[bluegrass]

Unfortunately, all that thread has proven to be good for is to promote fear mongering about the 6-speed!
Bill

I'd say @zroger73 is more knowledgeable about the Ridgeline than anyone on this forum, by a wide margin.
Based on the information available, it appears the 6-speed is notably more problematic than the 9-speed.
He has also owned something like 3 Ridgelines with the 6-speed and has stated that he finds the 9-speed to be significantly better.

I owned a 6-speed Ridgeline for 1.5 years and about 11K miles. I'd still have it had it not been for the crazy used car values created by COVID. I cashed in my positive equity and got a 2021 model. After nearly 19K miles, I can say the 9-speed is hands down an unquestionably better overall experience.

 

[bluegrass]

And your logic is flawed.
Point being assume without data to validate the assumption.
This significantly skews the data, making your analysis invalid.

I get that 6-speed owners are rather sensitive to the discussion of failure rates for this transmission.
But I'm not sure what your beef with zroger's take is.

He never proclaimed to know the exact failure rate. He simply provided a well-reasoned estimation based on the data available to him (hence the phrase "possibly 1 in 100"). I don't see how your points show his "logic is flawed" or that his "analysis is invalid". You later seem to even support his estimation, saying it is "likely better than most others".

Your main issue is with his estimation based on forum membership.
But as longball points out..."I think its common knowledge on this forum that changing the fluid often in the 6 sp gives it a greater chance of lasting."
Forum membership has likely prevented many 6-speed failures (compared to the general population), due to owners being more aware of the situation, monitoring their trucks closely, and having the transmission serviced more frequently. This actually skews the data in the opposite direction you were claiming, "making your analysis invalid".

 

[bluegrass]

All I am pointing out is that internet forum members do not have the data to estimate a failure rate.

I don't think anyone here thought zroger was proclaiming a specific failure rate with a high degree of statistical confidence.
He's simply providing a rough estimate based on the information we have.

Saying the failure rate may be around 1% (or 2% if you include torque converters) is reasonable and helpful to put things into perspective.
It also aligns with the information Honda published regarding the 6-speed in the 2017 model. And would seem to be far more accurate than the 0.054% you suggested.

I also don't "have a beef" with Zroger

I didn't say you had a beef with "zroger". I said you had a beef with zroger's "TAKE".
Which you did..."And your logic is flawed", "your analysis invalid".

 

[bluegrass]

Won't bother replying to all your inaccuracies, but just using this as one example on how you misrepresent things...
I did not suggest the FR is 0.054%. Let's rewind and look at what was actually said...

I was simply quoting the previous exchange you were responding to in post #81...

17BE -"Don't worry - 54 out of over 100,000 sold isn’t anything to get too worried about."
zroger - "it's most certainly far greater than a 0.054% failure rate (54 / 100,000)."

 

[bluegrass]

Ah, you're struggling with "context" again . As I mentioned above, it is 56 now and no, I don't think 56 reports of failures on this forum is something to get too worried about.
And again, I did not state that there are only 54/56 failures in the population of 100,000 vehicles. FR is a completely different discussion and it is clear that FR is far in excess of 0.054% as obviously (to most) not everyone with a transmission failure in going to come on here to post.

The context is very clear. zroger provided a well-reasoned estimation, citing this exchange:
17BE - Don't worry - 54 out of over 100,000 sold isn’t anything to get too worried about.
zroger - 1,080 / 100,000 = 1% failure rate...and counting - it's most certainly far greater than a 0.054% failure rate (54 / 100,000).

You responded to zroger's post by saying..."your logic is flawed" and "your analysis invalid".
I'm simply saying his estimation is certainly logical, reasonable and rational, given the information available.

 

[bluegrass]

It's generally agreed that there are a higher number of 6AT issues/failures than would be expected.
But yes, it's no doubt higher than one would want it to be.
As discussed above, keeping on top of ATF changes, and possibly switching to a different ATF, may help.

Whether individuals are concerned about this, or the extent of the concern will vary. Many 6AT owners just accept the situation, don't stress and will 'over-maintain' their vehicles accepting this weakness. One or two will sell their vehicles because of their concern. Fewer still (one on this forum) will sell their otherwise reliable 6AT, buy a 9AT and have it fail.
And if it fails, that's what extended warranties are for .

This is all perfectly reasonable for CURRENT existing owners of the 6-speed.
However, the thread is about a PROSPECTIVE future owner deciding between two similar used Ridgelines, one with a 6-speed and one with a 9-speed.

Given the OP's two stated options, wouldn't the most reasonable advice be to purchase the 9-speed over the 6-speed?
I don't see a compelling reason to opt for the truck with higher than expected transmission issues/failures.

Why deal with potential concern/anxiety over this known issue, the possible need to 'over-maintain' the vehicle, or uncertainty with how the transmission was maintained during the first ~20K miles...if there is a very similar alternative available in the 2020 model, that doesn't come with all of this "baggage"?

 

[bluegrass]

Due to this type of anecdotal fear mongering,

What "anecdotal fear mongering" are you referring to?
Is it not prudent & relevant for forum members to report the number of 6-speed (56) and 9-speed (2) failures experienced?
Wouldn't it be reasonable for people to utilize this data when making a used vehicle purchase decision?

 

[bluegrass]

Operationally, no the 9 speed is not hugely better. For just regular driving I actually think the 6 spd is better.

It looks like you previously drove a Tacoma before purchasing the '22 Ridgeline.
How much experience do you have with the 6-speed in the Ridgeline? How many miles have you driven in one?

I spent 1.5 yrs and 11K miles in my 6-speed Ridgeline. It was an adequate transmission and an OK overall experience.
After spending the last 18K miles with a 9-speed Ridgeline, I can say it is a far better transmission in virtually every aspect.

 

[bluegrass]

What if the additional costs for servicing the 9-speed were also considered, would this make any difference?
Bill

Exactly how much are these supposed additional costs for the 9-speed?
Depending on how long the truck is kept, you'll end up performing 1 to 3 additional ATF services with the 6-speed, or more if you're concerned about the 6-speed reliability.

It appears you have serviced your transmission 4 or more times in the first 52K miles, with 3 single dump-n-files and the last service being a triple dump-n-fill.
Please share how much all of these services have cost you so far.

Based on your past posts, I don't think you have any clue what "additional costs for servicing the 9-speed" are, if any.
Seems like you are guilty of "anecdotal fear mongering".

 

[bluegrass]

Bluegrass, is this data not relatively representative, or is otherwise inaccurate, as taken from a local dealer's service brochure??

Let's assume the data you provided is accurate.
As zroger stated, the 6-speed service is roughly @ 45K miles, then every 30K miles thereafter. The 9-speed is every ~60K miles.

Based on my driving history, I will keep my Ridgeline for 170K-175K miles.
- The 9-speed would require 2 ATF changes @ $360 = $720
- The 6-speed would require 5 ATF changes @ $150 = $750

And many 6-speed owners, including yourself, change the ATF much more frequently.
You've changed yours at least 4 times before reaching even 60K miles, so $600 in dealership costs.

 

[bluegrass]

With the 6-speed, you can easily DIY a ATF change. With the 9-speed you can't (easily). So cost for 6-speed change is less than $40.

wjfyfe specifically provided dealership service costs, which I used to illustrate his claims were simply (to use his phrase) "anecdotal fear mongering".

Regarding DIY, why do you say the 9-speed can't be easily serviced? I have the Honda service instructions saved on my computer and they are very straightforward.
Anyone comfortable DIYing a 6-speed should be able to DIY the 9-speed.

I don't know what the parts cost is for the 9-speed, but let's say it is double your figure, so $80.
That make the lifetime costs of the 9-speed service either the same or less than the 6-speed, given the longer service intervals.