2010 Hyundai Sante-Fe 4cyl auto

[theholycow]

You have failed to deliver a suggestion of these advantages, and you have discounted the ones I proposed. Telling me to research it is a cop-out; this isn't a college course, it's a person-to-person discussion. You have to back up your own arguments.

Failed to deliver a suggestion of the advantages? Are you serious? Okay, let me repeat it again, since you seem to have such a hard time comprehending my words. Strength. There, that's it, plain and simple. THAT is the advantage of BOF.

Pay attention. There's a reason I quote text before I add anything, it's because that is the text to which I am responding. You posted:

I've also said several times already that unibody has its advantages, which should be evident by the fact that the vast majority of vehicles on the road today are unibody.

so I posted:

You have failed to deliver a suggestion of these advantages {...}

Name some advantages of unibody that I did not already name. I'm certainly no expert on the advantages of unibody and I'm sure I missed many. You suggested that there are too many to list; list the first few that come to mind.

Okay, are you playing the semantics game now?

That's what we've been discussing this whole time. I keep bringing it up.

My point is simple: BOF construction is NOT inherently stronger; actual BOF vehicles that have been produced are usually stronger. I suspect we could find plenty of examples where a unibody vehicle is tougher than a BOF vehicle. Both construction techniques can be made sufficiently tough for any given purpose.

The fact that "BOF vehicles on the market tend to be stronger and more heavy-duty compared to unibody vehicles" supports the idea that BOF is inherently stronger than unibody.

No, it supports the idea that particular vehicles are stronger than other particular vehicles.

Still though, you're contradicting yourself now. First you tell me that a Grand Cherokee would be the best vehicle for a pull plow (because of curb weight), but now you're admitting that a BOF vehicle tends to be stronger and more heavy-duty than a unibody vehicle. So tell me again, is my 4Runner (with it's live axle rear and BOF) built more heavy-duty than the Grand Cherokee (with its IRS and unibody chassis) or am I missing something in your theory?

As I said before, the issue isn't strength. Pulling a plow requires traction more than anything else. Pulling a plow isn't anywhere near as rough as pushing one and I don't believe you're going to break either vehicle's structure with the pull plow, which I assume connects to a trailer hitch.

The vehicles that aren't will remain BOF for good reason.

...reasons which I've already listed inarguably.

[Shadow]

Pay attention. There's a reason I quote text before I add anything, it's because that is the text to which I am responding. You posted:

I've also said several times already that unibody has its advantages, which should be evident by the fact that the vast majority of vehicles on the road today are unibody.

so I posted:

You have failed to deliver a suggestion of these advantages {...}

Name some advantages of unibody that I did not already name. I'm certainly no expert on the advantages of unibody and I'm sure I missed many. You suggested that there are too many to list; list the first few that come to mind.

I knew exactly what you're saying. But I'm not going to provide you with the advantages of unibody because that's not my argument in the first place. You're a big boy...you already know the main advantages and if not I'm quite sure you have the ability to do your own research. I can put it in a nutshell for you though--there are far more advantages to unibody than there are for BOF, which again (I'm getting tired of repeating myself) should be clearly evident by the simple fact that the majority of passenger vehicles manufactured today use a unibody chassis.

That's what we've been discussing this whole time. I keep bringing it up.

My point is simple: BOF construction is NOT inherently stronger; actual BOF vehicles that have been produced are usually stronger. I suspect we could find plenty of examples where a unibody vehicle is tougher than a BOF vehicle. Both construction techniques can be made sufficiently tough for any given purpose.

Okay, I'll play your game-- name those vehicles. I don't know of any unibody vehicles that are built stronger than an equivalent BOF vehicle. I've researched and couldn't find any at all. So enlighten me and just name two. If you're correct, that shouldn't be so difficult.

No, it supports the idea that particular vehicles are stronger than other particular vehicles.

I didn't name any particular vehicles....because now I'm generalizing. But like I said above, if YOU can name any two particular vehicles that support your claims, name them.

As I said before, the issue isn't strength. Pulling a plow requires traction more than anything else. Pulling a plow isn't anywhere near as rough as pushing one and I don't believe you're going to break either vehicle's structure with the pull plow, which I assume connects to a trailer hitch.

Tell that to the guys who actually plow. They consensus is that BOF is much better suited for plowing, even when it comes to pull plows. Pulling a plow isn't as rough on the front end (obviously) but it is stressful to the rear axle and the frame, which should be obvious to you.

I almost feel like I'm in a high school debate here. This is really starting to become amusing to me.

[theholycow]

Okay, I'll play your game-- name those vehicles. I don't know of any unibody vehicles that are built stronger than an equivalent BOF vehicle. I've researched and couldn't find any at all. So enlighten me and just name two. If you're correct, that shouldn't be so difficult.

I didn't name any particular vehicles....because now I'm generalizing. But like I said above, if YOU can name any two particular vehicles that support your claims, name them.

You switch between generalities and specificities to suit individual sub-arguments and it becomes pointless to discuss. Since when were we talking about equivalent vehicles? The concept of BOF is not inherently stronger than the concept of unibody and it is easily demonstrated with unequal vehicles. My 1980 Buick, for example, is BOF; I bet the 2011 Grand Cherokee or Explorer is tougher and better for plowing.

[Shadow]

You switch between generalities and specificities to suit individual sub-arguments and it becomes pointless to discuss. Since when were we talking about equivalent vehicles? The concept of BOF is not inherently stronger than the concept of unibody and it is easily demonstrated with unequal vehicles. My 1980 Buick, for example, is BOF; I bet the 2011 Grand Cherokee or Explorer is tougher and better for plowing.

No, it's a normal part of debating. Not everything is always specific/general in a debate.

But I do think it's time to move on here. I asked you to name two equivalent vehicles (one BOF and the other unibody) where the unibody was built stronger and the best you can come up with is to tell me that your '80 Buick isn't better than a Grand Cherokee for plowing snow? Seriously? LOL, okay, whatever. The fact that you'd even consider an '80 Buick to be anything near an equivalent vehicle (yes, I know you said 'unequal', but that wasn't what I asked for) to a Grand Cherokee just tops everything you've said so far.

If you can come up with a better example (you know, one that actually applies to the discussion), let me know. If not, I think we're done here.

[theholycow]

I'm simply not sufficiently experienced with two vehicles that, while having vastly different construction, are somehow equivalent anyway.

Anyway as I've continually said in almost every post, I do not disagree that actual BOF vehicles on the market are tougher than (vaguely similar) actual unibody vehicles on the market.

[Shadow]

I'm simply not sufficiently experienced with two vehicles that, while having vastly different construction, are somehow equivalent anyway.

Anyway as I've continually said in almost every post, I do not disagree that actual BOF vehicles on the market are tougher than (vaguely similar) actual unibody vehicles on the market.

Okay, so then we agree. Which goes right back to validate my reasons for wanting to stick with my live axle, BOF 4Runner instead of buying a midsize SUV with IRS and unibody. Thanks, this was interesting and amusing.

[theholycow]

I picked the question up after it had already strayed from your individual choice of actual vehicles to a concept. I would not want to argue that your BOF vehicle is not better for your purpose than other available vehicles.

[Shadow]

I picked the question up after it had already strayed from your individual choice of actual vehicles to a concept. I would not want to argue that your BOF vehicle is not better for your purpose than other available vehicles.

See...then we do agree. Don't worry, you won't see me attempt to attach my 4Runner's pull plow to the back of a Santa-Fe or any other similarly constructed vehicle. I also wouldn't try pulling stumps out of the ground or even recovering a vehicle from a ditch with that type of vehicle.

[Rope-Pusher]

Oh, What the Hell: Jeep Grand Cherokee tow rating =7400 lbs. 4-Player is ONLY rated to tow 5000 lbs. A guy on my bowling league says the axle cracks off if you try towing 5001 lb trailer. IFSO FATSO the Grand Cherokee is stronger than the 4-runner, based on data from the corporate websites and Earl Schwartz (Earl has a few 300 games to his name, so I put a lot of faith in what he says).

[Shadow]

Oh, What the Hell: Jeep Grand Cherokee tow rating =7400 lbs. 4-Player is ONLY rated to tow 5000 lbs. A guy on my bowling league says the axle cracks off if you try towing 5001 lb trailer. IFSO FATSO the Grand Cherokee is stronger than the 4-runner, based on data from the corporate websites and Earl Schwartz (Earl has a few 300 games to his name, so I put a lot of faith in what he says).

Sorry, but you're comparing the V6 4Runner (tow rating 5000 lbs) to the V8 Grand Cherokee. Try looking up the 4Runner with a V8 engine and get back to me. Or better yet, look up the V6 Grand Cherokee and you'll see that it has a 5000 lb tow rating, just like the V6 4Runner.

The funny thing about 4Runners is that the V6 gets a weight carrying hitch and the V8 gets a weight distributing hitch. Plenty of V6 4Runner guys switch over to the the V8 hitch and then tow 7000+ lbs without issue.

And BTW, tow rating alone means very little. But thanks for the comment.

Class dismissed for today.

[Rope-Pusher]

Oh, What the Hell: Jeep Grand Cherokee tow rating =7400 lbs. 4-Player is ONLY rated to tow 5000 lbs. A guy on my bowling league says the axle cracks off if you try towing 5001 lb trailer. IFSO FATSO the Grand Cherokee is stronger than the 4-runner, based on data from the corporate websites and Earl Schwartz (Earl has a few 300 games to his name, so I put a lot of faith in what he says).

Sorry, but you're comparing the V6 4Runner (tow rating 5000 lbs) to the V8 Grand Cherokee. Try looking up the 4Runner with a V8 engine and get back to me. Or better yet, look up the V6 Grand Cherokee and you'll see that it has a 5000 lb tow rating, just like the V6 4Runner.

The funny thing about 4Runners is that the V6 gets a weight carrying hitch and the V8 gets a weight distributing hitch. Plenty of V6 4Runner guys switch over to the the V8 hitch and then tow 7000+ lbs without issue.

And BTW, tow rating alone means very little. But thanks for the comment.

Class dismissed for today.

I noticed you had nothing to say about Earl. Cat got your tongue? Earl sez that the 4-Player tow rating is wildly optimistic when you get to the V-8 models. He sez them trailing arms add negative strength when you use them with a BOF construction. Gotta be leaf springs or all bats are off with BOF.

[DKaz]

I test drove a 4 cyl manual Santa Fe, it was not bad, but my uncle's V6 manual Santa Fe in Vietnam which I got to drive a little bit was definitely better power wise.

[Shadow]

I noticed you had nothing to say about Earl. Cat got your tongue? Earl sez that the 4-Player tow rating is wildly optimistic when you get to the V-8 models. He sez them trailing arms add negative strength when you use them with a BOF construction. Gotta be leaf springs or all bats are off with BOF.

LOL, no comment about Earl and his infinite wisdom. Thanks for playing.

[AHTOXA]

[94Corolla5Speed]

Nice use of the standard TCL "thread going down in flames" gif.