of 93 Posts
The Ridgeline does not have the Tonka Toy or LEGO styling that seems to appeal to the majority of pickup buyers. A super sized 3 box design with plenty of 90 degree angles and a massive grille sells a lot of pickups to "truck people". Aerodynamic designs do not sell well.
So, taking a minute to get real: I've agreed frequently that the G1 RL was NOT a looker..... have even called it ugly. But lets face it, the model was sold for 10 years (9 model years, but staring in early 2005 pretty much gets you to 10), without so much as a significant face lift. And then it got redesigned .... NOT ended.
Consider the Pontiac Aztek .... by comparison to G1 RL, I guess the Aztek must have been truly hideous! It was only produced for 5 years before getting axed for good, and they NEVER reached even 30K vehicle sales/year (30K is what GM cited as break-even, while they had forecast 75K/yr).
So, I guess G1 wasn't so terrible. But by ANY measure, G2 does not score any of the "ugly" points that G1 captured. You might not like it, you might think it's soft, you might think it's not "truck-like", but it doesn't have the same "ugly" factor as did G1. Based on that alone, I can't say Honda has sinned too terribly with this design. Give it an A or a B or a C- even, but it ain't no D or F. And it should sell well for a good long time.
Also, looking at one of the many gallery pics floating around, I chuckled when my mind saw a faint resemblance to some of those newer big rig hood lines. Am I nuts?? maybe......
![]()
Consider the Pontiac Aztek .... by comparison to G1 RL, I guess the Aztek must have been truly hideous! It was only produced for 5 years before getting axed for good, and they NEVER reached even 30K vehicle sales/year (30K is what GM cited as break-even, while they had forecast 75K/yr).
So, I guess G1 wasn't so terrible. But by ANY measure, G2 does not score any of the "ugly" points that G1 captured. You might not like it, you might think it's soft, you might think it's not "truck-like", but it doesn't have the same "ugly" factor as did G1. Based on that alone, I can't say Honda has sinned too terribly with this design. Give it an A or a B or a C- even, but it ain't no D or F. And it should sell well for a good long time.
Also, looking at one of the many gallery pics floating around, I chuckled when my mind saw a faint resemblance to some of those newer big rig hood lines. Am I nuts?? maybe......
I think there are a few here that have RL's that perhaps were thinking AND hoping the direction Honda would go is the beefier more truck like look which includes more competition level utility features like towing and offload but in reality this was never their game plan at all. Its not the market they choose to try. I think the gen 1 was more of that truck actually but the problem there was the experimental looks were way over the top for so many and it never was accepted, yet the truck at the time period 10 years ago was really advanced for what it could do. It was better and closer to rival full-size ability at the time. Remember that?
Forward 10 years, if they take that same equation and vision their specs would be more what midsize trucks are able to do now not 10 years ago. In that way of thinking the entire truck has not evolved at all in fact its lost ground. Not everywhere still a better ride more reliable etc. and I believe that is what erks many truck buyers and a few around here as well including myself, but I understand their vision now, I don't agree but thats what it is.
NOW Honda as I said did not take that way of thinking to the public they took the approach to limit its ability to where it was, fix the look to make it appear its more traditional, as well make it modern and safer etc, to attract a different kind buyer. This way they don't have to spend much on a complete different vehicle that is a bit uncomfortable for them. New engine(s) or suspension, towing, chassis and frame development to handle more towing capacity as well off-road parts that would be so different for them. Its high risk. This way they can make it a Pilot that can do more with the bed. Can share parts and manufacturing from the same bin as the Pilot. Many truck buyers don't want that at all, but there is a crowd that will its called a niche market. This time around it could be bigger. Jury is out on that one we will see.
I think most Honda RL buyers really don't care for more towing or lifts kits tires off road stuff. Heck most don't even tow with it at all. Mall hopper whatever its really never used much as truck anyway for most who own it just like the crowd who owns full size and never use it.
Forward 10 years, if they take that same equation and vision their specs would be more what midsize trucks are able to do now not 10 years ago. In that way of thinking the entire truck has not evolved at all in fact its lost ground. Not everywhere still a better ride more reliable etc. and I believe that is what erks many truck buyers and a few around here as well including myself, but I understand their vision now, I don't agree but thats what it is.
NOW Honda as I said did not take that way of thinking to the public they took the approach to limit its ability to where it was, fix the look to make it appear its more traditional, as well make it modern and safer etc, to attract a different kind buyer. This way they don't have to spend much on a complete different vehicle that is a bit uncomfortable for them. New engine(s) or suspension, towing, chassis and frame development to handle more towing capacity as well off-road parts that would be so different for them. Its high risk. This way they can make it a Pilot that can do more with the bed. Can share parts and manufacturing from the same bin as the Pilot. Many truck buyers don't want that at all, but there is a crowd that will its called a niche market. This time around it could be bigger. Jury is out on that one we will see.
I think most Honda RL buyers really don't care for more towing or lifts kits tires off road stuff. Heck most don't even tow with it at all. Mall hopper whatever its really never used much as truck anyway for most who own it just like the crowd who owns full size and never use it.
Good post! I think that in GenII's Ridgeline's case it is largely a function of LIMITED budget. The Pilot redesign undoubtedly had huge $ thrown at it and it was tailored by Honda to hopefully appeal to its market segment. Boxy and tough was set aside for the softer and more aerodynamic. Ground clearance was less important than fuel economy. The interior pretty much received the same type of make over; comfy, cozy, more minivan or sedan. . .less truck.Great post. This is my thoughts initially and reserve any final judgement until seeing it in person because pictures only do so much. To me the looks are a bit soft and I hate that it looks the exact same as the Pilot from front view. I love the Pilot as an SUV/crossover but not for a truck. Not if you are really wanting to get people with other trucks to convert. I doubt Honda's execs said, "let's go for the people without trucks and get them to convert". If you want to build it on a SUV/crossover platform, that's fine but if you put a bed on it and it looks like a truck you must listen to other truck enthusiasts out there and build it for the majority that will more likely consider buying it. Honda went after the minority (not sure why) with this design. Yeah, I bought my ridgeline for the reliability and practicality but still wish it looked more masculine (harder lines and more squared profile). Beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder but more 'beholders' will think it is too soft. Why can't I have looks along with the practicality? Again my final opinion awaits seeing in person.
With limited budget, the GenII Ridge is dominated by being based on the Pilot. Chassis, front sheet metal, front interior are barely (if at all) modified from the Pilot. With these constraints there was only so much that could be done with the design.
So now the GenII Ridge is thrown into the market. What demographic? Is it traditional (midsize) truck buyers or is it sedan, minivan, suv types whose needs are changing?? IMHO the exterior is perhaps just enough to pass muster with some of the truckers, but the car interior will send many of these running away. On the other hand, I think that the "morphing" car/minivan/suv er's will be very pleased with sleek / softer looks inside and out.
Who is Honda actually going to market it to? They talked "outdoorsy" in their intro but it really seems too soft in its styling and interior appointments to be properly tuned for that market. Tailgater's? Interior and cost seem to be out of touch.
To me, Honda marketing seems to be a bit confused about who to sell the truck to. The "Morphers" seem to be the best fit.
For my interests, this is sad as I had hoped that styling wise it would have been more truck. However, being based on the Pilot with a shoestring budget wasn't really compatible with "truck" . . . .
I think I need to see it in-person. There are some photo angles that make me think I will love it. And there are other angles that I don't like at all.
For my taste, I like the aggressive look of my G1.
Seeing is believing though. (Or maybe driving is believing in this case.) When does this baby actually land on dealer lots?
For my taste, I like the aggressive look of my G1.
Seeing is believing though. (Or maybe driving is believing in this case.) When does this baby actually land on dealer lots?
My personal take....
While looks do have a ton to do with the potential buyers, myself included. Originally i was unsure. The design has grown on me. But in reality.. The success or failure will depend more on the price point
A fully loaded Ridgeline is suspected to be 40K plus. That is setting themselves up for failure IMO. I know its 2016 and vehicles are way more expensive than ever, but you're into a whole different category asking 40K plus
While looks do have a ton to do with the potential buyers, myself included. Originally i was unsure. The design has grown on me. But in reality.. The success or failure will depend more on the price point
A fully loaded Ridgeline is suspected to be 40K plus. That is setting themselves up for failure IMO. I know its 2016 and vehicles are way more expensive than ever, but you're into a whole different category asking 40K plus
Understandably, some (particularly Gen1 owners) will be turned off, but I don't think a car-like interior is the death knell for the Ridgeline.IMHO the exterior is perhaps just enough to pass muster with some of the truckers, but the car interior will send many of these running away.
The Frontier has a car-like interior and it has sold relatively well compared to the Ridgeline. And its exterior is generally conservative too. I can see the new Ridgeline taking away market share from the Frontier. (In fact, on the Frontier forum, there are a lot of positive comments about the new Ridgeline.)
hiPSI, great post.
"Death knell" probably not. I do feel that the interior in particular will hurt sales to the truckies. I use my GenI for family and construction. I am having a hard time visualizing my drywall dust covered self sitting in that front interior with some long boards lying on top of the dash, though the rear window and anchored down on the tailgate. It simply screams car / minivan / soft SUV.Understandably, some (particularly Gen1 owners) will be turned off, but I don't think a car-like interior is the death knell for the Ridgeline.
The Frontier has a car-like interior and it has sold relatively well compared to the Ridgeline. And its exterior is generally conservative too. I can see the new Ridgeline taking away market share from the Frontier. (In fact, on the Frontier forum, there are a lot of positive comments about the new Ridgeline.)
hiPSI, great post.
The Pilots' interior on the GenII Ridge is a cost cutting move. Same thing with the hard body parts up front. Regardless, they clearly had to spend some $ to make the Pilot a truck. From the rear doors back it appears that in both looks and function they have done a killer job. Why not just go the extra bit and give the Ridge a bit more truck in the front half? Yes it would have added to the cost. But I think it would have reaped benfits in overall sales . . I can't see that it would hurt sales much or if at all to those coming from cars, minivans, and SUV's. Looking more "truck" would definitely help with the truckies and there are a lot of them.
I think that Honda (perhaps smartly so) was risk adverse with the GenII, not wanting to spend much for what might be a small sales item. Its a self fufilling prophecy if you ask me. It also might be that Honda simply doesn't get "truck."
Yes it's a different vision this time around. The last one was look at us we have a midsize truck that is VERY much truck yes it looks different BUT it can do almost everything most a full size can do but better. Has a better ride as well has more storage!! Innovative and competitive... But ugly. No marketing = failure."Death knell" probably not. I do feel that the interior in particular will hurt sales to the truckies. I use my GenI for family and construction. I am having a hard time visualizing my drywall dust covered self sitting in that front interior with some long boards lying on top of the dash, though the rear window and anchored down on the tailgate. It simply screams car / minivan / soft SUV.Understandably, some (particularly Gen1 owners) will be turned off, but I don't think a car-like interior is the death knell for the Ridgeline.
The Frontier has a car-like interior and it has sold relatively well compared to the Ridgeline. And its exterior is generally conservative too. I can see the new Ridgeline taking away market share from the Frontier. (In fact, on the Frontier forum, there are a lot of positive comments about the new Ridgeline.)
hiPSI, great post.
The Pilots' interior on the GenII Ridge is a cost cutting move. Same thing with the hard body parts up front. Regardless, they clearly had to spend some $ to make the Pilot a truck. From the rear doors back it appears that in both looks and function they have done a killer job. Why not just go the extra bit and give the Ridge a bit more truck in the front half? Yes it would have added to the cost. But I think it would have reaped benfits in overall sales . . I can't see that it would hurt sales much or if at all to those coming from cars, minivans, and SUV's. Looking more "truck" would definitely help with the truckies and there are a lot of them.
I think that Honda (perhaps smartly so) was risk adverse with the GenII, not wanting to spend much for what might be a small sales item. Its a self fufilling prophecy if you ask me. It also might be that Honda simply doesn't get "truck."
This time it's not about rivalling a truck crowd that can be as strong as some full size. Heck it's barely close to midsize specs (in some areas only)
Now they have set a limit to where it was before and not bothered to go any further with it. Think about the development cost, they said a big NO WAY to that and have made it what many truck buyers accused it of as being in the first place a minivan or SUV truck. All the other nasty things as well. The whole RL was a great story and truck! Its kind of sad that it gets blasted I feel bad for it but not Honds they don't really listen to well to the market.
Well we know Black Edition is some kind of Black and that other one on the turn table was a silver Lunar Silver Metallic is in the Pilot color chart. I would be shocked if they had a Red color. I have fallen in love with the Black Edition. The Black/Red seats I like would really like to see it in person. I am not a fan of black wheels but would like to see how much factory running board and Tonneau Cover would change the appearance.Anyone seen any color choices yet?
My Gen 1 one is Nimbus Gray. My wife likes because it (usually) always looks clean.
I like the looks of the gen 2 Ridgeline, but I also liked the looks of the gen 1 Ridgeline, which is part of why I bought it in 2005 when it first came out on the market. Then I heard from so many on both how ugly they thought it was and why would I want to spend $34,000 on a mid size truck when I could get a full sized truck. I drove and had both a 74 Chevy 4 x 4 and a two wheel drive Ford Ranger, turned out the Ridgeline was over 200 pounds heavier then my Chevy and the same width and a bit longer. Not till I went to a Ridgeline meet did I hear anyone refer of the truck as attractive.
Some comments a few posts back about what "truck buyers" want... and Honda can't or won't deliver that with RL.
That's such an old load of crap. Are we not truck buyers? Really?
I've owned bigger/badder trucks, and if I needed/wanted one now, they are out there & available. The RL is NOT in competition with F150, RAM or any other full size truck.
It stands very capably amongst mid size truck offerings, and offers a uniquely different set of attributes. If you don't like them, that's fine. But to suggest that Honda can't build something "just like the others" is ludicrous. The point & root of the RLs best features comes from the fact that it is NOT engineered & built just like the others. And so far as towing goes, I'd tow anything with a RL that can be towed with a similarly equipped Taco, Frontier, GM Twin.
This vehicle (our vehicle), the Ridgeline is what it is intended to be. It's better in ways others cannot compare & lacks in some specific areas that are others' strengths. What's the big deal about this.... if you want what those others offer & can live without what the Ridgeline provides, then there's the door. The choice is there for all of us. It's just tiring to hear the same groans about "they could do this" and "they could do that" wrt heavier towing, gorilla engines, BOF, etc. etc.
It just seems dumb to me to criticize a vehicle for not being more like some other vehicle. Make your choice & move on.
And why THIS is even being discussed on a thread that was intended to discuss the 2017 RL looks is beyond me. For my part - sorry for the departure. But I just couldn't let that stand. Done.
That's such an old load of crap. Are we not truck buyers? Really?
I've owned bigger/badder trucks, and if I needed/wanted one now, they are out there & available. The RL is NOT in competition with F150, RAM or any other full size truck.
It stands very capably amongst mid size truck offerings, and offers a uniquely different set of attributes. If you don't like them, that's fine. But to suggest that Honda can't build something "just like the others" is ludicrous. The point & root of the RLs best features comes from the fact that it is NOT engineered & built just like the others. And so far as towing goes, I'd tow anything with a RL that can be towed with a similarly equipped Taco, Frontier, GM Twin.
This vehicle (our vehicle), the Ridgeline is what it is intended to be. It's better in ways others cannot compare & lacks in some specific areas that are others' strengths. What's the big deal about this.... if you want what those others offer & can live without what the Ridgeline provides, then there's the door. The choice is there for all of us. It's just tiring to hear the same groans about "they could do this" and "they could do that" wrt heavier towing, gorilla engines, BOF, etc. etc.
It just seems dumb to me to criticize a vehicle for not being more like some other vehicle. Make your choice & move on.
And why THIS is even being discussed on a thread that was intended to discuss the 2017 RL looks is beyond me. For my part - sorry for the departure. But I just couldn't let that stand. Done.
I find it funny that people feel the need to come into this section of the forum to inform us that they won't buy it because price, looks, size, interior or anything else. It is what it is and no amount of whining is going to change it. Who care why you aren't going to buy one. I want to hear why you are going to buy one and I'm sure others do too.Some comments a few posts back about what "truck buyers" want... and Honda can't or won't deliver that with RL.
That's such an old load of crap. Are we not truck buyers? Really?
I've owned bigger/badder trucks, and if I needed/wanted one now, they are out there & available. The RL is NOT in competition with F150, RAM or any other full size truck.
It stands very capably amongst mid size truck offerings, and offers a uniquely different set of attributes. If you don't like them, that's fine. But to suggest that Honda can't build something "just like the others" is ludicrous. The point & root of the RLs best features comes from the fact that it is NOT engineered & built just like the others. And so far as towing goes, I'd tow anything with a RL that can be towed with a similarly equipped Taco, Frontier, GM Twin.
This vehicle (our vehicle), the Ridgeline is what it is intended to be. It's better in ways others cannot compare & lacks in some specific areas that are others' strengths. What's the big deal about this.... if you want what those others offer & can live without what the Ridgeline provides, then there's the door. The choice is there for all of us. It's just tiring to hear the same groans about "they could do this" and "they could do that" wrt heavier towing, gorilla engines, BOF, etc. etc.
It just seems dumb to me to criticize a vehicle for not being more like some other vehicle. Make your choice & move on.
And why THIS is even being discussed on a thread that was intended to discuss the 2017 RL looks is beyond me. For my part - sorry for the departure. But I just couldn't let that stand. Done.
Is your Pilot 2WD or AWD?Here's an interior shot from our 2016 Pilot showing something I hope is carried over to the new Ridgeline...
![]()
2WD - Highway driving, no cruise control, "Econ" mode engaged.Is your Pilot 2WD or AWD?
I have read through this thread a couple of times and for the life of me can't figure out what you and HiPSI are complaining about??? This thread has been more on topic than most and with people discussing the trucks appearance (OUTSIDE AND INSIDE); will it be a SUCCESS or FAILURE?? THAT WAS THE F'N TOPIC. We just saw the truck a few days ago and are now discussing what we saw. How is this "old crap" . . .And so what if it is a done deal! We are still discussing the success or failure of the design. Again that is the f'n topic! Y'all need to be the ones moving on!! And PSI your whining (repeatedly) about the whining is condescending nonsenese . . .And why THIS is even being discussed on a thread that was intended to discuss the 2017 RL looks is beyond me. For my part - sorry for the departure. But I just couldn't let that stand. Done.
RANT OVER!
Sorry for the departure, But I just couldn't let that stand . . . .
21 - 40 of 93 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Honda Ridgeline Owners Club Forums
Honda Ridgeline Owners Club, forum community to discuss reviews, accessories, performance, care, mods, and more.
Full Forum Listing
