I find it
hilarious that you would say this
In my mind, subarus are like the worst bits of a car and the worst bits of a 4x4 together. It doesn't get the MPG of a sedan, but it doesn't really have the capability of a truck. The ground clearance isn't all that great, and the suspension really isn't meant to handle washboards and rough roads (despite what the marketing dept thinks)
... and then later in the very same post you mention this as a possibility:
In every way you bagged on a Subaru (economy, capability, clearance, suspension), the CR-V fares even worse.
Honda Ridgeline
- i know nothing about these. I assume they're based off a pilot chassis/drivetrain?
You assume incorrectly: the Ridgeline is based off the Odyssey platform. (If you're curious, the Pilot uses a blend of underpinnings from the Odyssey and Accord platforms.) Furthermore, the underwhelming performance of the Ridgeline's 4WD "system"
has been well documented.
I definitely want a manual transmission in my next truck.
Oh, well, that rules out the Ridgeline.
I honestly think a ridgeline comes close to what you want, but you will lose some offroad performance. Probably similar to a Subaru in that aspect.
Actually, the Subaru's AWD system will run circles around Honda's setup. When bolted to a manual transmission, the Subaru uses a full-time AWD that has a default front/rear 50/50 power split. By comparison, the Honda sends
all of its power to the nose and waits for wheelspin before it then tries to send some torque to the rear. While this trick can work on flat surfaces, hill climbs often provide too much resistance for the system--meaning you'll just sit there spinning the front tires only.
FYI
I won't push it ha
