This truck will most definitley be worth taking a look at.

Agreed. I don't need to haul heavy loads, but I do need to get my family of 5 into some fairly rough country to go camping.

Seriously, keep the current towing and payload specs of a Taco or Frontier, don't make it look too ridiculous, and just give us beast MPG. It will sell. 30+ MPG? Yes please. It is doable and I know it is. We don't need to be winning stoplight races with these things.

@Zach

I must confess that your comment confused me. Neither the current Pilot, Ridgeline,Tacoma nor the Frontier do better than low 20s for highway FE, nowhere NEAR the 30mpg you are referencing.

The kind of motor that powers good towing and hauling capabilities is the same kind of oomph that powers street racers. Sorry, but it's true.

Not much to go by.

I can't see Honda having a separate bed. This would mean a half chassis at a minimum.

This is just a drawing, at that a drawing that gives little away.

Getting 30+MPG in a truck is pretty much a pipe dream without some form of electrification. There's simply too much mass and drag to get there. Plus, if you want the HP to tow a few thousand pounds, you need a pretty beefy engine.

No frame no pick up it`s probably good enough for a Honda user who use it as a car but if you work or do serious hauling this is no good.
Hope Honda will use a truck engine not a wimpy minivan engine.

@papa jim,
I'm sorry I disagree with this statement;

"The kind of motor that powers good towing and hauling capabilities is the same kind of oomph that powers street racers. Sorry, but it's true."

The kind of engine that is good for towing isn't a street racer engine. Look at all trucks (real trucks).

It isn't the horsepower that tows. It's where the torque is at it's highest. A street racer will have it's torque too high in the rpm band to be a good tow vehicle.

Where as a good tow engine will have its torque lower.

Why do you want to tow with a street racer engine reving out to 6 000rpm? Imagine your FE.

If take the average V8 pickup (EcoBoost) and tow 7 000lbs behind it, it will consume fuel at an obnoxious rate.

Put a diesel in the equation and it's FE is a lot better.

That's why if you compare a 18 wheeler to a pickup for tow you'll see where I'm coming from.

Use a high reving gasoline engine in the 18 wheeler and you would be lucky to get 2mpg. Even though the horsepower ratings are the same.

Higher torque with lower rpm equals less fuel used. That's a good tow engine. The EcoBoost unfortunately isn't a low reving low FE engine.

This is where the misnomer of the EcoBoost lies. Underload they are a pig on fuel.

It better NOT look like the new 2016 Pilot! Basically everything in Honda's product line that isn't a sedan (ie has a trunk) looks like the Odyssey mini-van. BLECK!

@Big Al you over analyzed it!

Zach is thinking that it's a zero-sum game--if you have economy you can't have power. If you have towing capacity you can' t have economy.

I take exception to his proposition. If I want a vehicle that can pull a big load, I'm prepared to pay.

After having 2 high trim Ridgelines over 6 years and enjoying both because another newer version wasn't available, I had to take a lease on a 2015 GMC Canyon SLT with V6 4WD and short bed.

It is a nice truck but I loved my Ridgelines much more. Unibody construction, 4 wheel independent suspension, Honda engineering and quality. Many innovative features not found on any other midsize truck. No service issues in 6 years. Zip. Just gas and occasional oil. Excellent retained value. The perfect vehicle for my needs. I miss it. A truck but with a posh SUV ride.

I like the new Canyon SLT but there is really nothing special about it except the novelty of having the only one in my area. Standard GM fare. Quite pricey compared to the Sierra and fuel economy is a major disappointment. Only positive is the sophisticated electronics and 7000 lb. tow rating.

I will go back to the new Ridgeline when my lease expires on the Jimmy. Honda Rocks!

@Payload, you were doing so well, then you referred to the Ridgeline as having, "...a posh SUV ride"

Ahem!

The Mercedes GL has a posh SUV ride, the Cadillac Escalade is a posh SUV. X5 BMW.

The Ridgeline has the same firm and noisy ride as a Honda Accord except, unlike the Accord, it has a HUGE turning circle.

The body lines alone are a quantum leap forward.

Looks good so far.

I can only image how much more appealing this truck would be once we get the accurate numbers based on Engine Choices, Horsepower, Towing, Hauling, Body Integrity and overall Innovative Technology. From the Redesigned Colorado, Frontier, Tacoma, F-150 and the recently revealed Titan; hopefully Honda has a truck that's ready to hit a much needed ''Home Run'' in this new pickup competition.

I wonder if it'll have that cool trunk from the previous gen.

@BIG AL,
Ecoboost engines produce most of there torque low in the rpm range 1500 - 3000 rpm, those are the advantages of direct injection, high compression ratios, variable valve timing, 4 valves per cylinder and turbocharging. Because of direct injection these engines, actually have diesel like qualities. If they were high rpm engines the f150 acceleration times wouldn't be a lot slower, and its towing ability would be way down!!!!

@BAFO - The Eco Boost is a bad idea, all around.

Diesels are One_Trick_Ponies. Great for towing, if that's what you're mostly doing. Otherwise a gas V8 is best all around.

But if you're really doing serious towing, why would a midsize truck, or fwd (Honda Pilot) based trucklet be a good idea? If midsize pickups are all you have for pickups, then you deal with it. Except this is America, mate.

I'm glad to see a 9 speed auto. I'm dissapointed that the 2016 Tacoma has a 6 speed auto, which seems outdated right out the gate. Most auto makers are already at or moving to 8 speed or grater autos.

@latwoods,
Did I say the EcoBoost doesn't produce high levels of torque at low rpms? I stated they are pigs on fuel under load.

Look at their FE at low rpms when they are outputting high levels of torque.

That's where the smaller turbo engines lose out, at any rpm with the turbo augmenting the engine to gain torque they will chew through lots of fuel.

The modern CRD is currently the best form of motive power if you want to tow or for normal day to day driving, so long as it's more than 5 miles.

Even the VM Ram is quicker than the Pentastar powered Ram in the 0-60 comparison. So the modern diesel is even an acceptable daily driver with superior FE.

The EcoBoost on the other hand is good for shorter distance driving empty. Or cruising at lowish speeds. Once the right foot moves a little is consumes fuel. I'll call the "EcoBoost fuel enhancement factor".

Look at it this way. At the lights with normal driving the new 2.7 will consume more fuel than the diesel Ram which weighs more. doing exactly the same speeds and acceleration.

Then towing the Ram VM diesel will be a far better tow engine than either the 2.7 or 3.5 EcoBoosts.

It seems many on PUTC don't understand towing to well either. I don't care what size a half ton is, put 5 000lbs behind one and you will feel its effect. It will have a significant impact on the vehicles performance.

Diesels don't suffer as much as gasoline engine irrespective of induction type.

The Ecoboost is a bust in my book. Sure they make torque but the promise was they were going to save fuel. So far that has been pretty much a lie unless you count 1mpg more than the V8 saving fuel. I'm not saying its a bad motor, it just missed the mark on what Ford promised. The Ecodiesel is a great little motor but just slightly under powered for the application of the pickup truck. It does get exceptional highway FE though with most people seeing 30mpg. At some point in the near future Ford is going to have to face the facts, it will either have to have some sort of hybrid truck (expensive) or just slap in a V6 diesel. Chop 2 cylinders off the 6.7 and get a nice 5.0 V6. Parts would be shared between the motors so Ford could save money on the overhead price of the 6.7.

As far as the new Honda is concerned the styling is not geared to pickup truck buyers thats for sure. Must be targeting the SUV crowd.

@Shawn,
The EcoBoost has hit the mark for EPA testing and in the EU for FE and emissions testing. The engines are designed to meet a limited parameter.

What I would like to see is all commercial vehicles tested to meet certain FE requirements with their rated GCM. That is bed load plus tow load.

Make the FE targets realistic and I'd bet you will find more V8s around and many more diesels.

@papa jim

Posh SUV ride based on a 4 wheel independent suspension. Not rigid axle and leaf spring set up of the typical truck. My new Canyon rides like a "truck" particularly with an empty bed as you would expect. My Ridgelines rode like an SUV even with an empty bed. All based on the SUV like suspension design. That is just a tiny part of what made the former Ridgeline a perfect vehicle. Yes, I do know about posh SUV's as we have a 2015 Q series Audi. And it is posh!

Hmmm....

I wonder what it would take to have a potential Honda Ridgeline customer buy a Renault pickup?

Imagine when the FTA with the EU is approved, no chicken tax.

The Canadians' might get this alongside the Amarok.

http://www.4x4australia.com.au/news/1502/renault-navara-pick-up-heads-to-australia/

Here is your quote BAFO:

"Higher torque with lower rpm equals less fuel used. That's a good tow engine. The EcoBoost unfortunately isn't a low reving low FE engine.

This is where the misnomer of the EcoBoost lies. Underload they are a pig on fuel."

You contradict yourself as usual. You write alot but always throw in a line you can use as a life raft when someone calls you out. In this instance you ignore everything you wrote prior, just to say what you really meant was the last line, even though it doesn't reflect the point you were trying to make earlier regarding high rpms.

FWIW what are the UTEs, you were touting in another article, running for engines? Sounded like high revving racer engines, not high torque work engines.

You also continually harp that people in the US hardly ever haul anything. So per that logic, the Ecoboot is superior to a diesel because it hardly is under load per your opinion of how the USA uses light trucks.

The Pentastar might not be faster than an EcoDiesel, but it in the end is cheaper to operate (gas being around a dollar a gallon less) and has better payload ratings. Once again, per your opinion, the averahe USA truck owner doesn't need the hauling power the EcoDiesel offers as we run around with unloaded trucks 99% of the time.

@Shawn

GM is counting on a developing niche for a midsized open bed SUV vehicle like the former Ridgeline. GM, by re-introducing the Colorado and Canyon are hoping to entice the "rustic" urbanites away from their midsized and larger SUV's for a well trimmed open bed alternative. A crossover truck. Mom takes the kids to soccer and on weekends Dad hauls firewood. Mom takes the kids to horseback riding lessons and Dad hauls a grandfather clock for a neighbor or hauls 4 cubic yards of garden mulch. Midsize means an all purpose SUV/truck combo. Think Ridgeline. One that allows for easier parking on an errand than a full sized pickup and that Mom can drive, enjoy and then put in the home garage.

Unfortunately in my opinion, GM has missed the mark in their attempt to revive a smaller truck. Colorado/Canyon cost almost as much as the full sized units, do NOT offer significant fuel economy differences from the full sizes and lastly, at least as conceived by GM, are not that much smaller than the full sized sister trucks. They erred in my opinion. I know as I have had 2 Ridgelines and now a 2015 Canyon.

The Ridgeline was the perfect compromise. Not enough truck for the truck people and a bit too much truck for the car people. And that is why it did not do well in the market place.

But the times are changing and there is an opportunity, as I noted, to hit the perfect sweet spot and if anyone can do that trust Honda engineering. They can not keep the CR-V on the lots and the fame of the Accord is legendary. If they get the new Ridgeline right....watch out!

@KeithCT,
How many drive an EcoBoost between 1500-2000rpm towing.

Really, even though the EcoBoost delivers significant torque at lower rpms it isn't fuel efficient delivering those torque loads.

Explain how then does the 2.7 or for that matter the 3.5 get such miserable FE even compared to a V8 when under load.

You can sprout all of the data and information from those brochures and websites along with some Ford propaganda.

But, the truth is the truth, under testing conditions in real life situations the EcoBoost doesn't deliver a very good FE advantage.

Even a Pentastar delivers between 16-17mpg with normal driving.

I think you EcoBoost fans must start facing reality.

Hmmm....

I wonder what it would take to have a potential Honda Ridgeline customer buy a Renault pickup?

Imagine when the FTA with the EU is approved, no chicken tax.

The Canadians' might get this alongside the Amarok.

http://www.4x4australia.com.au/news/1502/renault-navara-pick-up-heads-to-australia/

@papa jim

Honda Ridgeline has four wheel independent suspension. Not the rigid axle leaf spring typical truck suspension. The Ridgeline although open bed, rode like an SUV. That was one of its best assets. An open bed "truck" but with an SUV ride.
My new 2015 Canyon rides like the truck that it is...particularly with an unloaded bed. There is no comparison in the ride between the two.

And yes, I do know about "posh" SUV's and how they ride as we have a 2015 Q series Audi. So I feel I can speak honestly from personal ownership experience.

Lastly, having had a string of Accords over the years I can attest that none of them had a "firm noisy ride like a Ridgeline".

A Ferrari might be considered to have a firm noisy ride but that is a whole other story.

@KeithCT,
One thing the brochure and websites don't mention is the width of power bands.

The EcoBoost was initially a car engine. As a matter of fact the first vehicle the core engine of the EcoBoost was fitted to was a FWD Mazda.

Wide power bands are not low revving engines. Narrow power band engines are.

........................................................................................

Read the cut and paste below;

"Still, there's a chink or two in the EcoBoost armor. EcoBoost can deliver the estimated fuel economy if the driver uses the turbocharger sparingly. But if the motorist uses the turbocharger a lot, fuel economy likely will fall short of the estimated mpg. And when pulling a trailer with an EcoBoost-powered F-150, fuel economy can dip into single digits, according to comments on f150forum.com. Ford also has had to recall around 170,000 Escapes because of quality glitches with the 1.6-liter EcoBoost engine. The top-selling EcoBoost-equipped vehicle, the F-150, also has had problems. Moisture collecting in part of the turbo system, the charge air cooler, caused the truck to stumble or stall, and Ford had to replace the part under warranty."

So Ford don't look at the EcoBoost as a work engine. The 3.5 EcoBoost is THE 6.2 V8 replacement and yet Ford hasn't used it in their HDs.

Read this link, it shows that Ford consider the EcoBoost a "fun" engine and doesn't mention work.

........................................................................................

Balancing mpg, fun

"What we know is that powertrain matching is very important when specifying an EcoBoost engine," says Bob Fascetti, Ford's vice president of powertrain engineering.

"We provide the right balance between great fuel economy and 'fun to drive.' We start with operating the engine in the ideal efficiency zone and then add in the fun to drive elements. If you downsize too far, then you cannot operate long enough in the high efficiency regions while providing ideal performance."

So, do you think I'm still lying?

http://www.autonews.com/article/20140106/OEM06/301069958/ford-gm-take-opposite-routes-to-engine-fuel-economy

@Payload If you can confuse the way an Accord or Pilot or Ridgeline rides, with say an Escalade or Mercedes GL, there's a bridge in NYC I'd like to sell you.

Regarding your response to Shawn, you said that the mid size GM truck's highway FE is not much better than half ton mileage. Poor comparison, sir.

The top of the line trucks from GM, Ford and Ram get nowhere near the highway mileage that the top of the line Canyon does. See the statistics on that.

Your facts on that are simply wrong. As far as smooth posh SUV ride goes, there's some subjectivity that can't be overcome, but the Accord and its siblings are notorious for their lack of creature comforts.

Al - You are still contradicting yourself and only making it worse. You've stated numerous times that we here in the USA hardly ever use our 1/2 ton trucks for hauling and towing. So per your logic, the EcoBoost is a perfect fit. Most of the time we would be driving around empty and not needing to spool the turbo. We wouldn't care about the loaded mileage if we rarely tow or haul anything. You state your views on this repeatedly and also bring up the RAM 1500 as being a grocery getter and that it's low payload is not a big turn off was we in the US never use our full size trucks to haul much so it's the perfect truck.

By the way you do realize the GM 6.2L and RAM 5.7 mated to an 8 speed now right? with a 6 speed it was a pig just like the other 6 speeds. Keep in mind Ford is coming out with a new tranny that is likely matched better to the EcoBoost.

FWIW I own a Titan with a 5.6L V8 and tow a 30ft 7500lb travel trailer. My mileage? around 13 city and 18 highway at 65mph empty. Towing I get between 8-11 depending on terrain. Anyone telling you they are running a V8, towing over 3000lbs and getting 11-12mpg on average is full of it. It was noted that the mpg numbers generated in the 1/2 ton check up were pretty flawed as the testing only followed a 100 mile circuit. That isn't even a 1/2 tank of fuel.

@Big Al - a 3.5 EB can comfortably live at 1500-2000rpm. It won't need to rev much higher. Drivers used to mashing the pedal and forcing revs due to ignorance or the persistent myth that Turbo engines need to rev will not like the EB 3.5. I've driven one and it performs better if driven like a diesel i.e. smooth inputs and keeping it in the lower rpm range.

It has been said over and over and over and over again that the smaller 2.7EB with forced induction is more like a 5.5-6 litre engine and the 3.5EB is more like a 6-7 litre. ANY 6 litre engine out their good on fuel under load?????????

Ford is guilty of not policing the PR department.

@papa jim

Hey Papa Jim

You didn't read me thoroughly. I OWN the top of the line 2015 Canyon SLT. I can attest to it's fuel economy! It is my daily driver. I am not reading magazine articles or quesstimating. I don't need to "see the statistics" as you say. I am getting only at best 2-3mpg better, if that, than the equivalent Sierra which is the GMC sister ship. Not the 'comparison' you are trying to make to generic "half tons" i.e. Ford and Ram. Oranges to oranges sir. It is new but maybe it will loosen up and improve... but as of today it is a major disappointment as far as mpg goes. The Monroney reads overall @ 24mpg. I am getting 20.1 overall so far. But again it is new so...?

And as far as knowing about a posh SUV, I can also attest to having OWNED and driven a Cadillac SRX AWD luxury edition for the past 4 years so I think I have some standing to pass judgment on "posh SUV's'. And now we are driving an Audi Q series Platinum Plus edition. So I know of what I say kind sir....if you catch my drift.

My posts are based on first hand in-the-field OWNERSHIP.
You can take it to the bank or not. It doesn't make any difference to me. Just callin' 'em as I see 'em. From OWNERSHIP experience. Not statistics. Not 3rd hand anecdotal information.

I have zero interest in distorting any facts for the sake of a debate. You are talking around me.

Payload

"Drivers used to mashing the pedal and forcing revs due to ignorance or the persistent myth that Turbo engines need to rev will not like the EB 3.5. I've driven one and it performs better if driven like a diesel i.e. smooth inputs and keeping it in the lower rpm range. "

EXACTLY!! People drive this truck like it is a 2.0L 4 cylinder in a sports compact just because it has turbos. A 3.5L V6 running no boost is enough to easily move a full sized 1/2 ton around town or down the highway unloaded. Heck, the non EcoBoost V6 option is a 3.7L, the Pentastar is a 3.6L and GM had a 4.3L in their fullsized 1/2 tons and all get pretty solid mileage unloaded.

The idea is the power is there when needed, not to drop the hammer to get it on boost at every stoplight. MPG of a 6 cylinder with the power of a V8 when needed. Essentially a different version of cylinder deactivation. Instead of deactivating 4 cylinders, Ford went with running 6 with forced induction to give the power rather than the other 4 cylinders coming on line. In all honestly I'd rather have 6 cylinders that are always functioning with turbos for power when needed than 8 cylinders where 4 take time off unless needed.

Al - Did you honestly compare a 1.6L Turbo 4 cylinder to a V6? They are two different engines that just share Ecoboost as a label. The 3.5L is a truck engine. Look at what Ford puts it in. F150 and the Explorer. Now, I can already hear you saying "yeah but it is in the Taurus too!!" You are correct, however it is tuned differently. Just like the F150 and Mustang share the 5.0 and previously shared the 4.6L and 5.4L V8's. So per your logic, is the Mustang running a tuck motor or is the F150 running a car motor??

@Payload,
Most every gasoline engine will not get it's EPA FE figure.

Look at the EcoBoost line of engines the same. They can run into single digits for FE with a load.

Look at the Pentastar the same. The Pentastar is actually returning 16-17mpg.

I don't see any reason why any GM gasoline powered pickup would be any different from FCA or Ford.

They sort of use the same technology in fuel management.

A gasoline engine that can develop lots of power will chew up fuel when driven with any amount of gusto.

This is a sad fact of life.

@KeithCT,
Your comments and style of writing indicate to me that you also might use another name here on PUTC.

Re-read the article it does mention specifically the issue of FE use with the F-150 EcoBoost engines when under load.

And, all EcoBoost concerning driving techniques, ie, using the right foot.

@KeithCT,
Go to school and learn engineering.

The best tow engines has a narrow and very definite powerband at low rpms.

Engines generally with a square to oversquare bore/stroke have a wider powerband. This is just pure physics.

Variable valve timing and most modern fuel delivery systems can alter this.

Engines that are under square have narrower power bands.

Also, understand how fuel is burnt in the combustion chamber. There are limits to both gasoline and diesel.

The problem concerns the speed at which combustion occurs.

To gain significant torque at low rpms the combustion process must take longer. What this does is it applies pressure on the top of the piston longer, hence increasing torque.

Gasoline is much more viotile than diesel. What occurs here is the gasoline combusts much faster, hence applying pressure on the piston top for a shorter period. Diesel burns slower, hence applying pressure on the piston crown longer.

This means diesel at low rpms will apply force to the crank over a wider angle of degrees. This also means a diesel engine will be more efficient with a longer stroke engine, again increase torque via mechanical advantage.

To have pressure applied for a longer period of time at low rpm on a gasoline engine means the fuel delivery must be sustain for a longer period. What does this equate too?

Diesel falls short at higher rpm. The diesel fuel has less time to combust at higher rpm.

So, a gasoline engine is better at higher rpms and a diesel at lower rpms due to the way the fuel burns.

This also doesn't take into account the specific energy value between the two fuels. Diesel has a higher energy density value than gasoline.

Read up a little and learn before you preach to me. I'm originally an engine specialist.

4.8 liter V-8 based on two 4cyl (accord 2.4 engines) for 360-400 hp and 32 mpg for less than $30K, nix the Full time 4wd.

and Oh yes and please make them quiet inside, something that is nearly impossible for Honda to do, even in their cars.

Please Santa? I'll be good.

@Payload sounds like you've got a lot to prove. They haven't built a Honda or Acura yet that rides like a posh SUV.

Take a ride in a Mercedes GL V8 and then tell me that any Honda you EVER drove rides as smooth and quiet.

Honda is too small for my needs right now and if I wanted small truck I'd go with Colorado in a sec,,if it had a small V8 engine normally aspirated,,

been driving GM trucks for over 30 years and very satisfied with their reliability and economy also..

Anyone whining about its rough ride when empty is obviously a girly man unable to handle a truck or just biased against GM?.
LL

WOW! How about someone moderating this "thread" and getting rid of the ridiculous off topic nonsense??

The new ridge line will be a unibody and will have the inbead trunk.

I say you have to be a different breed of a truck owner-driver to want a Honda Ridgeline over any other brand of truck!
The Ridgeline is a front wheel drive car with a small formed sheet metal bed.
Its NOT a truck!

Al - way to dodge a real answer and post a bunch of facts that don't prove your point while attempting to sound like an "expert". You conveniently leave out that with direct injection the EB essentially functions like a diesel. You also ignore that it's turbo charged. You also apparently don't grasp that an engine doesn't guzzle fuel under minimal load like just normally propelling a vehicle. You also ignore that the 3.5 EB and the 3.0 EcoDiesel put up similiar torque numbers right? You are also aware that the 2.7 EB ran circles around the EcoDiesel in performance testing right? So essentially all your tech speak comes down to is that the diesel is marginally better on fuel in this instance. Being that gas is the far cheaper fuelby over a dollar and the initial investment of the gas engine is thousands less you can obviously see the target Ford was aiming at. They beat a small displacement diesel in performance and get better to equal mpg to big small blocks. As you say, "most owners don't work their trucks" so loaded mpg is not a big factor as it is seldom used. That's per your opinion. Which essentially agrees with Ford.

Btw. Glad you have some engineering schooling. I'm sure Ford has dozens of better qualified engineers working for them but would appreciate knowing that your knowledge exceeds them all.

@KeithCT,
Stop trouling.

You've made me very happy.

An EcoBoost is like a diesel? Boy, don't ever become a mechanic or for that matter change a spare when you get a flat. You'll probably injure yourself.

What a winner you are.

Al - Go do more research. You will find most every EcoBoost review states it has a diesel like torque curve as well as numerous dyno runs. If you did you'd know it makes peak torque at 1800-2000rpm an carries it to 4000rpm. Doesn't seem too narrow. Nor does it look much like a gas V8 at all. In fact, it looks very diesel like. Hmm. So where was I wrong with saying it performs like a diesel? Al, don't let facts get in the way of your keyboard engineering experience.

Big Al,

I am not a frequent poster or reader but do have interest in the next gen Ridge. I did post in the desert spy pics "thread" BTW . . .
If the goal is derail any worthwhile discussion SPECIFIC to the thread topic then y'all have done an excellent job! I can't imagine most people will make it down to the point in this "discussion" where I am writing this. There is a place to TOUCH UPON the merits of pickup truck engine choices, marketing, etc, etc in these types of discussions but honestly you need to learn say something valuable and then move on!

If you (or anyone else who has managed to get this far) are interested, I can share the info that I have read about the 2nd gen Ridge. It comes from (and can be seen there anytime, I am just repeating) the ROC forum and is provided by a fellow (or two) who have some connections with folks inside Honda. Most of the development for GenII has already been done and this info "better than probable."

Weight Loss around 300lbs from current
Unibody using high strength steel for the front portion with the bed riding on subframe. Different bed variants will be possible with this design
More tradition pickup truck appearance, no "sails" on the bedsides
Overall length increases about 2.5"
Led headlights likely
Bed length 5.5' (6" longer than current)
In bed trunk
Dual action tailgate (one piece most likely the "barn doors" were considered but not likely)
18" or 20" wheels depending on model
Interior will probably have a wider range materials / choices than current model. Up to date electronics / infotainment. Look to the 16 pilot
3.5 Earth Dreams, Reg unleaded
Transmission is a big ? Honda 6AT or ZF 9-HP
Towing: at least 5000lbs maybe as much as 6000lbs
Better turning radius than GenI
New AWD system using hydraulic clutches. Should perform better and reduce weight compared to current VTM4
To be assembled in Lincoln AL
Production, late 2015, in dealers early 2016

Hope this info adds to disscussion of the new Ridge!

@urb

Excellent and informative post.
Thx!