Quote from: crikeymike on August 01, 2005, 01:03:15 PM

I REALLY HATE TO SAY THIS, BUT...

I'm sure a lot of people have heard on here recently about the new Hyundai plant set up in Alabama.  At a cost of $1.1billion, absolutely everything in there is brand new.  Suzuki should get in with these guys to have US made SUV's like we all want.

You guys do realise that hyundai is making the "Terracon" that's available in Australia with a turbo-diesel engine. 

I honestly don't think suzuki will go back to the good old days of sami's and kick's thanks to the good American spirit of listening to F'n consumer reports and how they can sway the country away from a product.

Write Hyundai a letter.  If anyone will compete with jeep anymore for SUV's, I have a feeling it will be them.

(they just need to lose the plastic, and bubble look).

I dont want a f---ing Hyundai! I want a real zuki, not this minivan/station wagon crap they are calling SUVs.

Mike

Agreed Mr. Hagen.  Plus Hyundai DID just build a $1.1billion plant and start there own autoworkers union.  If the wanted to bring a new platform here they would've tooled the plant for it when it was cost effective to do so, the beginning.

that between now and 2008 Suzuki wants to
DOUBLE it's North American penetration.

   

Hope this doesn't mean we are going to get screwed
twice with some other frameless AWD knockoff

Wild

In an effort to push the conversation forward... I've noticed that a lot of comments on this thread are expressing negativity towards the idea of a "unibody" designed platform. It is my suspicion that these are the same people that really like, maybe even desire to build, a tube chassis buggy. I ask, in the route form, aren't these the same thing? The metal may be shaped a different way but the basic form, function, and geometry is the same! The same benefits are seen with a rigid platform that increases handling, stability, and performance... It just looks different... But look at the fundamentals of a tube chassis buggy ie. it doesn't have a 'floating body' that the occupant is housed in; all sub-systems are attached to a basic skeleton that supports all functions of the vehicle. Body panels and accesories are bolted to this chassis not to each other and then to a frame. The same can be said about a 'unibody' vehicle.

Anyway, There are several instances throughout automotive history of 'unibody' vehicles that perform well offroad such as the AM General HMMWV, Jeep Cherokee,  Pinzgauer, etc... Anyway, I'm just saying that because something is 'unibody' doesn't mean it is automatically junk. Plastic bumpers say that! 

Thoughts?

-Eric

People are going to dislike you being correct!   

Old Beetles are unibody and they have won the Baja before.   

Cwkick

People are going to dislike you being correct!   

Old Beetles are unibody and they have won the Baja before.   

Cwkick

You know, I had VW beetle in my list but removed it because it wasn't offered in an 4WD or AWD version that I'm aware of. But that is a good example of 'unibody' performance.

-Eric

Good eye opening observation   Well untill the plastic bumper comment   Hey guess what? Kicks, Vitaras, XL-7, X-90's came with plastic bumpers (and the Samis bumpers might as well of been plastic)   Wait, damn near everything besides a full size comes with them any more. Ahhh, hell, I guess I'll just have to take the bumpers off of the x-90 now and weld in some tubing

Zig

Good eye opening observation   Well untill the plastic bumper comment   Hey guess what? Kicks, Vitaras, XL-7, X-90's came with plastic bumpers (and the Samis bumpers might as well of been plastic)   Wait, damn near everything besides a full size comes with them any more. Ahhh, hell, I guess I'll just have to take the bumpers off of the x-90 now and weld in some tubing

Zig

Proving catagorical statements just don't work. Plastic bumpers must be ok on some vehicle applications, right?

-Eric

Quote from: Zukipilot on August 10, 2005, 06:52:08 AM

Good eye opening observation  Well untill the plastic bumper comment  Hey guess what? Kicks, Vitaras, XL-7, X-90's came with plastic bumpers (and the Samis bumpers might as well of been plastic)   Wait, damn near everything besides a full size comes with them any more. Ahhh, hell, I guess I'll just have to take the bumpers off of the x-90 now and weld in some tubing

Zig

Proving catagorical statements just don't work. Plastic bumpers must be ok on some vehicle applications, right?

-Eric

Yea , just messin with ya and making sure you were not turning into a full size off roader

Zig

PS I love my plastic on my X 

Hey guys

     I don't care how they build it...just make it so it will do the job of the Track/Kick, at a liveable price.....

Zag

I don't have a problem with it not having a seperate chassis as it still has a chassis, it's just that it's now integrated with a monocoque style body so it should actually be stronger. The only downside for some will be the inability to do a simple bodylift but then again given the quality/safety aspects of some bodylifts that's not necessarily a bad thing. A lift can still be done by spacing subframes suspension components away from the body but it is more involved as I have seen this done on Subaru's.

,HEY GUYS

     Getting back to original idea behind the thread...........

"Hey Suzuki...How manyt orders would it take to bring in the Escudo or Jimny?"

And how many of you guys would really be up for it....at say $15,000 USD base model?

So far we have...........12 by my count.......only 29,988 to go!


Zag

for me its not the unibody or body on frame issue as much as it is the ifs, and irs which detracts from the true off-road enthusiast desire to have one. it gets 18mpg in the city, and 23 on the highway, sorry i don't think so ! to me suzuki always built rugged rigs that got amazing gas mileage, this new gv totally misses that mark.

remember the vw beetle it was famous for being cheap, easy to repair, and was reliable. the new one missed all those points. they remade it for dip shits, and dip shits bought them. try turning a new beetle into a baja buggy, that's my point.

i want a jimny style suzuki here in north america, not a yuppy suv or cars. why would i buy a suzuki car when there is so much to choose from in either classes. why would i buy a 2006 grand vitara when with almost the same cash i could get a xterra.

Well I can get the Jimny here and I'm still not convinced that I'd want one. It really needs to be more like the older Samurai with some upgrades to be worthwhile.

I was just trying to be funny with that
"double penetration" comment

Wild

In an effort to push the conversation forward... I've noticed that a lot of comments on this thread are expressing negativity towards the idea of a "unibody" designed platform. It is my suspicion that these are the same people that really like, maybe even desire to build, a tube chassis buggy. I ask, in the route form, aren't these the same thing? The metal may be shaped a different way but the basic form, function, and geometry is the same! The same benefits are seen with a rigid platform that increases handling, stability, and performance... It just looks different... But look at the fundamentals of a tube chassis buggy ie. it doesn't have a 'floating body' that the occupant is housed in; all sub-systems are attached to a basic skeleton that supports all functions of the vehicle. Body panels and accesories are bolted to this chassis not to each other and then to a frame. The same can be said about a 'unibody' vehicle.

Anyway, There are several instances throughout automotive history of 'unibody' vehicles that perform well offroad such as the AM General HMMWV, Jeep Cherokee,  Pinzgauer, etc... Anyway, I'm just saying that because something is 'unibody' doesn't mean it is automatically junk. Plastic bumpers say that! 

Thoughts?

-Eric

Eric,
I thought about this on the way into work this morning and the more I thought the more I dis-liked the thought of a unibody style Suzuki 4x4 to build for off road use. Why Take a look at all of the vehicles you listed besides the Jeep Cherokee. The HMMWV and the Pinzgauer are KICK ASS examples of very capable of road vehicles (bone stock) Little Mods make these things incredible off road BECAUSE they are designed solely for off road use (and they suck on road compared to todays SUV). The Jeep Cherokee is a blend off on/off road design BUT was on the market virtually unchanged (Sport Model) for around 20 years. Allowing it to develop a huge aftermarket supply line allowing their owners to purchase whatever was needed to custom build their truck to meet their needs. That is where we will have trouble with a unibody design.
When you build a buggy (on a unibody style tube chassis) for off road performance that is what you build. It works well for what it was built for. BUT you take that specialty equipment and blast it down the road at interstate speeds, you have a death trap on your hands. I think the unibody design on SUV's will prove to do just the opposite of my example. They are designed to work really good on road and have mild (in our eyes) off road use. Therefore making it hard to adapt it's custom tuned for the highway design into a well performing off road beast. Now days, with the ever-changing SUV market demands, I doubt we will ever see another 20 year run on any SUV (like the Cherokee). The constant change of design on today’s SUV's will make it difficult for aftermarket companies to 'keep up' with the changes and be able to develop hardcore off road products to adapt these new pavement pounders into a off-road machine. Wich in turn will eliminate the Bolt-On group form building the newer Suzuki 4x4's.

It is possible to build one for those of us willing to spend the time/money/effort to make it happen (just look at what we have done with the Kick/Track/Vit when others said it could not be done). I just think that it will be a more difficult task than with what we have now (Kicks and Samis).

My $47.50,
Zig