I’m mostly interested in the air suspension setup, geometry, and whether they got additional travel or anything else out of the LR3/4/5 system.
The unibody looks like a total miss to me, but we’ll see.
The way unibody works is sort/of anathema to heavy duty work. The strength of the chassis system is spread out over the entire structure, which means that while the entire unit may measure as more “stiff” depending on how you measure, something like the front bumper supports (for mounting armor/removing facias) are likely decidedly weaker.
Often, the design paradigm is different for unibody vs body on frame. For highest crash ratings, unibody is usually the only chassis option besides monocoque that will pass muster, and this is because of crumple zones for ablating kinetic energy.
Crumple zones are great at maintaining cabin integrity and reducing peak g-load on occupants, but tend to be one-trick ponies otherwise.
I would be concerned about any sort of impact, even mild contact with obstacles could collapse a “crash can” or failed design point, and either total the vehicle or cause many many thousands of dollars in damage.
Similarly, rough action at the control arm clevises could easily break or bend the mounts, essentially totaling the vehicle.
On a body-on-frame vehicle, all of the above can be repaired.
Here’s the grabs from the video of the Body in White (BIW):
.
