Great Read: Is BOF Still Relevant for Midsize Trucks and SUVs?

[Gecko]

I came across this article on T4R.org and thought it was so informative that I wanted to share here. No surprise that we've seen a rapid decline in trucks and SUVs with full frames, and this article does a good job of answering why.

One thing I've also thought about: there doesn't seem to be much of a weight savings with equivalent BOF vs. Unibody SUVs... and this article touches on that as well.

TruckYeah: Midsize Trucks Don't Need Frames

Enjoy

 

[CIF]

I was hesitant to have clicked on it when I saw it was Jalopnik. I read it, and IMO there's nothing much profound or new in terms of information in that article.

To quickly summarize, this is what the article boiled down to IMO:

- At Honda, they made a 2nd gen unibody Ridgeline, because just like the 1st gen, they ONLY have experience with unibodies. Honda has no experience with body-on-frame vehicles. So because of that, Honda simply continued with unibody. A very simple reason why Honda didn't go with BOF. Also the fact that they made the front end of the new Ridgeline with such soft styling indicates to me they are not serious about conquesting "real truck buyers", because the Ridgeline still does not look like a real truck.
- A unibody can match a ladder frame in the midsize segment in most load metrics, only IF the unibody is heavily reinforced, negating any weight savings.
- A unibody is still weaker in heavy off-roading situations. Also not mentioned in the article, ALL heavy duty vehicles on the planet use ladder frames. This includes heavy duty pickups, commercial trucks, and semi-trailer trucks. So a unibody is simply weaker period in any heavy duty application, not just off-roading.
- Not mentioned in the article, is that while a properly reinforced unibody can handle a moderate amount of load levels, the force is distributed differently than in a body-on-frame vehicle. In a body-on-frame vehicle, more force is absorbed by the ladder frame, and force is also dispersed via the twisting and other motions of the frame being a separate piece from the body. In a unibody, all the force has no choice but to travel through the unibody, and subsequently through to the suspension. So in other words, in a heavy off-roading situation, or when hitting a big pothole, a unibody vehicle will put more force and stress through the suspension than a body-on-frame vehicle in the same situation.
- The article was well articulated, but still mostly came off sounding like a puff piece for unibody utility vehicles.
- a unibody has some advantages on (smooth) road, but a body-on-frame has lots of advantages off-road, and in heavy duty situations. So if a person lives in and drives in an area filled with pitted roads, or lots of potholes, that's essentially almost the same as driving off-road. In that environment, body-on-frame is more durable and reliable over time.

 

[mmcartalk]

TruckYeah: Midsize Trucks Don't Need Frames

For some reason, I can't get that link to open.

 

[mmcartalk]

- At Honda, they made a 2nd gen unibody Ridgeline, because just like the 1st gen, they ONLY have experience with unibodies. Honda has no experience with body-on-frame vehicles. So because of that, Honda simply continued with unibody. A very simple reason why Honda didn't go with BOF. Also the fact that they made the front end of the new Ridgeline with such soft styling indicates to me they are not serious about conquesting "real truck buyers", because the Ridgeline still does not look like a real truck.
- A unibody can match a ladder frame in the midsize segment in most load metrics, only IF the unibody is heavily reinforced, negating any weight savings.

That's basically what Honda has done with the Ridgeline....taken a typical unit-body and re-enforced it on the bottom, essentially building an (imitation) ladder-frame into the unibody-structure. It is the only pickup in the industry that uses that type of construction. I like the Ridgeline, though, not for heavy-duty work (which, of course, it cannot do), but for its careful, precise assembly at the plant and quality of the materials used in its construction. Closing the doors, for example, is like shutting a miniature bank-vault.

 

[mikeavelli]

I again had a 2017 LX 570 over the weekend. For the first time I loaded it with 8 people. Yes 8, 7 adults and mini-Mike. I was absolutely stunned with how good the LX drove. That car doesn't need a unibody, its a 100k invincible luxury tank.

To me there is room for both in a lineup. But I guess the experts see the future better than I can in regards to what they need to offer that people will want and will provide shareholder value.

 

[Gecko]

I again had a 2017 LX 570 over the weekend. For the first time I loaded it with 8 people. Yes 8, 7 adults and mini-Mike. I was absolutely stunned with how good the LX drove. That car doesn't need a unibody, its a 100k invincible luxury tank.

To me there is room for both in a lineup. But I guess the experts see the future better than I can in regards to what they need to offer that people will want and will provide shareholder value.

I agree. Even if a GA-L-based three row SUV joins the lineup and is similar sized, the LX should stay BOF... it's a niche flagship "invincible luxury tank" as you say - haha.

 

[mmcartalk]

I was absolutely stunned with how good the LX drove. That car doesn't need a unibody, its a 100k invincible luxury tank.

In most cases, a unibody would (probably) only detract from its towing and/or off-road capability.