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:Shadow wrote: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.theholycow wrote: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.
so I posted:Shadow wrote: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.
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.theholycow wrote:You have failed to deliver a suggestion of these advantages {...}
That's what we've been discussing this whole time. I keep bringing it up.Okay, are you playing the semantics game now?
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.
No, it supports the idea that particular vehicles are stronger than other particular vehicles.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.
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.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?
...reasons which I've already listed inarguably.The vehicles that aren't will remain BOF for good reason.