Ah, so JD Powers' study on initial is less accurate than your personal opinion on the same subject, because you, of course, know far more about the industry than JD Powers does. C'mon, be reasonable here. I know that JD Powers shouldn't be used to split hairs, but they give a good idea of the general quality of various makes of cars. For example, you shouldn't look at the list and say "Nissan obviously builds a higher quality car than Mazda because they're ranked one place higher" but you could look at the list and be fairly certain that Honda, ranked near the top, has better initial quality than either of those brands, which are ranked near the bottom.

Have you owned a new car from one of the Big 3 lately? Their quality has greatly improved since the 80s, along with the quality of most other automakers. Their cars are very competitive performance-wise most others in their class and price range(look at the SRT4, Grand Prix Comp G, Corvette, and even the Mustang) and do all of this while attaining decent gas mileage, especially the GMs. These cars aren't perfect, but they are certainly on the same level as their competitors.

Before you go back to saying "Well, Hondas are more reliable and won't break down on you like a crappy American truck would," I would like to direct you to this site. If you look at the list carefully, you'd notice that Honda has just as many cars on the lemon list as GM does and one more than Ford does. The majority of GM's and Ford's trucks don't even show up on this list, while cars like the RSX, TL, A4, and Impreza do. Of course, the American companies are the ones with the quality problems, not the Japanese. You could just shrug this off like you did the JD Power study, saying that the NHTSA just biased against foreign cars or some such nonsense, but then you'd look somewhat foolish since this is an objective study based on hard numbers. If you concede that this list is accurate, though, you may be chagrined to realize that this supports most of what the JD Powers survey reported, namely that the quality gap between American and Japanese cars is indeed shrinking. I'm not saying that there is no gap, mind you. After having experience with an 8 year old GM and a 6 year old Honda, I'd be more surprised at having small issues (squeaks, blown fuses, etc.) with a new Honda than with a new GM, but I would be equally shocked to experience a major problem (blown head gasket, blown alternator, oil leaks, etc.) with either one.

Of course, this thread is about trucks, not cars. When you say that all American trucks have on the others out there is torque and payload capacity, you sum up their advantages rather nicely. A truck is supposed to be a working vehicle, not an economy vehicle. Torque and payload capacity are two of the most important things to consider when buying a truck. And, whether you would like to believe it or not, most of those trucks are reliable and well made, even moreso than the Big 3's cars are. In fact, those trucks have fewer issues than RSXs and S2000s do, but I don't see you stereotyping all Hondas for poor reliability because of their few cars on the lemon list. I know that you really like Hondas (which is quite alright; I am also a Honda fan. Most Hondas are well made, quality automobiles that deliver somewhat decent performance and great reliability for the price), but you shouldn't let the way you feel about Honda blind you to the fact that other car companies out there do make quality vehicles. That's a ricer/fanboy attitude to have, regardless of whether or not you've ever desecrated your car with a fart can and a park bench wing, and it's really blinding you to some great cars (and trucks) out there. Appreciating all kinds of cars is what makes being an enthusiast fun and worthwhile; by limiting yourself to only one small subset of vehicles you're really just cutting down on your enjoyment of the automotive world.

I'm not an automatic Honda fan. Current Civic I wouldn't buy. Wouldn't buy the Element. Accord, Pilot, S2000, and CRV I would buy.

If Honda or Toyota offers a higher quality truck, then I would not touch a Big 3 truck if I had to get a truck. The simple fact is Honda and Toyota do. Are you selectively forgetting what almost all truck comparisons that include a Toyota truck versus the Big 3 have concluded? I'm not talking a few mags, I'm talking virtually all the mag comparisons. They all mention the same things. There is no doubt. Don't limit yourself to initial quality/reliability surveys.

BTW, I'm not biased against the Big 3 trucks. I'm biased against crap engineering and crap build quality. Notice I didn't compliment Nissan trucks. Nissan trucks and almost all their cars are like the model for doing a hack job successfully, if you ever wanted a model for that. Their trucks and cars are put together like Frankenstein: bits and pieces put together without synergy or proper R & D.

The Big 3 built many crappy cars in the 80s and early 90s, and look what happened to their share of the car market. It doesn't take long for people to realize if a product is crap. The fact that the F-150 has been the best-selling vehicle in the country for many years is evidence enough that it is a good product. Despite what you have said, people will not continue to buy a product if they lack confidence in it.



Actually most mags picked the F-150 over any other full-size truck. Don't make statements like this if you have no idea what you're talking about.


Why do you think you're qualified to make blanket statements about automakers? You shouldn't be making assertions like this based solely on your opinion. Throughout this entire thread you have degraded various automakers, but you have yet to provide a shred of evidence supporting these views. How can you possibly state that your opinion is "simple fact?

Most objective data supports the notion that new and recent vehicles from most automakers have very high initial quality and are reliable. It's true that some automakers hold an edge in certain areas, but that certainly is not reason enough to dismiss all products from other makers as you are doing. In case you are forming the opinion that I am a domestic car zealot, my previous 3 cars have included a '90 Integra, a '92 Mitsubishi 3000GT, and a '99 Accord. I did not post in this thread with the intention of starting a "domestic vs. Asian" debate. I was simply stating that this new Honda truck is hardly a truck, and if you want a vehicle with truck-like capabilities, consider something else. If Honda were to make a body-on-frame truck with a torquey V-8 engine, I'm sure it would be a great product.

What is the reason to prefer a body-on-frame truck over a unibody?

If a better truck exists, then why buy from the Big 3? Toyota already has better trucks in overall quality, materials, refinement, and technology, regardless of the fact the F-150 won Motor Trend's Truck of the Year over the Tundra. Is anyone surprised? Mustang, Chrysler 300, Thunderbird. Come on.

Why do I think I'm qualified? Where is my shred of evidence? Um, the earth is approximately round, p < .05. I only state the obvious when it's obvious. If you take a wishful deep breath and say yeah you think it's better overall, you might find if you instead break things down into their components, the components don't add up. The informed consumer must realize that sometimes, like in the Motor Trend Truck of the Year, the mags purposely push some factors over others, e.g., price to HP value, sentimentality, ability to change the market or American society. etc. But when you look at quality, materials, workmanship, technology, and engineering, the Big 3 trucks lose to Toyota trucks. And now and in the future, they will lose to Honda as well.

My father has an 03 and he loves it. Before he got the E he looked at most of the other SUVs on the market and wasn't happy with the cargo capacity. He wanted something that he could use for work (civil engineer / land surveyor) and for toting his guns to the range. The E does both very well.

I've driven my dad's Element a couple of times. It handles surprisingly well and the engine is peppy for an automatic. Some people think the E is ugly, but then again, some people say the same thing about the 8. I disagree with both. I think they're unique; and in the case of the E, quirky.

It's the quirkiness of the E that appeals to my wife. We went to the PA auto show this past weekend and spent more time with the E than anywhere else. My wife liked the E so much that she and I are going to test drive one on Saturday. If she likes the way the stick drives, then we will most likely get one to replace her POS VW.

It's obvious that you have no idea what you're talking about. You don't even know why a body-on-frame construction is better for a truck. The answer is that body-on-frame construction is inherently stronger than unibody and therefore allows for greater towing capacity, payload, and has more rigidity to handle off-road terrain. This is the third time I've stated this fact in this thread, which leads me to believe you didn't even read it carefully.

Once again, you are stating your opinions as if they are facts. I call you out on your claim that the magazines all like Toyota better than Ford trucks, and then you backtrack and call the credibility of these magazines into question. Which is it, buddy? All of the magazines clearly stated in their reviews of the F-150 that it has the best interior of any full-size truck. It also has best-in-class towing and payload capacity. I'd say your opinion about Toyota trucks having the best quality, materials, fit & finish, and technology is not shared by most automotive journalists. God forbid if someone disagrees with your perception of the "obvious" that all Big 3 products are crap. That's the way you're coming off in this thread.

Every bit of objective evidence presented here conflicts with your assertions, yet you choose to discredit this evidence and instead claim that your perception of the "obvious" trumps any hard data. How can anyone argue with that logic? I know I'm not going to try anymore.

If they don't offer it with a V8, it won't gain market share. The new Tacoma will eat its lunch in the V6 market as well.

And, since my wife's 2002 $30K+ Acura TL-S is now having its 3rd transmission, will require its second set of brake rotors (at our expense), and seems to have developed "a cracked engine mount" (never been hit) also at our expense I have decided that Honda tends to make a sucking noise.

A little strong there, huh? I didn't back track at all with the mags, as you know being an insider. Objective evidence stands against what I said? New F-150 interior cream of the crop in fit and materials? For example, mags liked the million modular configurations, which is not a meaningful factor to me. The interiors are still crap. What about overall quality? Please open your eyes and realize that you and I are emphasizing different factors. I also independently mentioned torque and payload capacity. Most people who drive trucks hauling a ton of crap in the bed and need to go big time off-roading? Doesn't matter where you are in the US, most truck beds are empty. "Some young clown" driving it because that's what they've always driven. "Some young clown" not driving it for payload capacity or offroad capability. Sure many people buy trucks for the utility but a hell of a lot don't. I go for technology, refinement, and quality. You can go for Neanderthalic factors if you feel like it. Everything I said before stands.

The Ford F150 has the quietest interior in its class, according to Ford, and also has one of the smoothest rides of any body-on-frame truck (including the Toyota and Nissan), which, to me, is a measure of a vehicles' refinement. It's also one of the best performing trucks to boot, which just goes to show how much research and technology were put in to this truck. As far as quality goes, we know that you don't believe in objective studies, but please, try to come up with a better argument than "Well, I said it and it's what I really think so it holds more water than any objective comparison that you guys can dig up." You must be able to see the logical flaws in that kind of reasoning.

I read all that. You have to sense the language in those articles, especially car or truck of the year articles written by Motor Trend but not limited to them. Can anyone cite a single negative comment in all the reviews on the new Mustang? Think about that one. The truck articles are a little different. Some factors they will comment head-to-head against other trucks. Some factors they just laud and laud without mentioning other trucks. In the case of the unique and super stiff platform, they mention how Ford has never done anything like it before. Is it simply impressive by Ford historical standards or is it impressive compared to everything else? The suspension and ride comments? Finally, a real win for the F-150. The engine? More power doesn't say much about technology, engineering, or refinement. Conversely, it's almost as powerful as the Titan's engine but that doesn't mean I would prefer the Titan's engine (or even Nissan's VQ engine regardless of the engine awards). Remember when Dodge first came out with the 18 wheeler diesel cab front end design? Dodge gave it some torquey Cummins diesel engine, fresh styling, and innovative interiors and it was winning magazine reviews going up against Chevy and Ford. Even back then, would you have bought that Dodge truck? For me, not a chance.

And what about build quality? I wait year after year like some people do for the next new model by whatever company that will trump the current best. The Civic was the best compact when it first came out, but it is at the end of its life cycle now. One year ago, the Mazda 3 came out and trumped the Civic and all other compacts, so one year ago I would have bought the Mazda 3. But now, the new Civic is almost out and I would wait for it in anticipation that it will in turn trump the Mazda 3. The F-150 is new and has received a ton of hype, some real some not so real. Do you expect Toyota to trump it soon? A new Honda Ridgeline is almost out. Would you wait for the Honda and consider it even though it's not in the same class as the F-150? I would definitely wait for the next Toyota and the new Honda if the wait is not more than a year. What about several years in the future when another new F-150 and Dodge and Chevy are going to come out? If there will be only a one year wait by that time, would you wait for the new Ford, Dodge, and Chevy before purchasing a Toyota or Honda truck? I very probably would not.

So what is the difference in considerations here? You might accuse me of being biased for Toyota and Honda and against the Big 3, but I would disagree. I would say that I'm biased for overall quality, historically and present. OVERALL QUALITY. I don't trust the quality of the new F-150, not at all. Name one Ford truck or car that is worth buying for quality and don't even dare say Mustang.

you mentioned something about initial quality graded by JD Powers.

I read on this form that the problem with Mazda's ranking there is that their average rating is brought down by the minivans and pickups which have Ford engines. If you only looked at Japan-built Mazdas, you'd find a better ranking for Mazda.

I have no experience with American trucks. Never owned a truck. I owned a Pontiac Firebird which supposedly was the most reliable one in the F-body series. I bought that car brand-new and absolutely babied it.. every 6 weeks to the dealer for an oil change, all dealer recommended services (more than the manual requests) etc - and the car still developed several problems, some within the 36k mile warranty.

My conclusion is that American cars (or at least Pontiac) gives a 36000 mile only warranty for a reason.

One difference is that Japanese and European plants use more robots than American car manufacturers. From the Economist: It takes 36 h to build a Chevy Aveo but only 27 h to build a comparable Corolla. And then the Corolla sells for more, but that's another story.

Maybe that thing about robots is true for truck building too.

Also, as reactionary said above, German cars are going downhill too. Hard for me to say that, since I *am* German, I lived there over 30 years... but I'd *never* buy a German car now. They too are outsourcing to Eastern Europe and cannot keep the quality up. It will take 5 years, but then their good reputation will be forgotten.

Just as it takes the Big 3 10+ years to get rid of their negative image now.

Well I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, because nothing I say will change your opinion and vice versa. I have owned and/or been involved in the engineering of many vehicle lines, and the differences in quality, reliability, and technology among different makes are not nearly as significant as one might think. Most new cars from established manufacturers are very good. As a consumer, one should be very happy with quality of product available at this point in time.

I question what this table is worth. A car that has more electronic equipment will give an owner more opportunity to complain. A car that is very basic ... will show as "very good" - that's why the Neon shows only 5000.

Also that list shows absolute numbers of complaints. One should divide that with the number of models sold.
The Focus or the Acura RSX show high numbers (~12k) but they sell often. The Corvette shows 9000 but where I live, I see many more RSX than Corvettes on the road.

Fair enough. Our family used to have a bunch of American cars when I was growing up. Maybe one day, my own family will too. But just not right now. Putting trust in the quality would not be prudent.

I would be inclined to agree with that, except for one thing. Ford (which is ranked separately from Mazda in the nameplate rankings) builds vehicles that are almost exclusively equipped with Ford engines and are largely made in North America. However, Ford ranks higher than Mazda does on this initial quality survey. It would be odd if Ford engines were only unreliable in Mazdas and not in Fords. Mazda does modify the engines for their own use, but any problems caused by these modifications would be the fault of the Mazda engineers who worked on them, not the ones from Ford. The poorly designed engines would only affect the quality of the cars that are equipped with these engines, most of which are Mazdas.

You could be correct, however. Ford-designed engines may be the cause of Mazda's apparent lack of quality in that survey. Now, if these engines are unreliable across the board, then something must be pulling Ford above Mazda. That something would have to be the group of vehicles Ford makes that do not share components with Mazda vehicles, such as the Crown Vic, Mustang, and Ford trucks. The sheer number of trucks sold, especially when compared to the far lesser totals for the other Ford-parts-only vehicles they make, would give these vehicles a lot of weight in a survey like this one. This would lead one to believe that the trucks are reliable enough that they counteract the general lack of quality found in Ford cars (which was your assertion) and raise Ford's initial quality rating a substantial amount, bolstering my argument that Ford trucks are indeed decently reliable.

What good are extra amenities and electronic gizmos if they malfunction frequently enough to justify lemon lawing a car? More expensive cars with all sorts of electronics should still be held to some standard of reliability. Remember, this is a list of cars that had the highest lemon lawed to number sold ratio (more on that down below), so none of the cars on this list are "very good" but instead would rate "quite poor". For a person to lemon law a car he or she usually has to prove that the car has some persistent defect. A complicated electronic system that shorts out once doesn't justify lemon lawing a car; a complicated electronic system that shorts out multiple times and can't be reliably repaired does.

The number next to the model name is the Complaint Index Ratio, not just the number of complaints. From the website,

:cool:

It's kind of funny that you should mention Pontiacs, because my parents own one and it has been rock solid for the last 8 years <knocks on wood>. I don't know what year your Firebird was, though, but even the newer ones were nothing but an impressive engine and drive train dropped in a very basic, cheap car.

Reactionary - Buckeye said pretty much everything I would have about our debate. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree :)

On an unrelated note, do you know if the new Civic will keep the current one's MacPherson strut suspension or will it switch back to the double wishbone suspension that the old ones had? I've heard that the double wishbone cars are more responsive and much easier to work with. If the Civic can match the fun factor of a Mazda3 in the corners I just may consider one in a few years. Just wondering if you've heard anything about the new one, because I haven't.

No I haven't heard anything. Didn't even think about the possibility of returning to double wishbones up front. That would be great, like the good ol' days.

Let's try to get this back on topic.

I think those who say the Ridgeline will never be able to compete with a "real" truck miss the point. It's not intended too. Instead you have a very well thought out truck solves problems instead of stoking egos.

Let's look:

5,000 lb towing capacity;
1,100 payload capacity;
The only mid-size truck that can lay a sheet of plywood flat (according to Automobile magazine);
Uni-body construction, which is more rigid and lighter than frame-on-rail;
Independent suspension;
That cool weather-proof trunk/cooler;
A very spacious four door cabin;
Efficient FWD on the freeway, but 70% directed to the rear wheels when you need it.

I've never been a "truck guy." No offense to those that are - it's just not my thing. I like my road vehicles to be, well, road vehicles. But I'll admit to coveting a truck bed for some of my recreational activities, and I'm pretty sure I'll own something I want to tow some day - either a race car or a boat.

I'd consider buying a Ridgeline - decent handling & safety on the road, plenty of load and towing capacity, and more than enough off-road capacity to satisfy me. It'll never win a one-upmanship contest and will be snikered at by the big-3 truck crowd, but it seems intelligently designed and I think Honda will sell plenty.

And, if I had even more $$$, then I'd be in a Range Rover Sport. Now there's a "truck" that makes me drool.

I drive a honda. They are good cars but they are cars like any other and will have the same problems other cars will. Granted they do often have excellent build quality for the price but they are not magical. That piece of ugly crap truck makes me lose so much respect for honda (not that there has been anything from honda to be excited about lately). I wish they would stop being so conservative and build a real sports car coupe or anything that is actually exciting for that matter and not front wheel drive. Its pathetic that they won't build a V8 even for a freakin truck.

Ahem...

Please forgive me for putting this thread back on topic...

If you're really curious about the Ridgeline, read this:

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=103924

Of note:

It's not built off of the Pilot platform - the platform is 90% new.

Check out the way the test drivers claim it handled the cone course, loaded, compared to the Tacoma and the SportTrac.

Check out the towing comparison against the F-150 with the optional 5.4L V8.

Looks like Honda may have a winner here. Of course, my sig betrays my bias. All in all, still a very positive review.

I'm amazed at the completely negative reactions on this board. It does seem like a winner, even though it's not going to appeal to your average Dodge Ram driver.

Another tid-bit from the Edmunds article - the Ridgline is twice as stiff in bending, and 20 times as stiff torsionally, as the leading mid-size truck. However, they also said it is a combination of unibody & fram-rail construction.

Gee what a surprise, the Honda truck looked good in a comparison test set up BY Honda. I don't see how anyone can draw the conclusion that the Ridgeline performed anywhere near as well as an F-150 in that test setup. First of all, why use a SportTrac for the loaded bed comparison? Isn't this truck supposed to be competing with full size pickups? It seems like a major stretch to throw the SportTrac in that class. Why not use the F-150 in that comparison... hmm let me guess, it would outperform the Honda.

Next, the trailer tow comparo. What a joke, the only thing it proved is that the Honda is capable of meeting its towing specs! The F-150 with 5.4L V-8 can tow up to 15,000 lbs depending on wheelbase and axle ratio. To even include a towing comparison with an severely underloaded F-150 completely baffles me. These media demonstrations for new products are such a joke. The tests are rigged such that the new product will always perform well in comparison to competitive products. It's not just Honda--all the manufaturers do it.

That being said, I believe the Honda will be a great truck for those who want to do LIGHT towing or haul LIGHT payloads (let's face it, 5,000lbs of towing and 1,500 lbs of payload are not much in the realm of full-size trucks). Those who need more truck-like capability won't even give this thing a look.

...just curious... what did you read that suggests that the test was "rigged"?