[Aditya]

Monocoque vs body-on-frame SUVs - Your Choice?

The below posts from Hayek & Axe77 got me & GTO thinking...

At similar prices and in the same segments, there is a whole lot of overlap between SUVs & MPVs of both types (monocoque or body-on-frame). This is a unique situation as we don't see that in other segments; for instance, all hatchbacks & sedans you can buy today are monocoque only. But within the UV space, you have to choose between a body-on-frame (BOF) and monocoque construction. And its seen across the segments = there is price overlap between the Scorpio & Creta, Kodiaq & Fortuner and even in the uber-rich space, there is the mighty Land Cruiser vs luxury European monocoque SUVs. People are cross-shopping between the Safari & Innova!

We recently had an offroad-centric discussion on the topic and it was clear that both types have their pros & cons. But what about the mainstream on-road audience who want an SUV for office runs, leisure outings and highway road-trips? Given a choice between the two, which would you pick and why?

Originally Posted by Hayek

Have said this on other threads, and I do get surprised when people feel that quality monocoque crossovers should not be as expensive as cheap pick up based SUVs like the Fortuner and Endeavour. The fact is that people like me who buy monocoques would never think that a terrible to drive truck is an alternative for the product we like - and the cross overs could never serve on the rural roads that are the home base of the truck based SUVs.

Originally Posted by Axe77

100% agree with this. The brute SUVs have their own USP and the sophisticated well built crossovers their own. I would happily consider a crossover but would never consider buying a Fortuner for sure. However, when it comes to price, one must bear in mind that barring the Tucson, almost every product mentioned in that list above is grossly overpriced and for the Citroen, a new entrant, being overpriced even in comparison shows just how badly it is priced.

Monocoque SUVs & Crossovers

Lighter kerb weight: Hence better performance, fuel efficiency, handling & braking! This is also why monocoque crossovers can make do with a smaller engine and still offer faster acceleration versus a larger-engine'd BOF UV.

Easier ingress & egress: A monocoque vehicle's floor isn't as as high off the ground as BOF SUVs. Translated, getting in and out will be considerably easier, especially for the aged people in your house.



Better road manners & easier to drive: In terms of handling, the monocoque will run rings around a BOF. They corner better, flatter and as an added bonus, rollovers are far less likely. Several monocoque SUVs can be fun to drive (Kushaq, Seltos, XUV300, CR-V), but you will be hard-pressed to find BOF SUVs that are fun on the winding road.



Superior ride comfort: In general, monocoque SUVs tend to ride better than body-on-frame ones. Some BOF SUVs can get very bouncy / bumpy. In comparison, the monocoque crossovers behave just like regular sedans.



Arguably safer: Because of their superior handling, lower tendency to topple, crumple zones etc. it can be argued that monocoques are generally safer than body-on-frames. Try a 120 km/h emergency manouveur in a Fortuner & Kodiaq, then come back to tell us which one you survived. Many studies too state that monocoques are the safer choice.



The sheer choice! Under 25-lakh rupees, thanks to the flood of crossovers, you have far greater choice among monocoque SUVs than hardcore BOF UVs.

Body-on-frame SUVs

Tough, robust and overload friendly: BOF UVs are usually tougher, more abuse-friendly and can handle overloading. Ever seen those Mahindras in rural India with 20 people hanging out of the doors & tailgate? Try that in a monocoque. BOFs can take a lot more stress, which makes them the preferred choice for taxis, commercial vehicles, cargo & towing. A ladder frame chassis is extremely durable & dependable. There is a reason why Toyota sticks with a BOF construction for the Innova, a car which is the undisputed king of durability in India.



Simpler, easier & cheaper to repair: The chassis of a BOF is separate from its body, which makes it easier to work on if it is damaged in an accident. As the body and frame are separate, you can replace one or the other (rather than both) as required too. Repairs could be cheaper in the BOF.



Better offroad capability: Read here on the advantages when 4-wheeling, including articulation + cheaper to fix + higher average GC + SPOA etc. Heck, you will be hard-pressed to even find 4x4 or AWD as an option on the monocoque SUVs. 99% of them are FWD.



Upgrade friendly: The mechanically simpler nature of a body-on-frame SUV allows it to be customised and upgraded more easily with aftermarket parts. You can cut, weld & beef up a BOF like you can't imagine!



Long-term durability: Based on anecdotal evidence, we can tell you that body-on-frame UVs have greater durability. They are also significantly easier to restore, hence odds are, you'll see more 15 - 20 year old BOFs than monocoques on our roads.

[GTO]

Voted for monocoque. I don't tow and I don't overload. Handling, dynamics, ride comfort & fast performance are far more important to me. I spend 99% of my time on the road and some of the newer crossovers are deadly fun to drive . Sole exception = for offroading steeds like my '97 Classic Jeep or '21 Thar, body-on-frame, but that is a niche requirement. For everything else, give me a monocoque any day. A well maintained monocoque will easily last 200,000 km which is more than sufficient for me. The sole BOF SUV I’d consider today is the Endeavour; not because its a body-on-frame, but because I love its overall offering & package.

[museycal]

In recent times, we have seen body on frame (BoF) cars like Hexa offer excellent ride quality and acceptable ride & handling characteristics. We have seen BoF purpose made 4x4 like Thar score 4 stars in the GNCAP. At the other end of scale, we have also seen the cars like Land Rover Defender, one of the paragons of 4x4 off-roadability, go monocoque instead of BoF construction.

I guess what we are seeing is an amazing convergence of capabilities towards accomplishing 'Utility' from the manufacturers in the UV segment. As such, for major market and the consumers of UVs, the BoF vs. monocoque discussion will be a moot point in the future. That said, while dedicated, purpose built off-road vehicles with BoF construction will continue to hold their niche, the monocoques are the present and the future, for their ever improving capabilities and versatility. Voting monocoque in the poll.

[abhishek46]

I would prefer BoF, if it is available for similar money.

Reasons:
1. Higher ground clearance (Critical components are placed much higher).
2. Abuse friendly, easier repairs.
3. Higher Wading depths.
4. Availability of Rear Wheel Drive in most of the BoF offerings (like Innova, Scorpio etc.)

Before we dismiss the above attributes to be useless, let us recollect how our city roads get transformed instantly to flowing rivers, within a span of 2-3 hours of heavy rain.

Coming to safety, ride quality etc,
Mahindra has demonstrated that BoF vehicles can be safe.
Toyota has demonstrated that BoF vehicles can be comfortable.

[PrideRed]

Handling/Safety :Monocoques handle better, can go faster and probably safer too. And for pure tarmac-monocoque anyday. But The biggest deciding factor is what you are used to and purpose. Body on Frame has its own charm, you drive these differently and come bad roads/no roads they can demolish monocoques(few exception-Duster,Defender etc.).

Comfort:If pliant ride is only the comfort factor, then yes Monocoque anyday. To me comfort has multiple aspects-seat cushioning, under thigh support, leg room, shoulder room, head room, how high above the ground etc. Hence comfort boils down to one's preference. Majority of monocoques are narrow, offer poor underthigh support, has lesser legroom and sit low. Body on frames have lumpiness, plenty of body roll. I can stand latter but not former, primarily because I am used to Body on Frame.

Road presence is important to me. This is where monocoques cannot hold a candle. If you need a road presence of Scorpio which cost 20L, you have to spend atleast 60-70L for a monocoque, eve then the Scorpio will tower over you. Again monocoques look sophisticated but Body on Frames are brawny and have rugged look. Whats your preference?

Load/Luggage Another aspect is how many people/luggage you carry. A body on frame for office commute is simply overkill. Don't get a body on frame if you travel all alone most of the time. When you start loading the car is when body on frame starts to shine, while the monocoque start to sag and struggle.

Offroading Unless you are into serious offroading, both will be fine but body on frame is tougher and handles better as situation worsens.

To summarize both have their use case. Buying a body on frame and trying push the car through corners is like buying a Ferrari and complaining about its off road credentials. A lot of people pick body on frame for their road presence and under use them. This is where dissatisfaction creeps in. If road presence is extremely important and still intend to use for daily office commute or inter city runs, fine as long you understand body on frame and its characteristics. Just look at this thread https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/modif...erlanding.html (Indian cars modified for camping & overlanding), barring 2 or 3 all are body on frames. Again not everyone does camping, but an example the kind of intended usage.

Below is how I will pick:

Monocoque- City usage, intercity express and occasional touring.
Body on frame- Touring, offroading, lot of luggage, bad roads and occasional city use.

[TejasKinger]

Voted for Monocoque. I think I can speak from experience, having moved from a Mahindra Scorpio CRDe in 2007 (2wd, Diesel, MT) to a Hyundai Creta in 2017 (2wd, Petrol, AT). Both cars are roughly in the same bracket, and being 2wd fulfill the same purpose.

Neither vehicle was ever used for offroading, and both handle bad roads reasonably well (granted, though, with the Scorpio, we never had to think twice as it was more abuse friendly).

The Scorpio was purchased in 2007 because diesel made more sense than petrol due to the price inequality. It was at a unique price point, making it an affordable city car and a highly capable highway mile muncher. There were not too many alternatives. There were no monocoque crossovers, so BOF, it had to be.



Cut to 2015, and there were enough capable monocoque crossovers in the same price bracket. Plus, the gap between petrol and diesel prices was starting to close in. So, moving a monocoque made sense. Sure it wasn't as abuse-friendly, but that was hardly a compromise. The refinement, hatchback-like driving manners, relatively easy ingress and egress, better ergonomics, and safety (perceived) more than made up for it.

[haisaikat]

Voted None, since there should have been an option for "depends on situation & implementation". If there were Monocoque RWDs I would surely give them a try. Owing both FWD & RWD and Monocoque and BOF I can say that I consciously avoid cornering at higher speeds in my Crysta (BOF) but at the same time miss that quick braking and handling that a monocoque offers.

Having said that I have certainly enjoyed the hill climbs done in the Crysta (RWD) and seen the capability to load tons of luggage and people in the BOF and yet getting decent highway performance and ride quality.

Even then, implementation and engineering plays a major part in everything. Hence on one side BOF cars can also get descent ride quality using features like Double wishbone suspension or Pitch / Bounce control while on the other hand continuous evolution have made even Rolls Royce consider rolling chassis and space frame architectures interchangeably.

[Kosfactor]

Clearly the market has spoken and logically as long as the vehicle stays on the road - Unibody Crossover it is, better accessibility than a sedan, can tackle rough roads and yet stay comfortable.

If you need a utility oriented vehicle consider a BOF only, preferably Mahindra or Toyota.

[SShandilya]

I’ll take monocoque over Body on Frame any day of the week cause simple I don’t off-road or do I have any towing requirement and this sentiment is shared by 99% of people driving BOF which makes me wonder Why ?!?
Also, it’s a personal observation but fit and finish and quality of a monocoque is better compared to BOF and ofcourse the ride quality.

[Altocumulus]

Monocoque anyday.

Firstly according to me, to qualify as a 'SUV', it has to have a 4WD Lock option. Everything else is either a cross over, bloated/ glorified hatchback or a people carrier. For our touring capabilities, 95% of the time can be done by any car. 4.5% times (being very optimistic ) may require 4WD while a BOF, Longitudinal engine SUV with Low Range gearbox may (a distant may) be beneficial for 0.5% of the time.

So for that 0.5% why will I take the torture of horrible body roll, bad ride and handling and no driving pleasure.

[TrackDay]

Voted monocoque for everyday practicality and ease of driving. Sales chart too would attest to the fast that the general public favors them more over BOF vehicles. However the reason certain BOF cars like the Innova, Fortuner & Thar sell well is because they cater to that segment and is the only one of it's likes. In all other spaces monocoques rule the segment.

However all this is attributed to our market and road factors. Come to North America, give me a large BOF truck/SUV like the F-150 or Escalade to haul the boats, go camping, coast on those straight smooth expressways etc.

[Lowflyer23]

Monocoque it is until and unless a lot of the running involves rural and rough roads and utility is the paramount requirement. Monocoques have become a lot more capable off road too with modern electronics and one doesn't even need a 4X4 to go to most of the famous tourist spots, even hatchbacks do the northern and eastern hill circuits easily.

Road infrastructure has vastly improved (can't say about within city confines) and will keep on developing, a BOF SUV doesn't make any sense for even most of their existing buyers (I know a lot of people who haven't even engaged 4X4 on their BOF SUVs). As GTO sir mentioned once, daily driving a fortuner (or any other BOF 4X4) to work is like wearing a bullet proof jacket to protect yourself if and when a terrorist attack happens. That would be cumbersome and totally unnecessary.

Also, most of the monocoques offer decent ride height and I just don't understand why people have this obsession of wanting to sit "on" the car rather than "in" it. The road presence IMO is the sole selling point of these huge trucks in urban confines (how else would you justify buying a 38 lakh rupees 2WD Fortuner for city usage).

[Axe77]

This post here sums up almost verbatim what I feel on this subject. If you put aside a super niche offering like Thar 2.0 or an Endeavour which is just a phenomenal package, I’d really only pick monocoques. What I’m looking for is space, flexibility in how that space is offered (loading bicycles and what not) and some ground clearance for rough touring - I’m rarely searching for rock climbing ability or presence for the sake of presence. The ride / drive discomfort penalty that a full blown BOF comes with is simply not worth the advantages that it brings.

I would therefore choose a monocoque over a BOF every single time. So it would definitely be:
- Creta / Seltos / Kushaq over the Scorpio for me;
- Kodiaq / Tiguan over a Fortuner;
and so on.

Originally Posted by GTO

Voted for monocoque. I don't tow and I don't overload. Handling, dynamics, ride comfort & fast performance are far more important to me. I spend 99% of my time on the road and some of the newer crossovers are deadly fun to drive . Sole exception = for offroading steeds like my '97 Classic Jeep or '21 Thar, body-on-frame, but that is a niche requirement. For everything else, give me a monocoque any day. A well maintained monocoque will easily last 200,000 km which is more than sufficient for me. The sole BOF SUV I’d consider today is the Endeavour; not because its a body-on-frame, but because I love its overall offering & package.

[sunikkat]

Voted for BOF. If I want good handling, performance, braking and tarmac driving I will as well go for a sedan which does all these much better than crossovers.

Only reason for me to consider any SUV (Monocoque or BOF) is for its ruggedness and go anywhere ability. And this is where BOF will trump the monocoque

[carfreak]

I voted for monocoque. There is absolutely no reason to go for a BOF vehicle for the daily grind, or for that matter, an occasional highway drive with maybe a bit of off-roading. In most cases off-road drives are nothing but bad-road drives. I will opt for a vehicle which gives me the option of all wheel drive which will take care of the slippery sections.

I want the dynamics of my vehicle to be on the fun side and the ride quality should be such that the vehicle should not keep bouncing on smooth tarmac. I feel modern monocoque vehicles can take a lot of abuse too, without any issues. the added benefits of safety and multiple options to choose (though not many in the market with all wheel drive) finalize it for me