Death of the body-on-frame SUV?
I wanted to start this discussion b/c I'm curious what other people think.
I used to own a 2001 Chevy Tahoe LS 4WD. While I loved it, after having to spend 50+ on every tank of gas, I opted for my new ride...
2003 Honda Pilot AWD LX. I must say that I have never missed the extra cargo capacity on the Tahoe, and like 99.999% of all SUV owners, I towed with the Tahoe less times than I have fingers and toes (nothing heavier than the Pilot could handle I might add).
I for one just cannot see how anyone can possibly buy body-on-frame SUVs these days! There is just no comparison. While some people need great off-roading, the majority of SUVs can't deliver on this. Cargo capacity and passenger capacity is also now clearly better in crossovers (see Acadia/Enclave/Outlook). Add to this $2.80+ gas and the better mileage and drivabiltiy of crossovers like the Pilot...man, stick a fork in body-on-frames!
I used to own a 2001 Chevy Tahoe LS 4WD. While I loved it, after having to spend 50+ on every tank of gas, I opted for my new ride...
2003 Honda Pilot AWD LX. I must say that I have never missed the extra cargo capacity on the Tahoe, and like 99.999% of all SUV owners, I towed with the Tahoe less times than I have fingers and toes (nothing heavier than the Pilot could handle I might add).
I for one just cannot see how anyone can possibly buy body-on-frame SUVs these days! There is just no comparison. While some people need great off-roading, the majority of SUVs can't deliver on this. Cargo capacity and passenger capacity is also now clearly better in crossovers (see Acadia/Enclave/Outlook). Add to this $2.80+ gas and the better mileage and drivabiltiy of crossovers like the Pilot...man, stick a fork in body-on-frames!
Tagged:
0
Comments
..
My Trooper's mpg is important to me. I get 16.7 around town which is just as good as our minivan which like your Pilot has no frame. (Pilot is a shortened version of the Honda minivan, given how nice that minivan is, that is a good thing) On the highway our minivan gets 24 to 27 mpg because it is aerodynamically shaped and low to the ground. On the highway my Trooper with a frame gets 21 mpg at 65 mph and 19.5 at 70 mph. I bet your frame less Pilot is within a mpg or two of my Trooper with its frame.
..
If there will be the death of body-on-frame it will not be from MPG but from government regulations that specify that the vehicle has to crumble like a ball of aluminum foil if it is in a collision.
..
SUV is just a tall station wagon. I think cross over is just a name for mid height station wagon. The future will hold "green cross overs" which will be low to the ground station wagons that get good mpg.
..
Even though I tow and go off road infrequently, I like to drive a vehicle that can get me through those situations with confidence.
We should consider that these large vehicles are expensive. If people have a legitimate need for periodic towing, it's possible that they cannot afford an "everyday" car in addition to the large SUV, so they buy the SUV and not a smaller car. And then they drive that large car all the time.
However, many people want the safety of a large heavy vehicle in case a collision occurs. They are safest in a crash with most vehicles, provided the driver keeps in mind that they are top heavy and large. But most of the new trucks come with some kind of stability control.
If you have some money, you could buy both the large truck and a nice hybrid, but most people are not in that class.
A couple of points to condsider though. As another poster pointed out most people can't really afford an extra vehicle for limited use. I have done the math, you literally can't buy, insure, drive, and maintain a 3rd vehicle and save money vs. the cost in gas on driving the Suburban around daily. (the simple math, I spend about $100 in gas per month on my Suburban, a small car that averaged 30 mpg would cut my fuel bill in half to $50. Good Luck finding a car for $50/ month)
I haven't towed my boat anywhere since October, as boating on frozen lakes tends to be a little tough. But come summer, I take the boat out 2-3 times per month for weekend outings.
I would happily drive a more fuel efficient vehicle if the basic laws of physics didn't dictate that I need a vehicle with the size and power of a Suburban to do the job I need it to do.
I don't know if anyone has looked at the 2008's coming down the line but they are getting larger again, bigger engines, and the new 2008 EPA estimating rules are going to drop mileage even more. There's a lot of heavy marketing baraging us every day on TV to have the biggest most powerful vehicle on the planet. I'd even say the market is still in favor of more and more truck sales as much or greater than SUV market.
..
Her change to a hybrid was cost effective because of unforeseen circumstances that landed the hybrid in her possession, she had to decide to keep the minivan or the hybrid not both.
One other thing to consider is that the body on frame vehicle is cheaper to build than a unibody SUV.
So, the motor companies bottom line is enhanced by these trucks.
Also, as others have mentioned, they deal with heavier loads and stresses better than unibody vehicles do.
However,they are inherently less safe than unibody vehicles.
Odie
Odie's Carspace
Toyota has made an investment in Isuzu for diesel engine technology. I think an Isuzu diesel/hybrid minivan with an inline diesel designed to be easy to work on from the accessible side that gets 40+ MPG would suit a lot of people. Diesel has produces less "carbon footprint" than gasoline and gasoline less than ethanol fuels.
..
I would go for the diesel even if not a hybrid, because simple is very good for reliability. The hybrid would give stop and go drivers excellent response and the diesel would be awesome over the open road.
I think most folks (and I don't think folks on these forums are "most folks") buy the big SUVs strictly for image and style. No problem...it's their money. But since the huge body on frame SUVs are bought mostly for image/style, just as style's change, so will the number of folks buying this sort of vehicle if they really have no need...and the reduced numbers indicate this. But you'll always have a core group of folks (those posting here) that will always have a true need.
..
1.) they have been in accidents where they were stopped and some other driver missed a turn or in some other way smashed their minivan and car at different incidents. The SUV on frame especially the largest of them, survive better when being crashed into, so they drive big SUVs for safety.
..
2.) The second reason is that she is self employed and can get a huge discount / rebate from the federal government for buying a vehicle in excess of 6000 lb. GVW. So the big SUV costs her much less than a car or even a hybrid to drive. The federal discount is meant for plumbers and the like, but all that is needed to qualify is the 6000 lb.
No, that's not all. You must also use the vehicle for business - plumbing or otherwise.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
If you're sitting in an big SUV or a small sedan and you're car is hit in the side by a big SUV, the small sedan being lighter may move upon impact and absorb some of the shock, where the heavy SUV will just sit there and take the impact.
Then you have to look at the door design to see which one absorbs the impact better. I don't know if you want a lot of heavy steel pushed into the passenger cabin.
Bottom line is that weight is only one factor and not necessarily an advantage in every type of crash situation.
What was the outcome of your sister's two previous accidents? Any serious injuries? I would think that folks in accidents tend to overcompensate, sort of like someone who has a friend who died in a plane wreck, so now they'll will never fly. Or they'll never let their kids play football because they heard about a kid dying from a freak football injury. Or they'll never eat food X because they heard on the radio that food X causes cancer in rats.
If we take safety to the extreme, everyone would be living in their basements eating organic rice every day and never leaving their house. To me, everyone driving giant SUV just to "be safe" is just as extreme.
..
I think there are people out there in little cars that want to do away with big SUVs for fear of being run over.
I don't worry about them running me over. But I do care about not being able to see around them. :mad:
Back in about 1995, a Ford dealer manager pointed to a Ford Bronco and said that it was the best new vehcile value on the lot. An over statement, but you still see Broncos hard at work in forests and firehalls and police special units and in private use by hunters, boaters, outdoorsmen. The rugged drivetrain, BOF, H/D engine and tranny, etc.,allow for many years and hundreds of thousands of miles of use with repair, rehab and replacement. This is especially true if the model in question had lockout to allow 2wd high when 4wd was not in use. So there is a demand for such a BOF at least in the short wheelbasees or else these units would no longer be in such active service.
No argument at all with your unibody and points about the excellent Pilot. Very popular vehicle with high resale value. Well done Honda. That's just that market.
But as long as there is adequate fuel at suitable prices, there will be a demand for heavy boat and trailer SUV towing, large family and cargo moving, and tough SUV jobs to be done. The BOF SUV simply is nowhere near dead.
..the auto companies study and refine these various markets constantly..when the sales fall the companies respond..
Bobw3 - I totally empathize with your points on safety of BOF SUVs. My dad, a Suburban disciple, has driven one since 1988 and has had a number of serious crashes (mostly not his fault ) that he has walked away from with not so much as a headache. In contrast, the cars that run into Suburbans look devastated. That being said, he doesn't drive the thing like a racecar and when people do, they tend to flip.
I have a question for everyone - why is GM so ancient with its refusal for rear IRS and thus non-rear folding seats? Is there an advantage to their solid rear axles?
No offense, but I wouldn't want to be driving anywhere near your dad on the road, especially after the comment, "mostly not his fault" I wonder how many accidents he could have avoided if he wasn't driving such a big vehicle?
But for those people who really use BOF SUV's off-road and towing abilities, it's just basically a crew cab pickup with a bit shorter bed and a bed cover as standard, and if they weren't available, they'd be using those, but SUV's are simply more user friendly with their one pull opening rear hatches and various other small things, such as the slightly smaller size (crew cabs are hugely long) and the more luxurious interiors of many SUV's compared to pickups.
If i were to buy a towing vehicle now, i'd go for a regular cab pickup (live alone, no need for four doors), but as a combined family and recreational towing and off-road vehicle (i doubt too many SUV's are used in only work conditions, companies apparently tend to use pickups), there aren't many options.
So, the BOF SUV isn't going anywhere in a long time.
for a while bof rwd suv's were better than the alternatives, for many people.
the circumstances have changed.
Isuzu Buying Alabama Land for Plant (Auto Observer)
-mike
Interesting thing happened over the weekend at a road race my team was involved in. Our car weighs 3100lbs and a competitor driving a 1700lb car tried to knock us off the road course in a turn, unfortunately for him he bounced off our car and spun off the track, we continued on w/o issue. So weight does play a factor.
I also don't see the frame on SUV going away, they are quite useful in towing and hauling applications.
-mike
But here's what is not sometimes understood: the less stiff vehicle protects both its own occupants and the occupants of any vehicle it crashes into.
In a head-on crash between a BOF and a unibody, the crumple zone in the unibody reduces the peak crash forces experienced by the occupants of both vehicles. This is the case because in a two-vehicle crash the vehicles exert equal but opposite forces on each other. This is one of Newton's laws relating force and motion.
The forces are always equal in magnitude, but if one of the vehicles is more massive than the other, the effect of the forces on the vehicles will be different. Remember that F = m a, so a = F/m. That is, the crash acceleration of the lighter vehicle will be greater than that of the heavier vehicle because the F is the same for both vehicles, but m is different, and this is in the denominator.
The injury to the occupants of a vehicle is strongly related to the peak crash acceleration that the vehicle experiences.
Consider a head-on crash between two Suburbans, identical except that one is red and one blue. Each is travelling at 30 mph relative to the ground. High and identical peak crash forces are transmitted to the occupants of the two vehicles
Now consider the same crash except that a serious but lightweight engineered crush zone 4 ft in depth has been attached to the front of the red Suburban. That is, the two Sururbans are still the same mass. The result will be lower peak crash accelerations to both vehicles.
The crumple zone strapped to the red Suburban has protected equal benefit to the occupants of the blue one.
If both vehicles had had the same 4-ft crumple zone, then the peak crash accelerations would be even less because there would be a total of 8-ft of crumple zone. If each vehicle had had the same design 2-ft crumple zone it would be the same as either one having a 4-ft crumple zone.
But it also seems to me that a unibody would be less stiff than a BOF design outside the passenger compartment and so would protect from the other source of crash injury to vehicle occupants--the high peak g-forces of the passenger compartment due to the sudden change in velocity (the "delta-V") that occurs in a collision.
I personally am attracted to the idea of a body-on-frame design because I drive conservatively and I "don't think" I'll be in a crash. I am sure that I must underestimate my risk. I value strength and durability in a vehicle. At my age, early 60s, I enjoy imagining that the car I'm driving (2004 base V70) will be the last car I'll buy.
My ideal vehicle would be a BOF "minivanoid" with relatively high seating position (comfortable leg angle), 3000-lb curb weight, powered by a small gas or diesel engine (120 hp max) and a 6-spd manual. It would be rated to tow up to 2000 lb. It would have a variable height suspension to get best fuel economy on pavement, but be able to go on rough roads when necessary.
But when I awaken from my dreaming I find that in the real world a unibody design will best protect me from crash injury at a price I can afford.
Less stiff does not necessarily translate into better crumple zones. On BOF vehicles, crumple zones are strategically placed in front and rear portion of the frame (often appear as tiny waves), so that when enough force is applied (i.e., when vehicle is hit hard), the frame will bend at certain points, and in certain directions. In other words, the way it "crumples" is controlled, and not by relying on the random way the metal may fold.
First, note how in these pictures BOF Example -- click on this..., the frame is low, and is still extending out, and has actually penetrated the barrier, representing another car. This is because the frame, with engine/suspension mounts is very stiff and tough, and will skewer the occupants of other, lower vehicles if the BOF hits on a door. Very dangerous. What Ford has done on the above late-model F-150 is to secure the cab to the very tough frame to keep it from collapsing, although the protruding frame doesn't make a great "crumple" zone at all.
Now compare that to Unit body crash click here... where the front end is much flatter, with no protruding tough frame to stick out and through the barrier.
Conclusions: The frames on pickup trucks and SUVs protrude and can enter a unibody structure. The frames are very stiff and don't collapse much when hitting a unibody vehicle.
What will you do if we ever get to the point where no one is making them anymore and your Durango is on its last legs?
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
GM Closes 14 Manufacturing Plants; Three Service Parts Operations (AutoObserver)
I would not be real quick to let our government decide what we drive. You may not like what they decide to regulate next.
It's not logic, just simple physics. The following quote is taken from the government document
document
"Consider Vehicle Weight
All other things being equal, a heavier vehicle will generally better protect you in a crash. This is particularly the case in two-vehicle crashes. NHTSA research historically has shown that occupants in passenger cars are at a greater risk of being fatally injured when struck in the front or the side by a heavier and higher-riding light truck (such as a pickup) or SUV. Improved energy-absorbing front ends and safety technologies such as head-protecting side-impact air bags can help lower this risk to vehicle occupants."
I had also read somewhere that if a 6,000 pound vehicle has a head on collision with a 3,000 pound vehicle, the people in the lighter vehicle are eight times more likely to die than the people in the heavier vehicle. This seems to be inline with the government quote above.
One more thing Bob. Not that it matters even one iota but I work for the government and I'm quoting data collected by the federal government on their public website. Using their website www.safercar.gov was one of the main tools I used in my decision making process to purchase my Ford Expedition. I don't consider buying an Expedition "selfish" but if that's what you choose to believe go right ahead. You might also want to educate yourself on the subject at hand before you start hurling insults at someone. The free government publication I mentioned at the start of the post might be a good place for you to start.
Steve,
Yes the pickup trucks have a real frame and GM has been using hydro-formed rails on their trucks for sometime. Although I'm not an expert on hydro-formed rails I believe some of the advantages the hydro-formed rails have over a standard solid frame are increased strength, lighter weight and fewer welds.
I had read that GM is closing one of their pickup truck plants because of over capacity. By that I mean that they have the ability to build more pickups than they need and/or are selling. Pickups are definitely a big part of GM sales just like the F-150 is a big part of Ford's bottom line. What GM is going through now is bad for everyone and will just push unemployment higher. I wish them all the best.
TClark,
Glad your wife was not killed. Being in that truck that day probably saved her life or at the very least prevented a serious injury.
Happy Motoring!