Interesting midsize truck comparison / test


Just be careful washing the salt off your Ridgeline. Apparently car soap makes it catch on fire...
Doc beat ya to it, @Wallygator :D :p

Was reading their article on their long term test. Gas mileage averaging 20-21. Too bad, you would think with the aero design and unibody it would fair better, but nope.

Notice the Kamp KIng Koaches or KKK?
Believe they were trying to be was the 60's after-all. :D


Well-known member
Everything is Apple here, phones, laptops, desktop.

She teaches digital media at the College, yet they refuse to get Apples for the computer lab...has to use PC's which are horrid...believe the college thinks Apples are some kind of liberal is Idaho, afterall. They're little behind the times here. Which is good and bad.

I like this better.



A modern powerplant requires $10s of millions in development. Its the height of madness to suggest that an engine in a sedan or van can't be used in a truck or vice versa. Many of these engines are providing very long service life. Just because the core engine design is the same, doesn't mean that changes aren't made for the truck service regime.

Tradition and tribal identification are part of the reason that the big three dominate the pickup offerings in the USA. Honda, Nissan, or Toyota could offer equivalent functionality in a mid-sized at 3/4 the cost, and it would be rejected by 75% of buyers simply because it doesn't "look" right. :unsure:

I always thought the frame/unibody argument on the ridgeline was strange. Since when does a light duty truck with 1500lb payload need a fully boxed frame? I will take the weight savings and better ride personally.
Tribalism certainly exists within the 4x4 community. However, I don't think tribalism is the main reason that the Honda Ridgeline is looked down upon by hardcore 4x4 enthusiasts and truck owners. It's because its a car-derived vehicle that's intended to offer some amount of truck functionality, as opposed to being a truck designed/built from the ground up to offer total truck functionality.

I think there is a good argument for keeping truck engines in trucks and keeping sedan engines in sedans: the 3.5l v6 in the Tacoma would be a good example. It's not a bad engine, not in the least bit. But it does deliver most of its torque higher up in the RPM band (~4,600 RPM's) compared to some of the more dedicated truck engines Toyota has used in years past and even currently (4.0l v6, 4.7l v8, 5.7l v8). The only real advantage of those 'sedan' engines is that they deliver slightly better mpg's; the tradeoff is that their low-end torque delivery is somewhat lacking.

Body-on-frame construction still has a place at the table, so to speak. Instead of asking 'Why is a frame needed on a light duty truck?' I think the better question to ask is 'Are there any unibody trucks that are just as capable, durable and long-lasting as their BOF counterparts?'

So far the answer is no. Technology may change that at some point in the future, but this idea that BOF construction is outdated and no longer needed is laughable.
Last edited: