- Reaction score
Honestly Land Cruiser whatever it will be a brand, sub-brand or model they always need to be stiff BOF SUV
I would like to have a complete engineering report regarding unibody vs body-on-frame vs integrated body-on-frame vs whatever else, to know what is truly better for a car like Land Cruiser 200, without all the accounting and marketing bullsh*t. There are a lot of misconceptions, and off course for the Land Cruiser I want the best.Honestly Land Cruiser whatever it will be a brand, sub-brand or model they always need to be stiff BOF SUV
Maybe, but is stiffness wanted /needed for off-road heavy duty? Metal bridges are not stiff for example. Semi trailers are not stiff either.There's a lot of papers and documents that talks about stiffness of the ladder frame chassis in compare to the unibody frame
I think Mike Sweer said in an interview that unibody can certainly be engineered to achieve similar strength as a frame, at least for light-to-mid size pick-up trucks. But it would kill all the weight benefit due to the amount of strengthening required. The ride quality advantage will stay, but BOF trucks can be engineered to have a smooth ride as well.I would like to have a complete engineering report regarding unibody vs body-on-frame vs integrated body-on-frame vs whatever else, to know what is truly better for a car like Land Cruiser 200, without all the accounting and marketing bullsh*t. There are a lot of misconceptions, and off course for the Land Cruiser I want the best.
Why I asked it because comparing different cars (CUV/SUV vs 4x4) is always comparing apple to oranges. Take the Pajero and Prado for example: the first is unibody and has IRS, the second is body-on-frame and has SRS. While conceptually the Pajero is like a German SUV, it drives like a (very good) truck, not like a car. What is more important is how the product is executed, rather than by which means. Costs plays a role, less so for the Land Cruiser. So Toyota can make the best either way. That means, if BOF still has the advantage, with enough money and R&D, it can be made to be lighter and more agile, if it is desired.I think Mike Sweer said in an interview that unibody can certainly be engineered to achieve similar strength as a frame, at least for light-to-mid size pick-up trucks. But it would kill all the weight benefit due to the amount of strengthening required. The ride quality advantage will stay, but BOF trucks can be engineered to have a smooth ride as well.
The conclusion is like this: if the manufacturer doesn't have any BOF experience, then it's better to do strengthened unibody (aka Honda Ridgeline); if it has been making BOF for decades, then it's better to figure out how to improve ride quality. Either way works and the effort is similar, so there is no absolute answer to this. But for full-size trucks with a lot of payload rating, a frame is unbeatable (so at least Tundra will stay BOF).
However, it is not the first 3-box SUV (sorry for being picky). If we count BOF vehicles, which are also 2-box, they have 3-box variants, that would be dual cab pick-ups with hardtop canopy. The Honda Ridgeline is closer, because it is a unibody pickup. But then, the truly first normal unibody SUV to have a separate cabin was the current Volvo XC90 Excellence. Why I mentioned normal, is because before, armored SUVs at B6 level, also have separate luggage compartment, namely the Mercedes-Benz ML Guard and the BMW X5 Security Plus. The reason is simply because the glass would be a lot more heavy to be opened, and because making a fixed wall is simpler and safer than securing an opening. Increased comfort turned out to be beneficial byproduct.Rolls-Royce Motors Cars PressClub said:One final feature brings Rolls-Royce’s ultimate level of luxury to this configuration of Cullinan, creating the first truly “three-box” SUV. Inspired by the age when one never travelled with one’s luggage, a glass partition isolates the passenger cabin from the luggage compartment, creating an inner ecosystem for the occupants. In addition to enhanced and class-leading silence within the cabin, a further benefit becomes clear in the hottest and coldest of environments. Thanks to the sealed cabin created by the glass partition wall, the occupants can remain in the optimum temperature even when the luggage compartment stands open.
It will depend on whether the LF-1 needs to be family-friendly. A four-seater takes a big practicality penalty which could dissuade buyers. A 3-row six-seater, on the other hand, retains the 2nd row comfort of the four-seater but can be practical. And of course they can build a 2-row like they did for the LX by simply removing the 3rd row. The 2-box layout allows that extra versatility.Will the LF-1 be a 3-box 4 seat luxury grand touring crossover? It better be because that is exactly what I feel it should when looking at it and imagining its purpose.
I am questioning the versatility for such a type of car. The same way I do not see Lamborghini Urus customers transporting IKEA furniture. With the 3-box layout of the now benchmark SUV (Rolls-Royce status), I expect to see this layout at its competitors. What I do not want to see is the LF-1 criticized for having no 3-box version with 2 individual seats. As for the third row, I do not see enough place, and there are the RX/GX/LX (if the later are not discontinued) that have ample third row space. With the 3-box CUV/SUV layout, luxury sedans will be displaced even faster, especially as status sedans will inevitability be luxury BEVs, driven in the city: BMW iNext, next Jaguar XJ, next Lagonda sedan, new VAG platfrom with Porsche Mission-e and its derived Audi and Bentley versions, as a possible Lamborghini version in guise of an electric Estoque production vehicle. As for size, luxury sedans are not easier to drive in the city than luxury CUVs/SUVs, so again, a CUV/SUV will easily replace a luxury sedans, that is reduce its market share closer to the level of coupes/sportscars.The 2-box layout allows that extra versatility.
2 rows high performance SUV is growing rapidly
and honestly it doesn't means to be 3 rows
Lexus already have RX-L as 3 rows, plus at least one of either GX & LX if they even choose one of the 2 names to be the production version of it
Could be called LA (Luxury All-Purpose Vehicle), which it basically is: style of LC, luxury of LS, practicality of LX.
It seems that the right answer is "none of the above".I like that!
Other possibilities along those lines are LM (Luxury Multipurpose) and LT (Luxury Touring).