-->

INEOS Grenadier

nickw

Adventurer
The flex empty to me is not as important as how it would behave with 1000kg in it so it's an incomplete data set as far as I can tell. Fexy soft suspension is great for comfort and casual use but garbage for weight carrying. Have to wait and see.


The only thing that bothers me so far is how far the cooling package sticks down and how relatively low the skidplate has to be because of it. It's not totally awful but it is giving a solid axle vehicle the effective clearance of IFS which is a bit of a bummer with so few solid axle front vehicles running around. I wish they would have reworked that cooling a bit different but they might be saving bucks by using the off the shelf BMW stuff.
IFS rigs typically have better clearance that SA's....
 

nickw

Adventurer
- Looks like the chassis is very well built with maintenance and accessibility in mind
- The fact that even 33s might rub is a big downer. 33” tires are standard for over-landing applications. I do wish they address this more in the final version
- 35 ECUs and CanBus!! I don’t know if this is too high or low. He does mention that the new Defender has 85 ECUs. I wish I knew how many ECUs are there in a 1HZ 70 series stock from factory. Might be a good benchmark to baseline against. On the plus side most of the ancillary ECUs seem to be isolated and not a series failure design (a headlight or a brake sensor breaking won’t put the vehicle in limo mode). Again these are required in a modern vehicle for both safety and comfort. I just hope they are built to a good standard
- Sheet metal seems quite amazing and robust. Double skinned 2mm metal in the doors
- Similarly lots of attention looks to have been invested in reducing NVH to make it a more comfortable drive
- 2.5 tons or 5000 lbs current weight with a 3.5 ton GVM. The Ineos team is looking to reduce the weight to 2.3 tons it looks like. I hope it doesn’t come at an expense of payload. A metric ton is the right payload given once you add people, fluids and camping stuff in it and still keep the vehicle in optimal performance range
- The roof design is interesting and potentially controversial. The gutters if I understood right aren’t load bearing. The roof itself can take 150 kgs but mounting options didn’t seem clear in the video
- The fuel tank is 90 liters or 23.5 gallons. It could be reduced potentially which I think is a huge mistake. They already have the spare on the back and per the commentary there isn’t much space for additional tanks
- I am not very impressed by what I am seeing in the read load area in terms of plastics jutting out here and there. I’m hoping Ineos cleans it up to a nice rectangular space in the final draft

As an owner of an old G Wagon I can clearly see a lot of the design brief DNA of the G Wagon than the Defender. The articulation, the wheel parameters, the chassis points, etc.

However, all in all a very impressive vehicle but with some sobering points which will swing the decision for some buyers. If you haven’t watched it please do checkout the video.
Bigger tires may be fashionable - but 32's are a world standard for expedition vehicles and have been for the last 35+ years...
 

roving1

Well-known member
IFS rigs typically have better clearance that SA's....
Sigh...at static ride height and completely divorced from any approach angle benefit or how the suspension works while moving sure. Why Subarus have great ground clearance specs but horrible specs otherwise.

But that isn't what I am talking about. Live axles tend to ride up and over obstacles increasing or maintaining clearance and generally in front of the axle is clear of any thing to hit even when the suspension compresses. IFS has tons of crap cantilevered in front of the axle centerline relatively close to the ground and all of it gets lower as the suspension compresses.

So the Grenadier is losing some of the benefits of the differences in the two designs by having all this crap cantilevered in front (and in the back in the rear too apparently) of the axle that is usually not there in a solid axle design that is giving up a lot of clearance in the way an IFS vehicle would. Without the benefit of the static ride height increase of IFS either.

It's a weird mis-step in an otherwise so focused vehicle.

I have owned both and both have strengths and weaknesses so I'm not necessarily saying either are bad. But adding low frame mounted crap in front of and behind solid axles that doesn't NEED to be there takes away a lot of the good stuff about solid axle design.

It's not production yet so we'll see. But the cooling package and the rear panhard mount as they are now are necessitating kind of absurdly low skid plates for a vehicle with such pure 4WD aspirations.
 

nickw

Adventurer
Sigh...at static ride height and completely divorced from any approach angle benefit or how the suspension works while moving sure. Why Subarus have great ground clearance specs but horrible specs otherwise.

But that isn't what I am talking about. Live axles tend to ride up and over obstacles increasing or maintaining clearance and generally in front of the axle is clear of any thing to hit even when the suspension compresses. IFS has tons of crap cantilevered in front of the axle centerline relatively close to the ground and all of it gets lower as the suspension compresses.

So the Grenadier is losing some of the benefits of the differences in the two designs by having all this crap cantilevered in front (and in the back in the rear too apparently) of the axle that is usually not there in a solid axle design that is giving up a lot of clearance in the way an IFS vehicle would. Without the benefit of the static ride height increase of IFS either.

It's a weird mis-step in an otherwise so focused vehicle.

I have owned both and both have strengths and weaknesses so I'm not necessarily saying either are bad. But adding low frame mounted crap in front of and behind solid axles that doesn't NEED to be there takes away a lot of the good stuff about solid axle design.

It's not production yet so we'll see. But the cooling package and the rear panhard mount as they are now are necessitating kind of absurdly low skid plates for a vehicle with such pure 4WD aspirations.
Fair - I've driven SA and IFS rigs over the years and while I agree that 'dynamic' clearance is compromised on IFS rigs, in my experience, tires size for tire size the IFS rigs get hung up less with moderate expo type travel....but see your point and generally agree.
 

beanmachine

New member
Sigh...at static ride height and completely divorced from any approach angle benefit or how the suspension works while moving sure. Why Subarus have great ground clearance specs but horrible specs otherwise.

But that isn't what I am talking about. Live axles tend to ride up and over obstacles increasing or maintaining clearance and generally in front of the axle is clear of any thing to hit even when the suspension compresses. IFS has tons of crap cantilevered in front of the axle centerline relatively close to the ground and all of it gets lower as the suspension compresses.

So the Grenadier is losing some of the benefits of the differences in the two designs by having all this crap cantilevered in front (and in the back in the rear too apparently) of the axle that is usually not there in a solid axle design that is giving up a lot of clearance in the way an IFS vehicle would. Without the benefit of the static ride height increase of IFS either.

It's a weird mis-step in an otherwise so focused vehicle.

I have owned both and both have strengths and weaknesses so I'm not necessarily saying either are bad. But adding low frame mounted crap in front of and behind solid axles that doesn't NEED to be there takes away a lot of the good stuff about solid axle design.

It's not production yet so we'll see. But the cooling package and the rear panhard mount as they are now are necessitating kind of absurdly low skid plates for a vehicle with such pure 4WD aspirations.
I see your point, and it makes sense, but I've had the understanding that this is a "work truck" first and foremost and "off-road truck" second. If they are targeting fleet owners, who need something that works out of the box and has the payload to do the work, I see why they might make those decisions. If I was looking to purchase several of these to run in a commercial aspect, I would choose a vehicle that can idle however long it's needed without overheating over a bit more ground clearance. Hopefully these are just issues that are being worked on before the production vehicle though.

Sent from my SM-G781U1 using Tapatalk
 

roving1

Well-known member
I see your point, and it makes sense, but I've had the understanding that this is a "work truck" first and foremost and "off-road truck" second.
If that were true there is zero reason to not have IFS in the front and leaf springs in the rear which is safer cheaper to manufacture and more robust more load carrying route.

Saying they are going after small fleets makes no sense from an economic standpoint so I think that is just their way of managing initial manufacturing volume limitations and is more a PR thing. 90% of these are going to be bought by enthusiasts I think.
 

beanmachine

New member
If that were true there is zero reason to not have IFS in the front and leaf springs in the rear which is safer cheaper to manufacture and more robust more load carrying route.

Saying they are going after small fleets makes no sense from an economic standpoint so I think that is just their way of managing initial manufacturing volume limitations and is more a PR thing. 90% of these are going to be bought by enthusiasts I think.
I can't agree with IFS being "more robust, more load carrying". If you're designing for #1 work truck and #2 off road, it would make total sense to have 2 solid axles. There's only 1 heavy duty American truck who uses IFS and they are well regarded as having the weakest front axle in the business, and the one brand you think of when you think "off road" also uses 2 solid axles. Not definitive, but it means something, especially to the guys who are ordering these trucks.

Rear leafs, I 100% agree, EXCEPT there doesn't seem to be another SUV with a higher payload (70 series is also 1000 kg) even with leaf springs, so why not go with coils. I would rather see rear leafs and a higher payload (maybe [hopefully] this will be in the truck version?) than having coils at all 4 corners.

I'm not so sure I see their "small fleet" target as only a PR statement, but I can see where it would be stretch. Depending on the price I can see many areas it fits, but that's something we'll just have to wait and see about

Sent from my SM-G781U1 using Tapatalk
 

utherjorge

Observer
I think we'll see if "they" are serious about fleet sales if they have a stripped out version (comparatively) that is very simple and can have seats and what not deleted. Maybe instead there's some proprietary drawers being designed for side/rear access? I don't know.

But its amusing we're doing the "it should have sold axles and leaf springs" in 2021 once more. Nope, it doesn't need either of those things. Throw the "mah rig needs 33's and 34's are even bettah" nonsense in that rubbish bin as well.

The ground clearance concerns (re: cooling bits) are the big red flag at this point and will be fascinating to see how that gets addressed. Additionally...is the current stance what we will see at the end? Perhaps the above nonsense (tire size, axles) will be addressed by better approach and departure angles?

If this thing can't roam over the Southwest US or Africa without overheating or hanging up, there's no reason to buy it.
 

nickw

Adventurer
I can't agree with IFS being "more robust, more load carrying". If you're designing for #1 work truck and #2 off road, it would make total sense to have 2 solid axles. There's only 1 heavy duty American truck who uses IFS and they are well regarded as having the weakest front axle in the business, and the one brand you think of when you think "off road" also uses 2 solid axles. Not definitive, but it means something, especially to the guys who are ordering these trucks.

Rear leafs, I 100% agree, EXCEPT there doesn't seem to be another SUV with a higher payload (70 series is also 1000 kg) even with leaf springs, so why not go with coils. I would rather see rear leafs and a higher payload (maybe [hopefully] this will be in the truck version?) than having coils at all 4 corners.

I'm not so sure I see their "small fleet" target as only a PR statement, but I can see where it would be stretch. Depending on the price I can see many areas it fits, but that's something we'll just have to wait and see about

Sent from my SM-G781U1 using Tapatalk
While I don't think IFS is stronger per-se, there are more to commercial vehicles than (2) of the (3) full size HD American trucks.....outside of the 70 series cruisers, the rest of the world uses commercial rigs with IFS like the Landcruisers, Prados, Hilux's (for 30+ years), Patrols, Sprinters, overseas Rangers/Nissans pickups and domestically as you point out the Chevy/GMCs. Speaking of the Chev....perfectly capable on stock(ish)tires and plenty reliable...commercial does not mean lifted with big oversize tires banging through a rock garden.

I honestly think the Ford & Dodge continue the SA due to lower cost (not having to do major redesign) and marketability....many guys think they need a SA up front in a HD rig, it's expected and sought after. This is coming from a guy who just bought a 21' Ram 2500 with a SA, rides fine, but I could care not one iota if it had IFS, I'd probably like it even better.

I'm in the camp that Ineos knew their buyer....their buyer wanted SA's for better or worse, that is what they got. It's also probably easier to source and I'd guess lower upfront cost.
 

nickw

Adventurer
I get a good laugh out of threads like this sometimes! Guys bellyaching about wanting stripped down 'commercial' rig for expedition use....but can't live without all the new comforts. We want dependable and reliable, but we want heated seats and smooth driving w/no noise. Ineos has hit that demographic with this vehicle.....

The SA on this thing is meaningless....it has multiple ECU's, a engine sourced from a BMW suv, transmissions sourced from BMW suv along with the BMW control system. It's NOT a replacement for a LC 70 or Defender....it's a modern representation in look and feel, not true function, I can't wrap my head around it any other way.

In saying that, I think it's super cool. We've owned multiple BMW's and Audi's, no problems with any of them. I'm not a fatalist, they work just fine for what they are....I'd put this in the same category, it would make a more capable offroad overlander than a X5....but if exploring paved and gravel roads, I'd probably just opt for an X5...we had 140k on our old diesel X5, no problems, fast, comfortable and got 25+ mpg, had a tailgate, sim payload to most Tacomas & Tundras
 

CFMGarage

Member
I'm looking forward to this actually manifesting. Solid axles give all kinds of options and the interior looks great. I also don't doubt the engine and transmission are alright. Also looks ripe for a strong aftermarket to start up as they've provisioned it for some of that already.

If this starts well equipped at 60k US dollaredoos, I expect to see them driving around my area after launch and this is something I'd look at after a couple model years. Let's hope INEOS is taking the testing seriously as some manufacturers seem to pawn some QC off on the first buyers of a new model. This is a whole new brand...
 

utherjorge

Observer
Let's hope INEOS is taking the testing seriously as some manufacturers seem to pawn some QC off on the first buyers of a new model. This is a whole new brand...
I think they all do that...and it gets tiresome after a while. I am eager to get this into the hands of some of the better journalists t see what happens when it gets flogged.
 

Riptide

Explorer
I get a good laugh out of threads like this sometimes! Guys bellyaching about wanting stripped down 'commercial' rig for expedition use....but can't live without all the new comforts. We want dependable and reliable, but we want heated seats and smooth driving w/no noise. Ineos has hit that demographic with this vehicle.....

The SA on this thing is meaningless....it has multiple ECU's, a engine sourced from a BMW suv, transmissions sourced from BMW suv along with the BMW control system. It's NOT a replacement for a LC 70 or Defender....it's a modern representation in look and feel, not true function, I can't wrap my head around it any other way.

In saying that, I think it's super cool. We've owned multiple BMW's and Audi's, no problems with any of them. I'm not a fatalist, they work just fine for what they are....I'd put this in the same category, it would make a more capable offroad overlander than a X5....but if exploring paved and gravel roads, I'd probably just opt for an X5...we had 140k on our old diesel X5, no problems, fast, comfortable and got 25+ mpg, had a tailgate, sim payload to most Tacomas & Tundras
I get a good laugh out of answers like this.

Three years, 100 million dollars and a hundred engineers, who've apparently all agreed on meaningless solid axles, and simple farkle to trick wannabe Defender owners, and then built 200 pre-production models, not to test, but to continue the ruse.

OK.
 

Highlander

The Good Shepherd
the engine and transmission are alright
Not sure about the engine, (I was never into BMW or that kind of cars anyhow), but the transmission is a ZF 8 speed, widely used in the US truck / SUV market. The RAM 1500 and the gas 2500 use that transmission and it's the least complained about part in the truck.
 

CFMGarage

Member
Not sure about the engine, (I was never into BMW or that kind of cars anyhow), but the transmission is a ZF 8 speed, widely used in the US truck / SUV market. The RAM 1500 and the gas 2500 use that transmission and it's the least complained about part in the truck.
This is why I'm so interested in this truck. The Ram TRX uses a version of the ZF 8, so who'll be the first to swap in a hellcat motor and blow up the diffs. Gear driven T-case too. It has great potential, I just want to see it actually show up.

No offense to the purists in this thread, but this grenadier screams 37x12.50r18s with a bit more stututu under the hood. Perfect for America.
 
Top