Touche sir!
Aloha Phil,
I learned to drive in a 1996 Mazda B4000. That was a great truck. Was that your era?
Phil, you and your team have every right to be proud.
I had an '06 Ridgeline and loved it and was the one car I wish I had not sold. I passed on the new Ridgeline (didn't even test drive one) for two main reasons 1 - I call it the new el camino because they just (the chopped off the back end of the pilot/odyssey) and I just couldn't get pass the look. The other issue is I wanted car play and you had to go up three trim levels to get that in the El Ridgeline and put it way out of the price range
My biggest issue with the Ridgeline is that it doesn't really showcase its unibody benefits. It's not like it gets any better fuel economy than the body on frame trucks, it's interior isn't any more spacious, and ride/handling doesn't seem to be far superior either. It has some cool features with extra storage options in the bed and cool tailgate, but it doesn't do well off road, and it doesn't tow nearly as well as the BoF trucks do.
It beats all the other V6s in the class...
about 110 cubic feet to the ranger's 98...
Well, you seem fairly unique in thinking that the ride/handling are the same as the other midsize trucks. That's what they focused on, and they pretty much seem to have hit their target. Most of what makes something like a ranger have a "trucky" ride are tradeoffs to improve other characteristics cheaply. You could avoid the tradeoffs, but it will cost more. Or you can pull back on requirements like towing and ground clearance...and end up with something more like the ridgeline. Notice how they used the weight savings from the unibody to add features like their fancy tailgate and still provide more payload than either the tacoma or the frontier without having to beef up the suspension...
Sure, if you need to tow and offroad it isn't the right choice--but, most people who buy midsize trucks don't do either of those things. Look at all the people who run out and lift the front of their ranger as soon as they bring it home--if they were to tow 7500 pounds they'd be pointing at the sky. But they aren't planning to haul that much so it doesn't matter. And yeah, the ridgeline lacks the ground clearance and other attributes to make it good off road, but a lot of people who never go offroad might be happier with a truck that's lower to the ground. Look at the people wondering how to lower their ranger! At the end of the day this is often a fashion decision, rather than something based on actual needs. If you don't like the ridgeline because of how it looks, that's cool--I don't particularly either. (Of course, I think the GMC Denali styling is even more hideous--this is why there's room for more than one style of truck.) People should just own that, and not make up BS about how it isn't trucky enough for their (fantasy) lifestyle (at the mall).
Nono, I completely agree with you! Looks like I didn't explain myself fully. I agree that 90% of truck owners don't need all that capability, so it makes sense to hop off the "truck bro" bandwagon, and get the unibody Ridgeline. But only if the unibody alternative is going to have amazing benefits over the traditional trucks. My opinion is that the Ridgeline doesn't...It beats all the other V6s in the class...
about 110 cubic feet to the ranger's 98...
Well, you seem fairly unique in thinking that the ride/handling are the same as the other midsize trucks. That's what they focused on, and they pretty much seem to have hit their target. Most of what makes something like a ranger have a "trucky" ride are tradeoffs to improve other characteristics cheaply. You could avoid the tradeoffs, but it will cost more. Or you can pull back on requirements like towing and ground clearance...and end up with something more like the ridgeline. Notice how they used the weight savings from the unibody to add features like their fancy tailgate and still provide more payload than either the tacoma or the frontier without having to beef up the suspension...
Sure, if you need to tow and offroad it isn't the right choice--but, most people who buy midsize trucks don't do either of those things. Look at all the people who run out and lift the front of their ranger as soon as they bring it home--if they were to tow 7500 pounds they'd be pointing at the sky. But they aren't planning to haul that much so it doesn't matter. And yeah, the ridgeline lacks the ground clearance and other attributes to make it good off road, but a lot of people who never go offroad might be happier with a truck that's lower to the ground. Look at the people wondering how to lower their ranger! At the end of the day this is often a fashion decision, rather than something based on actual needs. If you don't like the ridgeline because of how it looks, that's cool--I don't particularly either. (Of course, I think the GMC Denali styling is even more hideous--this is why there's room for more than one style of truck.) People should just own that, and not make up BS about how it isn't trucky enough for their (fantasy) lifestyle (at the mall).
That's because you presumably don't value things like "don't have to climb up as high to get in" or "can easily reach over the side and get stuff out of the bed". Put another way, does the world actually need a honda ridgeline that's exactly like all the other trucks, or does the ridgeline offer things that the other trucks don't--even if they're things that people buying other trucks have decided aren't important to them? I think of the gladiator the same way: for me it's a stupid combination of features I don't need for way too much money, but if someone wants to rock climb with 3 other people in a convertible with an open bed full of small empty boxes (
) it's the perfect truck for them.Well, the ranger is a paradigm shift in the segment with a turbo 4. For the colorado, make sure you filter out the diesels and four cylinders and compare apples to apples. Doing that, I see about 20MPG on fuelly for the ridgeline and 18MPG for the colorado for 2018 & 2019 model years. All of the midsize trucks have about the same curb weight, so a lot of that difference is probably the aerodynamics of sitting lower. I'd guess that they could lighten the ridgeline more with lighter materials and get even better fuel economy, but they (were) beating the competition on fuel economy and clocking in about the same weight, so why spend the money on exotic materials if you already hit your target?
So someone wants an open bed, and you tell them that if they don't tow they have to buy a pilot? This the problem with telling people what they need based on what you need.
IMO, most of the people buying a crew cab pickup to haul their family should really just buy a minivan, but people have their own needs and want what they want without checking on my opinion.It's not obvious to me why they should be cheaper--the parts and labor to build them should be about the same.
You're right, I'm probably being a little biased and not really considering other people's needs. A mid-sized BoF truck is perfect for me with my needs, as I do enjoy off roading and I do tow semi-regularly with my project car. Other people will have other needs that I don't think of.That's because you presumably don't value things like "don't have to climb up as high to get in" or "can easily reach over the side and get stuff out of the bed". Put another way, does the world actually need a honda ridgeline that's exactly like all the other trucks, or does the ridgeline offer things that the other trucks don't--even if they're things that people buying other trucks have decided aren't important to them? I think of the gladiator the same way: for me it's a stupid combination of features I don't need for way too much money, but if someone wants to rock climb with 3 other people in a convertible with an open bed full of small empty boxes (
I do, however, disagree with this. That could be said for almost any car - the number of parts and labor that goes into assembly is about the same for any car/truck. That doesn't mean that a small car should cost the same as a big car. The needs that you mentioned that are perfect for the Ridgeline is pretty niche and a small market imo, hence the lackluster Ridgeline sales. If Honda tried to appeal to a larger market of people, they should lower the price.
