Midsize Pickup Comparo - READ ONLY

751 messages, Last post on Nov 28, 2007 at 10:44 AM

You are in the Pickups - Archived Discussions Forum. Your Host is kcram

This discussion is ARCHIVED. To reactivate the discussion, post a request in the Lost? Ask the Pickups Host for directions! discussion.

What is this discussion about? Honda Ridgeline, Nissan Frontier, Toyota Tacoma, Chevrolet Colorado, GMC Canyon, Dodge Dakota, Ford Explorer Sport Trac, Car Comparisons, Truck

Outline

Messages Page 5 of 75: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; ...; 75; Prev; Next; Last

#41 of 751 Re: Minor Correction [toykick] by thegraduate Jan 23, 2006 (2:57 pm)
Replying to: toykick (Jan 23, 2006 2:50 pm) the Accord your talking about has about 130hp with vtec and under 140 ft.lb of torque... Wrong. My Accord LX (which I was referencing here) doesn't have VTEC, and has 130hp. The VTEC has 145 hp. Where else is this 2.2L engine with more horsepower other than the Prelude? The prelude had a 2.2 with nearly 200 hp. Replies to this message: toykick (Jan 23, 2006 3:00 pm)
#42 of 751 Re: Minor Correction [thegraduate] by toykick Jan 23, 2006 (3:00 pm)
Replying to: thegraduate (Jan 23, 2006 2:57 pm) prelude took 8 sec. to reach 60 lol just admit most of hondas engines dont produce torque... i'm not saying its bad for cars... some have a lot of go but its doesnt belong in a truck...
#43 of 751 back to the trucks anytime soon? by thegraduate Jan 23, 2006 (3:10 pm)
In auto form, yes. It was 1998, remember. We didn't have family sedans that reached 0-60 in under 6 seconds then, either. When you are ready to get off the torque train, i'll chat with ya again. I'm heading to dinner. I have to stop and buy gas first, good thing I can keep advertised horsepower figures with regular gas!
#44 of 751 Ridgeline in a class by itself by danielacosta Jan 24, 2006 (8:25 am)
If you compare dimensions and capacities, you will see the Ridgeline is closer to a full-size truck, but is commonly compared to mid-size trucks because it only has a 6. Interior space and payload (1550# if I remember correctly) are comparable to or actually better than most 1/2-ton full size trucks. Honda did a great job designing a truck that would meet the needs of a large cross-section of truck buyers. Ridgeline sales started out slow, partly because it doesn't neatly fit into the typical truck categories. I believe the latest monthly sales figures show the Ridgeline passing the Frontier. I had a deposit on a Ridgeline in late 2004 because I wanted one of the first ones. After attending the press introduction in January 2005, I got my deposit back and bought a Frontier instead. I discovered that the Ridgeline's drive system relegates it to "soft-roader" status, which actually does meet the requirements of most truck buyers. I'm part of the small minority that tackles more challenging off-road situations, so that left me to choose between the 05 Tacoma and 05 Frontier. The Tacoma has a higher body, but lower chassis than the Frontier. The low point on the Tacoma is the central exhaust crossmember, which looks like it would get hit off-road. The exhaust on the 04 and older Tacomas was tucked higher. The back seat on the Tacoma crew-cab takes many more steps to fold than the Frontier's, and has less real world leg room than the Frontier. Thus, I've had my 05 Frontier for one year and 23,000 very enjoyable miles. I have since borrowed a Ridgeline for a day, and it does have a more car-like ride and handling than the Frontier. The extra power in the Frontier is noticeable compared to the Ridgeline, and I scared myself pretty good trying to take the Ridgeline up a hill that the Frontier takes with ease. Overall, unless you need true off-road capability or more than 5,000 # towing ability, the Ridgeline is probably a better choice than the other mid-size or full-size trucks on the market. If you exclude the Ridgeline from consideration, it becomes a much closer horse race with a lot of good choices. We each have our own reasons for making the choice we did. I enjoy hearing other's opinions on these forums. Replies to this message: varmint (Jan 24, 2006 10:20 am) thegraduate (Jan 24, 2006 10:37 am) danielacosta (Jan 24, 2006 1:54 pm) toykick (Jan 24, 2006 5:57 pm)
#45 of 751 Toykick by varmint Jan 24, 2006 (10:20 am)
A VVT system is beneficial for any engine, any purpose. Although Honda made a name for VTEC using small displacement, high horsepower engines, that is not the only way such a system may be used. A VVT system allows the engine to select between a breathing pattern that is good for low rpm operation or another for high rpm operation. An engine without a VVT must pick one single pattern for breathing. Typically it is one that is best for the mid-range, and sacrifices both the low and high rpm bands. In a truck (where the low rpm range is very important) they will compensate for that lack of low rpm power by adding displacement. That is a perfectly legitimate solution to the problem. It tends to be a very cheap solution, too. But it introduces other problems with fuel economy and smog emissions. Meanwhile, the vehicle with VVT can use engine breathing specifically designed for low rpm use. This is better than something tuned for the middle range. Then VVT switches over to higher rpm breathing when the engine is pushed. And, as an FYI, Honda reports that more than 90% of peak torque output is available from 2,500 - 5,500 rpms. So, if 90% 2,000 is your personal benchmark, the Ridgeline cannot be far from it. Also, your statements about Honda engines not producing much torque is misleading. They simply do not build big engines. When you look at how much torque is being produced relative to the size of the engine, Honda is doing just fine. The Tacoma's 4.0L is good for 66.5 lbs-ft per liter. The Ridgeline's 3.5L is good for 70. And the Frontier's 4.0L is good for 71. If Honda had chosen to go with a larger, less fuel efficient engine, it probably would have generated something like 280 lbs-ft. Replies to this message: toykick (Jan 24, 2006 5:23 pm) thegraduate (Jan 24, 2006 6:09 pm) varmint (Jan 25, 2006 10:50 am) thegraduate (Jan 25, 2006 11:15 am) toykick (Jan 25, 2006 4:13 pm) and 67 more...
#46 of 751 Re: Ridgeline in a class by itself [danielacosta] by varmint Jan 24, 2006 (10:20 am)
Replying to: danielacosta (Jan 24, 2006 8:25 am) Great post.
#47 of 751 Re: Ridgeline in a class by itself [danielacosta] by thegraduate Jan 24, 2006 (10:37 am)
Replying to: danielacosta (Jan 24, 2006 8:25 am) Wow, a non-Honda owner that can actually admit that Ridgeline is great at what it is intended for. Good for you, and if I was going with a serious off-roader, I too would overlook the Ridgeline. Good points in your message, daniel. Rationality will always make points with forum posters. Saying "X brand is the best and thats it, period!" won't get you anywhere with anybody, as far as making a convincing argument. Tell us if you don't mind, what kind of off-roading do you do? What did you have before the Frontier? I'd be interested to know... thegrad Replies to this message: danielacosta (Jan 24, 2006 1:54 pm) toykick (Jan 24, 2006 5:57 pm)
#48 of 751 Re: Ridgeline in a class by itself [thegraduate] by danielacosta Jan 24, 2006 (1:54 pm)
Replying to: thegraduate (Jan 24, 2006 10:37 am) "Tell us if you don't mind, what kind of off-roading do you do? What did you have before the Frontier? I'd be interested to know... " Before my 05 Frontier I had an 01 Silverado ext-cab Z71, which did very well off-road. I decided to downsize for better fuel economy, more off-road capability, and a narrower body for less tendency to scrape bushes, etc. when off-roading. If I remember correctly, the Ridgeline is only 1" narrower than the Silverado, so I wouldn't have gained anything with regard to avoiding the bushes. Frontier, Tacoma, and the rest of the traditional mid-size trucks are several inches narrower than traditional full-size trucks. Most of my off-roading could be handled by the Ridgeline, but occasionally I encounter sections of rock and boulder crawling that fully challenge a true 4wd system with lo-range, locking differentials, hill start / descent control, etc. The "stairsteps" on Broken Arrow Trail near Sedona AZ are a good example. Guys like me who go rock and boulder crawling know they will scrape the bottom of their truck, so besides the mechanicals of the 4wd system, the design and protection of the undercarriage are very important, too. Besides needing more ground clearance, the Ridgeline would need a couple more skid plates and a redesigned exhaust, which is presently the low point for roughly half the length of the vehicle from front to rear. In addition, the Ridgeline has what I think is a parking brake cable clipped to the bottom of one of the frame rails; someone like me would scrape that off the first time "riding the rails." None of that matters, though, because the Ridgeline isn't intended for hard-core off-roading where you know you will be scraping the frame rails and other pieces on the bottom. I wish it was designed for more than soft-roading, because I'm very impressed with the rest of the truck and would be driving one now otherwise. By comparison, Tacoma TRD is designed for more serious off-roading, which is why I was surprised that the exhaust hangs as the low-point on the 05 when it was tucked up higher on the older models. Frontier is not perfect either. While I successfully took the stairsteps described above in my stock Frontier, I did a lot of scraping on the bottom in the process. No harm done, but it's still scary wondering if you're going to break something when riding the frame rails. I've since installed a 2.5" lift from Greg at prerunners.com, bringing my ground clearance up from a stock 10.5" to 13" and haven't scraped bottom since. Ground clearance aside, the Frontier's 4wd system has been great. I have a NISMO with 4-wheel limited slip, locking rear, hill-start assist, and hill descent control. Before installing the lift, I got myself stuck on a boulder on one of my excursions. I locked the rear end and was able to drive off with traction from only one wheel. Most of the time the 4-wheel limited slip works so well that the locking rear end is not even needed. Replies to this message: toykick (Jan 24, 2006 5:57 pm)
#49 of 751 Re: Toykick [varmint] by toykick Jan 24, 2006 (5:23 pm)
Replying to: varmint (Jan 24, 2006 10:20 am) honda did build a large displacement engine... and its in the ridgeline... i wouldnt call it an advancement in technology since The big 3 have v8 engines which are more fuel efficient then the ridgeline and have more power to boot not to mention they're probably cheaper also.. I dont think the Ridgeline fits into any category since it doesnt compare to any truck... The Ridgeline has more human comforts in some ways... like interior space. But when it comes down to doing truck tasks... its over rated. Payload cap. for the ridgeline is under 1200 pounds with passengers. and has a towing capacity of 5k which is less then properly equipped midsized trucks like the Frontier crew cab, Tacomas crew cab, Dodge Dakota v8 and ford v6 ranger... yep thats right RANGER lol... with proper gearing you could tow bigger loads... nissan catched onto this, this year adding 4.10 gearing to push up its towing capacity to the tacoma... kinda funny since the taco doesnt use 4.10+ gearing to pull 6500 pounds.. Replies to this message: thegraduate (Jan 24, 2006 6:09 pm) varmint (Jan 25, 2006 10:50 am) thegraduate (Jan 25, 2006 11:15 am) toykick (Jan 25, 2006 4:13 pm) grove4 (Jan 25, 2006 4:33 pm) and 3 more... thegraduate (Jan 25, 2006 6:48 pm) and 62 more...
#50 of 751 Re: Ridgeline in a class by itself [danielacosta] by toykick Jan 24, 2006 (5:57 pm)
Replying to: danielacosta (Jan 24, 2006 1:54 pm) I agree with the fact that the majority of the people who have trucks dont really use its capabilities... but if you could barely put 13 bags of concrete in the bed and have to be cautious of not blowing out two expensive struts then its not so functional... this is a typical home depot run..