Body on Frame vs Unibody

[dtr]

I keep reading people saying they want body on frame. I understand how you feel, but it is not going to make a come back.

Why don't you start asking for what you can get instead?

Higher ground clearance - Ford could either make a special model with higher road clearance or an option for air suspension.

Real 4wd - Ford could make real 4wd as an option on some models

If you say you want body on frame it will fall on deaf ears at Ford imo. If you make cogent comments on how to improve unibody construction vehicle Ford may adopt comments and build something better.

Personally I would like Ford to build something better in the future.

 

[colintrax]

What's the point of real 4wd and lots of ground clearance if it's unibody? Unibody vehicles are great. Just not for offroading

 

[dtr]

What's the point of real 4wd and lots of ground clearance if it's unibody? Unibody vehicles are great. Just not for offroading

both real 4wd and ground clearance would be better. If enough people ask for it you could get something being produced that is better.

My understanding is that even trucks will be going unibody in the future. Body on frame is dying and I do not see it changing unless the CAFE rules change (fat chance).

I would like to see better built if possible. Half a loaf is better than no loaf kinda thing.

 

[colintrax]

I don't see full size trucks going unibody. Look at the ridge line, bout as "truck" as you can get with unibody

 

[1995E]

I don't get why everyone keeps complaining about unibody. There's no point of having a body on frame for most consumers. Most consumers don't buy an SUV to rock crawl or go intense mudding or something. The fact is that people buy SUVs and don't even go off the road for 99% of the vehicles life. Maybe the occasional snow and dirt roads and this Explorer accomplishes that very well. If the market needed intense off road vehicles then they would make more body on frame vehicles. It's just not the case now.

Plus, many of the Cherokees back in the day are unibody but people still went offroading with them. The Grand Cherokee and has always been unibody. I'm pretty sure if you wanted a lift kit for the Explorer, someone could make one. Lets be honest, no one bought the Explorer when it was body on frame so that's why Ford had to make the decision to switch. If you want body on frame, then an F-150 or Expedition would be a good choice or go to Toyota as they still build body on frame SUVs. I am afraid the market just doesn't want body on frame vehicles anymore. Fuel efficiency is where it's at now.

 

[dtr]

I don't see full size trucks going unibody. Look at the ridge line, bout as "truck" as you can get with unibody

"In perhaps the least-expected development in the history of automobiles, Ford announced today that the next-generation of the ultra-popular F-150 truck, due for the 2015 model year, will use a unibody architecture instead of a ladder-frame one and be made out of aluminum instead of steel."


http://www.trucktrend.com/features/consumer/163_news_130401_ford_f_150_going_unibody_for_2015/

 

[colintrax]

"In perhaps the least-expected development in the history of automobiles, Ford announced today that the next-generation of the ultra-popular F-150 truck, due for the 2015 model year, will use a unibody architecture instead of a ladder-frame one and be made out of aluminum instead of steel."


http://www.trucktrend.com/features/consumer/163_news_130401_ford_f_150_going_unibody_for_2015/

That's funny because ford says it'll be an aluminum body on a steel frame.
http://m.ford.com/experience/trucks/f150/2015/#appsimHome

 

[colintrax]

I don't get why everyone keeps complaining about unibody. There's no point of having a body on frame for most consumers. Most consumers don't buy an SUV to rock crawl or go intense mudding or something. The fact is that people buy SUVs and don't even go off the road for 99% of the vehicles life. Maybe the occasional snow and dirt roads and this Explorer accomplishes that very well. If the market needed intense off road vehicles then they would make more body on frame vehicles. It's just not the case now.

Plus, many of the Cherokees back in the day are unibody but people still went offroading with them. The Grand Cherokee and has always been unibody. I'm pretty sure if you wanted a lift kit for the Explorer, someone could make one. Lets be honest, no one bought the Explorer when it was body on frame so that's why Ford had to make the decision to switch. If you want body on frame, then an F-150 or Expedition would be a good choice or go to Toyota as they still build body on frame SUVs. I am afraid the market just doesn't want body on frame vehicles anymore. Fuel efficiency is where it's at now.

You're right but go look on the heep forums and see how many people like the unibody....

 

[dtr]

That's funny because ford says it'll be an aluminum body on a steel frame.
http://m.ford.com/experience/trucks/f150/2015/#appsimHome

Sure looks like a steel frame to me. I guess trucktrend mislead me.

All that said from what I have read about the CAFE standards you better get ready for unibody trucks in your future.

 

[wbrudi28]

in my eyes...the new explorer is not an SUV anymore. its a crossover...for larger people

 

[sloop]

Lets be honest, no one bought the Explorer when it was body on frame...

what?

 

[NEWPORTNJ]

That's what it is an s u v crossover....! I love it....!

 

[Explorer0204]

I think it is so cute to see my friend and his unibody grand Cherokee looking for lift points before placing the jack. I just throw it under the frame and lift. As for gas mileage I will sacrifice gas mileage al day for the safety of a frame. I rolled a third Gen and those things are tanks. That frame helped save my life. Consider this. In a crash especially front or rear crashes the unibody takes all of the impact. Guess what you are right in the middle of... Yup the unibody. In a proper suv the frame takes almost all the impact leaving the occupants over the impact zone. No obviously many unibody vehicles are perfectly safe, but when it all comes down to it having an impact distributed along the underside of the vehicle is safer than throughout all of it and into the passenger compartment. It's kinda a conflict of interest really.

Plus, being raised in tahoes, excursions, suburban, full size pickups I just won't go unibody. It ain't right. Except for cars

 

[colintrax]

I think it is so cute to see my friend and his unibody grand Cherokee looking for lift points before placing the jack. I just throw it under the frame and lift. As for gas mileage I will sacrifice gas mileage al day for the safety of a frame. I rolled a third Gen and those things are tanks. That frame helped save my life. Consider this. In a crash especially front or rear crashes the unibody takes all of the impact. Guess what you are right in the middle of... Yup the unibody. In a proper suv the frame takes almost all the impact leaving the occupants over the impact zone. No obviously many unibody vehicles are perfectly safe, but when it all comes down to it having an impact distributed along the underside of the vehicle is safer than throughout all of it and into the passenger compartment. It's kinda a conflict of interest really.

Plus, being raised in tahoes, excursions, suburban, full size pickups I just won't go unibody. It ain't right. Except for cars

I don't think you understand how unibody and body on frame vehicles are made/designed. Unibody vehicles are safer

 

[dtr]

I think it is so cute to see my friend and his unibody grand Cherokee looking for lift points before placing the jack. I just throw it under the frame and lift. As for gas mileage I will sacrifice gas mileage al day for the safety of a frame. I rolled a third Gen and those things are tanks. That frame helped save my life. Consider this. In a crash especially front or rear crashes the unibody takes all of the impact. Guess what you are right in the middle of... Yup the unibody. In a proper suv the frame takes almost all the impact leaving the occupants over the impact zone. No obviously many unibody vehicles are perfectly safe, but when it all comes down to it having an impact distributed along the underside of the vehicle is safer than throughout all of it and into the passenger compartment. It's kinda a conflict of interest really.

Plus, being raised in tahoes, excursions, suburban, full size pickups I just won't go unibody. It ain't right. Except for cars

If you hit something at highway speed your vehicle decelerates extremely quickly. The kinetic energy of your vehicle is 1/2MV^2

The slower you are going the less energy on impact. That energy gets absorbed by the unibody reducing the energy impact share to the occupants. A frame vehicle hardly deforms at all in comparison. So a LOT more energy is absorbed by the occupants which means there is a greater chance of severe injuries or death. Unibody wins hands down in an accident.

I understand that if it were your choice you would sacrifice gas mileage all day long for a body on frame. Unfortunately, it has already been decided it is not your choice. Very high CAFE requirements will be met by the auto industry or they will pay enormous fines. The auto industry will be selling MUCH lighter MUCH more fuel efficient vehicles in the future.

I suspect even trucks will be going unibody in the future whether you like it or not. The auto companies simply do not have a lot of alternatives.

 

[sloop]

Half a loaf is better than no loaf kinda thing.

optimism is one thing - but with that as your standard, you'll soon be thanking your masters for bread crumbs

 

[Explorer0204]

If you hit something at highway speed your vehicle decelerates extremely quickly. The kinetic energy of your vehicle is 1/2MV^2

The slower you are going the less energy on impact. That energy gets absorbed by the unibody reducing the energy impact share to the occupants. A frame vehicle hardly deforms at all in comparison. So a LOT more energy is absorbed by the occupants which means there is a greater chance of severe injuries or death. Unibody wins hands down in an accident.

I understand that if it were your choice you would sacrifice gas mileage all day long for a body on frame. Unfortunately, it has already been decided it is not your choice. Very high CAFE requirements will be met by the auto industry or they will pay enormous fines. The auto industry will be selling MUCH lighter MUCH more fuel efficient vehicles in the future.

I suspect even trucks will be going unibody in the future whether you like it or not. The auto companies simply do not have a lot of alternatives.

ehh....

I see your point.. as this is what the Smart car suffers from. (seems safe because the frame/body is really strong but it has zero absorption so it just kills everything inside from the deceleration) but at the end of the day to me more steel wins over less steel. What you are not factoring in are crashes that are so severe, they push the engine into the passenger compartment. If you go head first into a tractor trailer or even a full size pickup decelleration rates or not you need all the advantages you can get strength wise because that vehicle is 2x or wayy more heavier than you. A real honest to God frame is STRONGER and yea your decelleration is quicker and you MAY die but...BUT at least you have a chance of surviving because there isn't a V6 where your head should have been.

So yes for CERTAIN types of crashes a unibody is safer because it can absorb the same impact but over a longer period of time. But for the crashes that are really severe you can wind up pinned in....of course you could in a frame on body vehicle too but it is slightly less likely.

"However, would unibody construction be safer in the event of a crash? When asked, Robert Shelton, former executive director of NHTSA, said no real-world studies had been done to prove that unibody SUVs are safer in a crash."

Beyond crashing rust is more of a risk to Unibody cars as well

“Unfortunately, when a vehicle with a unibody design is involved in a serious accident, it may be more difficult to repair than a vehicle with a full frame. Rust can be more of a problem, since the structural metal is part of the load bearing structure (of metal that is much thinner than a conventional chassis) making it more critical, and must be repaired by cutting-out and welding rather than by simply bolting on new parts (as would be the case for a separate chassis). Structural rust of monocoque cars was a serious problem until the 1990s. Since then, more and more car makers have adopted protection techniques such as galvanizing for structural areas or for the whole body.”


Not everything is so black and white. Now in reality Unibody probably is better for the average person but it isn't without its disadvantages as well.

 

[dtr]

I think it is so cute to see my friend and his unibody grand Cherokee looking for lift points before placing the jack. I just throw it under the frame and lift.

I do not mean to pick on you but the above comment illustrates the difference between 1950's engineering design where you just use the same thickness material everywhere whether it is needed or not and today's engineering designs. You see engineers are capable of determining where the high stress points will be in the design and just beef things up in those locations. So they design hard points into the vehicle for attaching the engine, seats, wheels etc. All the spots that need the strength get it and all the spots that a finite element analysis shows to be low or very low stress just does not get as much metal.

You save metal, save weight, save fuel, get a better ride, and it is safer in a crash. As long as the hard points are properly designed so the stresses will handle the loads there is not a problem.

Of course there can be errors even though they should be getting good at this by now, but even if a location was under designed you should be able to make a field fix by using more metal and structural adhesives to improve the stress handling capability after it is built.

Like I said previously under current CAFE laws the auto companies really do not have any other alternatives than to eliminate metal from low stress locations and that leads to unibody construction design.

 

[Explorer0204]

I do not mean to pick on you but the above comment illustrates the difference between 1950's engineering design where you just use the same thickness material everywhere whether it is needed or not and today's engineering designs. You see engineers are capable of determining where the high stress points will be in the design and just beef things up in those locations. So they design hard points into the vehicle for attaching the engine, seats, wheels etc. All the spots that need the strength get it and all the spots that a finite element analysis shows to be low or very low stress just does not get as much metal.

You save metal, save weight, save fuel, get a better ride, and it is safer in a crash. As long as the hard points are properly designed so the stresses will handle the loads there is not a problem.

Of course there can be errors even though they should be getting good at this by now, but even if a location was under designed you should be able to make a field fix by using more metal and structural adhesives to improve the stress handling capability after it is built.

Like I said previously under current CAFE laws the auto companies really do not have any other alternatives than to eliminate metal from low stress locations and that leads to unibody construction design.

I'm not denying the whole regulation thing and that due to gas mileage they are forced to do unibodys.

That being said again... I am just saying they aren't without their disadvantages when it comes to things like rust, towing, and SPECIFIC crash situations.

You're going to have to do better then that to pick on me hehehe.
I like some good debate every once in a while things can be learned.

I guess I am just an old school redneck stuck in the past.

 

[dtr]

I'm not denying the whole regulation thing and that due to gas mileage they are forced to do unibodys.

That being said again... I am just saying they aren't without their disadvantages when it comes to things like rust, towing, and SPECIFIC crash situations.

You're going to have to do better then that to pick on me hehehe.
I like some good debate every once in a while things can be learned.

I guess I am just an old school redneck stuck in the past.

first, I am not trying to pick on you there just was a lot to comment about

I understand your point of view I just do not necessarily agree

corrosion can be handled relatively easily with more/thicker galvanizing

for over all safety in a collision (the way the lions share of collisions happen) unibody construction is the absolute clear winner. you are fooling yourself or are unfamiliar with how deformation of the car saves lives

I really do not know or care about towing as it is just not that important as flat bead trucks are popping up everywhere.

Why add weight to low stress areas in vehicles? go to any engineering college and I think they are all being educated to understand that we have better designs techniques available today. Trucks just do not need thick metal parts in low stress areas and that is one advantage of unibody.

Now if they could just design some dang road clearance into them and give them real 4wd instead of advertising awd as 4wd they could build a great truck.