Would you, or have you owned a KIA

[mmandley]

I agree with putting the F150 on the short list for truck buys. Its really a great truck and i drove Chevy and Dodge before i bought mine new in 06.

I am leaning towards the new 2010 Dodge because its a realy sharp looking truck, and the new Inline Diesel is really great. Also helps i can get there fully loaded version for 56K vs the Chevy for 60K and the Ford for 63K.

I get a factory discounts on any truck i buy so that helps, plus having mine paid off makes a nice down payment but i am waiting till i can get the new truck with my trade and down payment under 35K.

[Razzman]

Supposedly GM is coming out with a smaller version of the Duramax for the 1/2 ton vehicles. It will be rated at 550 lbs torque versus the 650 of the larger motor. Either way 550 lbs of torque will pull any boat no problem.

To me that's worth looking at. I personally am not a fan of most of the 2500 4x4 crowd. The Dodges are huge as are the Fords. The Ford F250/350's are ugly imo. The GM's are good looking but again huge and expensive. Show me a good looking 1500 with a deisel and i'm all over it.

[snowboardcorey]

I'd give a heads up for the F-150. I have an 07' Crew Cab Short Box and its awesome. I use it to tow boats, haul dirt/rocks and as my general commuter. I've never had any experience with the Ranger so I can't compare.

FWIW on midsize pickups my dad has had 3 Dodge Dakotas and while I've never been wowed by them they have always run forever. I bought his 98' Dakota and drove that for a couple of years, I always wanted it to die so I could buy a full size but it just kept on going, leaky diffrential and all.

[mmandley]

Supposedly GM is coming out with a smaller version of the Duramax for the 1/2 ton vehicles. It will be rated at 550 lbs torque versus the 650 of the larger motor. Either way 550 lbs of torque will pull any boat no problem.

To me that's worth looking at. I personally am not a fan of most of the 2500 4x4 crowd. The Dodges are huge as are the Fords. The Ford F250/350's are ugly imo. The GM's are good looking but again huge and expensive. Show me a good looking 1500 with a diesel and i'm all over it.

GM is trying to do this and its been out in the European market for years but talking with Chevy dealer here when we bought Claudia's, because of course they wanted my truck so i would by a new Diesel, the biggest hold up is the Gov says Diesels in trucks have to be a larger trucks.

The 1500, F150 type trucks are considered passenger vehicles and get certain grants from the Gov and if the big 3 drop this type of engine in those trucks they will lose the Gov money they receive and this is the only reason stopping it.

So the same Gov wanting us to push Green is stopping us from having Diesels in the #1 consumer type trucks. This is why you only see a Diesel option in 250, 2500 series and up trucks.

Cars are different because they are in a completely different gov classification.

[c.rix]

Ed - We build the all the rangers and mazda b series in st paul now, but back when you got yours it could have been a new jersey truck they had issues and are now closed

The ranger has a pretty good rep so it surprises me that you have had many issues with it but like mandley said your probably better off with a f 150 they tow great and have plenty of power I have had my 03 fx4 since new and have had 0 problems I tow my OBV sled trailers car trailers etc all the time mine fits in a normal sized garage just fine

My buddy has a 07 hd 1500 chev and thats a nice truck too you cant go wrong with one of those either

And the new dodge !!!! I love the looks of those they did a great job re designing their trucks

And the best of all any of them will tow the wheels off a ridgeline too

[Ian Brantford]

Ya know Ian, just a couple of days ago, I saw a Ridgeline go whizzing past me and I really liked the looks of it.

Well, let the Honda dealer know that his brand won the beauty contest and give him some flowers. I didn't buy mine for looks. I tell my friends that the 2009 model is only 80% as ugly as the previous one.

Looked up the towing capacity and I kinda got dishearted at the fact that it only had about a 5,000 lb limit, (but it sure looks like it would fit in my garage).

Do you actually need to tow more than 5000 lbs? If so, get a full-sized truck.

At the ROC (Ridgeline Owner's Club), we have compared notes on many mid-sized trucks. The consensus is that 5000 lbs is the practical limit (for handling) for the best of them, regardless of what is claimed on paper. For the Ranger, I wouldn't tow anywhere near that much.

[...]
Wonder if they let you tow a boat as part of the test ride

I think that one of the ROC members got the dealer to allow that. He simply insisted that checking the towing capability was essential before a purchase.

[...]
My 2004 Ranger with the V6, 4.0L, Auto Tranny with 4:10 rear end and 4X4 with towing package, actually does a good job of towing the OBV around town, but I would never use it for a three hour haul.

Exactly. That 5600-lb tow rating has not resulted in giving you the confidence that you should have in real life, even when towing much less weight. The 4x4 Ranger of that year is about 3500 lbs -- a true mid-sized truck. The Tacoma and Ridgeline are "upper mid-sized", around 4500 lbs, almost as much as full-sized trucks from the 1990's. They are commensurately scaled up in terms of body/frame strength, powertrain and handling. Plus, they have less much tendency for essential parts to fall off.

[...]newest $4500 tranny is still under warranty.

"newest". Nice.

Obligatory Kia content: I looked up the Kia Sedona's reliability report on Consumer Reports. It shows that the 2006 model update cured a great many mechanical problems. Hoever, there are still serious electrical defects, as well as a lot of minor engine and fuel system problems. Its overall reliability result is "subpar" (their second-worst rating). I would avoid this model.

[maxpower220]

The Tacoma and Ridgeline are "upper mid-sized", around 4500 lbs, almost as much as full-sized trucks from the 1990's. They are commensurately scaled up in terms of body/frame strength, powertrain and handling. Plus, they have less much tendency for essential parts to fall off.

So you are saying that your new truck has the same towing technology as a 90's model American full size truck. Just think of how great the Ridgeline will be in 10-15 more years.

The Ridgeline is a nice vehicle, especially as most people tow less than 1% of the time. However, I would not want to be in one during an emergency stop from 55 mph with an XLV behind it. I have had a "Mr Toad's Wild Ride" with my 02 Avalanche and it was no fun at all. I feel sure that had I been in a truck that was smaller or lighter (the Avalanche is a beast), the truck and boat would have flipped.

Picture from I-10 at Slidell, LA.

[Ian Brantford]

So you are saying that your new truck has the same towing technology as a 90's model American full size truck.

No, I am saying that it has similar capability (as the base models) from that era. The technology is quite different. Vehicle weight is simply a ballpark indicator. Actual handling is the real benchmark. Sitting right behind my Ridgeline is my father's (barely used now) 1997 Silverado. I have used both trucks on the same day to check handling while towing my XLV. They are comparable.

Honda doesn't presently have a full-sized pick-up to protect by artificially limiting the mid-sized model. Thus, the Ridgeline has a full 4' between the wheel wells for those building supply runs. Capacity: 1500 lbs total, 1100 in the bed. Handling is still great when loaded.

Just think of how great the Ridgeline will be in 10-15 more years.

I was not making any predictions about where a manufacturer will take a particular model. However, it is very common for successive generations to increase in size. Most full-sized 4x4 trucks from the 1990's were around 5000 lbs. Now they are around 6,000. Most small/mid-sized trucks were around 3,000, whereas now they are 3500-4500 lbs. Toyota split their T100 (an overall mid-sized truck with full-size box) into the Tacoma and Tundra models.

The Ridgeline is a nice vehicle, especially as most people tow less than 1% of the time.

The Ridgeline is called the "Swiss Army Knife of trucks" by many owners. One of the things that it is specifically targetted at is towing for the 85% of the truck market that tows 5000 lbs or less. It does this very well, for most trailers. It is not great with large flat-faced trailers, regardless of weight.

At least your assumptions are simply ill-informed, and not in the "hissy fit" class like mine were at first. Just like the Moomba brand, the Ridgeline is underestimated by many who aren't in the know. Its on-line community is very similar in tone to the one here.

However, I would not want to be in one during an emergency stop from 55 mph with an XLV behind it. I have had a "Mr Toad's Wild Ride" with my 02 Avalanche and it was no fun at all.

Sorry about your unpleasant experience.

When no one else was around, I tested this myself with my Ridgeline as much as I dared. This was after checking that I had mobile phone coverage... just in case a call for help was required. I figured that I might as well find out what the score was. I was unable to get it to do anything scary, on both paved and bumpy gravel surfaces.

The Ridgeline has the following design differences from your Avalanche that could come into play in an emergency:

- Independent rear suspension.
- Stability control.
- Full-time 4WD, with primarily FWD.

The suspension is probably the most important. All else being equal, it's never going to be a physically strong as a solid axle, but it's a LOT more stable when the chips are down. The three items above also help immensely in non-towing scenarios when there is poor traction. Say good-bye to nasty axle hop on bumpy curves. Say good-bye to fishtailing in snow or rain. It can be driven like a big AWD sports sedan.

The current generation of Avalanche has a stability control system, as do many vehicles now (mandatory in 2012 in the U.S.). This might have helped keep your Avalanche pointed in the same direction as your front wheels, though that's no guarantee that the wild ride would have been completely averted.

I feel sure that had I been in a truck that was smaller or lighter (the Avalanche is a beast), the truck and boat would have flipped.

Just like Ed G, you are seeing the difference between on-paper ratings and real-life capability. "American" (your truck was built in Mexico, wasn't it?) makers' specs seem to be signed off by their marketeers. Honda's specs are signed off by their engineers, while their marketeers seem to go an on acid trip after the initial designs are done. Have you seen the Ridgeline's few commercials? One's got a lumberjack in outer space! At least the public knows that the Avalanche exists and fits a certain niche very well.

To sum up:
1. Expectations for domestic brands' towing and hauling can be set like our dads probably taught us: by taking the on-paper specs, interpreting them with a nod and a wink, and reducing them by some safety margin that one has to guess. Thus, there are generations of domestic truck owners who aren't comfortable with anything less than a monster truck even when towing a modest load.
2. With Honda, the expectations can be set by the on-paper specs. They don't look as impressive, but they are accurate. The safety margins are above the specs. They are for owners who are more concerned about the task than the image.

Picture from I-10 at Slidell, LA.

<averts eyes>

Kia content: The Sportage rates very well at CR, starting with the 2006 model.

[RobertJ]

Hey guys thanks for the feedback and the overall discussion. A double dose of thanks to those with KIA's or knowledge of people with KIA's or Hyndai's (sp?).

I knew this would bring some good discussion about how "American" you are based on what you purchase. Well we are "American" to the core and we decided to go with the KIA. This was not a choice taken lightly but one with a lot of thought and reviewing your comments and my personal situation and yes the impact on our Country (as insignificant as it may seem , big picture). I am proud to live in a Country that allows us to have the freedoms to buy things that best fit our personal needs as opposed to "nationalized choices" made by our government. (Don't get me started on Health Care)

One post that I want to respond to is the one about a members bad taste while working for a Korean Company. If you hold to that logic you could say that Enron's actions mean that all Company's in Texas are bad and not to be trusted. I now that is not the case nor is it fair to paint a broad stroke about Korean Companys based on only a small experience.

[Suprahunter]

The early KIAs were a real pos. I am sure they have gotten better. I have worked on a few of them the drive trains are good and that's what they cover with the 100k warranty. The parts are very expensive and most have the come from the dealer. My advice is to talk to your mechanic before you buy any brand. He is the one that will know potential problems with the car.
Keep in mind there is safty in numbers. When there are a lot of units on the road parts and service are more numerous. You dont want to end up with a couple hundred mile tow to get to the nearest dealer for repair.