But could it tow a trailer with a few thoroughbred race horses? For countless miles on unpaved farm and ranch roads? Many of these farms and ranches are thousands of acres.
“My 4Runner actually had a unibody on top of a ladder frame”.
The placement of a unibody on a frame is nothing new. The 1946-48 Nash Ambassador had the Nash 600 unibody on a frame. The body from the cowl on back for the Nash Ambassador and the less expensive Nash 600 was the same except that there was no frame under the body of the 600. The Nash Ambassador was longer from the cowl forward. In 1949, all Nash cars were unibody. The bodies were the same from the cowl back, but the Ambassador was longer from the cowl forward.
It is interesting to me that back in the 1960s, Consumer Reports preferred the body on frame construction to the unibody because it isolated the passengers better from road noise.
CR in its ratings today seems to prefer vehicles that are more “car like”. I prefer vehicles that are more “truck like”. Of the 4 minivans I have owned, a Ford Aerostat, a Ford Windstar, a Chevrolet Uplander and a Toyota Sienna, I liked the Aerostar the best. I carried musicians and their instruments more comfortably than the other vans. We like the 4Runner because it rides high and my wife really likes the better view of the road than you get in other vehicles. We much preferred the 4Runner over the Toyota Highlander when we purchased the 4Runner back in 2003. I am sure most buyers have a different viewpoint and that’s fine.
The SUV’s the OP mentioned can survive as long as there’s a market, the Xterra has been limping along at around 17,000-20,000 per year and will not see 2016 from what I understand. The Crossover type of SUV is chosen by many families to carry 5-7 passengers and cargo instead of buying the dreaded minivan. The 4runner and similar SUV’s are more aimed at the offroad and/or towing crowd. A friend bought a 4runner a couple of years ago over a Highlander for the tow rating,others probably prefer the Highlander for daily use. To each their own.
My farmer relatives have pickups, not SUVs. They need truck beds for carrying messy farm loads that wouldn’t be welcome inside an SUV. A modern crew cab truck works just fine as a family vehicle, unless you have a big family. Their small beds aren’t ideal for farm work, but there are other long bed trucks around, too. Those are the families among my relatives who have big SUVs.
The SUV only got popular in the eighties and nineties and we still have far more models than we did in 1985. The rise of the CUV has given people more options to meet their needs. People can still get mildly elevated seat height, plenty of headroom, ample and flexible cargo space, but still get reectable gas mileage and more a more carlike ride and handling.
That list of true SUVs is still plenty long enough that any one who really needs a tow vehicle should be able to find something they like. Maybe not as many choices as a decade ago, but still some nice options.
@insightful A contradiction in terms. Perhaps. Structurally though, it is a reasonable way to discribe it. How else would you discribe a shell that had to pass crash tests the same way a vehicle without a ladder frame does. The ladder frame does not alone protect the occupants. It’s the reinforced shell of the single reinforced unibody on top that does…a regular unibody and that above the frame on a ladder frame truck are very close in construction. Older ladder framed vehicles did not have reinforced bodies for that purpose. Look at a 4 runner. It has a boxed reinforced rocker panels, the similar construction as a Highlander, running outside of the frame as part of the body on frame construction. Where the mechanics are attached to the body in some, the ladder frame takes the load of the mechanics. It is a duplication of construction that makes it more expensive.
Even around here most people do not need huge SUVs even though many choose to have them (as long as fuel is cheap) most of the duty of these huge pickups and SUVs are hauling 1-2 smallish woman around(they wont buy a Surburban for a work vehicle to haul the crew in)(too nice for dirty workers)I have absolutely no love for SUVs,“The SUV is dead,long live the SUV”
"Here is a sample list of a few of these SUV look-a-likes:
Jeep Cherokee
Nissan Pathfinder
Ford Explorer
Ford Escape
GMC Envoy"
Sorry dude but the Trailblazer/Envoy/Ascender platform is body on frame, RWD, 4WD…
If you own a big SUV, and you don’t use it for towing, off road and bad weather travel, you are getting one heck of a station wagon. The way SUVS without frames are designed, they are easier to load and unload and they tend to ride better with their independent suspension. They way SUVS with frames are made, they can take a lot more abuse with the mechanics being better protected, and attached to a dedicated structure so it can be held above a solid axle to maintian ground clearance. That may not sound important, but some really need this. These vehicles will leave in large numbers for the mall set, but some like the 4arunner will hang on grudgingly.
Sorry there TwinTurbo. I was confused about the envoy, and think that it was a terrain.
Are they still making the envoy?
Going back the OP’s initial posts - an SUV has to have a full frame in his opinion to be a true SUV. I don’t agree with that premise.
An SUV is simply a vehicle capable of carrying more cargo over rougher terrain that a conventional sedan. The “sports” isn’t in the driving since these are bigger, heavier, and higher vehicles. A Miata is a sporty car to drive, not a Tahoe. The sports is in carrying all the sports gear, kayaks for instance. Utility is there because they are boxy in shape, have seats that go down, and carry a lot of stuff. You can big utility if you carry a lot of stuff or small utility, it is a matter of choice. Vehicle means it simply goes down a road, any road from 2 track to expressway.
So there are a lot of vehicles that fit as an SUV if you allow a much broader criteria. With the goal of increasing mpg to attract buyers - SUV’s are getting smaller, lighter, more aerodynamic, etc. If you can get structural integrity without a full frame you are saving hundreds of pounds. A full frame often means a higher towing capacity, and greater load capacity. Currently a lot of SUV’s without full frames are rated at 5000 to 6000 lbs towing capacity. That is enough to haul my 2 horse trailer, and my ski boat both of which are in the 5000 lbs range loaded. I’ll stick with my fully framed full size '01 Toyota Sequoia for now, but if I had to replace it I’d look at towing capacity and not be overly concerned about whether or not there is a full frame.
Computerized design, robotic welding, and new materials are being used so that a very strong and rigid vehicle platform can be made without a full frame.
@UncleTurbo, My opinion as far as frames are concerned is fairly fluid at this point. I’ve begun to lean more toward the RWD vs FWD aspect.
I now, and forever, formally concede the frame argument.
You and everyone else that pointed that out, have convinced me that I was probably wrong.
That said, it simply appears to me that some SUVs (Tahoe and Expedition) and trucks with no bed and a large interior, and some SUVs (new Cherokee & Explorer) & all CUVs are cars with a 3" body lift and a “trail rated” badge.
There’s a large variance in what’s considered an SUV. For the purposes of this thread I’ve stuck with the OP’s definition. Keeps the debate cleaner.
The industry itself is no help. Marketing types would call Mustangs SUVs if they thought more people would buy them.
Are they still making the envoy?
Unfortunately, no. Although they were not known for their fuel economy, they were trucks in their own right and quite capable machines. I have owned several Trailblazers over the years and they serve(d) me well.
Quite frankly, I have no use for a the current poser machines that have a large presence with nothing to back it up 
Computerized design, robotic welding, and new materials are being used so that a very strong and rigid vehicle platform can be made without a full frame
It’s all relative. Yes, they are far better than years past but for a working vehicle, I will always favor a real frame. Try plowing with that unit-body or doing any serious 4 wheeling…
I hope the full sized and full framed SUV is far from extinction. There is a need for them. But most people that buy an SUV rarely ever use 4WD and when they do it is for snow not going “off roading”.
How else would you discribe a shell that had to pass crash tests the same way a vehicle without a ladder frame does.
Well, Toyota describes it as “body-on-frame”:
http://toyotanews.pressroom.toyota.com/releases/toyota+4runner+2014+most+fun+drive.htm
;-]
I find this thread confusing and amusing. Before WW II, a station wagon had a wooden body. If you needed the hauling or passenger carrying ability, but didn’t want to sit around and watch your vehicle rot, Chevrolet offered a panel truck with seats and windows. After WW II Jeep came up with a vehicle that was less truck like, but certainly wasn’t a car and called it a station wagon. I’m not sure it was a real station wagon because it rusted instead of rotting. In 1949, Plymouth came out with an all metal station wagon on its lowest trim line series. However, Plymouth hedged its bets and offered a,station wagon with wood panels. Plymouth cheated a little bit as this wagon did have a steel body frame and roof, but you could still sit around and watch the wood panels rot. Chevrolet offered a mostly steel wagon in 1949, but initially the tailgate was wood so there was something to rot. By midyear, the tailgate became all steel but Chevrolet didn’t let on that this change had been made. Ford wagons had a steel roof and frame for the 1949 through 1951 models. However, the outer door skin and quarter panels were wood, so there was something to rot. I’ve never been sure whether or not the Jeep Station Wagon was a real wagon, because it didn’t have its tire mounted on the tailgate as proper station wagons did back then. The spare tire was mounted inside and blocked the view from the right rear window. I guess some consumers complained about the wood rotting or the spare tire being stolen on real station wagons, because the spare tire was moved under the floor…For customers who liked the wood look, wood decals were applied to the upper trim level wagons starting in the early 1950s. This must have satisfied customers because they could watch the decals flake off instead of the wood rotting. As a purist, I think the real station wagon needs to have a wooden body and the spare tire mounted on the tailgate.
When we trace the history of the minivan, I think VW started the trend. However, Chrysler gets credit for introducing the minivan to the world in 1984. However. Chrysler reasoned that one’s defense against a front end collision shouldn’t be one’s legs. Chrysler did have the good sense to put wood decals on its upper trimline minivans, so you could pretend that you had a station wagon and watch the decals flake off.
When it comes to SUVs, I think the Jeep CJ series was the real SUV. The top, door, and sides,of a real SUV should be canvas. I would have thought that the manufacturers of what are called SUVs today would have offered an upper trimline version with canvas slipcovers on the sides.
I can’t get a grip on what a true crossover vehicle is. However, I am doing research on this matter and will report back.
Fancy crew cab pickups with huge towing capacity are real common. No worries for folks who need to tow their horses.
I think it’s illegal to live in TX and not have a truck.
That’s not true, it is perfectly legal to own a sedan as long as it has numbers painted on the front doors. Sponsor decals are optional.
I heard lemon oil was useful for cleaning the white off of the wood grain decals.