[haldar_siliguri]

Your post is so aptly written.

Originally Posted by VKumar

when the going gets tough

The problem here is that 'they' make sure that the going doesn't get tough for their vehicles by sticking to roads.

[Moto_Bear]

Voted for Monocoque but would have preferred a 'Depends' option because in reality it really depends on what you aim to do with the vehicle on hand. I own a 2011 XUV5OO W8 AWD and we have a Fortuner 2019 model which is 4x4, owned by my Dad. I have driven both these vehicles extensively to the point that I, now feel cramped and claustrophobic in my little hatchback, Baleno(A lot unsafe too).

Coming to the discussion, I would prefer a Monocoque SUV(AWD compulsory) over a True 4x4 BoF for the sole reason of how the driving dynamics and the environment around us has changed over the years. An average Joe would find himself driving a car on asphalt 90-95% of the time and once in a blue moon, would he shift to the 4x4 low setting. Having driven both of the aforementioned vehicles, I find myself using AWD a lot more frequently than I use 4x4. That poor gear in the Fortuner looks at me with teary eyes, waiting for it to be utilized again. And it does get utilized when I'm either off to Ladakh or going to our Ancestral property which is a lot of mud drives and uphill climbing and that's when that 4x4 low gets activated.

In my opinion, XUV500 does a good job with its AWD even in those scenarios albeit not comparable to how the 4x4 does it with ease. In terms of general driveability, Monocoque is the way to go and in specific situations, 4x4 is. It totally depends on the driver and where he drives. Buying a BoF 4x4 to drive in the city is impractical in the same way that Buying a FWD Monocoque to go for offroads adventure is. In conclusion, It really depends.

[Lowflyer23]

Originally Posted by Kosfactor

Agree with you that crossovers are SUVs.

I consider anything that looks like an SUV to be an SUV and that includes the Espresso, lets be honest that there is no Sport in a Scorpio \ Bolero - they are utility vehicles at the end of the day.

As they say , horses for courses! But the average crossover will not reach as far as a 2wd Scorpio or Bolero, nor would it survive that abuse for long.

Originally Posted by VKumar

If you are driving a BOF, all you will do it sit, smile, engage first gear and mash the throttle. Will you take the same risk with a Creta or Harrier?

There is something called 'momentum'. Being a desi villager, let me try to explain in our local style.

I belong to a family which consists of farmers too (Including myself), but the ones who drive SUVs and tractors to the farms. What a BOF allows you is to simply carry momentum to get past something that will get you stuck while you crawl - like we use the term 'bulldoze'. Something you won't even think of doing with a monocoque.

This ruggedness factor has confused me since a very long time and kindly both of you clear my doubts on this. I'm not starting an argument here, I'm genuinely curious to know and it seems that both of you have decent experience with BOF SUVs (Bhpian Kosfactor sir owns a Scorpio).

Coming to my query, doesn't a vehicle's ruggedness and rough road handling strength depend on the chassis stiffness and quality of suspension components? For example, a friend of mine from semi rural background owns a 2014 Ford EcoSport diesel and he abuses that vehicle like anything, driving over deep potholed roads to his farm and village at speeds of 60-70 km/h. Still, there is not a squeak from the chassis (not praising the EcoSport here) in his vehicle even at 1 lac+ Kms and he got the suspension overhauled at 80k Kms even though it was still going fine. On the other hand, I have been in a lot of Boleros which develop body squeaks and suspension noise at a much lesser age with much better care (the EcoSport guy is crazy!).

I somewhere read that Land Rover used monocoque for their new Defender so that the platform could be made a lot more stiffer than a similarly sized BOF architecture. So, what does all that mean with so many varying points across different scenarios? How can we actually gauge rough road capability and longevity?

[PrideRed]

Originally Posted by Lowflyer23

Coming to my query, doesn't a vehicle's ruggedness and rough road handling strength depend on the chassis stiffness and quality of suspension components? For example, a friend of mine from semi rural background owns a 2014 Ford EcoSport diesel and he abuses that vehicle like anything, driving over deep potholed roads to his farm and village at speeds of 60-70 km/h. Still, there is not a squeak from the chassis (not praising the EcoSport here) in his vehicle even at 1 lac+ Kms and he got the suspension overhauled at 80k Kms even though it was still going fine. On the other hand, I have been in a lot of Boleros which develop body squeaks and suspension noise at a much lesser age with much better care (the EcoSport guy is crazy!).

I somewhere read that Land Rover used monocoque for their new Defender so that the platform could be made a lot more stiffer than a similarly sized BOF architecture. So, what does all that mean with so many varying points across different scenarios? How can we actually gauge rough road capability and longevity?

I had Ecosport couple of years ago is is well built, and there are few other crossovers too which are solid. Earlier this week we went in Ecosport and Fortuner through ghats, windings roads which also had some bad patches at regular intervals. While the Ecosport was faster through corners, there was body roll and in bad patches Ecosport could do it better than Sedan, Fortuner could much higher speeds. You do that in Ecosport suspension would thud and would toss the passengers around. The ecosport also had a tire puncture despite being driven slower. You can still drive the crossover at same speed as BOF, chances are high that a suspension overhaul bill is waiting after the trip.

The enhanced comfort factor and body roll advantage of crossover is not entirely true. Body roll has to do with height more than BOF vs monocoque and not all crossovers are comfortable. Some have poor under thigh support, bad cushioning, limited legroom etc. End of the day monocoques are faster and comfortable in general but just like how crossover have advanced w.r.to ruggedness/off roadability, BOF have improved w.r.to comfort, drive dynamics too.

[ValuableRecluse]

I think we need to blame the advertisers for blurring the lines and the manufacturers for riding the wave, of an active lifestyle, requiring a sporty, go-anywhere, do-everything vehicle.

So for the sake of argument, let’s call all raised vehicles, SUVs

What do you want to do with your SUV?

-Go to the mall and have enough space for that small table from IKEA, carry cycles into the western ghats/Aravalis or a 10 day multi-state tour with the family in comfort.

Then a Ignis/Brezza/Creta/Hector/X1/GLA will suit your requirements.

-Go on a more adventurous holiday to the Himalayas but stick to the roads and easy trails.

Then choose a 2WD Duster/Bolero/Scorpio/Harrier/Innova/Compass/Fortuner2wd/Endeavour2wd/X3/Evoque/DiscoSport/GLC.

-Go on a exciting holiday involving difficult trail driving in Ladakh, dune bashing in Jaisalmer or carrying a kayak down to the rivers edge.

Then choose a 4WD Scorpio/Storme/Vcross/Fortuner/Endy/Althuras/Disco/RangeRover/LC200.

-Go Offroad recreationally (Real Offroad! Not driving on bad roads or trails, I mean rocks, slippery grass where you risk sliding sideways and turning turtle!)

Then choose a 4WD
Gypsy/Thar/Gurkha/Defender.

Sure, a Thar can also take you to the mall, but a Creta can’t take you Offroad.

While you can take a AWD Duster on a moderate trail, it can’t crawl over obstacles.

Now that we know where each vehicle stands with respect to capability, how about enhancing it?
A monocoque can accept marginally larger tires, Period.
Even the new Defender is limited in tire options.

How about a winch. Impossible on a monocoque except the defender, but has to be installed at the dealer due to a multitude of sensors, cameras and associated wiring harness.

Rock sliders, can’t be bolted onto a monocoque except maybe the Defender.

Suspension upgrade for more ground clearance/articulation/GVM increase? Just not possible on a monocoque.

Tow a bike trailer ? Monocoque’s cannot tow, baring a few exceptions.

I would rather have one vehicle that does it all. That would be a BOF.

Ofcourse there is a compromise there too.
A BOF will never go around a paved corner with the same authority as a monocoque of the same price point, but given an unpaved corner…

[pugram]

Voted for Monocoque.

Till date have never had the need for overloading / off-roading. However an old Jeep/Thar / Gurkha is still in the wish list, but impractical in my case.

With improvement in the road infrastructure and quality the need for BOF vehicles for general use is not there.

It makes sense only if you use it for personal as well as commercial purposes that involves hauling loads. A dual cab vehicle makes sense too.

[Kosfactor]

Originally Posted by Lowflyer23

This ruggedness factor has confused me since a very long time and kindly both of you clear my doubts on this. I'm not starting an argument here, I'm genuinely curious to know and it seems that both of you have decent experience with BOF SUVs (Bhpian Kosfactor sir owns a Scorpio).

I somewhere read that Land Rover used monocoque for their new Defender so that the platform could be made a lot more stiffer than a similarly sized BOF architecture. So, what does all that mean with so many varying points across different scenarios? How can we actually gauge rough road capability and longevity?

I have absolutely no doubt that unibody crossover is the best option for majority of the people, the increased maintenance , fuel consumption and the general lack of car like feel about a BOF vehicle is only worth it if there is a utility for it.

For our usage we need utility vehicles, we have several of them, all are BOF.

I also will bat for a crossover against a BOF if my usage is limited to on road only. But that is not the case, I remember having to take the Esteem to a chassis straightening rig , as well as replace the lower arm, such is the case of roads. In a utility vehicle the same situation will need a few shims to be added to the upper A arm mount and we can call it a day.

The Salem, Erode, Coimbatore stretch has marvelous highways, A Bolero while being fantastic on their farmland carrying water pumps and produce etc will run out of breath soon on the highway , Solution? Duster.

Duster does not come standard with squeaks and rattles, but some years later a Duster gives 6 figure bills while the Bolero added a few dozen more squeaks and rattles. I wonder what would have happened if that was an AWD Duster.

BOF vehicles are made differently, the easiest thing to do is to have a look see when they are up on the lift in the ASC. Having said that all of them are not made the same way, the same construction with poor design \ quality materials \ too heavy for the terrain etc will give you vehicles that eats up the tires and chews through the suspension bushes and give you big bills just as well. A trip to the hills is an easy way to find out what works, as the landscape changes the types of vehicles on the road changes as well.

Someone mentioned about LR discovery sport and Evoque etc, these are probably brilliant at doing many things but just look underneath and you will see how easy it is to damage it.

[Guna]

There is a third category called 'unibody' which is like a blend of both. I think Suzuki Grand Vitara which was sold here made use of this type of structure. Wish more SUVs were built using unibody construction.

[locusjag]

Originally Posted by Guna

There is a third category called 'unibody' which is like a blend of both. I think Suzuki Grand Vitara which was sold here made use of this type of structure. Wish more SUVs were built using unibody construction.

Lol, I didn't even know that unibody and monocoque were different It goes to show that one learns something new everyday! Thank you for your timely post.

These articles cleared it up for me-
https://www.lamborghinipalmbeach.com...l%20components.

https://www.motortrend.com/features/...he-difference/

[Kosfactor]

Originally Posted by Guna

There is a third category called 'unibody' which is like a blend of both. I think Suzuki Grand Vitara which was sold here made use of this type of structure. Wish more SUVs were built using unibody construction.

We do not have any monocoque vehicles as far as I know, All 4 wheelers are either BOF or Unibody (monocoque as incorrectly but commonly referred by just about everyone).

There are some vehicles like the old Jeep XJ Cherokee which had a more substantial integrated ladder frame instead of a subframe as we usually see in a Unibody.

[John316_WRC]

In India a monocoque SUV/Crossover will suffice my needs 99% of the time. But if I had a choice and the budget, I will go for a Body on frame even in India.
Reasons:
1. Rugged & abuse friendly
2. Good ground clearance
3. Simpler mechanism means easier repairs
4. Easy to modify
5. Freedom (if I wanted to, I can take my BOF suv to Ladakh or any other place where no monocoque would dare to)

I've already experienced this freedom for 6 years when I used to own this beast.
Angry V6 (driving the rear wheels which always made things interesting in the rains ), 4L/4h ratio, blackened out front, bespoke skid plates, & the works.
(Thar owners, I totally understand the love for your rigs.)

Voted for body on frame.

[Vasanth]

Voted for BoF.
Reasons?
• if I need to own a SUV in the future, I should feel like the King Of The Road!
• Unlike every other pseudo SUVs out there who honk and flash light at other tiny hatchbacks and then get stuck in a 1 feet deep pothole, I should be the one who tackle any road or no road.
• Coming from a sedan and hatchback owner, I can compromise on comfort of BOF SUVs. But I will make sure to use it for what it’s built for.
• Sorry if it offends anyone but, the ‘SUVs’ we see everyday and on every parking lot , from Hyundai Creta to Vitara Brezza are just hatchbacks with more ground clearance. Let’s not make a new category of vehicles called Crossovers. It’s hatchback.
We have - Hatchback, Sedan, SUV , Coupé, Cabriolet, Roadster, pick up truck, Van and Limosine.
• I also hate the trend where every ‘SUVs’ have their badging written Boldly on the centre of boot or bonnet. Come on! Don’t try to be Toyota Land Cruiser or Range Rover.
• As long as ‘SUVs’ don’t come with AWD, low range gearbox and locking differentials it will only remain a hatchbatch.

[Romeo_Mike]

Originally Posted by saikishor

It is because of such poor marketing that crossovers are being called as SUV's...

Only in India would a carmaker have the audacity to air such ads, while not one in the picture offers 4WD even as an option . Really makes one wonder which sport the S actually stands for. You see India is a land of twisted definitions and the sport could be only so many things e.g. -

1. I can go anywhere I want! not that I will.
2. Get out of my way you roaches!
3. My family jewels are bigger than yours!
4. I eat potholes for breakfast!
5. My cabin has more light than yours!
and the list goes on.

So, to all the mud-plugging, dune-bashing, trail-scorching, peak-conquering people going crazy over the definition of the term - Chill brah... it ain't that discussion.

Me? just give me 200 mm of ground clearance on anything and I'm set ( yeah I am the #4 type). Although I would imagine that 200mm is going to look considerably better on a SUVish shape than say a Honda City

[kaps454]

My cars stay on the tarmac most of the times, a monocoque chasis is more than adequate and indeed suits my needs better.
Btw, how does one vote?
regards kaps454

[AirbusCapt]

Originally Posted by Lowflyer23

This ruggedness factor has confused me since a very long time and kindly both of you clear my doubts on this. I'm not starting an argument here, I'm genuinely curious to know and it seems that both of you have decent experience with BOF SUVs (Bhpian Kosfactor sir owns a Scorpio).

Coming to my query, doesn't a vehicle's ruggedness and rough road handling strength depend on the chassis stiffness and quality of suspension components? For example, a friend of mine from semi rural background owns a 2014 Ford EcoSport diesel and he abuses that vehicle like anything, driving over deep potholed roads to his farm and village at speeds of 60-70 km/h. Still, there is not a squeak from the chassis (not praising the EcoSport here) in his vehicle even at 1 lac+ Kms and he got the suspension overhauled at 80k Kms even though it was still going fine. On the other hand, I have been in a lot of Boleros which develop body squeaks and suspension noise at a much lesser age with much better care (the EcoSport guy is crazy!).

I somewhere read that Land Rover used monocoque for their new Defender so that the platform could be made a lot more stiffer than a similarly sized BOF architecture. So, what does all that mean with so many varying points across different scenarios? How can we actually gauge rough road capability and longevity?

Precisely my point. We can all discuss till the cows come home, however the toughness of build is nothing to do with BOF or monocoque. Likewise offroad-ability is a function of a good gearbox, wheel articulation, ground clearance, vehicle overhang and proper tyres for the terrain.

Regarding a solid build, if one crashes a BOF Scorpio into a wall at 60kmph versus crashing a XUV into the same wall at the same speed, we know which driver will walk away and which driver may not.

The other factors to think in favour of of monocoque are the extra room it liberates within the car, the ease of putting in a front wheel drive for regular driving, the lack of squeaking from the chassis, lesser misaligned doors, lesser rattles, better fuel economy due lower weight, lesser chances of rusting due lesser joints, weld points.

The future of SUV is monocoque, ofcourse BOF vehicles will get built for specialist applications, but certainly not mainstream, especially with higher pedestrian safety norms in the offing. That's why the best of the best are all going to monocoque architecture with a lower body height, across the world.