挑车买车【求助】你会选哪个SUV？ - 第7页

HP165 · Jul 11th, 2012, 01:15

引用:

作者: ee_ee

那肯定，仅仅在城市里还真没必要，不过有些人喜欢4RUNNER的外形，内饰和相信丰田的质量，也就无所谓了。

其实新一代4RUNNER在美国的销量已经大不如前了。，还是BOF的问题，时代变了，再怎么做，BOF+后硬轴相对于UNIBODY+独立悬挂而已，都会输在舒适性和操控性。

丰田根本不应该...

2011年4Runner在北美的销量是46896辆。2011年Chevy Tahoe/Suburban的北美销量是132453辆。需要拖船／RV的用户必需买BOF结构的SUV/Pickup. 换成Unibody的话，4runner就死了，彻底失去用户。你以为丰田很傻？至于舒适性，CIVIC这类车才是噩梦。操控性就没的说了，这些SUV都开过，重心高，悬挂有点硬而已，但绝对比开CR-V／RAV4更有信心和安全感，只是需要开的柔顺一点，尤其是重载时转弯。

ee_ee · Jul 11th, 2012, 01:34

引用:

作者: HP165

2011年4Runner在北美的销量是46896辆。2011年Chevy Tahoe/Suburban的北美销量是132453辆。需要拖船／RV的用户必需买BOF结构的SUV/Pickup. 换成Unibody的话，4runner就死了，彻底失去用户。你以为丰田很傻？至于舒适性，CIVIC这类车才是...

其实UNIBODY的MB GL已经做到7500磅的拖车能力，算是比较给力了。

而且拖船拖车4RUNNER还是小太多了，一个V6的动力也不够啊，要V8才给力。

再加上BOF的设计车子会比较沉，相对费油就是必然的了。

4RUNNER那不到5万的销量真是挺悲催的了，上一代上石头几年都是10万台开外嗯，时代不同了。。。。。。。

HP165 · Jul 12th, 2012, 00:29

这是一个MB 论坛上摘来的，说的比较透彻，总之主要是制造成本和安全测试上的考虑。至于7500磅牵引力，10万块的SUV也应该具备这样的能力，尽管可能有猫腻。至于能不能长期拖这么重的负载，用户不关心，他们会另买一匹骡子。

In fact, unibody designs can flex a lot more overall than body on frame designs. The problem with a unibody design is that the frame itself is the body. Therefore, when one part of the body twists, all of the other joints (door joints, etc.) all flex as well. Overtime, this puts significant stress on these components and wears them out prematurely if you do it extendedly. This is also the reason why unibody designs are not suited for long term or heavy duty towing.

The separate ladder frame in a body-on-frame design can be made very rigid if necessary. However, you start getting into issues with crash compatibility and crash worthiness. If the frame is too stiff, it won't crumple enough in a collision and much of the crash energy will be directed to the vehicle's occupants resulting in serious energy due to the higher G forces. This is obviously not what you want.

MB went to great lengths to design lower subframes for the ML's front and rear for car crash compatibility. The frame was specially designed to be soft enough to absorb energy but yet stiff enough for off-roadability and protection purposes. The result is a vehicle that does well in crash tests, as well as in the real world against other trucks and other cars. When offroading or towing, the body-on-frame design is superior because most of the flexing is limited to the frame itself and not the body. Therefore, you don't get the same sort of wear and tear as you get with a unibody design. This rigidity and isolation is also why the M-class is able to pass the frame twister test whereas the Acura MDX and Lexus RX300 could not.

Additionally, the ML's centre of gravity is lower than the unibody Lexus RX300! MB is switching to a unibody design because it is less expensive and easier to design for safety purposes, it is less prone to creak over time, and it will probably handle better (especially with the Adaptive Dampening System). There is no doubt though, that it will not perform as well off-road or for long term towing. This is why many ML owners are going to buy a W163 in its last year of production for the long term.

孩子他爹 · Jul 12th, 2012, 01:20

对买MB的客户,再买一辆BOF的truck拖东西,小菜一叠.

Blueblaze · Jul 14th, 2012, 12:31

昨天去看了Subaban 和Yukon。Subaban的第三排腿部空间对大人来说有点挤
Yukon 第三排更本就没法坐大人。

不知Sequoia SR5第二排是否可调？我试的是Primum, 第二排可调.
在SR5和 Limited之间选哪个？8千块钱的差价。我不拖东西，就当Van用

Jul 12th, 2012, 01:20	只看该作者 #124
孩子他爹 Senior Member 注册日期: Jul 2004 帖子: 3,075 声望: 667905	这个解释专业! 对买MB的客户,再买一辆BOF的truck拖东西,小菜一叠.
孩子他爹 Senior Member 注册日期: Jul 2004 帖子: 3,075 声望: 667905	DURHAM KIA批发部竭诚为广大客户代购各大品牌的ＯＦＦＬＥＡＳＥ车辆欢迎到我的网店看看：http://surhamkia68.51mall.ca/

Jul 14th, 2012, 12:31	只看该作者 #125
Blueblaze Senior Member 注册日期: Jul 2004 帖子: 939 积分:1 精华:1 声望: 703399	昨天去看了Subaban 和Yukon。Subaban的第三排腿部空间对大人来说有点挤 Yukon 第三排更本就没法坐大人。不知Sequoia SR5第二排是否可调？我试的是Primum, 第二排可调. 在SR5和 Limited之间选哪个？8千块钱的差价。我不拖东西，就当Van用
	我真是迷恋你们，你们都是传说！

Jul 12th, 2012, 00:29	只看该作者 #123
HP165 Senior Member 注册日期: Jul 2004 帖子: 3,130 积分:8 精华:3 声望: 3105546	这是一个MB 论坛上摘来的，说的比较透彻，总之主要是制造成本和安全测试上的考虑。至于7500磅牵引力，10万块的SUV也应该具备这样的能力，尽管可能有猫腻。至于能不能长期拖这么重的负载，用户不关心，他们会另买一匹骡子。 In fact, unibody designs can flex a lot more overall than body on frame designs. The problem with a unibody design is that the frame itself is the body. Therefore, when one part of the body twists, all of the other joints (door joints, etc.) all flex as well. Overtime, this puts significant stress on these components and wears them out prematurely if you do it extendedly. This is also the reason why unibody designs are not suited for long term or heavy duty towing. The separate ladder frame in a body-on-frame design can be made very rigid if necessary. However, you start getting into issues with crash compatibility and crash worthiness. If the frame is too stiff, it won't crumple enough in a collision and much of the crash energy will be directed to the vehicle's occupants resulting in serious energy due to the higher G forces. This is obviously not what you want. MB went to great lengths to design lower subframes for the ML's front and rear for car crash compatibility. The frame was specially designed to be soft enough to absorb energy but yet stiff enough for off-roadability and protection purposes. The result is a vehicle that does well in crash tests, as well as in the real world against other trucks and other cars. When offroading or towing, the body-on-frame design is superior because most of the flexing is limited to the frame itself and not the body. Therefore, you don't get the same sort of wear and tear as you get with a unibody design. This rigidity and isolation is also why the M-class is able to pass the frame twister test whereas the Acura MDX and Lexus RX300 could not. Additionally, the ML's centre of gravity is lower than the unibody Lexus RX300! MB is switching to a unibody design because it is less expensive and easier to design for safety purposes, it is less prone to creak over time, and it will probably handle better (especially with the Adaptive Dampening System). There is no doubt though, that it will not perform as well off-road or for long term towing. This is why many ML owners are going to buy a W163 in its last year of production for the long term.