@MikeInNH
You are right about many of your assertions. The repairability of a framed vehicle make them preferable not only for off roading but taxis and police vehicles. There are different degrees of off roading. Just going over fields is one thing. Rock climbing and muddying is something else. For fifteen years, I went through three Toyota short bed with an unlifted body with 265/75/15 tires and I really didn’t want for anything more. Butfried reins unlifted Jeep Cherokee was nearly as functional. The biggest advantage of framed off roaders is their flexibility for aftermarket conversions. Still, straight from the factory, there were plenty of decent unibody off roaders. The problem with unibody is, they are too stiff. Controlled frame flex is an advantage off roading. So, the idea that unibodies are not strong enough is not necessarily true. But, like you imply, you wouldn’t want to buy one used for off roading when it’s near impossible to tell how much strength it had left used.
IMHO, they do it to save WEIGHT while still passing crash tests. Frames provide some things unibody can’t. Flexibility in swapping bodies by the manufacturer and making after market conversions. At some point I have no doubt, we will see unibody framed Ford F150s and plow trucks. They just have to be specifically designed for it.
After all, the original HUMVEE is a hybrid body with some frame members, the narrower spine in the middle and part reinforced welded in members on the exterior. I feel you will see that happening with all our trucks and off roaders. In reality, for frame vehicles like the Range Rover and to a lesser extent the 4Runner, it’s done already at the cost of lots of weight for crash test rquirements. When you can combine structural integrity with passenger saftey, it can only be done with unibody in part or whole when mileage and weight is a big concerm. You will see unibody more in trucks. As far as towing is concerned, it’s the same thing. Ladder frames give you more after market options. Still, 7400lbs is nothing to sneeze at and my neighbor does it regularly. I know of cases where tow vehicles with frames had towing fatigue. The difference is, they can be fixed and unibody can’t. But, just like off roading, the capability can be designed in. Many Jeeps are proof of it. BTW, the old Jeep Cherokee was a relatively easy suspension lift with limitations to use over size tires. It all depends on the design and not just having the ladder frame.
I started buying Chrysler products for 3 reasons. They were popular with farmers in the dairy country of the southern tier of western NY where I grew up for their economy, toughness and reliability ( in the 1940s and early 50s )
If you were buying used, they were cheaper than For or GM products.
They fit me, I hit 6’3" by age 13 and most of it is in my legs. No Gm car, truck, SUV or class 8 tractor has ever been comfortable for me , the ergonomics are just all wrong.
Chryslers still do have a lower resale value when buying used and there is probably good reason for this. I have never found Chryslers uncomfortable to drive or ride in. My friends 2.7L Intrepid drove great right up until it shot a rod through the block. Unfortunately another form of comfort is not being stranded on the side of the road during a snowstorm, burning hot summer day, and/or far from civilization.
As for the unibody design, I can understand wanting body on frame for heavy towing or off roading but serves the need just fine for most people. Yes, the Jeep of interest was definitely a unibody model but it did just fine off-road. My friend basically said it was unstoppable off-roading but was sidelined by more than its fair share of mechanical breakdowns. No, he didn’t of-road it all the time. It was just a few times per year and in the snow that this was used so it wasn’t like you cold blame that for all the mechanical problems.
They fit me, I hit 6'3" by age 13 and most of it is in my legs. No Gm car, truck, SUV or class 8 tractor has ever been comfortable for me , the ergonomics are just all wrong.
Two Chrysler products were so ergonomically WRONG…I couldn’t believe how they sold any.
#1 - Dodge Omni. I rented that car ONCE. In order for my 6’3 frame to fit I had to put the seat all the way back. And when I did I had to bend way over to reach the steering wheel. It was absurd.
#2 - The first generation of the Durango. The 4wd shifter was so far forward I had to bend forward so much just to reach the shifter my head was now below the dash.
As far as reliability goes…My brother-in-law who is a retired Chryco plant manager - owns a Honda Ridgeline.
@oblivion At least you are getting crappy warranty offers for a vehicle you still own, I get them for a 1991 Jeep that I haven’t owned since 2001 and a Mitsubishi I haven’t owned since 2009.
Well the flexibility of a light frame is a plus in many off road apps(sort of a lousy articulation if those wheels arent planted they are not providing much in the way of traction/trucks and buses generally do better on a frame(the Grumman “Flexible Flyer” comes to mind because of issues with its I assume unibody consruction.I suppose most aircraft are monocque construction due to issues of weight and stiffness-Kevin
Other than ultralight aircraft, which are still wood strips with doped canvas, and perhaps some multimillion dollar private jets or modern fighter jets that utilize high tech materials like carbon fiber, I’m unaware of any aircraft that doesn’t utilize the skin structurally with riveted spars and ribs. I cannot imagine any other way to design and aircraft. And I’ve crawled around the insides of a heck of a lot of aircraft.
But planes are designed to flex. And they use alloys that allow them to do so in a controlled manner. Flexing is the aircraft’s “shock absorber system”, if you will. Anyone who’s seen a large aircraft on the flightline is totally comfortable with the ripples. The wingtips on large aircraft will often flex many feet off the ground before they lift the fuselage. My elderly brain has forgotten the amount the tips on our BUFFs would rise, but it was many feet. And when they were parked, the skin would ripple impressively, and very visibly.
Interestingly, the SR71 Blackbird, the world’s fastest manned airplane, had titanium skin, which not only flexed much more than aluminum but also had a much different coefficient of thermal expansion. The skin would get all loose on the ground, fitting properly only when warmed up.
I think the key difference is that cars use suspension systems to absorb shock. Aircraft use their own body structure.
Dont some aircraft utilize longerons? I commented on an older series BUFF on a military site,about how much care they were taking to cut the empennage off(may have been an H model not sure) they were doing to fulfill the arms reduction agreement with the Russians,the moderator removed my post in about 30 seconds,I happened to mention Dale Brown may have been getting an"old dog" for sure{was the first poster too.I finally just dumped that site,if they were going to be that uptight about things}-Kevin
There is one thing I do like about unibody over frames. They are much easier to apply rust resistant oils to. The body on frame is placed so it’s impossible to coat areas you need to that don’t drain well while a unibody seems designed to drop in a vat and drain well. Spraying is real easy and I get much better rust prevention results with them. IMHO, this is one of the biggest reasons that newer cars last longer then the older, more rust prone body on frame. I think it’s also a big reason (one of many) for the demise of the Crown Vic. Too many man hours involved in assembly. Still can’t convince mother we need an older one no matter how great they look when one sails past.
While driving 20 miles to a hotel from an airport last week, the cabby took 4 of us, and 4 underneath bags with six carry ons and it still road well and handled great. My wife was not as impressed as I. I know of no other car made that could survive as a taxi as well as the crown Vic with a ladder frame…sure, some SUVs but they would not handle as well at 70 mph.
Did you see the Mythbusters segment where they tried to do an"American Graffti" with a later model Police Crown Vic? It was a real eye opener,those things are tougher then nails.The old 62’ model or whatever it was Police cruiser the Punks sabotaged would be relativly easy to jerk the 3rd member out of -Kevin
The H model is the newest B52, the newest of the new having been accepted Air Force in 1962. The older series would have been B, C, and D models, the D models having still been active (along with G’s) in Viet Nam, while H models were kept stateside loaded with nukes. The G and H models are nuclear capable, the D models not so. The G and H models also had a totally different crew compartment configuration. In the older series, the gunner was in the empennage. In the G and H models, everyone was up front, on two different deck levels. There are other clues visible from outside, such as a different vertical stabilizer, but I’ll refrain from going on forever.
My understanding is that there are now only two B52 wings left. Both would be H models.
You have $40k to spend on a 4 wd ? The first thing I would suggest is that you decide if you need part time 4 wd found in trucks and truck based SUVs or Awd found in most car based SUVs. Essentially you’re deciding if you need a truck or a car. For the most part, a unibody design car based SUV or body on frame truck based SUV. After all that is squared around in your mind, then you can start getting confused by the vehicles that can do both, have Awd and locked part time systems. But, if you wave $40k around on a car lot, you can certainly get someone to help you spend it. ;=)