Ridgeline Fuel Efficiency

2017 Honda Ridgeline boosts fuel economy by 5 mpg

Quote :

The 2017 Ridgeline brings Honda back into the pickup segment later this spring, but the automaker has so far kept quiet about many of the new truck's specs. Thanks to the government, we now have fuel-economy ratings for the new model, and they compare well to the competition.

Front-drive versions of the new Ridgeline get 19 miles per gallon in the city and 26 mpg highway. If you opt for all-wheel drive, the numbers are a point lower, at 18/25 mpg. That's are a decent upgrade over the last-gen truck, which was only offered with all-wheel drive and had ratings of 15/21 mpg for the 2014 model year. The related Honda Pilot crossover, which was new for 2016, does a touch better, with maximum fuel economy of 20/27 mpg on a front-drive model with the optional nine-speed automatic.

Comparing the Ridgeline with the fresh crop of updated midsized pickups, the Honda fares well. For comparable models with a V6 engine, automatic transmission, and four-wheel drive, the Toyota Tacoma is the closest competitor, at 18/23 mpg. The Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon aren't too far behind that at 17/24 mpg. The Honda actually comes pretty close to the ratings of four-cylinder, rear-drive versions of its competitors, beating some on the highway.

Honda will exclusively offer the 2017 Ridgeline with a 3.5-liter V6 and a six-speed automatic. The company doesn't yet have powertrain specs, but the same engine makes 280 horsepower and 262 pound-feet of torque in the Pilot, so expect similar figures for the pickup. An in-bed stereo system is among the truck's innovative features, which should make the Ridgeline a great vehicle for tailgating and outdoor parties, and now we at least know it won't use that much fuel getting there.

AutoBlog

Fuel economy is impressive. But I wonder how it handles, tows, overall responsiveness....etc. Still not a big fan of its looks either but not too bad.

Although I feel it's an improvement over the outgoing Ridgeline, it's still a soft trucklet. Definitely not a worker. Good grocery hauler.

I agree with Greg, it looks better but still needs improvement to be a real truck.

The fuel economy is pretty close with the exception of the Nissan. But who knows what the true mileage actually is after finding out that Mitsubishi had lied for over 10 years about their mileage? Although their vehicles were never imported to the U.S.

I'll take the Colorado with the diesel.

Another perspective...

The 2017 Honda Ridgeline's Fuel Economy Isn’t Much Better Than A Full-Size Truck’s

Quote :

Among reasons to build a front-wheel drive, unibody pickup is fuel economy, so you’d expect the new Honda Ridgeline to conquer its truck competition without breaking a sweat. But now the Pilot-based truck’s fuel economy numbers are in, and they further highlight the trouble with the mid-size truck segment.

The Honda Ridgeline, which I think looks like a promising little truck, is also perhaps the least “truck-y” pickup on the market in large part because of its unibody, front-wheel drive-based architecture. But you’d think those bones and that powertrain would offer less mass, fewer parasitic drivetrain losses, better aerodynamics and thus better gas mileage, right?

And while it’s true that the Ridgeline’s architecture does offer significant packaging benefits, and that it is at the top of the pack in fuel economy compared to the other rear-drive based, body-on-frame mid-size trucks, the differences aren’t stark.

Here’s how the Ridgeline, which comes with a version of the naturally aspirated 3.5-liter V6 from the Honda Pilot, compares to the automatic V6 Tacoma and Colorado:

We’ll start with the two-wheel drive models:


Here’s a comparison of four-wheel drive variants:


So the Ridgeline ekes out an extra MPG combined compared to the others. Though in engineering terms, one MPG is a huge deal (and as a percentage, 5% better fuel economy is significant), I think consumer might have expected a bigger gap between the crossover-based truck and the other “truckier” trucks.

But how does the new truck compare to bigger full-size trucks with similar naturally aspirated V6s? Well, it doesn’t exactly crush them. Here are the Ram, Silverado and F150 rear-wheel drive models:


And four-wheel drive models:


So the unibody, mid-size, front-wheel drive Honda Ridgeline scores only 1 MPG better than a body-on-frame, rear-wheel drive full-size Ram 1500, and the all-wheel drive model scores only 2 MPG higher than the four-wheel drive full-sizers.

To many consumers, this small difference is surprising, but to anyone who’s been following the mid-size truck segment, this is old news; small pickup trucks have struggled in the marketplace thanks to pricing and fuel economy too similar to those of full-size trucks.

Part of the fuel economy issue has to do with the shape of a pickup truck, which is inherently not quite as aerodynamic as something with a roof that extends backwards (the Pilot crossover gets slightly better fuel economy than the Ridgeline). And part of it has to do with manufacturers’ unwillingness to sacrifice interior volume, thus yielding similarly large frontal areas (which contribute to high vehicle drag) and 4,000-plus pound curb weights.

If a front-drive unibody Honda can’t put down impressive fuel economy figures, I’m just not sure this segment of trucks is going to catch on.

Truck Yeah

Makes one wonder how Honda can make a business case for this "truck".

Time will tell, but it's not looking too good at this stage.

I can tell you that RAm MPG is overstated and the computer is optimistic, mine seems to have got a touch worse over time

mine has 15/21/17 on the window and gets less if you hand calc