[Nithesh_M]

As someone who has the opportunity to be driven around in a Scorpio/Bolero at work and returns home in a Creta, I'd never suggest BOF to anyone who isn't living in a place without tar/concrete roads.

That said, the month I got my Creta I had to complete a 1000kms within the first month for service and the family decided to go temple runs. Funnily enough we got lost in some jungle before Gundya(Shiradi ghat) on our way to Kukke Subrahmanya. Relative had put gmaps coordinate to a wrong location which led us on a worse off-road track than the one's seen in Thar promos which led us to a church atop a steep offroad hill which was a dead end.

Turns out everyday 15 tourists get lost searching for temple and arrive there because somebody has either marked wrong location for temple or its a tower issue. We were 30kms into a jungle filled with human skull sized rocks for road. I was heartbroken of the abuse the Creta would take before 1st service but had no choice but go forwards.

To my surprise at rock climbing speeds for about an hour (15-20kms) the Creta actually felt like it belonged there. Except for the gravels hitting wheel well noises not one of us 4 were thrown around inside. And after that journey all I could think of was how I'd have regretted it if I'd picked the 5th gen City instead of the Creta.

The point is, chassis engineering has come a long way and these modern crossovers despite not being designed for off-road use can actually withstand some beating. The software analysis (FEM) these days is pretty damn good.

[gkveda]

My view is, this is a hypothetical question. Given all other parameters remaining the same, body on frame cannot be sold at same price as monocoque design.

If both are sold at same price, then monocoque has to be from 1- 2 level high segment car compared to BOF Car either features wise or performance wise or quality wise.

If I assume that such scenario occurs in real life, I would prefer to have monocoque. I can not trust that BOF is safe, secure and sturdy, if it is sold at monocoque price of same segment.

[RedTerrano]

Since I don't off road, it means I am on road. On road means traffic. I would rather crawl chasing the bumper in front of me in comfort (not that the rains have started, potholes have cropped up everywhere). Also better fuel efficiency and ease of ingress/egress matter to me.

So I voted Monocoque.

[padmrajravi]

If they are same price and have the same capabilities in engine and GC, I will choose monocoque. I don't see any reason to specifically prefer BOF. If Defender can be made monocoque and still perform the same offroad, I think there is no sense for any vehicle to be BOF in future. Monocoque vehicles can be made lighter than a BOF. That reason alone is enough to justify any drawbacks it may have. The lesser the weight, the more greener the vehicle is.

[SS-Traveller]

The one phrase that comes to mind on reading this thread, is, 'Horses for courses'.

A monocoque will be lighter, faster, fuel-efficient, more comfortable - but less durable under overloading and abuse.

A body-on-frame car is exactly the reverse. It is also (IMHO) more modifications-friendly.

If I need to spend my time driving 200 km every day, over broken roads and miserable no-road situations, which would I choose, do you think?

OTOH, if my 500-1000-km daily run involves expressways and tolled highways, guess what I would choose?

If I want a monocoque chassis with body-on-frame capabilities, I would need to be able to afford it. Otherwise, a monocoque will not perform the task of a body-on-frame vehicle without a huge maintenance penalty and breakdown risk. However, a BOF vehicle will do 95% of what a monocoque can, with a much smaller penalty at the fuel station.

[BlackPearl]

Voted for body on frame SUVs as that is what I prefer. I keep my vehicles for very long periods and want them to be rugged, capable and long lasting without costing a lot in repairs if I go off the road. The body on frame SUVs are still more rugged and easier to maintain than what the monocoques can offer.

[Bibendum90949]

Never before I had imagined I would vote for a BOF car someday. I've been a sedan guy for most part of my life. My BOF vote has to do with my new found love for off roading. At the start of this year, I picked up a Gypsy and after having put it to some mild abuse, I realised what a BOF vehicle is capable of but at the expense of having to take ice bath to keep my back going after each of those excursions

In an ideal world, my preference would be a car that can offer the best of both worlds at whatever possible degree. As few pointed out, the Endeavour fits the bill perfectly in that sense. On Indian roads, the GC and the peace of mind that's offered by a BOF car is always a boon. I've started to realise it after having added a crossover SUV(Seltos)to my garage. Coming predominantly from sedan, it was one worry less when you're on a long drive and you're likely to encounter some no road/bad road situations under full load.

So BOF for me. I've surprised myself here with the vote

An article on BOF vs Monocoque listing the pros and cons.

https://m.motoroids.com/article/ladd...-choose/368887

[Rahul Bhalgat]

Looking at my priorities of ride comfort, road manners, low kerb weight (and resulting better fuel efficiency) and expectation of no more than 15 - 20 years of durability, I will anyday prefer monocoque to own as a personal SUV.

BOF will be more of a lifestyle vehicle for me; not needed at this stage. If at all I need a BOF for specific occasion or trip, it can be rented.

But to own, I will prefer monocoque.

[landcruiser123]

Voted body-on-frame purely because I intend to do some serious off-roading and towing someday.

For regular family hauling and some light dirt trails, unibody will serve the purpose just fine. It'll also be more comfortable and fuel efficient.

[asit.kulkarni93]

Voted for body on frame. I would have picked up the Hexa XTA over th Harrier/Safari XZA+ if it were on offer. If I want an SUV, it has to be proper SUV (exception being the Yeti, Tiguan, Kodiaq and Compass). Rest I would pick a BOF for the robustness it offers. A Crysta fits the bill for me in the 25 lakh rupee segment. I am mighty impressed with the Bolero Neo too.

[audioholic]

Originally Posted by gkveda

My view is, this is a hypothetical question. Given all other parameters remaining the same, body on frame cannot be sold at same price as monocoque design.

If both are sold at same price, then monocoque has to be from 1- 2 level high segment car compared to BOF Car either features wise or performance wise or quality wise.

If I assume that such scenario occurs in real life, I would prefer to have monocoque. I can not trust that BOF is safe, secure and sturdy, if it is sold at monocoque price of same segment.

Very valid point. This would be the biggest differentiator. BOF cars are slowly becoming extinct even in segments like MPV and SUV. There are very few side by side comparisons that could be done. I would choose between the two based on the need. For an SUV, BOF still makes sense since it's more rugged and things like suspension travel, articulation must be higher due to the nature of the construction. But for an MPV I would sit on the fence. For anything else I believe in the current market there isn't a choice. I love the ride of the Crysta and while driving an Ertiga might be more fun in terms of pushing the car, the plush ride of the Crysta is something else.

[DicKy]

If it was sedans vs SUV(crossovers) would select sedan anyday.

If it was for easy ingress/egress and higher H-points I would choose models like the WagonR or Ertiga over a similarly priced crossover. Same seating position advantage plus greater practicality with the only loss being image.

Also our next purchase at home would most probably be a crossover.

That said, for SUVs at the same price point, would choose a body-on-frame over a monocoque anyday. Problem is, it varies across different segments and price points.

In the below 15 lakhs price range, only the Bolero Neo/TUV300 is the sole modern offering. If they gave it the 4cyl 1.5l diesel engine, 6spd manual gearbox and Aisin TC automatic, it would have been a no-brainer. But as of now, the Bolero Neo still looks like a half hearted attempt. Would pick the XUV300 or Nexon anyday. Things could change with the 5 door Jimny and Thar(?).

In the 15-30 lakhs price range, only one option. The Innova. ofcourse it is an MUV, but it is the sole option, that is until the next gen Scorpio comes. All others maybe good for office commutes and touring for 3-4 passengers. But for rough road usage, 5+ passengers, load carrying, sheer touring abilities, BoF wins hands down. The Hexa is gone, and it looks like other than the next gen Scorpio and 5 door Thar, we wont be getting any BoF vehicle in this price range anytime soon.

In the 30-50 lakhs segment, there isnt any compelling monocoque options. The Kodiaq in diesel guise was a close one. But that aside, wouldn't touch any SUVs other than the Fortuner and Endeavour in this segment. Maybe Isuzu Mu7/X.

In the luxury segment around the 1 crore mark, would chicken out and buy the Landcruiser anyday over the Europeans. That said, if there was a monocoque SUV/crossover with RWD and longitudinal mounted engine at the same price points, it would force me to sit on the fence regarding BoF vs monocoque. As of now, most affordable monocoque crossovers are just hatchbacks/stationwagons on stilts, their basic suspension setup not helping matters. The present monocoque vs BoF SUV is just a rehash of the old sedan vs SUV argument. People who want the driving ease, fuel efficiency and ride comfort of sedans will anyday choose the monocoque crossovers. People who want utility, will choose BoF models. Old arguments against BoFs are getting weaker. They can be tuned to deliver comfortable ride quality, safe handling, fuel efficiency that doesnt fluctuate with varied conditions and can score 5 stars at crash tests as well.

Edit: BTW, BoF preference doesn't include stuff like the Marazzo. It should have either went the Ertiga way or the Innova way instead of...

[speedmiester]

Monocoque any day.

The modern monocoque SUVs are getting very close to BOF ones in terms of reliability and robustness while offering many advantages over the BOF SUVs.

Unless one is into hardcore offroading or uses their vehicles for heavy hauling, monocoque SUVs are the way to go.

[VKumar]

Note: The following post has been written with a peak budget of 20 lac in mind

When the price is same and the vehicle has to be an SUV and not a mutated high ground clearance hatchback, then it's not just a Monocoque vs BOF, there is a lot more associated to it:

• FWD Vs RWD/AWD
• McPherson struts Vs Rugged Double Wishbones
• Driving position
• Towing capability as well as the capability of being towed out (not every car is happy being towed out strongly)

The terms Ruggedness and Capability go hand in hand with the term SUV. If it has to be a proper SUV, it has to be a BOF. See, the thread title uses the term 'SUV' and that itself leaves you with very few choices, and the likes of Venue, Sonet, Creta, Seltos etc are a not a part of it, these so-called SUVs are worse than even an Ignis when it comes to capability part. Ecosport at least can wade deeper waters, Duster at least had an AWD, but these other high GC kids have nothing that makes them SUVs. A Swift ZXi climbs as good on slippery inclines as a Hector or Creta can. That's the basic design issue with these FWD, long and heavy so called SUVs'. Going uphill causes load to transfer to rear wheels and these 1500-1800 kilo cars have the power going to front. They are all actually hatchbacks or vans in SUV clothing.

IMO, a TUV3OO or a Bolero has more S associated to the UV part than a Creta, Seltos, Ecosport, Venue, Sonet, Duster 4x2 etc.

It's not for no reason that I take and MLD equipped TUV3OO to the trips where I need something compact and capable. If I am doing 50 kph and I have to be concerned about a 6 inch deep pothole on the road, or if I have to be concerned about an inevitable belly scrape - then the SUV I am driving needs a bit more 'S' factor, and that doesn't come in monocoque packages at same price.

Hence, if I need an SUV, have a fixed amount in hand and there is an option of a BOF - I will go with the BOF any day and every day. I have both in my disposal, and I very well understand the pros and cons of both. When I need a car which drives like a car and has high seating position, a monocoque any day. But if I am going to Gangotri, Kaza, Leh, Kunzum etc, the BOF has to be the vehicle. I can rally a Scorpio or a TUV on a broken road, but the monocoque will keep on giving me heart in the mouth moments time and again, so, if I have to keep on thinking about the damage to suspension or chassis due to impacts from potholes, then there is certainly a flaw in the new definition of 'Sports' in the modern day monocoque SUVs.

[vredesbyrd]

Voted for Body On Frame. By sacrificing efficiency and handling dynamics, you get invincibility and a sense of security that you cannot get bogged down (provided you know how to do off road things). From what I've heard, Endeavour's handling is really good and better than some monocoques.

In fact, I have changed my future aspirational upgrade from a low slung RWD sedan to a BOF just because there's much to see and travel to in this country and a sedan won't get you everywhere (or painfully slow if you want to go rock climbing with an E350 on Udupi-Bellari Highway. Yes, it is a proper off-road moon crater course).

Then again there are vehicles like Kodiaq, X3, X5 and Q5, which are best of both worlds. I mean, who wouldn't like to do himalyan forest trails or difficult climbs with a 3L 6-pot?

I'm greedy. I really want a 530d/E350 too but will I be able to do Leh in those? Yes. Winter? Fat chance. Spiti? Hell no. Remote places to feed the photographer within? It's a gamble, an expensive one.

Bottom line: BOF it is but if something nice with good handling, paddle shifters and 4WD comes along then why not?