(Censored) cheapo unibody cars!!!

[Egon]

Basically a cheap way of automobile construction not that auto's are cheap to begin with../QUOTE]

There are benefits to the unibody construction.:thumbsup:

 

[JDgreen227]

Basically a cheap way of automobile construction not that auto's are cheap to begin with../QUOTE]

There are benefits to the unibody construction.:thumbsup:

Yes---cheaper to design, cheaper to build, more passenger space, lighter and more fuel efficent. That's about it.

Downsides: Flimsy, lightweight, easier to damage, harder to repair, doesn't take much of an impact to total one, no strength for towing, etc.

 

[keegs]

Thanks for the link, but my OP was a rant in general about ALL unibody cars, not just the HHR.

I spent about five minutes looking at the rear underside of the HHR I posted about, and sawnothing like that attachment point on either side. AND, as I have mentioned at least twice, HOW DO YOU PULL ON THE VEHICLE WITHOUT THE TOW STRAP TENSIONING UPWARD AND DAMAGING THE PLASTIC BUMPER FASCIA???

And Ehow says you can only reach one of the two factory installed "recovery points"....well, to me that means you would be putting double the stress on the one recovery point available.

I bought a new Nissan pickup in the early ninties that came with no rear bumper. :laughing:

Not sure what's involved with designing a recovery system but the 2010 Cobalt I'm driving doesn't have one either ...but I'm pretty sure the Toyota it replaced did have one hook/loop in the rear.

There's probably some after market outfit that's making them. Something to consider I guess.

 

[RobertN]

That is all true, but left out the crush zones. That unibody should absorb impact much better, absorbing more of the energy of the impact, instead of your body.

Yes---cheaper to design, cheaper to build, more passenger space, lighter and more fuel efficent. That's about it.

Downsides: Flimsy, lightweight, easier to damage, harder to repair, doesn't take much of an impact to total one, no strength for towing, etc.

 

[Fixemall]

FYI, my buddy found this out the hard way...if you damage someones car in the process of pulling them out of a ditch your insurance company may turn their back to you come claim time, I have a stack of the local tow guys cards in my glove box and will only pull someone out if I know them, otherwise if I see someone ditched I offer them use of a phone or a ride but due to the sad state of things I simply will not pull them out.

 

[Car Doc]

One thing is as has been mentioned the crush zones to add to that - they do fold up efficiently in a wreck and with some cars having up to 10+ air bags there is a lot of absorbed impact to make them safer and more costly to repair and insure....

 

[JDgreen227]

That is the reason I didn't hook my JD to that HHR, only had to give it a light tug BUT if there was any damage I would have been on the hook (pun intended). For all I knew, the owners of the HHR had damaged something in the driveline spinning the tires to get it out (they had been doing that) so I told them straight out I didn't want to be responsible and they understood why I felt that way.

 

[jonyyuma]

One thing is as has been mentioned the crush zones to add to that - they do fold up efficiently in a wreck and with some cars having up to 10+ air bags there is a lot of absorbed impact to make them safer and more costly to repair and insure....

I can only Imagine what the repairs will come to with the side air-bag protection? Special seat covers are needed if they go on the front seats?

 

[ray66v]

I don't agree that unibody cars are necessarily cheaper to build. While, they can be built with cheaper, (less expensive), materials. There are many more parts to the body and suspension, of a modern vehicle than there were in the mostly full frame vehicles of the 70's. It definitely takes longer to repair them today.

The reason we now have mostly unibody vehicles is, CAFE standards have repeatedly forced manufacturers to find fast ways to increase fuel mileage. This forced them to among other things, reduce vehicle weight.

Modern high strength sheet metal technology, (tempered), allows much lighter weight materials to be used than ever before.

Most people don't know this, but we are now to a point where all the stationary glass in your vehicle is actually structural. It is designed to strengthen the body, and keep it from flexing. :laughing:

 

[JDgreen227]

OP here. sure the unibody vehicles are lighter, then they load them up with all kinds of useless electronic c--p like ten air bags, fifty speaker quadzillion watt stereo systems, auto-dimming mirrors, heated/cooled seats and steering wheels, etc. and by the time they are done loading up all the electric gewgaws and gimcracks and other assorted stuff that raises the price and increases complexity and repair costs, the vehicles actually end up weighing as much or more than the old, body on frame models. REAL PROGRESS.

My 1985 Ford Crown Victoria weighed 3700 pounds, was a V8/automatic, had PS PB, air, power windows and locks and seats, trailer towing pkg, vinyl roof, aluminum wheels. It could pull 5000 pounds.

My 2004 Buick Lesabre weighs 3650 pounds, has a V6/automatic, has PS PB, air, power windows and locks and seats, sunroof, aluminum wheels. It can pull 1000 pounds.

I rest my case about the gewgaws and gimcracks they load on today's cheap, s------y, flimsy Coke can cars.