Discuss this abomination.
It wouldn't be my first choice for the swap, but I can kind of see why.
My why is solely based on the interior, that I can't see from this angle. Still seems like an awful lot of work when you could do something more interesting but still more civilized than the H1. Like a stretched and lifted Gremlin, or a BMW I still haven't seen a beemer jacked up, heck a Super Duty or an old square body.
Maybe the unibody helps somehow?
Honestly, I'm dumbfounded, and I usually love this kind of thing. Just check my youtube history.
That's about what I'd expect it to look like.
The HMMWV/H1 isn't a passenger car, it is a military frame with some aluminum sheeting draped over said frame so as to be able to transport a couple people in the areas where the chassis didn't explicitly need to be. It's like accomodating a driver and passenger(s) was an afterthought. Stick a Ridgeline on top and it looks like, well, you stuck a Ridgeline on top of something.
Did they narrow the track somehow? H1's seem a lot wider than ridgelines, but it doesn't look like too much of the tires are outside of the bodylines.
T.J. wrote: Did they narrow the track somehow? H1's seem a lot wider than ridgelines, but it doesn't look like too much of the tires are outside of the bodylines.
Ridgelines aren't all that narrow (modern cars have gotten wider as they've gotten taller). And the extra height below the body (plus the uneven ground it's on) makes it hard to tell just how far the tires stick out.
tuna55 wrote: Are we sure that's an H1? I don't see portal axles.
Yes. Front suspension looks correct to me. H1s are fully independent, no solid axles and not portals. You're thinking Unimog with the portal stuff, I think. See the front of an H1 below:
I am usually only bothered when i feel like somebody is destroying something good. Like when they put a cool 60s car body on a k5 chassis. I dont feel like the world is going to miss one more ridgeline or h1.
In reply to rslifkin:
actually, the H1's are a portal technically.
The driveshaft comes in at the top of the hub assemby and is gear driven down to the wheel hub.
Can't use Photosucket anymore but I have a picture of the (iirc) 1999 Top Truck Challenge winner.
It's a square-bodied Dodge Raider (Montero) on a shortened H1 chassis.
Edit: he placed 6th. It's in this link
(Don't let yourself get distracted by the CJ 7 with 2 1/2 ton Gama Goat axles and a 502)
I kind of like it but I once put a 3rd gen. Buick Riviera body on a 1st gen. GMC Jimmy chassis so my taste in this sort of thing is questionable.
APEowner wrote: I kind of like it but I once put a 3rd gen. Buick Riviera body on a 1st gen. GMC Jimmy chassis so my taste in this sort of thing is questionable.
At one point, there were 2 different Saturn S-series sedans on S10 Blazer chassis running around here...
Well, it is an easy way to get one of those non road legal surplus h1s (that sell for like 5k) on the road with a plate and a vin.
I kinda like it.
It would certainly look better if they didn't obviously just plop the body down on the frame. If it actually looked integrated into the overall vehicle it would look much less monster trucky.
freetors wrote: It would certainly look better if they didn't obviously just plop the body down on the frame. If it actually looked integrated into the overall vehicle it would look much less monster trucky.
True, but they'd have to channel the unibody and then they'd be lucky if they didn't also have to raise interior pieces to make room for the channeling. There's no good way to put a unibody on top of a ladder frame.
You'll need to log in to post.