I've been thinking about my next vehicle being a used Honda Ridgeline.

Because: I would like a vehicle that will haul 4x8 lumber/sheetrock preferably without having to remove seats first. I need the ability to seat 4 people comfortably with a trunk full of stuff. Would like a 4 wheel drive. Needs to be shorter than 227 inches to fit in my garage.

wiki cliky

If you don't need the load hauling capability of a full-size pickup then it's probably a very good choice. All indications are that they are quiet, comfortable and practical while still having lots of room in the back. I'm not 100% sure about 4x8s fitting in the back so check just to be sure. You might have to run 2x4's across to hold them above the wheel wells.

It's not a real truck though

(Disclaimer - I just traded my Magnum in for a 2 year old Dodge Ram 1500)

2 times I've tried to post here and I've been cut off somehow.

I get cut off a lot - every so often it's like the server just goes away for an hour or two. I wanted to add " - a *real* truck !" to my disclaimer but wasn't able to do so before the edit window closed.

Wow... 2 posts and we're off topic. Is that a record ?

<rant> My dad had an early '70s F150, you know, in the days before trucks became steroid induced muscle bound boytoys.

It had a 126 6 banger under the hood. You could easily put stuff into and take stuff out of the box over the sides withough being 7' tall. For close to 15 years he hauled all kinds of shit through all kinds of shit and it just kept going. THAT was a working mans truck. </rant>

The overall length is probably an issue(by a couple of inches), but a 4.8L Silverado(ext cab) will get close mpg's to the Ridgeline in real world driving but has considerably more power and usability(payload, towing ect) on top of that. I looked at the Ridgeline a couple of years ago, and felt it didn't make up for the power difference with economy, amongst other things. I'm sure you can get a much better deal on a domestic pickup than a Ridgeline as well, if price is a consideration. I can't argue with Honda's reliabily or resale value, which are both excellent.

Word has it, the domestic manufacturers are looking at some smaller diesel engines for their light trucks again. Hope that happens.

I've been waiting on that to happen for the past ten years, thought it was finally going to happen a couple of years back with the same diesel V8 from the Range Rover into the Ford F150 ... "3.6-liter turbodiesel V-8 that makes 267 hp and 472 pounds-feet of torque in the Range Rover – and it helps the Rover get around 31 mpg on the highway."

Makes you want to go out and buy a Range Rover, huh.

GM was developing a 4.5L diesel up till a couple of years ago when they (nearly) went lug nuts up...word on the street is they are revisiting this motor again. Likely Ford, and perhaps Dodge will have to offer something similar to compete if GM brings it out.

Ford presently has a 4.8L in use in their LCF trucks. I could easily see this in an F150. Question is how many people would buy it. There was a reason they(all manufacturers) stopped making small diesels over here, no one bought them.

Diesels are also an expensive option over your basic small block as well. A Duramax, for eg., is something like $10,000 over a 6.0L engine (same truck), same with the Ford and Dodges, afaik.

Why would anyone want a diesel when it costs more per gallon that gasoline?

Because the mileage of a diesel can be much higher than that of a gasoline car, producing the same amount (or much greater) torque.

Not in Ontario. It depends where you live I guess. Diesels will usually last much longer than a comparable gasoline engine, in many cases it will have twice the lifetime assuming both engines are maintained. As Ken said, in many cases, diesels can get better mileage and make more torgue than gas engines...it depends on the requirements of the driver. VW gets some seriously good mileage in their clean diesels although they can be a little pricey to buy. In North America, we still tend to associate diesels with work vehicles but in Europe it's a different ball game.

VW...Clean diesels, HA! I know they make the claim but everyone I have been behind lately still puffs that black smoke out of their tailpipe just like all the other deisels, at least until North America fully cleans up our Deisel fuel. Another point against Deisels now are the new particulate filters they have and they plug up very easily and are a fortune to replace or clean or at least they few we have had to do at work so far.

61 mpg is impressive, anyway you look at it.

I always find it funny that manufacturers brag about cars getting 32 MPG, while I distinctly remember a Rabbit Diesel in the mid 80s being rated at, I think, 58 MPG.

My brother had one of those. It got crazy mpg's considering what cars were getting at the time.

61mpg is impressive if it actually achieves it in the real world,. I know of few people with Honda Fit's and they get over 50mpg combined driving.

Even if you got 55mpg, that'd make me smile! there was, in fact, a CDN car show(looked like from BC) who tested a bunch of cars for fuel consumption verses Transport Canada's numbers and the only car to BEAT the numbers was the VW diesel...when they drove it "hard" they got the same mpg's as TransCan but when they drove conservatively they actually did better than the TC numbers. Only things that bother me about VW....expensive to buy, and they seem to charge more for service from what I've seen/heard.

Good to know that VW can do as claimed, a rarity these days.

I know, usually you can figure on 10-15% less mpg's than Transport Canada's ratings in real world driving.