Unibody rigidity

On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 8:38:57 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> My 1981 Buick Century: Noticed lots of squeeks and rattles. I relocated the strikers inward on all four doors in that thing, and it actually began speaking German! Seriously - the body felt tighter, the suspension responded more readily to both the road and my inputs. It felt more like an Autobahn burner than a cushy Detroit rolling library.
>
>
>
>
>
> My 1996 Ford Contour: Much taughter little sedan than the Buick for sure.. But I read in the chassis manual I bought for it that both the front and rear glass "must be properly mounted and sealed to insure body rigidity."
>
>
>
> Are unibodies(like that Mondeo/Contour) that dependent even on the fixed glass for total rigidity??

Short answer, yes. That's why pretty much all recently built cars use glued-in glass rather than the old style rope-in gaskets. It's not because they're deliberately trying to make it more difficult for a DIYer, that's just a side effect.

Steve W. wrote: "cut-aways to companies who then installed regular cargo boxes and ambulance bodies as well as motorhome bodies on them, Many added framerails to the rear but there were quite a few that simply changed the "

Don't forget twinkie wagons!!

On 2014-04-17, Steve W. > wrote:
> Unibody has been in use far longer than a lot of people think.

The first as far as I know was Lancia in the early 1920s.

The first U.S. car companies to convert completely to unibody
construction were Hudson (1948) and Nash (1949). Nash previously
built a unibody model, the "600," in 1941, but the company's
other models at that time were still body-on-frame.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

wrote:
> Steve W. wrote: "cut-aways to companies who then installed regular
> cargo boxes and ambulance bodies as well as motorhome bodies on them,
> Many added framerails to the rear but there were quite a few that
> simply changed the "
>
> Don't forget twinkie wagons!!

Yep, lot's of different delivery outfits used them. We had one for a
while. Handled about like a drunk elephant walking on marbles....

--
Steve W.

Steve W: "- show quoted text -
Yep, lot's of different delivery outfits used them. We had one for a
while. Handled about like a drunk elephant walking on marbles....

--
Steve W. "

The short bus?

BTW when are you filming in Stamford next?

On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 07:42:07 -0400, "Steve W." >
wrote:

>Ashton Crusher wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 10:06:21 -0400, "Steve W." >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Ashton Crusher wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 17 Apr 2014 03:29:51 -0400, "Steve W." >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Steve W. wrote: "Most newer vehicles use the glass as a structural
>>>>>> part. The glass is also used in concert with the airbags for
>>>>>> passenger restraint during "
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Doesn't say much for the 'rigidity' of unibody does it? I guess it
>>>>>> goes with the territory: Remove the subframe(body-on-frame vintage),
>>>>>> and that strength has to some from someplace else. Thicker guage
>>>>>> sheetmetal? Now that's an idea.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Utilizing the glass in concert with the airbag does, however, make
>>>>>> sense.
>>>>> Unibody has been in use far longer than a lot of people think.
>>>>>
>>>>> You also have to consider how the rigidity of the design effects the
>>>>> ride quality and safety.
>>>>>
>>>>> You could design a vehicle that was very rigid and had no flex. It would
>>>>> have the ride of a solid block of concrete and survivability would be
>>>>> low in a major impact.
>>>>>
>>>>> For examples of unibody just look at Mustangs (and every variant of the
>>>>> fox body), Camaros, Every Chrysler car since 1961. Pretty much every
>>>>> other car built by all makers since the late 90's. Trucks and some
>>>>> specific vehicles still have BOF construction but it's a very low count
>>>>> these days.
>>>>>
>>>>> These days with safety and fuel mileage they look at everything for ways
>>>>> to make the vehicle lighter. One of those is thinner stronger steel
>>>>> alloys and using more of the components of the body to carry the weight.
>>>> I believe the largest Unibody car ever built was the 1960 Lincoln.
>>> Car maybe. The GM vans were unibody up until 96. They built cargo trucks
>>> on that design.
>>
>>
>> 1994 G20 Chevy Van.. wheelbase 125 inches, overall length 204.1
>> 1960 Lincoln wheelbase 131 inches, overall length 227
>
>That would be a "normal" van. They also sold them as cab/chassis or
>cut-aways to companies who then installed regular cargo boxes and
>ambulance bodies as well as motorhome bodies on them, Many added frame
>rails to the rear but there were quite a few that simply changed the
>rear axle to a dually design and bolted the stuff onto the factory floor
>pan.
>
>Something like these
>http://cyberauctions.com/ItemPics/63074_1.jpg
>http://imganuncios.mitula.net/1992_g...1214204318.jpg

Well, the Lincoln was a "normal" car so I'd still call it the largest.
Also, didn't those Chevy vans use subframes in the front? Not so on
the Lincoln.