The best mid-size truck for 2019? Honda!

[Groover]

2019 mid-sized test

There is a lot to like about each one but also a lot to not like. None of them make me want to trade in my 2008 Ranger for running errands around town. A big chunk of that is the price of these trucks.

[Groover]

swines wrote:

IdaD wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:
Wow, you are getting amazing mileage out of yours considering the average real world combined average on Fuelly.com for 2017-2019 Ridgelines is 20.4 mpg. It is almost unbelievable. 😉

It's almost like anecdotal reports of extremely good fuel economy aren't accurate or something. Weird.

I never seem to get the best mileage either. I just finished a 3750 mile trip with my F350 dually crew cab, 6.7 liter diesel (3.55 rear end) with a Bigfoot 2500, 10.6 camper. The truck averaged 11.8 mpg for the entire trip. I always wonder about people claiming 15+ mpg for the same type of rig and wonder how they manage that...

You don't mention your speed. That makes a lot of difference. I can get 12mpg out of my 35' motorhome at 62mph but it drops to low 11's if I kick it up to the low 70's. It is a diesel.

I used to carry a 12.5ft camper in a 1991 F250 with a 460 and got 10.1mpg in the low 60's. I let my 17 year old son take it on a trip. He had more time than cash so he drove at 55mph and got 12mpg out of it.

Also, I have noticed that most people that really brag about their fuel economy only spot check their mileage and tend to remember the one tank that gave them the best mileage.

[swines]

IdaD wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:
Wow, you are getting amazing mileage out of yours considering the average real world combined average on Fuelly.com for 2017-2019 Ridgelines is 20.4 mpg. It is almost unbelievable. 😉

It's almost like anecdotal reports of extremely good fuel economy aren't accurate or something. Weird.

I never seem to get the best mileage either. I just finished a 3750 mile trip with my F350 dually crew cab, 6.7 liter diesel (3.55 rear end) with a Bigfoot 2500, 10.6 camper. The truck averaged 11.8 mpg for the entire trip. I always wonder about people claiming 15+ mpg for the same type of rig and wonder how they manage that...

[badercubed]

I love my Canyon and I was coming out of a 3/4 ton gasser. Does everything I need a truck to do and it tows our new 5,250lb loaded trailer like a dream. It's every bit of truck that a standard pre-2010 1/2 ton is.

[Nutinelse2do]

rhagfo wrote:

Nutinelse2do wrote:
Yeah, no. Thanks. We’ll keep our Ford Ranger. It has been averaging over 24mpg, and have experienced none of what the author of that article talks about with problems.

Plus, it’s a real truck, and is the most comfortable vehicle we have ever owned, including a 911 turbo Porsche, and a 500 series Mercedes convertible

Just wondering what the yellow sticker payload on your Ranger is?

Just the truck... for occupants and cargo is 1496. At the scale, fully loaded, she is 4800, so 700lbs less than our 2008 Colorado

Says she can tow 7500, but, if we ever get our lot, and a little trailer, max we’re planning is 4500 fully loaded on the trailer

Easiest vehicle we have ever towed. She actually has a neutral 4 down tow setting on the computer, and she tows like a dream.

Really hate to say it, but this is the very first Ford either of us have ever owned. We have been die hard Chevy fans our entire lives, so it’s a change, but a great one.

Super fun to drive, zippy, handles awesome, and looks great. We love our baby Raptor!

[ShinerBock]

Bionic Man wrote:
Shiner, I know you’ve mentioned that your Cummins is tuned. Is your Bimmer the same?

If so, it is a given that the computer stated MPG in your cars will be off more than most.

I’m not saying that the computer is always dead on accurate with factory tuning, but it is closer than with an aftermarket tune.

I also track all my fuel use in an app. On my old 03 CTD the computer was always within 1 MPG prior to tuning with a Smarty Jr. After that it was up to 3 MPG off. My 2012 is reasonably accurate - but only for a rolling 300 or so mile range under similar driving conditions. So it’s accurate on long trips for an OEM tank.

I deleted and tuned the BMW around July 2018 so you can see the difference in the graph. Deleting and tuning the car didn't really make that much of a difference mileage wise as it did in my truck. My truck got a little more accurate after a tune.

[Desert_Captain]

Groover wrote:
"I bought my 2019 Ridgeline about 6 weeks and 3,000 miles ago and have been nothing but delighted. This is probably due to the fact that I rarely "need" a truck but it sure is nice to have one available. I just returned from a 1,455 mile trip from Tucson to Angel Fire NM and back towing a 10' cargo trailer {14' overall} hauling my Polaris Rzr {Rzr and Trailer weighed in at 2,580#} and I got 16.1 mpg cruising at 65."

From what I personally observe typical speed on the interstates today is around 80mph. The difference in mpg between 65 and 80 in my experience is very significant, generally 25 to 30%.

My trailer currently has ST tires that are max speed rated for 65 mph. At some point I will replace them with LT's but until then I simply will not exceed 65. I stay in the right lane with the cruise control set at 65 this on I-10 out of Tucson and I-25 through New Mexico. Both are good roads and we had no issues with the many folks who cruise 80+.

I was pleased to consistently get 16 mpg as shown by the computer and confirmed by the simple math at each fill up. Like they say...

There are three kinds of people on this planet, those that can do math and those that can't.

:S

:B

[Bionic_Man]

Shiner, I know you’ve mentioned that your Cummins is tuned. Is your Bimmer the same?

If so, it is a given that the computer stated MPG in your cars will be off more than most.

I’m not saying that the computer is always dead on accurate with factory tuning, but it is closer than with an aftermarket tune.

I also track all my fuel use in an app. On my old 03 CTD the computer was always within 1 MPG prior to tuning with a Smarty Jr. After that it was up to 3 MPG off. My 2012 is reasonably accurate - but only for a rolling 300 or so mile range under similar driving conditions. So it’s accurate on long trips for an OEM tank.

[ShinerBock]

Desert Captain wrote:
ShinerBock;

Not sure why you have such a knot in your knickers... hope you feel better soon.

My reported milage is supported by fuel pump/calculator numbers. By driving intelligently {operative word here being "gently"} it is no problem to get the higher end of the mileage spectrum.

Over the last 6+ years and 51,000+ miles I have gotten 9.5 mpg out of our 2012 V-10 5 speed Torque Shift 24' Nexus Phantom 23 P Class C which includes a small amount {84 hours} of generator time.

Disbelieve as you see fit but proper maintenance and an educated right foot can easily bring the mileage I am experiencing.

If you cannot get similar mileage I can only suggest you try harder.

:C

I know how to get better mileage out of a vehicles. I consistently get better combined mileage than out of my 328d than the EPA 43 mph highway mileage. However, I am stating that you have to take what the computer states with a grain of salt and if those are the numbers you are quoting then I would have to take what you are stating with a grain of salt. It is even less accurate over multiple tanks on a trip computer.

Case in point is my BMW 328d commuter car. The orange line below is the computer and the blue line is calculated. As you can see, they vary wildly and can be anywhere between 1-3 mpg off. My trip computer over multiple f-ll-ups is generally off by 2-4 mpg.



Based on other Honda Ridgeline owners reporting the same inconsistencies in the link I posted earlier, I have a hard time believing that your's is the only one in the world is dead nuts accurate. So you can continue to post what the computers says, I just won't believe it, and I am sure you don't care if I believe it or not so we can leave it at that.

[parker_rowe]

Groover wrote:
"I bought my 2019 Ridgeline about 6 weeks and 3,000 miles ago and have been nothing but delighted. This is probably due to the fact that I rarely "need" a truck but it sure is nice to have one available. I just returned from a 1,455 mile trip from Tucson to Angel Fire NM and back towing a 10' cargo trailer {14' overall} hauling my Polaris Rzr {Rzr and Trailer weighed in at 2,580#} and I got 16.1 mpg cruising at 65."

From what I personally observe typical speed on the interstates today is around 80mph. The difference in mpg between 65 and 80 in my experience is very significant, generally 25 to 30%.

Pulling a trailer at 80mph would definitely tank the mileage quite a bit.

I pull mine at 60-65 as well though. It's bigger than the OP's, but smaller than what a lot of the people on this site pull.

[Groover]

"I bought my 2019 Ridgeline about 6 weeks and 3,000 miles ago and have been nothing but delighted. This is probably due to the fact that I rarely "need" a truck but it sure is nice to have one available. I just returned from a 1,455 mile trip from Tucson to Angel Fire NM and back towing a 10' cargo trailer {14' overall} hauling my Polaris Rzr {Rzr and Trailer weighed in at 2,580#} and I got 16.1 mpg cruising at 65."

From what I personally observe typical speed on the interstates today is around 80mph. The difference in mpg between 65 and 80 in my experience is very significant, generally 25 to 30%.

[Desert_Captain]

ShinerBock;

Not sure why you have such a knot in your knickers... hope you feel better soon.

My reported milage is supported by fuel pump/calculator numbers. By driving intelligently {operative word here being "gently"} it is no problem to get the higher end of the mileage spectrum.

Over the last 6+ years and 51,000+ miles I have gotten 9.5 mpg out of our 2012 V-10 5 speed Torque Shift 24' Nexus Phantom 23 P Class C which includes a small amount {84 hours} of generator time.

Disbelieve as you see fit but proper maintenance and an educated right foot can easily bring the mileage I am experiencing.

If you cannot get similar mileage I can only suggest you try harder.

:C

[rhagfo]

Nutinelse2do wrote:
Yeah, no. Thanks. We’ll keep our Ford Ranger. It has been averaging over 24mpg, and have experienced none of what the author of that article talks about with problems.

Plus, it’s a real truck, and is the most comfortable vehicle we have ever owned, including a 911 turbo Porsche, and a 500 series Mercedes convertible

Just wondering what the yellow sticker payload on your Ranger is?

[ksss]

I like CAR and DRIVER for their articles about cars. Probably one of my favorite auto rags. Their name says it all. Doesnt surprise me a bit they like the Ridgeline....its a car. If your baseline is what is more car like, the Ridgeline certainly is that and that can be enough for some buyers.

I cant stand the looks them, frame or no frame. The dealer here has some with wheel flairs and bigger tires trying to move them and they look even more pathetic. I see more Nissan XDs than I do new Ridgelines here. I imagine in more urban areas they are more appealing, although lookings at the sales numbers, they arent selling that great nationwide. I think like the XD it is a niche vehicle. The difference is the Honda name can sell the niche.

[FishOnOne]

ShinerBock wrote:
The Jeep Gladiator Overland is $55k? I paid less then that out the door for my 2014 Ram 2500 CTD. I would hate to see how much the Rubicon version costs. Probably another $5k on top of that.

I looked at 4 Gladiators a few weeks back with 2 in the Overland and 2 in the Rubicon packages and both where ~$55k. The Rubicons did not have painted fenders so they where lower end units.