Frontier wins off road test, Ridgeline overheats

[Jesda]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5eE697aqEg[/youtube]

Nice showing for a rather dated pickup.

[Bubba1]

I suspect if the Toyota had equivalent tires to the Frontier, (they admitted the Toyota tires were worn down), it might have tested as well off road (or perhaps better) than the Frontier.

[numbnuts240]

the honda ridgeline is NOT a truck. can these journalists stop making that claim? it has a fake gap with a rubber strip to separate the "cab" from the "bed" for crying out loud.

it's built for yuppy homeowners who like to mulch their own flower beds, but then asks you to help change their brake pads and hands you a 1/4" drive ratchet when you asked for a 1/2".

[PapaSmurf2k3]

Yeah I wish I could have a meeting with Honda and just tell them to stick to what they are good at... and the Ridgeline is not on that list.

I suppose if you miniaturized that thing and just made an el camino type vehicle out of it, people wouldn't expect it to do anything but what Tito said. Pick up mulch and put a wet dog back there.

[MinisterofDOOM]

It's the EPA's fault (as if there weren't enough reasons to hate them). As with everything they do, their criteria for categorizing automobiles is completely arbitrary, to the point that two mechanically identical cars with different badges can be grouped into completely different categories. They label anything tall as a "light truck" without regard for engineering.

Example:
Subaru XV Crosstrek and Impreza. Same exact vehicle with minor cosmetic and suspension differences. The former is categorized as a light truck by the EPA while the latter is a passenger car.

Magazines use the EPA categories for a lot of their comparos (see C&Ds asinine "5 best trucks" which includes two actual truck categories and 3 groups of economy cars) which leads to crap like Ridgelines being compared to Frontiers.

[PapaSmurf2k3]

So I just watched the video start to finish and I have to say they did a pretty poor job comparing them all. Not all of the drivers sampled every truck, yet they asked each of them to vote on which one they'd want at the end???

Also, that offroading was some panzy s***. I understand they are trying to not break or scratch anything, but come on... That being said, the fact that the Honda overheated is downright pathetic.

[AZhitman]

I suspect if the Toyota had equivalent tires to the Frontier, (they admitted the Toyota tires were worn down), it might have tested as well off road (or perhaps better) than the Frontier.

Not likely. The Taco has historically struggled in off-road comparos against the Fronty.

It has gotten the nod for other, non-off-road, criteria, but the Fronty is simply better at being a truck.

[Bubba1]

Ah, so Toyota is incapable of improving? Unlike Toyota, Nissan's invested comparatively very little in the Frontier over the last 8 yrs, so one could make that argument about Nissan, not so much about 'Yota. what's really needed is a real off road test done on equally prepared vehicles with equally new (or worn) tires, perhaps done by people who actually drove them all, before asking them to decide which one is best? . My other point is if you swap the tired Taco tires with the Fronti's obvious newer ones and go real off roading, I'd wager the Taco woulda fared better and the Fronti worse. I'm not suggesting the Fronti sucks, but I am suggesting that 1) it's not that overwhelming much better than a Taco, 2) the testing here was very poor, and 3) at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter as virtually no one takes their Fronti's or Taco's seriously off road, especially newer ones. So the argument about which might slightly better "off road" is kinda hollow.

[Jesda]

My main complaint about the Frontier, after having a new one for a month in 2009 (I think I put something like 3,000 miles on it), is that the standard 4.0L automatic is painfully dull to drive. It was a Buick Century with a bed. Trouble-free, quiet, smooth, and sturdy (like a Buick) but seriously lacking in trucky mechanical goodness. It was numb, like a dental patient's face. Upgraded versions of the Frontier are much better behind the wheel.

The Tacoma has a dated crudeness about it which makes it a lot of fun but reveals its aging engineering. It's good at being a reliable pickup. It's not great (though not really BAD) at anything else. However, there was that period where the frames rotted like sour cream, I think it was about ten years ago. Toyota was generous about paying owners back for their farkup and scrapping unsafe trucks but it never should have happened. Worryingly, a lot of those trucks are still on the road in the possession of secondhand owners who are unaware of what's dangerously rotting away underneath.

That was a pretty crappy time for all of Toyota (and even Lexus) but the Tacoma seemed to suffer the most.

[Jesda]

If I buy used, it's going to be a 4.0L Frontier or an older Toyota before 2005.
If I buy new, it's a GMC Canyon.
If I like to inhale penises, then the Ridgeline is the obvious way to go.

[RicerX]

If I like to inhale penises, then the Ridgeline is the obvious way to go.

Your eloquence knows no bounds, my friend.

I am also a fan of the new Colorado/Canyon. My neighbor just brought home a new Z71 in black, and it's a sweet looking truck.

I do like the new Tacos a lot. However, if I'm buying a truck today, it's likely a Frontier (Pro4X 6MT) because there are a lot of benefits for me which include pulling from the same stack of oil filters I use for the Rogue and Q50. I like buying in bulk.

[Jesda]

Anyone ever drive a 4-cyl Frontier? Any good?

[PapaSmurf2k3]

Back when they had the KA yeah, they were sweet.
The QR time bomb is meh.

[float_6969]

Yea, this review was just useless IMHO. The Ridgeline shouldn't have been included. And the GM wasn't in an off-road package like the Nissan and Toyota were. I WOULD be interested in all 3 being compared using the same tires and in their respective off-road packages. I suspect the GM might have been at the top.