Jalopnik

Since I don't plan on buying an SUV, I don't really care if they are built of popsicles sticks and bubble gum, but it seems to me if one were to build a vehicle that is pretending to be a truck, it should be built like a truck.

Isn't a truck without a truck frame a crossover? I mean, that'd be like making a Bond movie entirely focused on Felix Leiter.

What do they have to lose? Sales are gonna drop "like a rock" soon due to $5 a gallon gas.

Monocoque-suckers.

The minute gas skyrockets, Detroit is all Small Cars and Hybrids...the second Gas goes down (If it ever does) Americans will be back for Tahoes and Yukons to take Billy to Soccer.

Unibody does not mean fuel efficient. Jeep Commander and Jeep Liberty come to mind because both have crappy fuel mileage and unibody construction. And to go ahead and finish the mind blowing exercise, body on frame construction does not mean bad fuel economy because the Mercury Grand Marquis is far from being a gas guzzler with it antiquated architecture.

This is dumb

But what will tow a 38 ft Cigarette and seat 7 then?

Seriously, there are people who will continue to need gas hogs, I guess it's just not worth messing with for the volume.

I'm sure GM will anounce some vehicle that runs on air and moves at the speed of thought and will be available in 2050 if they can only get the technology right.

Don't any of you care about the real issues?! What about cupholders and video screens?!

@CharlzR: To me, the key issue here is that frat boys will no longer be able to jack the body of their Yukons up with those little hockey-puck things.

If left with a unibody SUV, they will be limited by suspension travel! Oh, the horror of using street tires.

@cgarison:
Yes, but it does have a significant impact. A Grand Marquis weighs roughly 1000 lbs more than the comparably sized, but unibody, '08 Sable.

The only reason that the Sable/Montego gas mileage is anywhere close to a grand marquis is that it has the aerodynamic profile of a minivan.

If you need to tow 8900lbs, buy a pickup truck. Mom doesn't need a truck-based SUV to tow the brats to soccer practice.

Indeed, the % of folks that specifically *need* a truck based SUV is probably a fraction of those that actually buy them.

Now, if only we could make trucks that ran on Political Hyperbole. There seems to be an endless supply of that.

Compare an American SUV to a Land Rover Defender (the one with the diesel engine as standard) or Land Cruiser. They might be a bit more comfortable than their foriegn counterparts, but most domestic SUVs - ESPECIALLY the @#$!@$# H2 - are useless off-road.

At least this way they'll be a bit less hideous to ride in.

No, from a current American perspective, the Mercury Grand Marquis would not technically be considered a gas guzzler... but from any more circumspect vantage: it's merely a vehicle that gets very, very, very sucky mileage.

Introducing: the Mercury Demi Marquis... unibody chassis of course.

The Jeep Cherokee was unibody and it didn't kill the Jeep image.

@smalleyxb122 ["...it seems to me if one were to build a vehicle that is pretending to be a truck, it should be built like a truck."]: It seems to me if one were to buy a truck while pretending to need a truck, one should be billed as a shmuck.

There are a number of unibody SUVs that will still tow 5000 lbs, more than enough for your average family boat. Better yet, why not just make an AWD minivan that can tow 5000 lbs. I'd trade my Sequoia for that, provided it would get 25 MPG on the freeway. I'd also consider a stretched Acadia or Highlander - just somebody build me a vehicle that will seat 8, tow a boat, have AWD, provide at least 30 cu. ft. of cargo space with all the seats in, and get 25 MPG.

@hapless: Last time I looked the Sable is far from a feather weight weighing in at 3700 lbs compared to the 4300 lb weight of the Grand Marquis. That 600lb weight advantage should be worth more mileage than the 2-3 MPGs.

@Packa: 20 MPG in mixed driving is far from "sucky" when my RAM2500 4X4 with a HEMI pulled 11 MPG. Now that was sucky.

@Bo Darville:

GM used to make a vehicle that met all those parameters - Chevy Astro/GMC Safari. They killed it for a few reasons - people wanted SUV's instead of vans, it wasn't OBD-II compliant, and it wasn't capable of meeting newer crash requirements. I wish they had built a replacement vehicle. Mine's getting a little tired ...

@Bo Darville: Mazda came close in the 1990s with the MPV (based on the RWD 929). The 4x4 version could tow 4,500 pounds, although mileage probably sucked with that weight. And you'd want a transmission cooler.

With what you're asking, you're better off going with a diesel.

@JHJVJR:

hear hear!

I've got one with 326K Miles on the clock siting outside.
Aside from the rust (damned rust belt) it's held up remarkably well. Durability of a unibody should not be an issue.

@brandegee: Which is probably where I'll end up. I just wish the GL320 had a little more cargo room. I'll just have to wait for a diesel Suburban, though the hybrid is somewhat intriguing.

And Unibody has what sort of advantage to trucks?

Let there be frame rails.

The Crossovers can have the unibody

@Packa: Yes, but is it still available in the "de Sade" trim level...?

If GM actually did this it would effectively negate the entire point of creating the Lambda crossovers in the first place.

When the truck market shrinks back to it's pre-boom status there will still be people out there who need a truck that works and tows hard as always, despite fuel prices.

If GM neuters their line then they've effectively handed the market over to everyone else now making tough, body-on-frame trucks like Ford and Toyota.

Though it wouldn't be the first time they've given up a market to the competition. Like fullsize cars and muscle coupes to Ford.

@Bo Darville:

I maintain that Toyota Hiaces need to be imported into the US, because they (and vans like them) fit that bill almost entirely. Too bad the first thought anyone has when they see one is "OMH HEAD-ON COLLISION PERFORMANCE" and dismiss it.

*sigh* "OMG". Not like it matters.

I wonder how many of those billions they spent developing the GMT-900 platform will go to waste, or if they'll sell enough of them before they make the transition to unibody construction.

Personally I hope they keep making and selling the body-on-frame tahoe and suburban. Most people who buy them don't need them to be BOF, but there is a small niche that does. It's not that expensive to make a suburban out of a Silverado (which is why they were so profitable).

I also question the logic of making large unibody SUVs at all. They aren't going to be THAT much lighter than the BOF versions, the real point is that fewer people are going to be buying cars this large, regardless of construction technique.

@teamtestbot: I drove a diesel Hiace for 6 months. Great vehicle for the third world, but a little lacking on comfort, acceleration, braking, cornering, and safety to succeed here I think. A push bar on the front does take away some of that head-on collision fear though.

What's that, Lassie? Most people buying SUVs are basically looking for tall wagons? Body-on-frame construction doesn't make sense for a light-duty on-road passenger vehicle? American automotive engineering is typically ten years behind the rest of the planet? Oh, no, there's just a squirrel in the yard. Good girl, Lassie.

@cgarison: More interestingly, imagine what could happen of the panther platform was re-engineered in some significant way. Body-on-frame means more mass, but not necessarily in a significant way. Drop the modular 4.6 for a modern V6 and I'm betting weight will be even closer and that fuel economy will either be a slight step up or equal. Then re-engineer the platform to factor into its design more high-strength steel around the passenger cabin and less where it isn't truly necessary. Both the Vic and the GM are enormous hunks of metal assembled without much modern engineering going into them.

Also, I think that the Panther cars still win on feel-factor. That is, even if they're approximately the same size class, they still feel larger (might even be significantly larger) on the inside than the Taurus/Sables. I know for a fact that the trunk is still among the biggest on the market.

@brandegee/BoDarville: Original Mazda MPV 4wd, capable of towing 4500 lbs and carrying 8 passengers had hwy mileage of 28 mpg! Now, match that capability to anything offered today and it's gas mileage... City was not bad too and on 25 %cty/ 75% hwy you'd get regularly 25-26 mpg.
Reason for this: MPV had "only" 145 hp. Hence, it didn't go fast, but why would you want to in such type of vehicle... That thinking have been lost by the manufacturers who fight in size and power numbers alone.

I'm getting sick of that friggin' .gif or whatever kind of animation it is of the guy and the cars. I really, really hate those. Make me see it once, when I come to the home page but not on every single post---please?

Oh. Body on frame. FTW, car, truck, choo-choo. Why in the good old days, dropping a body on a frame---oh, never mind.

@charles_barrett: Black leather and chains interior with supplemental mouth restraint?

@AndyDuncan:
You're right. The Lambda crossover architecture is a great example of that. It's dimensions are within inches of a Tahoe, it seats 7, can tow 4500lbs, and weighs almost 5000lbs with AWD. In its base configuration, the Tahoe weighs about 5200lbs and can tow 4500lbs. No matter the construction method, the performance requirements will dictate size and weight of the vehicle, without use of exotic materials. The same will be true for a unibody Suburban replacement.

This is not such a big deal. Unibody trucks are a realistic option.

My 1998 Dodge half-ton van is a unibody and it has a 6,900 lb maximum tow rating. No one would say it's not a real truck.