Report: Honda says it's sticking by Ridgeline
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2011/01/01-2011-honda-ridgeline630opt.jpg)
We'll admit it ? while it has its virtues, the Honda Ridgeline certainly isn't our first (or second... or third) choice as the best truck currently on sale. Apparently, consumers agree. In fact, Honda only sold 16,142 Ridgelines in 2010, and when you compare that to the fact that General Motors sold 24,642 of the somewhat underwhelming Chevrolet Colorado pickups, the business case for the Ridgeline seems very weak, especially in lieu of the recent death of Honda's other offbeat all-terrain offering, the Element.
According to USA Today, however, the Ridgeline isn't headed for the Great Parking Lot in the Sky just yet. Quite the contrary, actually. American Honda's executive vice president, John Mendel, says the Ridgeline has developed a very strong following over the years, telling USA Today that Honda believes it has "a ways to go on the Ridgeline."
This in mind, we'd expect to see a refreshed version of Honda's truck within the next few years. If Honda is seriously committed to offering the Ridgeline, let's hope the automaker can broaden its appeal to truck shoppers, because if dismal sales numbers continue, Honda may have no choice but to change its tune and reach for the axe.
Link: http://www.autoblog.com/2011/01/07/report-honda-says-its-sticking-by-ridgeline/
I don't see why they stuck with it. This thing is crap. It cost as much as a full size truck and gets about the same fuel economy but can't tow or haul anything.
But it rides and handles far better than any compact/mid-size truck plus it has the same payload capability as the Tacoma and Frontier and has a tow rating of 5,000 lbs (Tacoma and Frontier are ~6,500 lbs).
We have to admit that the majority of new truck buyers never exceed Ridgeline towing, hauling and off-road capabilities, and IMO why Honda is sticking with it.
They can't be making much, if any, profit at those production levels. But I can see them not cutting their loses and moving on if they have a replacement in the wings. I guees Honda still thinks there is a market for a pickup that isn't a very good pickup, much along the lines of the El Camino.
I like the idea of a car like pickup. I think the Honda just misses the mark.
The Ridgeline starts at $28,900 while a nicely equipped F150 XLT starts at $26,115 :facepalm:
Quote from: Mustangfan2003 on January 10, 2011, 11:02:23 AM
The Ridgeline starts at $28,900 while a nicely equipped F150 XLT starts at $26,115 :facepalm:
Yeah, in the regular cab version. $33k+ for the crew cab.
Edit: Make that $36k+ for a 4WD crew cab.
Quote from: ifcar on January 10, 2011, 11:10:27 AM
Yeah, in the regular cab version. $33k+ for the crew cab.
Edit: Make that $36k+ for a 4WD crew cab.
Yeah but most Ridgelines on dealer lots will cost $33k or more too.
Quote from: Mustangfan2003 on January 10, 2011, 11:16:45 AM
Yeah but most Ridgelines on dealer lots will cost $33k or more too.
As will most F-150s.
So we can assume they both pretty much cost the same.
Quote from: Mustangfan2003 on January 10, 2011, 11:22:23 AM
So we can assume they both pretty much cost the same.
Why, because the F-150 4x4 Supercab starts at $7,000 more than the Ridgeline?
Fine logic.
(http://www.thetorquereport.com/2009_ford_falcon_ute.jpg)
That is all I have to say.
Quote from: 93JC on January 10, 2011, 11:28:57 AM
(http://www.thetorquereport.com/2009_ford_falcon_ute.jpg)
That is all I have to say.
I'd sport that.
I think the Ridgeline is the ideal vehicle for a homeowner that wants a truck. Like Cougs said, it's got a great mix of mid-size truck capabilities and car-like ride and handling. The average homeowner does not need a full-sizer to transport mulch and bring home a new snowblower/lawn mower.
My boss has a Ridgeline, and it's a pretty awesome vehicle. I can understand the allure of a Silverado, but I'd get tired of driving something that large and ponderous every day.
Quote from: The Pirate on January 10, 2011, 11:38:38 AM
I think the Ridgeline is the ideal vehicle for a homeowner that wants a truck. Like Cougs said, it's got a great mix of mid-size truck capabilities and car-like ride and handling. The average homeowner does not need a full-sizer to transport mulch and bring home a new snowblower/lawn mower.
My boss has a Ridgeline, and it's a pretty awesome vehicle. I can understand the allure of a Silverado, but I'd get tired of driving something that large and ponderous every day.
The Ridgeline is no ballerina. See the below comparison. It's 300 pounds lighter and 2 feet shorter. Gives up 50 HP for a gain of 1/1 MPG. In my opinion you give up a lot of versitility for little gain.
Silverado 4 door cab Ridgeline
Width 80 78
Height 78 70
Length 240 207
Wheel base 153 122
Weight 5095 5404
Max Payload 1705 1546
MPG 14/19 15/20
HP 302 250
The point of the Ridgeline isn't the specs, it's the driving dynamics. And if you're not going to need massive capability, you gain nothing by getting a Silverado in its place.
Quote from: ifcar on January 10, 2011, 12:13:47 PM
The point of the Ridgeline isn't the specs, it's the driving dynamics. And if you're not going to need massive capability, you gain nothing by getting a Silverado in its place.
If one were worrying about driving dynamics why would one be buying a truck or a Ridgeline for that matter?
1,500 ar 1,800 lbs is hardly massive capability. Gain? Sure you do. You gain about 300 lbs in payload, about 1500 pounds of towing capability, a better bed (subjective), the ability to carry a slide in camper (if one wants to do that). You also get a body and bed on frame which has benefits in repairability.
Quote from: EtypeJohn on January 10, 2011, 12:22:56 PM
If one were worrying about driving dynamics why would one be buying a truck or a Ridgeline for that matter?
To carry stuff?
Just like someone who buys a sporty car will sometimes want some measure of practicality, so could someone who buys a pickup want some level of car-like driving dynamics. And if you don't need the extra 300 pounds of payload, 1,500 pounds of towing capability, or the ability to carry a slide-in camper, why wouldn't you want the better-driving vehicle?
Quote from: EtypeJohn on January 10, 2011, 12:03:36 PM
The Ridgeline is no ballerina. See the below comparison. It's 300 pounds lighter and 2 feet shorter. Gives up 50 HP for a gain of 1/1 MPG. In my opinion you give up a lot of versitility for little gain.
Silverado 4 door cab Ridgeline
Width 80 78
Height 78 70
Length 240 207
Wheel base 153 122
Weight 5095 5404
Max Payload 1705 1546
MPG 14/19 15/20
HP 302 250
Uh, that's not correct. The Ridgeline has a curb weight in the 4,500 - 4,600 lb range, so appreciably lighter than typical 1/2-ton crew cab. Also, you'll find that that ~50 hp gain results in zero peformance gain owing to the additional size and weight of the Silverado.
The gain in payload is ~150 lbs, not 300lbs, and at ~1,500 lbs total is line with other 1/2-tons and mid-sizers. And no one ever weights what they put into their bed.
It's smaller, carries just as much weight, still tows 5,000 lbs, has far better ride and handling. I'm not a huge fan mostly because of styling, but on paper it is a compelling product alternative for most of those who buy traditional pickups.
Quote from: ifcar on January 10, 2011, 11:19:00 AM
As will most F-150s.
No, Ford dealers do a pretty good job of offering a wide range of F150a on their lots, just as Honda dealers do a decent job of offering all types of Accords.
Your choices on options and pricing are going to be more limited on the Ridgeline for 2 obvious reasons:
1) More choices exist for the Ford.
2) Ford sells far more trucks.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 10, 2011, 12:43:32 PM
Uh, that's not correct. The Ridgeline has a curb weight in the 4,500 - 4,600 lb range, so appreciably lighter than typical 1/2-ton crew cab. Also, you'll find that that ~50 hp gain results in zero peformance gain owing to the additional size and weight of the Silverado.
The gain in payload is ~150 lbs, not 300lbs, and at ~1,500 lbs total is line with other 1/2-tons and mid-sizers. And no one ever weights what they put into their bed.
It's smaller, carries just as much weight, still tows 5,000 lbs, has far better ride and handling. I'm not a huge fan mostly because of styling, but on paper it is a compelling product alternative for most of those who buy traditional pickups.
It can't be all that compelling, or sales wouldn't be what they are.
Quote from: Tave on January 10, 2011, 01:27:04 PM
It can't be all that compelling, or sales wouldn't be what they are.
I agree.
I think it's very tough for most of us to see the Ridgeline as a credible alternative to an actual body-on-frame, live rear axle truck. Ridgeline would be perfect for me, as the most cargo I'd be carrying would be bikes, skis, camping gear, etc., and most of my off-roading is logging roads and access trails that I drive my Protege on currently.
I'd still buy a Tacoma first.
Quote from: Tave on January 10, 2011, 01:25:37 PM
No, Ford dealers do a pretty good job of offering a wide range of F150a on their lots, just as Honda dealers do a decent job of offering all types of Accords.
Your choices on options and pricing are going to be more limited on the Ridgeline for 2 obvious reasons:
1) More choices exist for the Ford.
2) Ford sells far more trucks.
Yes, if you want a truck that is not at all like the Ridgeline, like a regular cab or an ultra-luxury model, there are more choices.
F-150s similar to the Ridgeline -- an endless supply of them -- are more expensive.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 10, 2011, 12:43:32 PM
Uh, that's not correct. The Ridgeline has a curb weight in the 4,500 - 4,600 lb range, so appreciably lighter than typical 1/2-ton crew cab. Also, you'll find that that ~50 hp gain results in zero peformance gain owing to the additional size and weight of the Silverado.
Whoops, typo on my part Ridgeline weight 4,504. So yes, lighter, in part because it has shorter bed which isn't as useful as a longer bed.
I'd go Tacoma first, maybe a Silverado or Frontier.
The "real" trucks have come far enough in on-road manners that the Ridgeline is a hard sell on ride and handling alone, plus the others offer cab/bed/drivetrain combos that Honda simply doesn't have. I do like the Ridgeline, but I hate its bed, and like Cougs, I find it unattractive.
Quote from: Tave on January 10, 2011, 01:27:04 PM
It can't be all that compelling, or sales wouldn't be what they are.
Logic tells us it is compelling on paper as data plainly says it has most the capability of the average 1/2-ton and virtually ALL the capability that most new 1/2-ton truck buyers actually use.
It doesn't sell well because of subjective measures; primarily because it is a Honda truck, to a lesser extent IMO styling and taking a rub for being based on a minivan.
Quote from: ifcar on January 10, 2011, 01:44:36 PM
Yes, if you want a truck that is not at all like the Ridgeline,
AKA, everything else.
Quotelike a regular cab or an ultra-luxury model, there are more choices.
The Big 3 and Toyota and Nissan offer their 2+ models in literally thousands of configurations, a full spectrum of choices Honda doesn't cater to. You downplay the extent of the difference.
QuoteF-150s similar to the Ridgeline -- an endless supply of them -- are more expensive.
That Honda does a good job equipping its cars doesn't come as a surprise to me, nor does it change the fact that the other players offer far more variations. In fact it may explain the result (increased options can cost more).
Quote from: GoCougs on January 10, 2011, 01:53:48 PM
Logic tells us it is compelling on paper as data plainly says it has most the capability of the average 1/2-ton and virtually ALL the capability that most new 1/2-ton truck buyers actually use.
A slight advantage in towing/hauling vs a slight advantage in ride/handling isn't even a win on paper.
Quote from: Tave on January 10, 2011, 02:04:37 PM
AKA, everything else.
The Big 3 and Toyota and Nissan offer their 2+ models in literally thousands of configurations, a full spectrum of choices Honda doesn't cater to. You downplay the extent of the difference.
That Honda does a good job equipping its cars doesn't come as a surprise to me, nor does it change the fact that the other players offer far more variations. In fact it may explain the result (increased options can cost more).
The number of configurations is irrelevant if a well-equipped crew cab happens to be the variation you want. No one is going to choose a loaded F-150 SuperCrew because Ford also sells a stripper regular cab work truck.
Quote from: ifcar on January 10, 2011, 02:19:04 PM
The number of configurations is irrelevant if a well-equipped crew cab happens to be the variation you want. No one is going to choose a loaded F-150 SuperCrew because Ford also sells a stripper regular cab work truck.
1) You say that like it's a bad thing. It's not, and part of the reason why everyone else sells more trucks, which is exactly what I said earlier.
2) People cross shop mid-size and full-size pickups, let alone different cab configurations.
3) There are far more than three body/engine configurations available on the competition. Your insistence to the contrary is perplexing.
Quote from: Tave on January 10, 2011, 02:48:47 PM
1) You say that like it's a bad thing. It's not, and part of the reason why everyone else sells more trucks, which is exactly what I said earlier.
2) People cross shop mid-size and full-size pickups, let alone different cab configurations.
3) There are far more than three body/engine configurations available on the competition. Your insistence to the contrary is perplexing.
All I'm saying is that for the individual, it doesn't matter whether there are ten zillion configurations as long as you find the one you want. Obviously that means a lot of people won't find the configuration they won't in the Ridgeline lineup, but that doesn't mean a thing to people who do.
It can be inferred from the abysmal sales numbers that, quite frankly, few people want a Ridgeline as it's configured.
I think the Ridgeline is a good (if not old) idea that is poorly executed. It still gets shitty fuel economy, has a shitty interior, looks like shit, drives like a boat, etc. That it is slightly better in some of these respects compared to its competition obviously doesn't matter, otherwise the Ridgeline would be very popular.
I wouldn't call it an abject failure, but it's not far off.
I think Ford had played with the idea of building a car based replacement for the Ranger. I think they could pull it off if they could make it more affordable than the Ridgeline.
The Ridgeline was never intended to be a volume seller or to steal any appreciable sales from Detroit. It was primarily targeted at Honda-philes who wanted basic hauling, towing and AWD capability but didn't want to drive domestic or a lumbering solid axle BoF beastie.
For me, the styling is a killer but mostly the drive train isn't up to snuff. It's butter smooth and performs well but the equivalently powered Tacoma feels far stronger and on paper is much quicker vehicle. This is mostly owing to Honda's AT, which are major power suckers.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 10, 2011, 06:25:11 PM
The Ridgeline was never intended to be a volume seller or to steal any appreciable sales from Detroit. It was primarily targeted at Honda-philes who wanted basic hauling, towing and AWD capability but didn't want to drive domestic or a lumbering solid axle BoF beastie.
Honda had high hopes for 50,000+ per year and in 2005 ramped up production to 80,000 annual sales. I suspect sales of 16K annually is a bit disappointing. Road testers from the time of introduction weren't uniformly impressed either.
http://www.carspin.net/forums/index.php?topic=396.0
Quote from: EtypeJohn on January 10, 2011, 01:45:57 PM
Whoops, typo on my part Ridgeline weight 4,504. So yes, lighter, in part because it has shorter bed which isn't as useful as a longer bed.
Have you seen the 'frame' on a Ridgeline. It looks like stamped sheetmetal; about 16 guage.
They had a stripped platform/frame section on display at the local auto show the year it was introduced - I forget which year it was. I guess they thought it would impress people who were looking to buy a truck. Imo, it was a big mistake to expose it as anyone who wanted a truck would look at it and think...this isn't a truck, it's just a Pilot with the back cut off.
The cute ute of trucks. At least it's got a bed. :huh:
Quote from: EtypeJohn on January 10, 2011, 06:57:15 PM
Honda had high hopes for 50,000+ per year and in 2005 ramped up production to 80,000 annual sales. I suspect sales of 16K annually is a bit disappointing. Road testers from the time of introduction weren't uniformly impressed either.
http://www.carspin.net/forums/index.php?topic=396.0
In fact I found this in the Ridgeline owner's club site. Note their Honda Chief Engineer was talking about a potential annual market of 100,000. Obviously Ridgeline sales never took off like Honda had hoped it would.
The Ridgeline has exceeded Honda's goal and still has 2 months to go.
http://www.pickuptruck.com/html/autoshows/naias2006/honda/ridgeline/page1.html
Following a slow start, the Ridgeline has exceeded Honda?s sales expectations. Honda had projected sales of 50,000 units in the first 12 months. ?December was our peak month,? said Gary Flint, the chief engineer on the Ridgeline who spoke with PUTC after the award was announced at the North American International Auto Show. ?So far we?ve sold about 47,000 units and it?s been on sale since March 1. That?s just in the United States. We?ve also sold about 8,000 in Canada.?
Flint attributed the sluggish early numbers to introducing a ?unique vehicle? into a conservative marketplace.
?We feel we?ve finally got to the point where the market understands it,? said Flint. ?But there?s still a significant part of the market that isn?t aware of the vehicle.?
Industry observers have questioned the Ridgeline?s high starting price when compared to compact pickup market.
?We never really targeted the compact truck set,? explained Flint. ?If you look at the really narrow segment that compares to a fully equipped 4-door crew cab compact truck, Ridgeline is the best selling vehicle out there. But that?s really a very narrow market.?Flint said he sees future customers coming out fullsize SUVs and pickups ?because of some of the negative experiences they?ve had.?
?I think the market potential is about double where we?re at now,? added Flint.
Who buys a truck from a motorcycle company anyway?
Quote from: FoMoJo on January 10, 2011, 07:26:35 PM
Have you seen the 'frame' on a Ridgeline. It looks like stamped sheetmetal; about 16 guage.
They had a stripped platform/frame section on display at the local auto show the year it was introduced - I forget which year it was. I guess they thought it would impress people who were looking to buy a truck. Imo, it was a big mistake to expose it as anyone who wanted a truck would look at it and think...this isn't a truck, it's just a Pilot with the back cut off.
That "frame" is a minor structure supporting the unibody chassis, and dig deep enough and one will likely find the Ridgeline chassis at least as strong, and much stiffer, than the chassis of other less-than-full-size trucks; Tacoma, Frontier, Colorado, etc., as unibody is inherently superior to BoF.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 11, 2011, 08:20:52 AM
That "frame" is a minor structure supporting the unibody chassis, and dig deep enough and one will likely find the Ridgeline chassis at least as strong, and much stiffer, than the chassis of other less-than-full-size trucks; Tacoma, Frontier, Colorado, etc., as unibody is inherently superior to BoF.
Not for a real truck.
Honda is my 2nd favourite major auto manufacturer. I admire their history, their racing programmes and their cars. Usually, when they build a product, it ranks very high for innovation and out and out performance. Not so with the Ridgeline. It just seemed like an idea from the marketing department that the engineers had no interest in.
This is a real Ridgeline.
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2006/10/avalanche_z71_1_1280.jpg)
Quote from: FoMoJo on January 11, 2011, 02:18:56 PM
Not for a real truck.
Honda is my 2nd favourite major auto manufacturer. I admire their history, their racing programmes and their cars. Usually, when they build a product, it ranks very high for innovation and out and out performance. Not so with the Ridgeline. It just seemed like an idea from the marketing department that the engineers had no interest in.
"Real" trucks are antiquated beasties - leaf springs, BoF, live axles, etc. These old technologies stick around because the truck segment is much less competitive than the passenger car segment.
It's proven extremely durable, so why change? When buying a truck for truck reasons, durability sits pretty high up on the list of priorities.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 11, 2011, 03:28:19 PM
"Real" trucks are antiquated beasties - leaf springs, BoF, live axles, etc. These old technologies stick around because the truck segment is much less competitive than the passenger car segment.
I'm sure the manufacturers could spend truckloads of money introducing innovative technologies on trucks to replace leaf springs, live axles, etc. with something considered more modern; and be just as tough and reliable in a work environment. However, why would someone want to pay the extra money it would cost for modern technologies that do the same job as what has always worked well?
It's interesting that the new Explorer has been 'modernized' and it even was chosen as 'Truck' of the year at the Detroit auto show. However, the truckish aspects have been reduced as it was determined that 99.9% of people buying them do not use them as 'work' trucks; because they really aren't trucks. Same with the Ridgeline.
Quote from: 68_427 on January 11, 2011, 02:31:08 PM
This is a real Ridgeline.
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2006/10/avalanche_z71_1_1280.jpg)
But still drives and handles like a truck, is no quicker, and has virtually the same payload capacity. The only real advantage is higher towing and off road prowess, which is wasted capacity on this segment for most buyers.
Quote from: CJ on January 11, 2011, 04:49:27 PM
It's proven extremely durable, so why change? When buying a truck for truck reasons, durability sits pretty high up on the list of priorities.
Quote from: FoMoJo on January 11, 2011, 05:25:45 PM
I'm sure the manufacturers could spend truckloads of money introducing innovative technologies on trucks to replace leaf springs, live axles, etc. with something considered more modern; and be just as tough and reliable in a work environment. However, why would someone want to pay the extra money it would cost for modern technologies that do the same job as what has always worked well?
Cars once upon a time were BoF and had leaf springs and live axles too. Why did they change? Competition forced change to superior technologies which aren't any less durable or expensive.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 11, 2011, 05:53:18 PM
Cars once upon a time were BoF and had leaf springs and live axles too. Why did they change? Competition forced change to superior technologies which aren't any less durable or expensive.
Are you suggesting that trucks have not changed?
the honda ridgeline is a super nice vehicle... a decent "package" that plays a vital role - keeping honda and acura owners loyal to the brand by proving a wide array of choices under one roof. otherwise, customers might switch brands while shopping for their trucks at the toyota dealer across the street from the honda-acura dealership.
Quote from: Atomic on January 11, 2011, 07:18:53 PM
the honda ridgeline is a super nice vehicle... a decent "package" that plays a vital role - keeping honda and acura owners loyal to the brand by proving a wide array of choices under one roof. otherwise, customers might switch brands while shopping for their trucks at the toyota dealer across the street from the honda-acura dealership.
Sales suggest they already do shop across the street so to speak.
Quote from: 68_427 on January 11, 2011, 02:31:08 PM
This is a real Ridgeline.
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2006/10/avalanche_z71_1_1280.jpg)
This is a real Avalanche.
(http://www.sciencenewsforkids.org/articles/20060118/a992_1331.gif)
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote from: GoCougs on January 11, 2011, 05:48:41 PM
But still drives and handles like a truck, is no quicker, and has virtually the same payload capacity. The only real advantage is higher towing and off road prowess, which is wasted capacity on this segment for most buyers.
Could just be a local anomoly but I see a heck of a lot more Avalanches than Ridgelines towing something. In fact I don't think I've ever seen a Ridgeline towing anything.
Off road capability? From what I've read the Ridgeline has little but it hardly matters anyway since most buyers, with the possible exception of Jeep buyers, don't really use whatever off road capability their vehicles have anyway.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 11, 2011, 03:28:19 PM
"Real" trucks are antiquated beasties - leaf springs, BoF, live axles, etc. These old technologies stick around because the truck segment is much less competitive than the passenger car segment.
Far from being less competitive, the manufacturer's truck segnments are highly competitive. Truck divisions have been cash cows for auto companies for years. They are not about to let a competitor get ahead and steal sales with the introduction of different and better technology. They are using what they do now because it works best in that application.
If I recall correctly Chevy trucks from the early 60's to the early 70's used a coil spring rear suspensions. That layout was abandoned in favour of leaf springs in the rear. Why? Because leafs work better in that application.
Besides leaf springs body on frame is desirable because commercial buyers frequently replace the standard bed with a custom rig suited to their purposes. Also a damaged bed can be easily replaced at far less cost than replacing the vehicle. And a damaged bed doesn't compromise the integrity of the entire vehicle. Unibody is great for many applications, but not this one.
Live axles? Less complicated, less cost and again, they work better in a vehicle that is called upon to haul loads.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 11, 2011, 05:53:18 PM
Cars once upon a time were BoF and had leaf springs and live axles too. Why did they change? Competition forced change to superior technologies which aren't any less durable or expensive.
Superior for the intended use. Cars and trucks are designed for different missions.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 10, 2011, 09:56:41 AM
But it rides and handles far better than any compact/mid-size truck plus it has the same payload capability as the Tacoma and Frontier and has a tow rating of 5,000 lbs (Tacoma and Frontier are ~6,500 lbs).
We have to admit that the majority of new truck buyers never exceed Ridgeline towing, hauling and off-road capabilities, and IMO why Honda is sticking with it.
100% right. Most people drive trucks on road, use them as daily drivers; the most taxing thing most Americans do in pickups is a trip to Home Depot.
Quote from: EtypeJohn on January 12, 2011, 06:28:30 AM
Far from being less competitive, the manufacturer's truck segnments are highly competitive. Truck divisions have been cash cows for auto companies for years. They are not about to let a competitor get ahead and steal sales with the introduction of different and better technology. They are using what they do now because it works best in that application.
"Big profits" = less competition = less competitive by definition. Until about 10 years ago there were only three trucks for decades in the US market. Still there are only five.
Quote
If I recall correctly Chevy trucks from the early 60's to the early 70's used a coil spring rear suspensions. That layout was abandoned in favour of leaf springs in the rear. Why? Because leafs work better in that application.
Leaf are/were used because they are cheaper. Ram now uses springs (1/2-tons) and all 1/2-ton derived SUVs (Tahoe/Suburban, Expedition, Sequoia, Armada, etc.) all use coil springs. Why? That segment is much more competitive and coils are a superior technology.
Quote
Besides leaf springs body on frame is desirable because commercial buyers frequently replace the standard bed with a custom rig suited to their purposes. Also a damaged bed can be easily replaced at far less cost than replacing the vehicle. And a damaged bed doesn't compromise the integrity of the entire vehicle. Unibody is great for many applications, but not this one.
Good point about commercial buyers but the vast majority of 1/2-ton trucks are sold retail; Chevy had (still has?) the W/T series which was a stripped down truck with vinyl seats, AM/FM radio only, single headlights, etc., specifically for commercial buyers.
A Ridgeline bed, and/or portions of it, can be replaced. Automakers never make a car to be more easily fixed or repairable.
Quote
Live axles? Less complicated, less cost and again, they work better in a vehicle that is called upon to haul loads.
See 1/2-ton SUV and Ram blurb above.
Quote from: EtypeJohn on January 12, 2011, 06:31:04 AM
Superior for the intended use. Cars and trucks are designed for different missions.
Because that was older technology. The passenger vehicle segment is infinitely more competitive, ergo, far more advanced technologies employed.
I wonder just how many Ridgelines would sell if Honda had an all wheel drive version of the Odyssey ( with a towing package. )
Quote from: Northlands on January 12, 2011, 03:09:50 PM
I wonder just how many Ridgelines would sell if Honda had an all wheel drive version of the Odyssey ( with a towing package. )
I doubt it. Most Americans just don't see minivans like that.
Quote from: Northlands on January 12, 2011, 03:09:50 PM
I wonder just how many Ridgelines would sell if Honda had an all wheel drive version of the Odyssey ( with a towing package. )
(http://images.passionperformance.ca/photos/0/2/6/026153_2009_Honda_Pilot.jpg)
Quote from: ifcar on January 12, 2011, 10:02:35 PM
(http://images.passionperformance.ca/photos/0/2/6/026153_2009_Honda_Pilot.jpg)
If people could just get past the minivan image, I think an AWD Odyssey would cannibalize both the Ridgeline and the Pilot.
Quote from: Northlands on January 13, 2011, 08:32:14 AM
If people could just get past the minivan image, I think an AWD Odyssey would cannibalize both the Ridgeline and the Pilot.
If people could get past the image, so would the FWD Odyssey.
Odyssey already sells way more than than the Pilot and Ridgeline combined.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 13, 2011, 09:07:13 AM
Odyssey already sells way more than than the Pilot and Ridgeline combined.
In 2010:
Odyssey: 108,182
Pilot: 102,323
Ridgeline: 16,142
And last month:
Pilot: 10,337
Odyssey: 10,147
Ridgeline: 1,211
So....no.
In Cougs defense, overall I do see a lot more minivans on the roads than the Pilots. ( counting all of the years.)
People just can't face it. The minivan is the ultimate haul it vehicle! :lol: Haul wood, any home supply , kids etc etc. Just raise it off the ground and give it AWD!!
Quote from: Northlands on January 13, 2011, 10:16:45 AM
In Cougs defense, overall I do see a lot more minivans on the roads than the Pilots. ( counting all of the years.)
People just can't face it. The minivan is the ultimate haul it vehicle! :lol: Haul wood, any home supply , kids etc etc. Just raise it off the ground and give it AWD!!
Many cargos require an open load bed.
Quote from: EtypeJohn on January 13, 2011, 10:26:07 AM
Many cargos require an open load bed.
Ooh I know. I just like to poke at the typical Ridgeline owner who's bought themselves essentially an Odyssey that looks like a truck and use it as a more manly ( ish.. I use the term quite loosely ) looking kid and grocery hauler. :lol: I've driven all three vehicles and as much as I despise the thought of owning a minivan for daily use, I'd pick it over the Pilot and Ridgeline in a heartbeat.
Quote from: EtypeJohn on January 13, 2011, 10:26:07 AM
Many cargos require an open load bed.
Too bad you get such a tiny one with the Ridgeline. The talk about payload ignored the fact that even the smallest beds on the midsize pickups are larger than the Ridgeline's, if a few inches shallower. In fact Honda has the smallest bed of anything this side of the Explorer Spot Trac.
And it has super-rediculous bed-sides...way worse than the Avalanche pillars. I remember reading an article when the thing first came out about how, because the sides of the bed were so high, they cut the tailgate short to maintain rearward visibility. Why wouldn't they just, I dunno...make the fucking bedsides shorter? I can't imagine reaching in to get anything from the sides is a particularly easy task.
(http://www.myride.com/images/2006/Honda/Ridgeline/500/06_Honda_Ridgeline_Ridgeline_exrrpass345.jpg)
Looks fricken retarded. Like they had the tailgate flush with the sides and then tried to drive it and went "oh, shit...well, let's just chop the tailgate down a few inches! We gotta roll this thing out next week!"
Quote from: Tave on January 13, 2011, 01:52:03 PM
Too bad you get such a tiny one with the Ridgeline. The talk about payload ignored the fact that even the smallest beds on the midsize pickups are larger than the Ridgeline's, if a few inches shallower. In fact Honda has the smallest bed of anything this side of the Explorer Spot Trac.
But doesn't the Ridgeline have a "trunk" under the bed floor that's quite useful? That is, as long as you don't have a flat tire when you have a load of stuff in the bed that is since the spare resides in the "trunk".
Quote from: ifcar on January 13, 2011, 09:28:57 AM
In 2010:
Odyssey: 108,182
Pilot: 102,323
Ridgeline: 16,142
And last month:
Pilot: 10,337
Odyssey: 10,147
Ridgeline: 1,211
So....no.
Interesting, I was wrong.
(Admit it, you were waiting for that.)
Quote from: GoCougs on January 13, 2011, 04:51:08 PM
Interesting, I was wrong.
(Admit it, you were waiting for that.)
I was waiting for you to say that you were obviously referring to a different year, of course.
Quote from: 68_427 on January 11, 2011, 02:31:08 PM
This is a real Ridgeline.
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2006/10/avalanche_z71_1_1280.jpg)
That doesn't look bad at all.