Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Antique and Collectibles / Antique Cars / August 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Frame vs Sub- Frame?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
angelsbridge@webtv.net - 15 Aug 2004 04:03 GMT
I get the idea of cars back in the 70s being built on a frame, so how is
that different on current cars built with Sub frames? or no frame.
Thank You,

Yvonne
G.R. Patterson III - 16 Aug 2004 04:04 GMT
> I get the idea of cars back in the 70s being built on a frame, so how is
> that different on current cars built with Sub frames? or no frame.

Frames were on the way out in American cars in the early '60s. A frame is a set of
steel girders. The engine, radiator, springs, and such all bolt directly to the
frame. The car body sits on top of the frame and is also bolted to it. The body is
usually several pieces bolted together. It is possible to remove the body and still
be able to drive the car. Most pickup trucks still have frames, and these are visible
inside the rear wheel wells under the bed.

In the early '60s, automakers started moving to the so-called "unibody construction".
In this type of car, most of the body is welded together into one piece. Sections of
the body are built solidly enough for the engine, radiator, springs, and such all to
bolt to the body itself. There is no separate frame. One disadvantage of the
technique is the methods required to repair damage. With the older cars, a
"fender-bender" means you must bolt on a new fender. With the new ones, the existing
body must be straightened and patched.

Some cars have what appears to be a frame welded to the underside of the body. Two
with which I am familiar were the Econoline series through about '67 and the '63
Fairlane. Some people call these subframes. There are also cars that have removable
frame-like sections which stiffen up either the frame or the unibody. These are also
called subframes. My '40 Ford has a girder frame with an "X" shaped subframe in the
center.

George Patterson
    If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
    he gives it to.
Roger Blake - 16 Aug 2004 15:45 GMT
>I get the idea of cars back in the 70s being built on a frame, so how is

Cars were going frameless way before the 1970s.

The first domestic American companies to switch all passenger car production
to unit construction were Hudson in 1948 and Nash in 1949. These companies
merged in 1954 to form American Motors, and all of that firm's production
(except for certain Jeep models) was unibody until the end came in 1987
with the Chrysler buyout.

On the other hand, there are still some cars today built on a frame, such
as Ford's Crown Vic.

Signature

 Roger Blake
 (Subtract 10 for email.)

TM - 17 Aug 2004 02:04 GMT
The Lincoln Zephyr in the thirties (1937?) was also frameless.

> >I get the idea of cars back in the 70s being built on a frame, so how is
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> On the other hand, there are still some cars today built on a frame, such
> as Ford's Crown Vic.
Roger Blake - 18 Aug 2004 10:39 GMT
>The Lincoln Zephyr in the thirties (1937?) was also frameless.

I think the Chrysler Airflow was also. But AFAIK Hudson and Nash were the
first car manufacturers in the U.S. to convert their entire production
to single unit construction.

Signature

 Roger Blake
 (Subtract 10 for email.)

angelsbridge@webtv.net - 19 Aug 2004 14:14 GMT
Thanks for explaining that, I was under the impression the Uni-body was
something New! As stated there are still a few cars made with frames,
like mercury marquis.. I'm told a vehicle with a frame is "safer" than
the uni body, possibly due to the extra weight, on current models
anyway. True?

Yvonne
Paul Spencer - 19 Aug 2004 17:26 GMT
>Thanks for explaining that, I was under the impression the Uni-body was
>something New! As stated there are still a few cars made with frames,
>like mercury marquis.. I'm told a vehicle with a frame is "safer" than
>the uni body, possibly due to the extra weight, on current models
>anyway. True?

Almost certainly not. I guess even cars with frames now have to meet
crash tests, but certainly older ones are too solid and you are
relying on the other guy's crumple zones to absorb the energy of a
crash.

Assuming there is an "other guy" and not a brick wall.

I guess you have crash testing in the USA. In Europe, we have the
EuroNCAP tests, and it is amazing how much safer cars are now than
even five years ago. Although I happily drive a 1926 car, when our
daughters buy, we will probably subsidise them to buy new or nearly
new rather than older. It is also why the car we bought when the kids
started learning has the highest safety rating.

Signature

P
no crumple zones, no seat belts

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.