Unibody vs Frame which for long-term durability


viper1861
10-09-2004, 09:32 AM
I'd like to get some input on unibody vs frame auto construction.

The few unibody vehicles I've had over the long-term seem to have more rattles and creaks than the framed vehicles as they have aged.

What are the advantages/disadvantages of unibody construction?
Are unibodies just more inexpensive to produce and lighter in weight?


Thanks for the input

drdisque
10-09-2004, 01:01 PM
unibodies also are easier to fit a good suspension to and perform better in crash tests given the same vehicle size.

mike@af
10-09-2004, 08:22 PM
Unibodies are technically easier to robotically mass produce, and are a lot less expensive. They are also lighter.

Frame style can definately be stronger, and are more expensive, and definately heavier.

I like a seperate frame so I can pull the body off and work around all over.

CBFryman
10-10-2004, 12:03 PM
Has anyone seen hondas new "truck" its going to be a uni- :eek2: :silly:

mike@af
10-10-2004, 02:41 PM
Has anyone seen hondas new "truck" its going to be a uni- :eek2: :silly:

A. Nobody cares.
B. Stop over using the smilies
C. This has very little to do with the topic
D. Now that I think of it, your post should be in a completely different forum.

TheSilentChamber
10-11-2004, 06:29 PM
Like said above unibodys are cheeper, easyer to mass produce, and more cost effiecient for the company making them. They perform better in crash tests because new cars are designed to crush around the passengers insted of being rigid.

Mike can you do something about fry, he really gets on my nerves.

mike@af
10-11-2004, 07:00 PM
Mike can you do something about fry, he really gets on my nerves.

He gets on everybodies nerves...

whatcha/got/racer
11-15-2004, 10:22 PM
Depends on vehicle, trucks body on frame for sure uni for cars.frames are more durable alot more metal they dont creak beacause cars and trucks with frame usually sit on poly or rubber bushings and they can be replaced no squek.

curtis73
11-26-2004, 12:34 PM
Just like GTmike said. Unibodies are cheaper to produce. Just like front wheel drive. Not better, cheaper.

You never hear of anyone restoring a 1982 Chevy Celebrity, do you? Unibodies are actually called "disposables." That is a corporate design and sales term. In Detroit at GM, they lovingly called the Unibody car teams "disposable As, Xs, and Ns"

Long term durability, gotta be a frame car. Its true, today's unibody cars are engineering marvels. You take tin foil, mold into a computer generated shape, and it results in remarkably strong construction. Unfortunately, once its been smacked, you've altered it from the computer generated perfection. Sometimes its fine, sometimes its useless. Or in the case of many early unibody cars, they were worthless to start with.

Another thing to consider. My 66 Bonneville is of course a body-on-frame design. The body is currently suspended from four ropes in my garage so I can restore the frame. Try doing that with a unibody car, even WITH subframe connectors and you chance misalignment or even collapsing. I would challenge that my Pontiac's body alone is more rigid than any unibody car from the 90s. Of course it weighs 4300 lbs, too :D

TheSilentChamber
11-26-2004, 11:09 PM
well you do see people restoring 3rd cen cameros and there unibodys. I do agree with all the stuff you said though.


cool scout by the way, I love those things, dont see many of them though.

Add your comment to this topic!