Link (http://www.autoweek.com/article.cms?articleId=102323)
2006 Honda Ridgeline RTL
One Trick Truck
WES RAYNAL
Published Date: 5/9/05
2006 HONDA RIDGELINE RTL
ON SALE: Now
PRICE: $35,155
POWERTRAIN: 3.5-liter, 255-hp, 252-lb-ft V6; awd, five-speed automatic
CURB WEIGHT: 4498 lbs
0 TO 60 MPH: 8.5 seconds (est.)
FUEL MILEAGE: 16/21 mpg EPA, 14.12 mpg AW observed
When Honda first showed its pickup concept at the Detroit auto show in 2004, company boss Tom Elliott looked out over the assembled masses and said, ?After telling you for years we have no plans for a truck, now we?re telling you we do.?
Simple, no? Elliott always was a man of few words, but Honda?s shot at the U.S. pickup scene, playground of the Big Three (and peripherally, Toyota), speaks volumes about wanting to grab up some of the high-profit end of the market.
The Ridgeline looks like a slightly smaller Chevrolet Avalanche (minus the GM midgate), all sharp angles, plastic body cladding and a ?Look at me, ain?t I tough? design. The truck is built on a closed-box frame and uses a 3.5-liter 255-hp V6 for power. The VTEC engine develops 252 lb-ft of torque.
We spent a couple of weeks driving Honda?s new truck in and around Detroit and came to appreciate the 3.5-liter (also found in the Odyssey and Pilot) in this application. The power is ample, pulling nicely and evenly through the rev range, and?perhaps needless to say?it is Honda-smooth. Shifts from the five-speed automatic are nearly imperceptible, and though we never really needed it, it was good to know that if the weather got nasty the all-wheel-drive system can send up to 70 percent of the torque fore or aft, depending on where the traction is needed.
Honda says the Ridgeline will tow 5000 pounds and carry 1100 pounds in its bed. Still, we can?t help but think if the company really wants to steal buyers from the Chevrolet Silverado/Ford F-150 crowd, a V8 had better be on somebody?s computer in Japan or Los Angeles. That said, we averaged only 14 mpg in Detroit in a roughly 50/50 city/highway mix. We expected better.
The four-wheel independent suspension provides a smooth, comfortable ride for the most part, but it gets a little harsh on choppy pavement aroundtown. At freeway speeds the ride is fine, and the truck is quiet and comfortable, with direct and properly weighted steering. There is an overall feeling of refinement that potential buyers will appreciate.
The interior seems well-built, but it did raise some eyebrows, with more than a couple of things forcing us to ask, ?Why?d they do that?? For example, the overzealous grab handles on the doors: They must be included for aesthetics rather than usefulness, an obvious nod to those designers told to impart that ?tough? truck image into the cockpit.
Also, as one logbook entry notes, ?The Ridgeline carries two Honda signatures I really wish they?d do away with: the column-mounted shifter, which I continue to have problems with in terms of slipping into gears other than drive, and the location of the sunroof control [on the dash, to the left of the steering column], where only the driver can operate it.?
Interior beefs aside, materials on the dash and door panels are first-rate, as is the switchgear, and there is room for actual adults in the back seat.
Being an innovative company, Honda put some tricks in the Ridgeline. Two of the coolest are in the cargo bed: The bed itself is made of steel-reinforced composite, so it has a metal box?s strength without the need for a bedliner; and the bed has a lockable, weatherproof trunk in it that will hold 8.5 cubic feet of stuff.
At a little more than $35,000, our test truck wasn?t cheap. But we think Honda loyalists, and perhaps even a few newcomers, won?t be disappointed.
"Averaged 14 mpg" Are you kidding? My Sequoia does better than that. Most full-size pick ups do better also.
Quote"Averaged 14 mpg" Are you kidding? My Sequoia does better than that. Most full-size pick ups do better also.
That is real bad. I usually trust Autoweek, so this Honda must be getting pretty bad mpg. What did other mags get?
QuoteQuote"Averaged 14 mpg" Are you kidding? My Sequoia does better than that. Most full-size pick ups do better also.
That is real bad. I usually trust Autoweek, so this Honda must be getting pretty bad mpg. What did other mags get?
I say this so often that I ought to incorporate it into my sig:
You cannot in any way compare your fuel economy with someone else's to arrive at a conclusion that one vehicle is more fuel-efficient than another.
QuoteQuoteQuote"Averaged 14 mpg"? Are you kidding?? My Sequoia does better than that.? Most full-size pick ups do better also.
That is real bad. I usually trust Autoweek, so this Honda must be getting pretty bad mpg. What did other mags get?
I say this so often that I ought to incorporate it into my sig:
You cannot in any way compare your fuel economy with someone else's to arrive at a conclusion that one vehicle is more fuel-efficient than another.
That is true. If you consider that they went off road and did some excessive idling than I could see it. If that was worst scenario than what would one expect, 16-18 mpg? Still not great.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote"Averaged 14 mpg" Are you kidding? My Sequoia does better than that. Most full-size pick ups do better also.
That is real bad. I usually trust Autoweek, so this Honda must be getting pretty bad mpg. What did other mags get?
I say this so often that I ought to incorporate it into my sig:
You cannot in any way compare your fuel economy with someone else's to arrive at a conclusion that one vehicle is more fuel-efficient than another.
That is true. If you consider that they went off road and did some excessive idling than I could see it. If that was worst scenario than what would one expect, 16-18 mpg? Still not great.
There are many different possible variations. They might have driven it harder, maybe even factored in on-the-track testing into their mileage rating. I agree that 16-18 mpg is still not outstanding for a midsize truck, but it is almost certainly better than a Sequioa in that way.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote"Averaged 14 mpg"? Are you kidding?? My Sequoia does better than that.? Most full-size pick ups do better also.
That is real bad. I usually trust Autoweek, so this Honda must be getting pretty bad mpg. What did other mags get?
I say this so often that I ought to incorporate it into my sig:
You cannot in any way compare your fuel economy with someone else's to arrive at a conclusion that one vehicle is more fuel-efficient than another.
That is true. If you consider that they went off road and did some excessive idling than I could see it. If that was worst scenario than what would one expect, 16-18 mpg? Still not great.
There are many different possible variations. They might have driven it harder, maybe even factored in on-the-track testing into their mileage rating. I agree that 16-18 mpg is still not outstanding for a midsize truck, but it is almost certainly better than a Sequioa in that way.
Hmm, I'm averaging 17.5 right now with mixed driving, mostly highway. That's with a calculator, not the wishful thinking trip computer.
MPG Yikes...
Maybe it had something to do with it being new and breaking it in? Or maybe they were pounding on it senseless the whole time...
Interesting to see what some longer term tests reveal as an overall number.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote"Averaged 14 mpg" Are you kidding? My Sequoia does better than that. Most full-size pick ups do better also.
That is real bad. I usually trust Autoweek, so this Honda must be getting pretty bad mpg. What did other mags get?
I say this so often that I ought to incorporate it into my sig:
You cannot in any way compare your fuel economy with someone else's to arrive at a conclusion that one vehicle is more fuel-efficient than another.
That is true. If you consider that they went off road and did some excessive idling than I could see it. If that was worst scenario than what would one expect, 16-18 mpg? Still not great.
There are many different possible variations. They might have driven it harder, maybe even factored in on-the-track testing into their mileage rating. I agree that 16-18 mpg is still not outstanding for a midsize truck, but it is almost certainly better than a Sequioa in that way.
Hmm, I'm averaging 17.5 right now with mixed driving, mostly highway. That's with a calculator, not the wishful thinking trip computer.
Not only did they say it was 50/50 hwy/city driving, but they're probably driving a lot harder than you are. Not close to a fair comparison, you might get close to twenty with the Ridgeline, judging by the relationship between yours and the EPA's figures.
The most I ever got on a 100% hwy trip was 19.2.
QuoteThe most I ever got on a 100% hwy trip was 19.2.
wow-thats very good...most I got on my disco was 15 mpg! :o
$35,000 for the Ridgeline?
That is crazy to spend for an ugly half-ass attempt of a truck.
Quote$35,000 for the Ridgeline?
That is crazy to spend for an ugly half-ass attempt of a truck.
It is more expensive than almost anything in its class.
It's so ugly...makes the Avalanche look like a work of art.
QuoteIt's so ugly...makes the Avalanche look like a work of art.
I actually like how the Avalance looks without having to compare it to the Ridgeline. The interior is another story though.
QuoteQuoteIt's so ugly...makes the Avalanche look like a work of art.
I actually like how the Avalance looks without having to compare it to the Ridgeline. The interior is another story though.
Same here. The interior is atrocious in the Avalanche though.