'06 Honda Ridgeline SUT - Factory Photos
01-14-2005, 08:48 AM
#41
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: West Henrietta UPSTATE NY
Posts: 58,680
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by AbusiveWombat,Jan 14 2005, 11:12 AM
...was pretty sketchy going down hill
Believe me I know, brings all new meaning to the phrase tail wagging the dog...
01-14-2005, 09:05 AM
#42
It seems to me when it comes to trucks people seems to focus on number of cylinders and somehow forget to look at the power numbers.
The ridgeline will have 250lb/ft of torque. Whoppee to begin with. Odds have it that the torque will mostly be produced in the upper ranges, making it effectively worthless as a truck motor -- but then the Ridgeline is not really a truck in the first place.
01-14-2005, 10:35 AM
#43
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: West Henrietta UPSTATE NY
Posts: 58,680
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by steve c,Jan 14 2005, 01:05 PM
The "power numbers" for this "truck" are a joke. Your reference to a V8 with less horsepower but more torque demonstrates your lack of understanding as to what makes a good truck motor. Let me spell it out for you. Lots of torque, from a very low point on the revolutions per minute scale, and a flat curve thereafter.
I know all too well what torque is, that is why my truck will have 379 ft-lb from its 5.6 V8.
My reference to the Dodge V8 was to show the Honda engine is not pathetic and considering the Ridgeline is only rated at 5,000 pounds towing, thus someone like me would never tow more than 3,750 pounds with it, the 250 ft-lb is not bad at all. Seriously, how many people do you really thing are going to tow a big load with it?
01-14-2005, 12:44 PM
#44
It's the same argument that has been used for the RL. The new RL may produce a good amount of torque, but in luxury cars and trucks, the area under the curve matters most.
Having to maintain higher revs to produce the required torque will lead to an unpleasant towing experience and poor fuel economy. *Can* the SUT tow 5000 pounds? Sure. Will it do so in comfort? Probably not.
Another important factor in towing is weight. You want a lot of mass in the tow vehicle. To this end, the heavier body on frame trucks are generally a better choice.
Frankly, I don't understand the SUT. I also don't understand the Escalade EXT and other psuedo truck car / suv's out there. But there must be a market (Subaru brat excluded).
Having to maintain higher revs to produce the required torque will lead to an unpleasant towing experience and poor fuel economy. *Can* the SUT tow 5000 pounds? Sure. Will it do so in comfort? Probably not.
Another important factor in towing is weight. You want a lot of mass in the tow vehicle. To this end, the heavier body on frame trucks are generally a better choice.
Frankly, I don't understand the SUT. I also don't understand the Escalade EXT and other psuedo truck car / suv's out there. But there must be a market (Subaru brat excluded).
01-14-2005, 04:20 PM
#45
Originally Posted by AbusiveWombat,Jan 14 2005, 08:12 AM
Sounds like you've never towed something before, like a 4000 lb boat. I've got two friends, one with a Nissan Pathfinder (similar to Ridgeline power levels) and one with a F150 5.4. I've ridden in both when towing the same 4000 lb boat and it's night an day. The F150 drove better, stopped better, and in general handled the boat very well. We even had passing power going up a hill! The pathfinder on the other hand was pretty sketchy going down hill and had no power on tap for going up hill. Maybe these problems were due to a poor structure that the Pathfinder was built on but the experience has definitely lead me to believe that a V8 is absolutely necessary for any kind of towing.
Like the person above said, the general rule of thumb is 75% of the max limit.
Like the person above said, the general rule of thumb is 75% of the max limit.
Also, does performance also mean sales? Look at the Tacomas, Accords, and Civics. Certainly, not the best performing cars of their class but they do sell really well.
Would I buy the truck? If I didn't order the shortbed Tacoma, I may think about it, because I need something w/ a small bed, but I do not plan to tow anything as heavy as 5000lbs.
02-07-2005, 06:26 AM
#48
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 7,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, Doug,
You already know my predicament. No way is a fullsize anything going to cut it living in downtown Toronto. So, I've got to go for a midsize. The Ridgeline will do everything I need it to do just fine, and if ever I do need it to tow the S2000, it'll just be slower than a comparable full size half ton.
Other than that, the Ridgeline is just about perfect for our needs.
I heard from Simon you aren't coming up for the Toronto Auto Show! That's disappointing, I was looking forward to disecting all the new trucks on the market with you.
You already know my predicament. No way is a fullsize anything going to cut it living in downtown Toronto. So, I've got to go for a midsize. The Ridgeline will do everything I need it to do just fine, and if ever I do need it to tow the S2000, it'll just be slower than a comparable full size half ton.
Other than that, the Ridgeline is just about perfect for our needs.
I heard from Simon you aren't coming up for the Toronto Auto Show! That's disappointing, I was looking forward to disecting all the new trucks on the market with you.
02-07-2005, 06:34 AM
#49
Registered User
Originally Posted by steve c' date='Jan 14 2005, 05:44 PM
Frankly, I don't understand the SUT.
what could possibly be sporty about a "truck" (in the truest sense of the word).
i've mentioned that to doug before.
