Body in frame is an older way of making cars but it’s far easier/cheaper to make thos heavy duty and modular (e.g. an f250 can be a pickup, tow truck, ambulance, dump truck…)
Unibody is more modern.
Most people can live with a unibody truck (Maverick,Ridgeline,Colorado).
I don’t thing there’s causation between unibody and body on frame as far as fuel consumption is concerned.
We’d need a mechanism that incentives smaller vehicles without impacting the services relying on the heavy duty vehicles…
A Maverick starting at like $24k and an f150 at $35k isn’t enough…
Right, CAFE is heavily influenced by footprint (as in actual wheelbase square footage)
So if unibody “SUVs” are being used to raise the average of the “truck fleet”, I’m saying, change the system so they are bringing down the average of the “cars” segment.
I’m not sure what parent is after exactly.
Body in frame is an older way of making cars but it’s far easier/cheaper to make thos heavy duty and modular (e.g. an f250 can be a pickup, tow truck, ambulance, dump truck…)
Unibody is more modern.
Most people can live with a unibody truck (Maverick,Ridgeline,Colorado).
I don’t thing there’s causation between unibody and body on frame as far as fuel consumption is concerned.
We’d need a mechanism that incentives smaller vehicles without impacting the services relying on the heavy duty vehicles…
A Maverick starting at like $24k and an f150 at $35k isn’t enough…
The maverick and ridgeline are both unibodies, but the colorado has a frame.
That said, cafe seems to encourage larger footprints. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_average_fuel_economy#:~:text=CAFE footprint requirements are set,vehicle with a smaller footprint.
Right, CAFE is heavily influenced by footprint (as in actual wheelbase square footage)
So if unibody “SUVs” are being used to raise the average of the “truck fleet”, I’m saying, change the system so they are bringing down the average of the “cars” segment.