Honda Ridgeline shamed by more efficient full-size Chevy pickup
 

Honda says they're going to try improving the fuel economy of the Ridgeline.

http://ecomodder.com/forum/images/gr...-ridgeline.gif
(Image from thread: http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...nomy-7552.html )

• Silverado XFE crew cab (15/21 mpg city/highway)
• Ridgeline (15/20 mpg city/highway)

They're aiming for efficiency gains through lower weight and better aero, according to a company rep.

Source: Next Ridgeline Aims For Improved Fuel Economy - PickupTrucks.com News

Related thread: http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...nomy-7552.html

And you can't get a manual in either. Blech!

It seems like it would be a no-brainer for Honda to get best in class mileage for the Ridgeline. It's lighter, shorter, narrower, and has a smaller engine. They've got everything going for them, and yet, disappointing results.

I also thought the Element should have better mileage. It's similar to the '03 Saturn Vue I've got for my wife, but the Vue (4cyl manual) gets better mileage than a comparable Element.

Mike

They didn't make fuel economy a priority in the outgoing model (and admitted as much).

We know it's not rocket surgery.

On the positive side, it's good to see yet another example of manufacturers competing for increased efficiency instead of (in addition to?) all the other crowns they've been chasing all these years.

Any known updates? I think I heard this next model year was going to be even better mpg.

Hows the over all performance in 2 and 4wd? I think I read it does something funky where it's in 4wd at slow speeds, then it slips over to front wheel drive unless there is slippage, then it reverts to 4wd for a few and back to front wheel drive or something unusual like that

The Ridgeline is build on the same platform as the Odyssey, with one key drivetrain difference: a shorter final drive gear. Higher rpm is NOT good for mileage.

With the new Odyssey rating 19/28 mpg, there should be some room for improvements just by sharing components.

I didn't even know they still made these. I cant imagine they're making money at it...

My grandpa has wanted to buy a Ridgeline for many years now, but just can't justify the stagnation in design that has taken place. The Ridgeline is essentially unchanged from the release in 2005. The 2014 model is EPA rated at 15 city 21 highway and 17 combined. Apparently the brakes or stopping distance is also unimpressive.

The 2015 Chevy Colorado 4x4 is EPA rated 17 city 24 highway and 20 combined. That's an 18% improvement over the Ridgeline.

I'm still waiting for a diesel Taco to visit The States.

I honestly thought the Ridgeline would be done by now. The only reason they sell is they say Honda on the back IMO. A mostly full time 4wd, only available in automatic, "big" truck that doesn't have a full frame, nor rear wheel drive, so towing is not really it's thing. And the box is tiny. I get that they are a truck for people that will never use them as one, but Honda could have done a lot better with them. I'd like to see an Element based small pickup rather than this dog. Too bad they killed the Element in 2009.

I agree completely with the "honda" thing. It gets beat in mpgs by trucks that are both bigger and far more capable.

It's no secret I'm a Honda fan, but at the same time these trucks are just a bad idea ha ha. It was built to take advantage of a customer base that wanted to drive a truck, without ever needing to use it for anything heavy duty, and wanted a Honda. Apparently that is a lot of the vehicle buying population as they are still selling. The Subaru Baja lasted 4 years, I guess that's the difference between Subaru and Honda's reputation as far as people just assuming their stuff is good and wanting it. :snail:

I have a real problem with calling them 'trucks'. They're really just oversized sedans with the trunk lid missing :-)

4 door el-Camino but they had frames. Subaru Baja is really the closest. Or the guys who chop the back off a minivan an make an open bed.

jamesqf - You are correct sir, a truck is rear wheel drive at the bare minimum. I'd say it has to have a full frame, but there are some decent vehicles I'd consider trucks that have subframe configurations.

Hersbird - I'm not a fan of El Cos or Rancheros, but even those were more truck oriented than the Ridgeline.

The VW Rabbit pickup and the Dodge Rampage were examples of what Honda should have tried to emulate when they decided to make a "truck". If you are going to go smaller, non-tow worthy, front wheel drive style, then go really small and efficient. Like I stated before, an Element based light duty pickup with a 4 cylinder, available 5 speed or awd, would be the bees knees. I'd drive that, it would be perfect for me. Room for car parts etc in the back, good on fuel, and would have a decent sticker price. Though I say Honda "should have" done something, they are the ones making money selling Ridgelines all these years, so I guess they have me beat ha ha.

What small trucks are left in North America? The S10 is long gone, the Ranger is dead, the Dakota got fat, the Comanche is loooong gone (I heart my Comanche!), and as far as Canada goes you can't even get a regular cab Nissan, and a base model Tacoma only in 2wd. So that leaves the Colorado? The sad fact is that car companies make a lot of money off of crew cab 4x4s with sunroofs and leather seats, so they make a lot of them and ditch the cheap little trucks that most people on this site would choose over them. If anything we are likely to see more Ridgeline like products, and end up losing the Colorado (or it will get bigger like the Dakota did) IMO.

I wouldn't say that, myself. Though I don't know of any examples (maybe the old VW Rabbit pickup?), I think it'd be perfectly possible to make a FWD pickup. Might even be more useful, as getting the drive train out from under the bed might make it more accessible.

No, the real determining factor of whether something qualifies as a truck is the bed: Is it a) significantly bigger than the trunk of an equivalently-sized sedan, and b) is it able to carry a useful load? The Ridgeline, I think, fails on both tests, while other car/truck models, like the original (60s/70s?) Chevy El Camino and Ford Ranchero, do have useful load capacities.

Me too!

Parte of the problem is that anyone who wants a small truck can buy a mid-80s to mid-90s Toyota for a lot less than new, and expect it to run pretty much forever.

Errr... I'm no fan of the Ridgeline, but let's not get carried away with tales of its weakness.

The bed is 5 feet long and the standard 4 ft wide. (same as tacoma with 4-door cab)
Payload is 1500 lb. (tacoma 1360)
Towing 5000 lb. (tacoma 3500 or 6500 with towing package)

There's also the "under bed trunk" that holds 8.5 cu ft. Like a truck toolbox but it doesn't eat into the bed space.

So, capabilities of a mid-size truck with fuel-economy worse than a full-size?

You just reiterated the whole point of this thread...

Gm just needs to bring this to the US and we (me) can be happy.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...utility_01.jpg

You can buy a Maloo in the US.

Right now.

Legally.

Home

Take a deep breath before looking at the price tag...

Thats what I cant understand. It sounds like the ridgeline isnt that bad except for mpg. Of course I had a tacoma with the v6 and got between 16 and 18. No simple eco mods to fix that. I thought the ridgeline maybe suffering a gearing issue, so some plus size wheel and tires with a aggressive drop may help to bring it up a few?

No, Pale was pointing out how people were ridiculously misrepresenting the capabilities of the Ridgeline. There are comments saying that it's less useful than an El Camino.

The El Camino has a smaller bed capacity, a payload rating of 1000 lbs compared with the Ridgeline's 1500 lbs, and has fuel economy that is laughable, even when compared with the Ridgeline's unimpressive numbers. The car is a turd, and there is a reason that the Ridgeline is selling in the year 2014, and the El Camino is not.

There are also comments saying that the Ridgeline is not tow rated. Actually, it has a tow rating of 5,000 lbs; enough to tow a typical sedan on a trailer.

I've seen a Ridgeline hauling two 4-wheelers in the bed along with various gear.

Yes, the truck gets pathetic fuel economy given it's limitations, but it isn't worse than an El Camino, or incapable of towing.

The Dakota died before the Ranger (2011 for the Dodge, 2012 for the Ford). It was never really a compact pickup, though; from the first generation it was larger than Toyota and Nissan trucks, although they did their best to catch up by the end.

Now who is underestimating?

Fuel economy:
'87 Elky rated up to 16/22 Compare Side-by-Side
'15 Ridgeline rated up to 15/21 Compare Side-by-Side

Can't find dimensions online, but the Elky beds are close in size to the Ridgeline's from what I recall, just not as deep.

Tow rating? '87 Elky rated at up to.... 5000lbs. 5.0L, with a weight-distributing hitch, Chevrolet rated it at 5000lbs in their Recreation and Towing guide.
http://www.lov2xlr8.no/brochures/che...c/bilder/3.jpg
Here's the Elky in '77 , I've found references to the '87 being listed with the same rating, but no actual copy of it.

And I'd expect the El Camino to be a turd compared to the Ridgeline since it's about 30 years older... but they come out surprisingly close.

Could be worse... could be the Explorer SportTrac... :p

One thing not mentioned here is reliability.

Honda is known for manufacturing reliable vehicles, and it appears the Ridgeline is no exception.

While I'm not an expert in the reliability of other trucks such as the Ranger or Dakota, I have experience with my own full-size Dodge that every little part likes to break, with the exception of the Cummins engine.

Perhaps people that want a small and reliable pickup choose the Ridgeline, despite the mediocre fuel economy. I'd never get one, but then again, I often wonder what motivated people to purchase 95% of the silly vehicles you find on the road.

The 3.8L V6 in the '87 El Camino only output 110 HP. My 0.6L motorcycle has the same power output.

The 5.0L V8 output 150 HP, compared to the Ridgeline's 3.5L V6 with 250 HP. Which would I rather tow 5,000lbs with?

As you pointed out, it's ridiculous to compare a 30 year old vehicle with a modern one.

I think we all know that obd2 and computer controls boosted hp numbers. Torque is a much more useful spec. I like that honda is using a v6, I just wish thwy would do their own thing and not try to copy the big 3.

You may think you wouldn't want to tow with 150 hp compared to 250 hp but do you want to drive around at 5500 rpm all day to get that 250 hp? Also I doubt many of those late 70s early 80s 305s haven't been "fixed" with better tune, exhaust, carb, and ignition and making about 250hp. If that wasn't enough they did make a stock 450hp El camino in 1970. I wouldn't do anything with one of those but sell it at auction!

Actually El Camino and Ridgeline sales numbers year to year are similar but the Camino carried better numbers for 24 years until it finally dropped to 15,000 in 87 and was dropped the next year with a limited production run. Honda dropped below 10,000 in 2011 and will be dropped for the 2015 year maybe brought back in 2016. Honda's best year was 50,000, while GM had 7 years better then that with a best of 72,000. That is in the US, I think they still make and sell some in Australia.

Maybe the El Camino is not old enough, but I have read of people replacing the drivetrain of classic vehicles with transplants from an S-10.

Exotic!

The Ridgeline and El Camino 3.8L engines have almost identical torque ratings, with the Ridgeline having 10 more ft/lbs. I'd rather have the extra power available even if I have to rev the engine.

The Honda has sold about 12,000 Ridgelines this year, while Chevy has sold zero El Caminos. Shall we continue to compare a 30 year old vehicle with the Ridgeline?

I think one should bear in mind that the V6 in the Ridgeline/Pilot has been detuned at the top end to boost the torque curve.

Electronic fuel injection gave us fine control for economy. Electronic ignition control gives us fine control to boost torque everywhere in the rev range.

Torque curves nowadays can be almost completely flat.

The Ridgeline makes 250 hp at 5,500 rpm. Back-calculate from the torque figures and it makes 230 hp at 4,800 rpm... and it will be making well over 150 hp down to around 3,000 rpm.

Nothing to do with stock condition. You can supercharge a Ridgeline for the cost of refurbishing an El Camino to new condition. (well... a lot more than supercharging... really).

And you can seat five people... out of the rain. :D

That said... the Ridgeline's economy numbers and performance are pathetic for the amount of power it has... the Pilot/Ridgeline combo are a perfectly good waste of a perfectly good motor.

I'd never sell mine. :D Might go broke from the tire replacement bill...

If its off the mini van that has VCM, you think they use that for mpg. Isnt that was Chevy does now for their boost in mpg?

The older version of VCM only activated under very, very light load. The newer version seems to activate more often (or maybe my foot has gotten lighter in the interim)... and with active engine mounts to quell vibrations (on the Accord), they've managed to throw out four-cylinder mode... so it goes straight from six to three, instead of going six-four-three.

There is a recall for many of the v6 powered Hondas with VCM as its lugging the engine too much causing excess oil consumption. :eek:

Sure! From a quick search it looks like a Ridgeline supercharger kit gives about 325hp and costs $6000. So how about this complete kit for $6800 to drop a modern fuel injected 325 HP 5.3 in your El Camino? http://www.summitracing.com/parts/na...make/chevrolet
That same motor that pulls a Suburban and a 8000 pound tow rating. This could be done for a fraction of the cost with plentiful junkyard parts as well. Point is, cherry picking the most anemic Chevy small block in the most pathetic smog form for a 25 year run of El Caminos is misleading to the capability these had. GM still is making the El Camino with both the direct injected 3.6 or 6.0 with 6 speed autos as the Holden Ute. Although scheduled to end at the end of 2016 that is a year longer then the Ridgline. Oh and it had a 65 year run going there. The Ridgeline is like the Aztec of Hondas.
.

After all the Ridgeline vs. El Camino stuff, focusing back on what matters: if the Chevy full-size fitted with a V8 still fared better than the Ridgeline in the MPG, it makes me wonder how a V6 would do, considering that it would have less internal frictions and being slightly lighter. A manual transmission would be also cool...

The Silverado XFE package was a 2wd AFM 5.3L with a 3.08 rear and a few aero mods up front. Very low production, nobody wanted them.

This whole debate about the mileage Silverado vs. Ridgeline is really for not anyways...

Real world FE for the 2012 Ridgeline on Fuelly: 18.6 with many in the 19-20 range
Real world FE for 2012 Silverado on Fuelly: 15.5 and most in that region

Ridgelines have an oil burning issue with software... AFM 5.3L GM engines have that issue as well.

Is Honda planning a replacement for the Ridgeline?

If they would offer it with that 2.2L turbodiesel available for some overseas versions of the CR-V and the Accord, in order to make it more attractive for export markets, it would make sense to think about a new Ridgeline, instead of making it in relatively low numbers to be only a niche product in America.

They mentioned they may offer suv and larger vehicles with the new dual electric motor hybrid drive system. Since most trucks do not haul or tow, it should be a perfect match. Then the odd case you tow, you flip a switch and it disables the ima system and goes fuel only.

Speaking of useless trucks, I actually went with a friend back in 2002 when he purchased a new Ford Lightning. He said yes to every option, including gap insurance and extended warranty; did no bargaining. :eek:

Here's a refresher of what useless looks like
http://www.factoryreproductions.com/...ightning-M.jpg

Engineers would not rely on a person to flip a switch at the correct moment. Vehicles nowadays manage everything, with the driver simply needing to avoid solid objects. Even that duty is starting to be taken over by the vehicle.

Anyhow, I see no reason why the IMA would be disabled for towing. It would boost the performance specs and make the customer happy.

I wouldn't actually expect it to have an outstanding tow rating, but would also not expect it to get the IMA disabled for a tow/haul mode.