Anyone else catch this(July 2017)?
It's kinda funny, in an infuriating kinda way.
They compared a $44k Ridgeline(which comes in a whopping ONE cab/bed configuration),
to a $36k Colorado(v6 LT 4wd SHORT bed).
Their first paragraph was devoted to blabbering on about how the 'Mid-Size' class is bullshit, as there's nothing smaller.
Oh, and (something I didn't know) EVERY Colorado is LONGER than a single-cab, short-bed Silverado(you learn something new every day).
They ended this little diatribe with a curious statement. Words to the effect of mid-size pickups are for people who don't really need a pickup.
That should tell you right there how this little comparison was gonna end.
We'll break it down anyway:
The Colorado has MORE, ground clearance, power AND torque, front interior volume(the Honda has more rear, yay), a deeper bed(The Honda has more length(again, they tested a SHORT bed Chevy) and width, payload, and towing, and accelerates quicker in EVERY category they test it(0-30,60,100, 1/4 mile etc). It's also lighter by a tiny bit(25lbs), and they both stop from 70mph in 182'. Oh, and the Honda holds .77g on the skid pad compared to the Colorado's .74g-which simply means the Colorado is a truck, and the Ridgeline is a car.
They towed 4544lbs of Miata-on-a-steel-trailer, and of course the Ridgeline wheezed like an asthmatic kid, and the Colorado towed it just fine.
The Ridgeline carried a total of 24 2-cubic-foot mulch bags-IF you threw 3 into it's under-bed storage, and the Colorado(again SHORT BED) carried 23.
The Ridgeline of course won. Why?
Because you think you're in an SUV(it's of course based on a minivan), it's rear 'quarters' are more roomy, and it rides like a car.
Here's the rub: They based their 'review' on the viewpoint of someone who 'doesn't really need a truck', as the Colorado blew it away from a "I need a pickup" viewpoint.
I came away with a couple questions.. Usually PRICE plays a mild part(being a little sarcastic) in vehicle purchases, yet beyond listing each's, they didn't bother to touch on the fact that the Colorado was SIX-THOUSAND-DOLLARS cheaper.
Staying on that point, since the Honda was 42k, why didn't they compare an equally-priced Colorado? You know, a diesel, LONG-BED, Z71? And then of course, test both vehicles OFF-ROAD- which is part of every other 4wd 'REVIEW'. They grabbed two 4/Awd vehicles.
Because obviously(right or wrong), they wrote a 'review' to suit an outcome they chose beforehand.
OF COURSE people who buy Honda minivans don't need a truck. Most of 'em are coming from Civics etc. and were just fine with those pieces of crapola. The overwhelming majority of people who buy the Colorado and Tacoma actually USE their truck(s) for what it was designed for. Case and point: How many commercial Honda's have you seen? How many Colorado and Tacoma's? I see a bunch of 'em every-damn-day. Heck, I use the bed of my truck every fricken day. If I'm not hauling around my tools for work, I'm hauling my MTB's or motorcycle(s). If I'm not doing either of those it's because I'm hauling furniture for some member of the family.
Anyway, this is the first time I've seen a vehicle actually LOSE a 'comparison' because it actually did what it's designed to do better than its competition(see photo)