QOTD: Farewell To The Body-On-Frame SUV?
Pictures of the “production” version of the 2013 Nissan Pathfinder, which looks about the same as the “concept” version unveiled at Detroit in January. And along with the reveal, another body-on-frame SUV bites the dust.
Having driven the Infiniti JX (essentially, a really nice 2013 Pathfinder), I’m not at all concerned; the Pathfinder has become yet another toddler taxi. The most extreme situations it will ever see is a gravel driveway. This is a “truck” that needs to compete against the Honda Pilot and the Toyota Highlander – not to mention the Ford Explorer, which seems to be doing just fine with a unibody layout.
The body-on-frame SUV is a species in decline. Part of it is obviously cost considerations. There are perfectly good car platforms out there that can be used to create perfectly good, car-like crossovers. But how much of it is because these car-based SUVs are competent enough that having a body-on-frame design doesn’t matter? We can throw out arguments about towing, or off-road prowess, but very few of these vehicles will ever be used for those duties, and even then, they are often strong enough to fulfill the 99 percent of owner expectations.
So, my dear readers, here’s my question; how much of the lamenting of the body-on-frame SUV and its apparent superiority is merely cooked up in the hearts and minds of truck fans, longing for a bygone era? Or am I missing the mark?
More by Derek Kreindler
Comments
Join the conversation
It's because they are rolling 20's. Ridiculous on a utility vehicle. I had to scrounge the country to find 18's for the Rover.
I couldn't live without my BOF SUV. I'm one of those aforementioned "bad-haircut" guys who gravitate toward this kind of vehicle. I have a family of six, and we often travel up and down the east coast in all weather conditions. Also the beach and mountains from time to time. I'm flying V22 Ospreys now, but before that I flew helicopters that were approaching 50 years old before being retired. The way we made them last that long was through proper maintenance, periodic overhaul, and replacement of major components when they reached their service limits or showed signs of wear. I kind of look at BOF SUVs the way I look at those aircraft and, for instance, high-end Danner Boits: re-craftable. You can spend $80 on a pair of Timberlands and toss them after two years, or you can spend $300 on a set of Danners, wear them for a decade, then send them back to the factory for refurbishment for about the cost of a cheap pair of boots. BOF SUVs are kind of the same thing. When my 04 Yukon XL K1500 SLT starts to show some wear (150k and still in great shape), I fully intend to repower it. At some point (maybe 300k) I'm sure I'll do a complete frame-off restoration. I would have no problem dropping $15k every 15-20 years to keep this truck (which originally cost me nearly $50k) doing what it does for the rest of my days. Kind of tough to do a frame-off resto on a unibody minivan with big tires. Much easier to crush and melt them into new ones. I wonder how many Dodge Nitro, Hyundai Santa Fe, and Jeep Liberty. CUVs have been built and then crushed in the ten years I've been driving this beast. Oh but they're more economical because they get 22 to my 16 mpg, right? I made my last payment in 2009, and have driven it 3-4 times a week, every week, since then. How's that for economy?