Honda Ridgeline vs Ford F-150 FX4

[CougTek]

Honda's new pickup is receiving positive reviews from everywhere. Its fuel appetite is certainly one of its strongest points, but there are a few others. In collision tests, it received the best rating for side and front impacts, something that no other truck can claim. And it also seems to have a more civilized road behavior than all of its rivals.

I have a friend who plans to change his pickup soon. He currently has a GMC Sierra 1997, but he's putting money on it every year and he's tired of it. Current GMC/Chevy trucks fare so poorly in collision tests that I cannot recommend him to buy a new one. There's the Dodge RAM, the Toyota Tundra and the Nissan Titan, but the only other really interesting pickup I've found for him would be the Ford F-150 Super Crew FX4.

Both the Honda and the Ford have a payload of around 1500lbs (F-150 can carry about 60lbs more). The F-150 is larger, longer, heavier and drinks roughly 20% more fuel than the Ridgeline. But its engine is significantly more powerful (300hp/365lb-ft vs 255hp/252lb-ft for the Honda) and the fuel tank is larger (113L vs 83L). Ground clearance is comparable (over 8").

He'll use his pickup 95% of the time in the city. He also wants to go in jolty trails in the wood to bring back some wood. He'll never pull anything behind, so the F-150 advantage on that point is a non-issue. The bed of the F-150 is 17" longer IIRC, but since it cannot carry more weight than the Honda's, again, I'm not sure it's that much of an advantage. He told me what amount of wood he wants to carry, but I'm not sure about the translation (one and a half wood cord, does that make any sense to you?).

So I'm calling all the rednecks, Bush-loving farm boys out there. Putting away the "Let's buy American" bullshit, what do you think would be the most appropriate vehicle for him? I think the Ridgeline would be better, because he'll use it a lot more in the city and that it is more environmentally-friendly, but I know he would be drooling like a newborn at the idea of driving something that has a 300hp engine into it.

Opinions?

 

[timwhit]

I would go for the Honda just because of reliability.

However, that 17" of extra bed could come in quite handy. Can the Ridgeline fit a 4'x8' piece of plywood laying flat?

 

[Will Rickards]

Reliability of the brand? If I'm correct, the ridgeline is new this year or last year, correct? So no real reliability data on it at this point.

 

[timwhit]

Reliability of the brand? If I'm correct, the ridgeline is new this year or last year, correct? So no real reliability data on it at this point.

What would you rather trust for reliability, a Honda or a Ford?

 

[Fushigi]

Reliability of the brand? If I'm correct, the ridgeline is new this year or last year, correct? So no real reliability data on it at this point.

The underpinnings are from the Odyssey minivan, so the powertrain is proven.

My electrician/HVAC guy bought a new vehicle. He drives a fair bit and needs to haul around electrical supplies. He was tired of the poor mileage on his RAM pickup. In the end, he got one of these. It's not exactly pretty, but he's getting 25MPG out of the turbo-diesel. It has some interesting features, like a switch to change the angle of the headlights when the rear of the van is loaded down.

 

[Will Rickards]

Seen more than a few of those dodge sprinters around here. Had to do a double-take the first time I saw one.

 

[Will Rickards]

Oh and I don't think I gave my vote yet, so I'll say the honda for the gas mileage. That really trumps a lot of other features.

 

[Tannin]

You mean there is even a question? No contest.

 

[Bozo]

Your friend won't get a cord and half of wood in the bed of the Honda or the Ford.
Both vehicles might be over weight with a full load of wood. You need to have the truck weighed with a full tank of gas and the driver in it, then subtract that weight from the manufacturers GVW that's printed on the door tag. That's your payload capacity. Advertised payloads are propaganda for the marketing staff.
I had an F250 with a full 8' bed and it would carry a little over a cord of wood. And that was with the wood stacked to a point in the middle, as high as the cab. My max payload was ~2000Lbs and there were times I was over weight.

Bozo :mrgrn:

 

[CougTek]

Thanks guys, especially Bozo. That's what I needed to know. So a "cord of wood" is the correct translation. Good to know.

So there's no way he'll be able to carry all the wood he planned to, no matter what he gets.

About the Dodge Sprinter : it doesn't have the off-road capability he needs.

 

[timwhit]

From Wikipedia

Measurement of firewood
In the United States, firewood is sold by the cord (a unit of volume equal to 4 by 4 by 8 feet, or 128 cubic feet), or by the "face cord", which is actually a unit of area, equal to 32 square feet (this unit of area is used exclusively for describing stacks of firewood). A pile of wood four feet high, eight feet long, and cut to, say, sixteen inch lengths will often be sold as a "face cord" of 16 inch logs, even though the actual volume of the wood pile is only one-third of a cord. Hence, only a "face cord" of 48 inch logs would actually equal a "cord" of firewood. In Australia, it is normally sold by the tonne. In Sweden it's sold by volume.

 

[CougTek]

Then he's talking about a "face cord". That should be easier to fit in than a full cord.

The Ridgeline's bed measures 60" long x 49.5" wide x 20.7" deep. That's roughly 5' by 4'. So a single face cord would barely fit (3 rows 5' x 2' x 16" and the additional 2 cubic feet on top of it near the cab). No way to add another half face-cord though.

The F-150 FX4 has about 6 more cubic feet space in the bed, but that's not enough for the additional half face-cord.

So what he would need to carry his damn wood would be a Ford F-350 with a 6.5' bed and a V10 engine. I'll tell him that if he is willing to spend 50% more cash on fuel for everyday's travel, then I've found a truck that will carry his one and a half face-cord. Otherwise, get the Ridgeline.

 

[e_dawg]

The Ridgeline may be a Honda, but it is weak compared to its competitors. That tiny V6 is a joke in a pickup truck that will be used for carrying real payloads. Not even 4 L displacement. if you want Japanese, get a Toyota Tundra. They use proper pickup truck engines like their 4.7 L V8.

 

[Bozo]

Coug, you forgot to deduct for the wheel/tire wells (humps).
I think the weight is a factor too. A truck built on a mini van chassis???
If you are serious about cargo you need to move to 'Super Duty', Professional Grade' or something heavy duty. The base model trucks these days are nothing more than glorified station wagons with a (short)bed on the back.
And, real trucks have 8' beds.

Bozo :mrgrn:

 

[Handruin]

The Acura MDX (SUV) is also built on the odyssey (mini van) platform if I remember correctly. It has been a popular selling vehicle for years with minimal problems.

 

[Tannin]

Wikipedia is wong. In Australia, wood is normally sold by the metre — that's a cubic metre, of course, which is approximately equal to the amount of wood that will fit in a cube 700mm on each side, if you pack it using as much air as you can. Stack it tight and you wind up with less again.

 

[timwhit]

Tannin, you could edit the page. Just don't sign in and no one will know it was you.

 

[Tannin]

Nahh. I've retired from Wikipedia. Too many newboy shiteheads giving you grief. Besides, I don't have the time. Someone else can take care of it. And will, no doubt.

 

[CraigLC]

I think it gets down to this....the Honda while likely reliable is not REALLY a truck. It is designed to be used by guys who want a truck but really need a car. Sort of like the SUV craze. From what you describe of your friend It would seem to fit his needs okay.

Some of the other arguments made are valid though. It is a little under powered. It is a minivan under there which is fine for daily driving but used as a truck this will show.

A cord of wood is 4' x 4' x 8' No pickup made currently can hold that capacity...some can do the weight ( super duty fords etc. ) but the volume would be an issue. If your friend doesn't mind making a few extra trips to get his wood then a Honda would do fine.

The lack of torque ( compared to other models) will be MOST evident under load. I agree with whoever said previously...if you want Japanese then I would be looking at a Toyota or a Nissan which both get good to very good reviews and match up much more closely to their American counter parts.

 

[Explorer]

I just about fell out of me chair here when I started seeing recommendations for a "truck" based upon a mini-van chassis!

No no no no. Believe me, you would be making a serious mistake if you plan on *actually* using this vehicle to haul around 1500+ pounds (700+ kg) on a regular basis, or even once down a fairly rough and long road.

A mini-van chassis is basically a warmed over "full-sized" (as in American) automobile chassis -- meaning a couple of added gussets here and there, slightly heavier springs, and maybe heavier duty shock absorbers.

A real pick'em up truck chassis is made of thicker steel throughout, has more crossmembers, and has much larger gussets. There will be a lot less chassis flex. Springs and shocks are in a different league altogether compared to any mini-van. Pickup truck suspension has the ability to handle overloading far better, not to mention the longer suspension travel lengths can handle everything that you might encounter with ease since the chassis and longer shock absorbers are designed for such. By the way, full-sized vans are all built upon the same chassis as a pickup truck.

...if you want Japanese, get a Toyota Tundra.

As far as Japanese pickup trucks go, there are also the Nissan and the Mitsubishi, both heavy duty with V8 or V6 motors:


http://www.nissanusa.com/vehicles/ModelHomePage/0,,125642,00.html?destination=VLP&modelName=titan

http://www.mitsubishicars.com/MMSA/jsp/raider/features_specs.jsp

http://www.toyota.com/tundra/index.html?s_van=GM_TN_TUNDRA_INDEX


I drove a Nissan Titan briefly several months ago. It wasn't any different than driving a typical Chevy truck.

By the way, I suspect a couple of these -- if not all three -- are actually made in the USA.

 

[Fushigi]

The Mitsu is made just north of Detroit. It's a re-skinned Dodge. Looks like you want 4WD & the V8 if doing real off-roading.

Here's a shoot-out between the Toy & the Nissan.

 

[CougTek]

The Mitsu Raider is a light truck (a Dakota in oriental garnments), just like the Tacoma and the Frontier. If he goes for a light truck, he might very well get the Ridgeline instead. Even though it isn't built as sturdy as the others, it drinks less. And if he gets a light truck, it will be because he'll have forgotten his idea of moving half a forest in the bed. Remember : he's a city guy first.

All the bigger trucks like the Titan, Tundra and even the F-150 are only half-ton models. They can barely carry more in their bed than light trucks. Ford claim their F-150 can carry up to 1360Kg in its bed. Bullshit. Their spec. sheet list a max payload of ~680Kg (1500lbs), no more than the others. If he's serious about the wood load, he'll have no other choice but to get a thirsty F-350, probably with the 6L diesel engine. I haven't talked to him yet this week. I'll see what he has in mind more precisely.

And thank you all very much for the help you have provided.

 

[e_dawg]

Just be careful about using the specs to decide, Coug. You can bet the Toyota Tundra and its 4.7L V8 will be far more comfortable hauling its half-ton payload around than the Ridgeline and its 3.5L V6.

Not to mention, the Tundra is a real truck like the F-150 built with a "body on ladder frame" chassis as Gary pointed out, not a unibody (car) chassis like the Ridgeline is built from. It's like the difference between a desktop IDE drive with 200,000 hours MTBF and a server class SCSI drive with 1 million hours MTBF.

 

[Bozo]

I don't know if it's posible on all makes, but you can improve drivability by selecting an optional axle ratio. The wimpy motors that are put in light trucks these days don't produce enough torgue to pull a sick whore off a piss pot.
(That's why diesels are so popular now) My Ranger's standard axle ratio was 3.50/1 even with the larger 16" wheels & tires. I ordered it with a 4.10/1 axle ratio. Now even with a load it seldoms drops out of overdrive and is much nicer to drive. It actually has some get-up-n-go. Gas millage is the same as advertised, 16 city-19hwy.
You might have to order a trailer towing package to get the lower (higher numerically) axle ratio.

Bozo :mrgrn:

 

[e_dawg]

Good point, Bozo.

 

[CougTek]

I talked to him and he's fixed on the F-250. He says he doesn't care about the fuel cost. I didn't ask him about the additional pollution because I know he simply doesn't care. And he doesn't want the diesel engine because he fears someone will automatically steal it. Go figure.

He's the kind of guy who will take his truck every time he needs to go somewhere farther than the corner of the street. And now he'll drive something that does no more than 12mpg and I'm being optimistic. Let's say that if we save the planet from melting, it won't be because of him.

 

[Pradeep]

So I was planning on driving to NYC tomorrow in a Dodge Sprinter or similar (high-top van). Instead the rental place gives me a freaking 14' parcel truck, 11' tall (using a 350 chassis).

jtr: better stay of the bike tomorrow, at least in Manhattan