Big trucks have meant big profits for Detroit. Thanks to cheap oil, personal paranoia, a desire for an outdoor life that only the drudgery of daily commuting could provide, the fairer sex' natural desire to see ten miles ahead at all times and a federal fuel economy regulation loophole big enough to drive an Expedition through, The Big 2.8 managed to convince Americans that body-on-frame vehicles were just dandy for personal transportation. With gas price increases showing no signs of slowing, one of Detroit's biggest truck chassis addicts is looking at kicking the habit. Bloomberg reports that GM, yes GM, is developing a lighter replacement for its biggest SUVs (Yukotahburbelade) that won't tow jack shit rely on a heavier pickup-truck frame. This, according to "people familiar with the effort." (Familiarity breeds PR.) It should be said (and soon will be) that GM has been relying on the same basic Silverado full-size truck platform its "light trucks" since 1965. Even if truck-framed transportation isn't about to disapper overnight, at least GM has taken the first steps to beating its addiction to "easy" profits. It has admitted it has a problem.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
body on frame easily tows more than 5000.. how many families that own one commonly do that? I’d say good call
Has GM completely forgotten the concept of a station wagon? For vast majority of families, that is completely sufficient (and way more fuel efficient).
I’d say bad call as there are always going to be people who use these vehicles for work or heavy duty towing that will need one despite the price of gas. People like farmers, tradesman and so fourth.
I thought all the families buying these things that didn’t really need them were supposed to go to GM’s big fat pod-shaped crossovers instead?
WTF? Wasn’t the Acadia/Traverse meant to replace the Yukon/Tahoe for this exact reason?
This smells of the same brand salvaging effort that Ford is putting into the next gen, FWD Volvo based, Explorer Crossover. Whatever.
Hearse, limo, bread van, and RV builders can easily handle the REAL market for these big brutes. The Big 3 can make better money selling chassis’ with corporate front clips
to these specialists.
They should have never been sold as mainstream vehicles. Most I see on vacation don’t tow anything and the “big families” they typically carry consist of Mom and Dad plus two spoiled brats who “can’t” sit next to each other.
Isn’t that essentially what the Lambda-platform vehicles (GMC Acadian, Saturn Outlook, etc.) already are? They look like a comparable size to a Tahoe to me.
I thought it was “Yukaburbahoecalade?”
Abandoning B-o-F vehicles, however, won’t necessarily improve fuel economy or anything else. The Vue, for example, is remarkably heavy for its class, with very similar capacity to the Rav4 but some 500lbs heavier, if I recall correctly.
“The Big 2.8 managed to convince Americans that body-on-frame vehicles were just dandy for personal transportation.”
Land Cruiser, Pathfinder, 4 Runner, FJ Cruiser, Armada, Sequoia, Titan, etc…and don’t forget the badge engineered Lexus Land Crushers, whatever the hell they’re called.
Last time I checked, these bloated body on frame dinosaur guzzlers were not exclusive to Detroit brands.
And I do agree with a previous poster; wagons are a great solution for most families.
Interestingly enough, unit body vehicles can actually be HEAVIER than body on frame vehicles.
Case in point, look at the weight of a 1960 Studebaker Lark compact (which was in reality, a cut-down full sized car on a frame). 108″ wheelbase, six cylinder, Deluxe 4 door sedan (6 passenger) minimum weight 2592 pounds! Compare this to its direct competitor, the 1960 Rambler Six Series 10 Deluxe 4 door sedan 2912 pounds minimum!
When Herr Doktor Porsche was hired by Studebaker in the early 1950’s to develop a secret compact and 120 degree overhead valve V6 engine, the car (with 111″ wheelbase) weighed in at 3300 pounds! It was unit construction. (This development work, which Dr. Porsche got $2 million for, actually made it possible for Porsche automobile to survive the tough 1950’s).
However, it is not ALWAYS the case the unit body weighs more than body on frame.
The big advantages of unit construction are that the crush forces can be so well dispersed that the vehicle is safer, plus there is no frame rail to ram right through people when you drive through a red light and smack someone in a lower vehicle, right through their doors.
Rodion , I think it is the “convincing” Mr. Niedermeyer refers to and can mostly be attributed to the Explorer and Wagoneer. You’re right, though, that Toyota’s current BOF vehicles have nearly managed to eclipse the domestics in both variety and guzzling ability.
I’ve been on the lookout for something capable of comfortably towing my Miata and accouterments to autocrosses on the cheap. The 1994-1996 Cadillac Fleetwood, when equipped with the towing package, is rated for 6,500#! I could forgo hotels by sleeping in the ample back seat. With a feather adorned fedora, I could complete quite an image.
I think my wife would prefer a Pathfinder or something equally bland.
Just for comparison purposes, the 1960 Ford Falcon (unit body) compact six cylinder car (4 door) weighed in at 2317 pounds, but it was built of chewing gum wrap and spittle, a precursor to the flaming Ford Pinto of a decade later (and to think the Mustang was nothing more than a Falcon “in drag!”)
The 1960 Chevrolet Corvair (unit body) compact rear engine six cylinder (4 door) car weighed in at 2305 pounds (the aluminum engine helped a bit)
Chrysler’s 1960 Valiant (not Plymouth Valiant until 1961; it was its own brand in 1960) unit body, compact six cylinder 4 door sedan weighed in at 2635 pounds. This car begat the sporty fastback Barracuda which was born a couple of weeks before Mustang in April 1964.
Right now, unit body vehicles max out at 5000lbs for towing with the Ridgeline & Highlander. With some additional engineering work, it could get even higher, but that’s exactly the problem for GM = less profit, not the situation they’re looking for.
Damned if they do, damned if they don’t.
@ hwyhobo :
Has GM completely forgotten the concept of a station wagon? For vast majority of families, that is completely sufficient (and way more fuel efficient).
Unfortunately, they haven’t forgotten, the American public has. I mean, the Dodge charger was a pretty hot vehicle, and it was axed due to poor sales, while its uglier sibling the charger soldiers on. Now people want crossovers, nothing more than taller, uglier, less stable wagons, for the sole reason that they are NOT wagons. Mazda won’t offer a wagon version of its next Mazda6. You have to get the CX-7 instead.
AKM :
I think you mean the Magnum was axed.
Magnum had terrible marketing campaign from the start. It was aimed by Chrysler as the ultimate ghetto mobile instead of a solution for families. It was also styled toward the ghetto market. It also had awful fuel efficiency. All of that taken together doomed it.
As for the American public not wanting wagons, let’s look at Subaru Outback and Volvo V series. They are doing well because they are real wagons, not some bizarre contraptions that desperately try not to look like wagons (overweight “crossovers” come to mind).
starlightmica :
Right now, unit body vehicles max out at 5000lbs for towing with the Ridgeline & Highlander.
The unit body Grand Cherokee can be equipped to tow up to 6500 lbs, and the Cayenne or Touareg can tow up to 7700.
Right now, unit body vehicles max out at 5000lbs for towing with the Ridgeline & Highlander. With some additional engineering work, it could get even higher, but that’s exactly the problem for GM = less profit, not the situation they’re looking for.
don’t tell that to Chrysler that unit body vehicles max out at 5K. They’ll laugh at you. Liberty (diesel), Grand Cherokee, Commander, those full size vans that spanned Nixon to Bush, etc
and lots of European stuff is rated to tow over 5k.
The Jeeps are sort of 1/2 unibody 1/2 BOF. They’re built like a unibody but the metal “framing” on the bottom of the body is just like a traditional frame.
Imagine taking a BOF vehicle and welding the body to the frame. I believe Jeep called it “uniframe” when they announced the original XJ.
I suspect the Cayenne and Touareg are similar.
Regardless, you still need extra weight and structure for towing. You’re not going to magically get a 10K# tow rating from a car that weighs 3000#.
This is a non-issue. The so-called “half-ton” pickups from GM and Ford have been divorced from the HD pickups for several years now.
So, make the “half-ton” trucks to unibodies, and keep the 3/4- and 1-ton trucks body-on-frame for those who really need/want it.
And just WHY is it that BOF is bad? Maybe because it doesn’t kill nearly as many of it occupants as the popcan style does?
@FW, @Scottie: My bad – Pathfinder was also a unit body vehicle at one point. I was thinking about FWD-car-based vehicles.
Body on frame vehicles last. They hold their value better. They are the only thing GM does well.
This would be like bidding hearts when all you have in your hand is spades.
PS: my unibody station wagon weighs 3200lb and has a tow rating of 3300lb. Who says unibodies can’t tow?
And just WHY is it that BOF is bad? Maybe because it doesn’t kill nearly as many of it occupants as the popcan style does?…
BOF is NOT bad, if you need to tow, go off road or need serious cargo carrying capacity. So for the remaining group, i.e. the vast majority of motorists, unit construction offers lighter weight, better mileage, improved handling, tighter construction, and yes, better management of crash energy. As for deaths, the front “horns” (frame members) on the front of BOF trucks have killed plenty of people, both in BOF and “popcan” vehicles.
The lighter weight of unibody seems to be all theoretical to me. The correlation between the move to unibody and greater curb weights is suspicious.
Anybody see the Top Gear guys drive around Africa for a challenge. The little BOF compact, named Oliver, was by far the best car for the job, and it was over 40 years old.
BOF RULES!
But seriously, they do last longer.
The lighter weight of unibody seems to be all theoretical to me. The correlation between the move to unibody and greater curb weights is suspicious…..
Unit construction, all things being equal, usually results in a lighter weight. In the past 20 years, ALL types of vehicles have become heavier because of upsizing, more safety equipment, higher content, and because American culture trumpets that bigger is always better. Give two small (there’s that word again) children two objects to play with. Both the same, except one is a little larger. American kids will grab the bigger one every time.
As for which lasts longer, in extreme usage, I’ll concede that BOF should last longer (the recent recall of 800K Tacomas for frame rot excluded). But what about everyday commuter usage? Back in the day I have driven some pretty crappy cars long distances without structural problems. My college car fit the bill for unit construction and being crappy, and it lasted 253,000 miles before it’s head gasket blew. Some body rust yes, but no compromise on structural integrity. So, beasts of burden aside, I see no reason why a BOF car will outlast a unit car. Both will probably be full of holes or forced off the road by I&M programs required for registration long before either frame type fails.
Landcrusher- The VW Beetle that was mysteriously following the Top Gear hosts was the best car for the job.
Davey,
I like the old beetles, and it was likely just as good as Oliver because the engines in those things can be fixed with chewing gum and bailing wire.
Still though, the beetle got off easy. It wasn’t in the hands of one of the hosts, and didn’t do all the challenges.
We may never know.
Landcrusher said: Body on frame vehicles last. They hold their value better.
For extreme duty situations part 1 has merit, but the data doesn’t support the second assertion. Ford’s Panther chassis is the last BOF car sold in the US and they depreciate like a stone. BOF SUVs are likewise now in resale value free fall. If you just must have a 1-3 year old Suburban or Navigator you are in luck, because they are getting cheaper by the minute.
I’m with golden2husky, properly engineered a unibody vehicle will be both lighter and have better torsional rigidity than a similar size BOF vehicle.
BOF has an advantage in heavy duty applications like serious towing, but for normal passenger car use it is an inefficient vehicle architecture.
Horses for courses ….
Might this be the time to resurrect the El Camino, the Ranchero, et al? They couldn’t haul much, and if made from a Malibu or Fusion they couldn’t tow much. But drugstore cowboys could get good mileage and still be able to say “I drive a Truck.”
The Audi Q7, Jeep Grand Cherokee, and Mercedes GL/ML vehicles are unibodies that offer similar body on frame characteristics. But then they get lousy mpg in standard petrol-engine trim.
Depending on what GM is proposing here… they may not be accomplishing much.
Regarding the car-based CUVs… they’ll will never be as rugged as the body on frame variants. You’ll never be able to package a transmission robust enough to tow; CUVs can never get a torque-y V8; and the rear suspensions of CUVs will never allow for a high enough GVW for those times you want to haul kids to baseball camp.