Jump to content

2017 Honda Ridgeline Review - This Truck Makes You Think Crazy

Gorehamj

Recommended Posts

Hate Work Enthusiast

Hate Work

Posted
Posted

Why didn't they put a "truck" front end on it? This vehicle might make a good auto parts delivery truck. Towing capacity? Hauling capacity? Thought so.

  • Replies 34
  • Created
  • Last Reply
KARNUT Senior Enthusiast

KARNUT

Posted
Posted

The answer is simple, it has an open bed. I would say 50 percent of truck owners don’t use trucks as the original intended purpose. Most of those do to fit in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

diyer2 Senior Enthusiast

diyer2

Posted
Posted

I know two people who have them.

One who is 80 year's old has a 2017.

He has owned a lot of full sized trucks.

From 1500's to 2500 diesels.

Towed travel trailers and fifth wheels.

He doesn't RV any more but living in the mountains he still needs to haul things.

He likes his Honda.

Rides good, comfortable, and has a bed.

 

The other owner( 72 years old) was a Texas rancher and had many trucks also.

His is an older one.

He convinced the other owner to buy his 2017.

They serve a purpose for some people.

 

:)

 

 

Roscopcoletrain Senior Enthusiast

Roscopcoletrain

Posted
Posted

if i didnt have anything heavy to haul i could see myself owning one. Are they perfect, of course not, but what vehicle is? 

Jchoi Enthusiast

Jchoi

Posted
Posted

In some ways I miss owning my Ridgeline and in others ways not. As others have said, there is no perfect vehicle. Say what you want, but that J series v6 was one of the best motors I’ve ever owned. 

  • 1 year later...
Donald Barnett New Member

Donald Barnett

Posted
Posted

I drove several Ridgelines, first and second gen.  The interior of the 2 gen is nice.  It is more comfortable than other mid size trucks.  Its on an SUV chassis so that is expected.  My wife and I could not come to love the exterior.  Too fuddy and no sense of style or individuality or ruggedness.  It is not as soft as many on here say but I get it.  Be realistic, most people buying small pickups and light trucks are not really going to do stuff more than a Ridge will handle, easily. 

  • 1 month later...
Ravenkeeper Senior Enthusiast

Ravenkeeper

Posted
Posted

I leased a 2006 (brand new) Ridgeline, and when I turned it in, it was cheaper to purchase a 2010, so I did.  Both of them would run over the "washboards" (at 40+), and I would never feel them.  Loved taking both of them off-road.  The first generation of Ridgelines are LARGER than the current (second) generation, which is why I bought my 2018 Silverado ME, to replace my totaled 2015.  I did go to both local Honda stealerships, and only one of them had any Ridgelines on their lot.  I sat in their "midnight edition," and was not impressed by the smaller size of this "truck."  I had better fuel economy with both of my Ridgelines (22MPG avg with either one) than I have with either/both of my Silverados (19MPG on my 15, & see my signature block for my 2018). 

  • 4 weeks later...
Ravenkeeper Senior Enthusiast

Ravenkeeper

Posted
Posted
On 3/22/2020 at 8:18 AM, flyingfool said:

front wheel drive truck?

They are marketed as AWD, but they are FWD with auto-4WD, OR you can push a button to engage the 4WD, when you know that you are going to need/use it. 

flyingfool Senior Enthusiast

flyingfool

Posted
Posted

and you will also be pushing the buttons on your phone to call for a tow truck if you this this is gonna make it up a dirt road thats covered in loose sand and washed out ruts 

I'de rather own a mini van

  • 1 month later...
Ferrari Eater Enthusiast

Ferrari Eater

Posted
Posted
On 7/6/2018 at 7:09 PM, jwc10400 said:

This is the ugliest vehicle since the Pontiac Aztec 

What about the Nissan S-Cargo, Nissan Cube, Nissan Juke, Toyota CHR, or Toyota Prius? My personal vote for the ugliest car is the 2014 Infiniti QX80.

Ezekiel2517 Enthusiast

Ezekiel2517

Posted
Posted

I had a 2006 Ridgeline.  I put a 2" lift on it and some 31" tires.  it looked pretty cool actually.  Like a mini Avalanche.  It was a comfortable truck, but like all Hondas, the road noise was terrible.  By far louder than GM or Toyotas.  Even after I added dynamat to it.

 

It was also gutless and got worse gas mileage than my current 6.2.  But the biggest complaint was the constant need for scheduled maintenance and that everything was Honda proprietary.  Transmission fluid was a special blend.  Transfer case too yet another special brew.  I ordered online, but if you had to take in to Honda it would cost a fortune to own it.    I ran it for 100k miles and it was an okay truck.  I really liked the utility of it   The AWD was awesome.  You couldnt beat it in sand.  The bed trunk was awesome.   But never again will I have a Honda given how much of a pain in the a$$ they are to own.

 

Also the new model is hideous.  The old one was ugly-cool.  This one is just ugly-lame.

 

Ferrari Eater Enthusiast

Ferrari Eater

Posted
Posted
23 hours ago, Ezekiel2517 said:

Also the new model is hideous.  The old one was ugly-cool.  This one is just ugly-lame.

True. The new one is a cut and paste Odyssey.

  • 2 weeks later...
Ferrari Eater Enthusiast

Ferrari Eater

Posted
Posted
On 8/5/2018 at 8:25 AM, diyer2 said:

I know two people who have them.

One who is 80 year's old has a 2017.

He has owned a lot of full sized trucks.

From 1500's to 2500 diesels.

Towed travel trailers and fifth wheels.

He doesn't RV any more but living in the mountains he still needs to haul things.

He likes his Honda.

Rides good, comfortable, and has a bed.

 

The other owner( 72 years old) was a Texas rancher and had many trucks also.

His is an older one.

He convinced the other owner to buy his 2017.

They serve a purpose for some people.

I feel like I'm reading a poem

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • AidenVorpagel
      cam upgrade in CA

      By AidenVorpagel · Posted

      hello I recently bought a 2012 gmc 1500 with a 5.3 and have a AFM disabler on it I'm interested in doing a cam but I'm worried if I remove the AFM system I will fail smog does anyone have info if they are able to detect that or a work around to it (not talking about hot smogging) please let me know thank you  
    • B14Sierra
      Noise after AFM delete

      By B14Sierra · Posted

      Did you figure it out?
    • B14Sierra
      Possible lifter tick after DOD delete

      By B14Sierra · Posted

      Update. I started chasing down my symptoms. Started first with pulling valve covers and looked at everything. Everything looked good and couldn't hear or feel anything different. Then a compression test. 240 psi or really close on each cylinder. I was worried I was a tooth off of timing. Not bad for an engine with 173,000. Granted I did put new heads on. I sprayed water around the injector area to see if I could hear a change. Nothing. I hooked up my new hp tuner which I should have done in the first place but I don't really know what I'm looking at just yet but am learning. I noticed the fuel trims were way off so that told me I have to have either a bad injector or exhaust leak. New injectors, so I did the shop vac on blower and in the tail pipe. Sprayed soapy water and found the exhaust flange on the drivers side was leaking. I didn't think it would be that considereding I pulled the heads and left the manifolds attached. I did have the transmission replaced not long ago. They must have not seated them properly but I guess I didn't notice. I put in new gaskets on both sides. Which by the way isn't a bad job but I had a hard time getting them to seal right. Took two attempts. Reset the fuel trims and the ticking is gone, engine runs smooth and acceleration has improved. Got to feel the real difference with that stage 1 cam. It's not that big of a difference but it does add a little more. It feels like how the truck should have been from the factory.
    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Can it still be Assembled I?    Stribeck says that we need a certain amount of viscosity under conditions of load and velocity to prevent two surfaces of a know roughness from tearing each other asunder. And we have marketing trying to tell the masses that those two surfaced require less of that commodity due to more exact limits being placed on the same old clearances. We also know that there are limits to how hard something can before it becomes to brittle to be viable and to smooth to 'wet' the surface and that both of those conditions have been known and met since about the Second World War.    That viscosity value shook out at 10 centistokes at 212 F just under a hundred years ago.  Give this a look: [Anton Parr]     What is advertised is the Kinematic viscosity (mm2/s) or that which has been density adjusted but the value we are after is the dynamic viscosity (mPa.s) or true viscosity. You can see that this number is dependent on density thus base stock and temperature. You can also see that an SAE 30 doesn't reach that value in this example. However an SAE 30 that is at the upper end of the SAE 30 range; 12.5 cSt (mm2/s), might. 12.5 * .83 = 10.375 (mm2/s). If you could find an SAE 30 at the upper end these days.   Then there is the complication of viscosity modifiers or VII or VM, whatever you wish to call them. Polymers added to very thin base oils, perhaps 3 to 6 cP oils, that will meet the SAE *W30 spec at 'tested' shear rates and 100 C/212F  target temperature. So a polymer fortified base that is a fraction of the 10 cP requirement Stribeck insist upon.   This could be all well and good if those polymers didn't have two very problematic 'features'. They shear or loose viscosity both 1.) permanently and 2.) temporality. And they do both omitted in the advertised data with the distinct  purpose of deceiving the consumer of the actual operating state of the fluid. I've shown the example of Warren Oils COSTCO 10.91 cSt 5W30 formuation several times where the 100 C HTHS value is 6.9 cP!! That's the temporary shear down and with and SSI or shear stability index of 9.4 cSt. Note the intentional deception in using mixed units?    After a short while that 9.4 cSt oil has a viscosity corrected dynamic value of 7.8 cP. But as the SSI is still within the range of an SAE *W30 whose lower value is 9.3 cSt.    This allows them to continue to call this SAE 16 weight oil a 30 weight, the cake, and still meet the API requirements for fuel efficiency IMPROVEMENT mandated by the EPA. The eating of the cake. By the time you've worn out your motor doing the responsible thing by adhering to the warranty requirements, (the stick), you get deprived of the carrot, wear control. So sad, to bad.   So what can be done? Do I need actually say? [Anton Parr]       Even this must be monitored if the oil is on the low side and the VII an organic or you opt for a 0W40 with an even lighter base oil and more / higher MW VII. (Note the lower density of the 40 weight versus the SAE 30 mono-weight?)    There is another workaround. Temperature. An SAE *W30 run at a bulk temperature of between 180 and 195 F.    Being the belt and suspenders sort I am I do both. Run it cook and run it heavy.    In Part II I'll work the AW package. 
    • Atlas
      Wow I'm in a pickle. (Broke down truck) and a story.

      By Atlas · Posted

      So, do I go elbow-deep on this thing or list it for sale and play dumb? Seems to "runs good."   I'm about $1200 away from having: -a rebuilt injector ($300) -a new cat ($250) -a new cat back exhaust (OE style) ($300) -a new AC compressor ($200) -AC refrigerant charge ($150)   In theory, this should rectify the obvious detracting issues from its value and operability. Cold AC with a non-squeaking AC pulley both sounds and feels good. An exhaust that isn't cut/hacked in 17 different places and doesn't vibrate on a crossmember would make it sound and feel less janky. A working cat would help the stink, and will save the earth, but *if and only if* the fuel system is working properly, which would also address the intermittent "rich" CEL.   Heard a good one... CEL for "Rich condition" means you haven't spent enough money on the truck lately, and it's letting you know.   Rebuilding the injector would seem to be the most important part. Replacing the cat would be secondary. I don't think mine is plugged or overly restricted, but it might be a little restricted? I have no good way to tell other than seat of the pants feel. I hate the smell.   The current theory is I have a rich idle problem: A bad fuel pressure regulator, or a leaking injector(s) being the highest probabilities. I already replaced the FPR but that doesn't mean its replacement isn't also bad. It was a new part from Dorman, but the packaging looked like it had been sitting on a shelf for 20 years.   This is the (single) upstream O2 sensor shown at idle. I'm getting a lot of "rich" it seems. Sometimes it stays high like that and doesn't drop down. That makes me think it's processing injector leaks or a partially stuck open injector.     Other times it looks like this. Nice oscillations between rich and lean, which is what I think it should be. Under load and at speed, the oscillations are nice and tight and uniform looking, high and low.     Fuel trims suggest the PCM is compensating pretty hard at idle to pull fuel out. But it's not enough to trip a CEL. Something about slowing to a stop: brake vaccum booster, EGR, or the EVAP purge is delayed, or there's pooled fuel in the intake again that's draining into a cylinder is enough to set the CEL. Of course, in two days of driving, it hasn't set. I was hoping to actually look at the freeze-frame data when it sets. IAT is high because it's idling on an 83 degree day here.  

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...