This is a Honda Ridgeline on a H1 chasis. discuss

GameboyRMH wrote:

freetors wrote: It would certainly look better if they didn't obviously just plop the body down on the frame. If it actually looked integrated into the overall vehicle it would look much less monster trucky.

True, but they'd have to channel the unibody and then they'd be lucky if they didn't also have to raise interior pieces to make room for the channeling. There's no good way to put a unibody on top of a ladder frame.

The "ladder frame" in an H1 extends to about the bottom of the driver's rib cage or so. The valve covers are higher than your knees and the bottom of the oil pan is higher than your feet.

You couldn't channel a Ridgeline over an H1 chassis without also significantly widening it.

I figure these kinds of swaps are mostly dictated by what the person has sitting around in their back yard, not by what actually makes sense.

stuart in mn wrote: I figure these kinds of swaps are mostly dictated by what the person has sitting around in their back yard, not by what actually makes sense.

That was my experience. I pulled into the yard one day and notice that the engineless Riv was sitting next to the Jimmy with the rusted out body and thought "Hmm...what if?" It turns out that what if, in this case, was an easy but rather pointless build. Happily, in the late '80s it wasn't too difficult to find someone who thought that it was the coolest thing ever and sell it to them.

Yeah this commits the same sin as every K5 chassis swap I've seen. They leave the lowest point of the body sitting on the highest point of the frame and call it good enough. So you usually have around a foot of gap between the middle of the floor and the middle of the frame rail. Though as mentioned you couldn't really fix that here without basically just hanging the outer skins on the body over the frame.

EDIT:

Actually that looks plenty doable if You're ok with the engine being where the center console is supposed to be and the dashboard being where the b-pillar is supposed to be.

stuart in mn wrote: I figure these kinds of swaps are mostly dictated by what the person has sitting around in their back yard, not by what actually makes sense.

So let me tell you a story about a guy who used to work for us when he was going to tech school down here. We'll call him Dustin, because that's his name. He came down here earlier this month to pick up the rotating assembly for the 6.0 he is putting in his late 60s Skylark.

He told me about how he had a Datsun 720 pickup that had a blown engine, and he had a mid 80s Ranger with a good engine and a bad body, so he put the Datsun cab/bed on the Ranger frame. But the front end didn't line up at all, so he cut it all off and put the front off an old Beretta on it because it was there.

I still want to see pictures.

Chadeux wrote: Actually that looks plenty doable if You're ok with the engine being where the center console is supposed to be and the dashboard being where the b-pillar is supposed to be.

That pretty much describes the H1's stock ergonomics, yes.

Bear in mind, on the H1, the passenger compartments' floor is even with the BOTTOM of the frame rails, and the passengers sit outside the frame like a '73-87 Chevy gas tank. Anything that sticks the body on top of the rails instead of heavily channeling the frame in, is going to look like one of those TR7/K5 Blazer concoctions.

Chadeux wrote: Yeah this commits the same sin as every K5 chassis swap I've seen. They leave the lowest point of the body sitting on the highest point of the frame and call it good enough. So you usually have around a foot of gap between the middle of the floor and the middle of the frame rail. Though as mentioned you couldn't really fix that here without basically just hanging the outer skins on the body over the frame. EDIT: Actually that looks plenty doable if You're ok with the engine being where the center console is supposed to be and the dashboard being where the b-pillar is supposed to be.

looking at that, I think I would be tempted to drop a small Isuzu or Mitsu box truck cab on it and make the whole thing into an expedition RV

In reply to mad_machine:

Now you have me picturing a forward control Hummer. It looks like a Volvo apparently.

Chadeux wrote: In reply to mad_machine: Now you have me picturing a forward control Hummer. It looks like a Volvo apparently.

isn't that a unimog?

In reply to grover:

C303 is what I quickly arrived at on that thought train.

CHALLENGE CLASS......bring it!!!!

in reply to chadeaux: I don't hate it.

Ya know..I looked at this on my phone last night and thought it doesn't look that bad. Now that I look at it on the laptop, it's hideous. I like the Ridgeline on it's own, but I'm not sure WTF is going on here.

MrChaos wrote: Discuss this abomination.

Well, that's probably what Honda should have built to start with. What is a Ridgeline really any good for anyway?

In reply to edwardh80:

I can't tell if you're joking. A Ridgeline is enough truck for most people that "need" a truck. Anything like this that increases the offroad ability of it is taking it further from actually useful.

edwardh80 wrote: What is a Ridgeline really any good for anyway?

Intenet humor?

edwardh80 wrote: Well, that's probably what Honda should have built to start with. What is a Ridgeline really any good for anyway?

Being an Avalanche for people who think a 4L60 is too reliable a transmission?

Knurled wrote:

edwardh80 wrote: Well, that's probably what Honda should have built to start with. What is a Ridgeline really any good for anyway?

Being an Avalanche for people who think a 4L60 is too reliable a transmission?

The Avalance is more capable as a truck though. The Ridgeline is basically a mid-size SUV with the towing-related handicaps of a FWD based AWD system and it has an outside storage area for dirty shoes.

In reply to rslifkin:

I always thought of it more of a minivan with a built-in receiver carrier, but point made.

I'm actually somewhat impressed with the Avalanche. Yes, it's useless at car-ing and useless at pickup-ing, but the sheer level of separate access compartments in/around/under the minibed are really handy for some things, like camping.

Ohh boy a ridgeline hate thread. Never done one of these before.

Knurled wrote: I'm actually somewhat impressed with the Avalanche. Yes, it's useless at car-ing and useless at pickup-ing, but the sheer level of separate access compartments in/around/under the minibed are really handy for some things, like camping.

It's reasonably useless at being a pickup due to its short bed, but at least the form factor retains most of the towing ability of the regular 1/2 ton pickup it's based on. And some of the bed length issue is fixable by being able to fold down the rear cab wall.

Personally, I'd say the best truck is one that's more truck than you need 90% of the time (so you're never stuck going "crap, I need a longer bed or a beefier truck to pull this trailer"). And most importantly, the best truck is one you only have to drive when you need it for truck things so issues like large size, poor fuel economy, etc. aren't really a concern.

rslifkin wrote:

Knurled wrote:

edwardh80 wrote: Well, that's probably what Honda should have built to start with. What is a Ridgeline really any good for anyway?

Being an Avalanche for people who think a 4L60 is too reliable a transmission?

The Avalance is more capable as a truck though. The Ridgeline is basically a mid-size SUV with the towing-related handicaps of a FWD based AWD system and it has an outside storage area for dirty shoes.

This is sorta the point I was making. It's a "truck" for people who don't do truck things. In which case, a BMW 5-series wagon or something similar would carry just as much in the back. If you're going to manufacture a truck, make it a proper truck.

Avalanches were available for a while in a 3/4-ton chassis with a 454 Big Block. They tow pretty dang good. I'd call them a truck.

The Ridgeline is a minivan with an open bed.

I gotta say, the new Ridgeline is a massive improvement over the old (original) one. I never understood the appeal of the original, as it didn't drive better than a "real" truck, (IMHO) and the interior was poorly designed. The new one drives, and looks like what it is----- a Honda Pilot with a small exposed bed. It's a very nice machine for those who don't need to tow much, and want a very pleasant, versatile vehicle. I still think they are way overpriced, and I'd rather have a "real" truck with more capability, but I now understand the appeal.

Sky_Render wrote: Avalanches were available for a while in a 3/4-ton chassis with the 8.1 engine. They tow pretty dang good. I'd call them a truck. The Ridgeline is a minivan with an open bed.

FTFY