You are here: Forums SUVs Ford Freestyle Death of the body-on-frame SUV?

Death of the body-on-frame SUV?

106 messages,  Last post on Sep 12, 2009 at 1:50 PM

You are in the Ford Freestyle Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester

What is this discussion about? Chevrolet Tahoe, Honda Pilot, Isuzu Trooper, Ford Expedition, Dodge Durango, Ford Freestyle, Volvo XC90, SUV

#47 of 106 You Get What You Pay For! by motorhead15 May 28, 2009 (9:51 pm)
The most important safety feature on any vehicle is the driver. The most important thing in a two car accident is the weight of the vehicle. Heavy = Good! After that comes safety features such as airbags, anti-lock brakes etc. Please do not be fooled into thinking a five star front crash rating for a Honda Civic is the same as a five star front crash rating for a Ford Expedition. The Expedition weighs more than twice as much as the Civic and in a head on collision between the two, the person in the Civic is approximately 10 times more likely to die than the person in the Expedition. Oh yes, I know... Some bright person with an econo-box will be quick to jump in and say that an SUV is more likely to roll over than a Honda Civic. Yes this is true. According to government tests, the Civic has a 10% chance of a rollover and an Expedition has a 19%-21% chance of rollover depending on whether it is a 2wd or a 4wd. When was the last time you saw a rollover accident? I live in a huge metroplex and the last time I saw a rollover accident was about two years ago. The average accident that I see everyday is someone running into the back of someone, someone running a light etc. I realize my vehicle (Expedition in case you haven't figured that out yet) has a higher center of gravity but guess what? I drive with that in mind. It's not a sports car and I don't drive it like one. They even have decals on the driver's sun visor warning you that the vehicle has a higher center of gravity. Duh! When shopping for a vehicle, I want the heaviest full frame vehicle I can buy with the most safety features I can get. I weighed my Expedition (2008, 2wd, standard length) when I first got it. The vehicle with a full tank of gas in it, me and no gear scaled at 6,000 pounds. Now I could have got a Ford F-350 pickup that weighs between 7500 and 8500 pounds depending on how you get it equipped but I don't even think you can get side air-bags on one of those. The Expedition has front air-bags, side air-bags, canopy airbags and a host of other safety features because Ford considers it a family vehicle. Do I really need an eight passenger vehicle? Heck no! I'm single with no kids unless you count the dog. She enjoys having her own seat and her own air-conditioner. Sometimes I have me, the dog and the girlfriend in there and let me tell you there is plenty of room. Now on to crumple zones. It is easier to control the rate of crumple zone deformation in a unibody vehicle than a BOF. Now I appreciate the fact that when I hit a unibody car that it is going to soften the blow to me but the Expedition has pre-stressed points or dimples in the forward portion of the frame to buckle/deform at a controlled rate under an extreme impact. There is also about eight feet of crumple zone between me and the front of the Expedition. I don't worry about low speed impacts as much as I do high speed impacts or impacts with heavier vehicles. I am fully aware that if a 70,000 pound semi hits my Expedition, the airbags will do nothing more than provide me with a cushy, comfortable death. At the same rate though I am not going to put myself in something that weighs 2,700 pounds just to save a few dollars in gas. My Expedition when driven very easy gets 14-15 mpg in the city and up to 26 mpg on the freeway at 55 mph. At 12,000 miles a year, a Civic should burn about half as much fuel as the Expedition, which is roughly $700 for the Civic and $1,400 for the Expedition at current gas prices. That means an extra $58 a month it cost me in gas. But wait, what about the environment? Doesn't that big ol' 300 horsepower V8 engine put out more emissions? Probably so but one of my favorite meals is a heapin', hot bowl of spotted-owl soup (YUM YUM!) so that's not a big concern to me. Cars burn so cleanly these days that I really consider this to be a non-issue. I appreciate all of you people out there saving gas in your 30 mpg cars, that will increase my survivability rate in an accident and insure an ample supply of fuel for my vehicle for years to come. I wouldn't worry about the safety aspect of your econo-box though. As long as you don't collide with anything bigger than a butterfly, you'll probably be alright. Well that's about all I have for now. I have some spotted-owl burgers cooking on the grill and it's time to go flip them over. Happy motoring! Replies to this message: bobw3 (Jun 01, 2009 6:16 am) steve_ (Jun 01, 2009 6:52 am) tclarke (Jun 01, 2009 2:00 pm) motorhead15 (Jun 01, 2009 3:06 pm) and 1 more... bobw3 (Jun 03, 2009 9:10 am)
#48 of 106 Re: You Get What You Pay For! [motorhead15] by bobw3 Jun 01, 2009 (6:16 am)
Replying to: motorhead15 (May 28, 2009 9:51 pm) By your logic everyone would be driving big rigs...then your SUV would seem small! Luckily everyone is not selfish and actually thinks more about then just what they see in the mirror. Of cource that's one of the good reasons we have a government...to protect against selfish people who only think of themselves...happy motoring Replies to this message: steve_ (Jun 01, 2009 6:52 am) tclarke (Jun 01, 2009 2:00 pm) motorhead15 (Jun 01, 2009 3:06 pm) bobw3 (Jun 03, 2009 9:02 am) bobw3 (Jun 03, 2009 9:10 am)
#49 of 106 Re: You Get What You Pay For! [bobw3] by steve_ HOST Jun 01, 2009 (6:52 am)
Replying to: bobw3 (Jun 01, 2009 6:16 am) Heard on the radio this morning that one of the GM plants to be closed this Fall makes full sized pickups. Not SUVs, but I'm assuming most of the pickups were body on frame rigs.   GM Closes 14 Manufacturing Plants; Three Service Parts Operations (AutoObserver)
#50 of 106 Re: You Get What You Pay For! [bobw3] by tclarke Jun 01, 2009 (2:00 pm)
Replying to: bobw3 (Jun 01, 2009 6:16 am) We are suppose to give up our safety because you choose to purchase something that is inferior in an accident. My wife was in a 72 car pile up during a winter in Michigan and I'm very glad she was driving a Cheverlot Full size truck. Nobody in her vehicle was injured. I cannot say the same for the people who chose less safe vehicles. Agaiin a choice we make.   I would not be real quick to let our government decide what we drive. You may not like what they decide to regulate next. Replies to this message: motorhead15 (Jun 01, 2009 3:06 pm) bobw3 (Jun 03, 2009 9:02 am) bobw3 (Jun 03, 2009 9:10 am)
#51 of 106 Re: You Get What You Pay For! [tclarke] by motorhead15 Jun 01, 2009 (3:06 pm)
Replying to: tclarke (Jun 01, 2009 2:00 pm) Hi Bob,   It's not logic, just simple physics. The following quote is taken from the government document document   "Consider Vehicle Weight All other things being equal, a heavier vehicle will generally better protect you in a crash. This is particularly the case in two-vehicle crashes. NHTSA research historically has shown that occupants in passenger cars are at a greater risk of being fatally injured when struck in the front or the side by a heavier and higher-riding light truck (such as a pickup) or SUV. Improved energy-absorbing front ends and safety technologies such as head-protecting side-impact air bags can help lower this risk to vehicle occupants."   I had also read somewhere that if a 6,000 pound vehicle has a head on collision with a 3,000 pound vehicle, the people in the lighter vehicle are eight times more likely to die than the people in the heavier vehicle. This seems to be inline with the government quote above.   One more thing Bob. Not that it matters even one iota but I work for the government and I'm quoting data collected by the federal government on their public website. Using their website www.safercar.gov was one of the main tools I used in my decision making process to purchase my Ford Expedition. I don't consider buying an Expedition "selfish" but if that's what you choose to believe go right ahead. You might also want to educate yourself on the subject at hand before you start hurling insults at someone. The free government publication I mentioned at the start of the post might be a good place for you to start.   Steve,   Yes the pickup trucks have a real frame and GM has been using hydro-formed rails on their trucks for sometime. Although I'm not an expert on hydro-formed rails I believe some of the advantages the hydro-formed rails have over a standard solid frame are increased strength, lighter weight and fewer welds.   I had read that GM is closing one of their pickup truck plants because of over capacity. By that I mean that they have the ability to build more pickups than they need and/or are selling. Pickups are definitely a big part of GM sales just like the F-150 is a big part of Ford's bottom line. What GM is going through now is bad for everyone and will just push unemployment higher. I wish them all the best.   TClark,   Glad your wife was not killed. Being in that truck that day probably saved her life or at the very least prevented a serious injury.   Happy Motoring! Replies to this message: bobw3 (Jun 03, 2009 9:02 am)
#56 of 106 Quoted Reference by motorhead15 Jun 01, 2009 (4:04 pm)
http://www.safercar.gov/staticfiles/DOT/safercar/pdf/BASC2008.pdf

You are here: Forums SUVs Ford Freestyle Death of the body-on-frame SUV?