Interesting marketing approach

You can still get a little solitude in the Colorado mountains. Just back from a ski tour...

Jealous

Jean Mercier said:

Jealous

Click to expand...

The trailhead is out my back door, then a 10 min drive up a snow-covered dirt road. I know that I'm a lucky guy.

stickshifter said:

I agree with your overall sentiment, but to me, knowing that the top speed is 100 mph just isn't relevant, as I don't think it is really an indication of on-road performance. I will never drive a vehicle like the Grenadier at 100 mph, and knowing what the top speed is doesn't tell me how well it does things that do matter to me, like (1) how does it handle on winding roads and taking corners? (I'm not looking for sports car performance, or even for SUV performance, but I'd like something better than my old Jeep JK Rubicon), (2) how does it accelerate from 20 to 65? (coming off an on-ramp merging with highway traffic), (3) how does it accelerate from 65 to 80 while driving uphill at 10,000 feet above sea level? (in order to safely pass a freight truck on a mountain pass), or (4) how does it accelerate from 3 to 30 while going up a very steep grade through a series of hairpin switchbacks?

I regularly encounter all these driving scenarios, and I am laser-focused on ensuring that my next vehicle can handle these situations well (in addition to having off-road chops, decent payload, etc.). Again - I'm not looking for sports car performance - I just want something that is better on-road than a Jeep or a Tacoma. My current vehicle is a 2017 Tacoma, which I bought thinking it would be a decent all-purpose vehicle for me. I bought it to replace an aging Jeep JK and an Audi S4 that was starting to require regular post-warranty maintenance; in addition, I was tired of having two specialized vehicles - I wanted one that could be more of an "all-around" vehicle. Lastly, the Tacoma was just about my only choice because I wanted a manual transmission (at the time, that was a non-negotiable criteria). Sadly, my commitment to the manual gearbox left me with a vehicle that lacks low-end torque, and while the Tacoma runs great (for a truck) through the corners on winding canyon roads (especially after a suspension upgrade), I have not been happy with it in all the acceleration examples I listed above. I find it a chore to drive under these conditions. I used to drive 3-4 hours through the mountains in the Audi and feel fresh at the end, but the same drive in the Tacoma and I'm exhausted (its not loud or bumpy, its just a lack of low-end power).

So that's where I'm coming from when I talk about on-road performance. I understand that other folk may not be looking for the same driving dynamics in a rugged solid-axle off-roader - we've all got different end-uses in mind!

Click to expand...

Just to be clear… it is a rigid axle front and rear with high sidewall tyres. From the test drive I did I found the progressive springs excellent but the reality is that an independent suspension, if only on the front, will routinely outperform a rigid suspension when cornering. The Grenadier will carry more weight all over but particularly up top, I would expect a higher roll centre than either of those vehicles. This may not predict driving limits, but it should be expected to assert itself in driver feel (reluctance to change direction through to wallowing with 40L of water/fuel on the roof). Not sure if you’ve driven a W461 G-Wagen or pre-L663 Defenders but I’d expect on-road dynamic performance/agility to not be a mile apart. This will only be further exascerbated when loaded up with bar work from muzzle to butt.

So, in short not so much what one is ‘looking for’, but what is a realistic expectation noting the basic reality of 3.5 tonnes, heavy axles, differentials and wheels held parallel.

I’m anticipating a better ride than my old 2dr JK, but only due to the longer wheelbase.
Whatever magic the (very accomplished) engineers at Magna can cook up to hide the weight will be a bonus.

This seems to be giving off the vibe (as far as any photo possibly can do) that it's a comfortable place to be, cruising along at a very indecent speed (for the UK):

globalgregors said:

Just to be clear… it is a rigid axle front and rear with high sidewall tyres. From the test drive I did I found the progressive springs excellent but the reality is that an independent suspension, if only on the front, will routinely outperform a rigid suspension when cornering. The Grenadier will carry more weight all over but particularly up top, I would expect a higher roll centre than either of those vehicles. This may not predict driving limits, but it should be expected to assert itself in driver feel (reluctance to change direction through to wallowing with 40L of water/fuel on the roof). Not sure if you’ve driven a W461 G-Wagen or pre-L663 Defenders but I’d expect on-road dynamic performance/agility to not be a mile apart. This will only be further exascerbated when loaded up with bar work from muzzle to butt.

So, in short not so much what one is ‘looking for’, but what is a realistic expectation noting the basic reality of 3.5 tonnes, heavy axles, differentials and wheels held parallel.

I’m anticipating a better ride than my old 2dr JK, but only due to the longer wheelbase.
Whatever magic the (very accomplished) engineers at Magna can cook up to hide the weight will be a bonus.

Click to expand...

I fully agree if I want performance and handling I take the wife's Fiat 124 spider, and leave my LR at home.

globalgregors said:

Just to be clear… it is a rigid axle front and rear with high sidewall tyres. From the test drive I did I found the progressive springs excellent but the reality is that an independent suspension, if only on the front, will routinely outperform a rigid suspension when cornering. The Grenadier will carry more weight all over but particularly up top, I would expect a higher roll centre than either of those vehicles. This may not predict driving limits, but it should be expected to assert itself in driver feel (reluctance to change direction through to wallowing with 40L of water/fuel on the roof). Not sure if you’ve driven a W461 G-Wagen or pre-L663 Defenders but I’d expect on-road dynamic performance/agility to not be a mile apart. This will only be further exascerbated when loaded up with bar work from muzzle to butt.

So, in short not so much what one is ‘looking for’, but what is a realistic expectation noting the basic reality of 3.5 tonnes, heavy axles, differentials and wheels held parallel.

I’m anticipating a better ride than my old 2dr JK, but only due to the longer wheelbase.
Whatever magic the (very accomplished) engineers at Magna can cook up to hide the weight will be a bonus.

Click to expand...

Yes, I am quite familiar with solid-front axle vehicles that run high sidewall tires. These are the ones I have owned, all with manual transmissions and a manual lever for the transfer case:

1975 Toyota FJ-40 (4.2 I6 gas)
1978 Jeep CJ-7 (4.2 I6 gas)
2003 Ram 2500 (5.9 I6 diesel)
2007 Jeep JKU (3.8 V6 gas)

In addition, I drove a diesel Landrover Defender in the service back in the 1980s, but no, I've never driven a G-Wagon.

There is often a significant difference between how a solid-front axle vehicle handles when delivered from the factory, and how it can handle after modification. These vehicles do not have to drive like crap on the road. For example, both my 2003 Ram and my 2007 Jeep wandered all over the road when stock...

The Ram was used for work, to access high mountain job sites on trails developed for that site; these were really rough trails. The Ram got a suspension lift and 35-inch tires, but it blew through its ball joints. I replaced the ball joints with stronger aftermarket ones, and I replaced the whole front-end with much stronger aftermarket components. After that, it chewed up the technical off-road terrain, and handled on-road like a someone cross-bred a heavy duty truck with a sports car.

I ran 35s on my 2007 Jeep, and the front axle housing was a known weak point. After I bent the front axle-housing, I swapped in a Dynatrac Prorock 44, Dynatrac ball joints, RCV axle shafts, Reid Racing knuckles, and Synergy front end components (tie rod, track bar, and drag link). Once again, I got a solid-front axle vehicle that was super-robust off-road, and handled with precision on-road.

If you have never modified a solid-front axle vehicle in these ways, you have no idea how well they can actually drive on-road (while still preserving all off-road capability). The question is: has Ineos produced a solid-front axle vehicle that has excellent front end components, or will these need to be modified to get decent on-road driving characteristics? If the vehicle does not drive well from the factory, that is a problem for me, because the aftermarket for the Grenadier is a big unknown.

Note: in Post #35 in this thread, I specified more clearly what I meant by "decent on-road driving characteristics". In that post, I wrote that I do not expect the vehicle to drive like a sports car, but that I am looking for it to (1) handle better than a stock Jeep Wrangler, and (2) accelerate better than a stock 3rd Gen Tacoma.

I also wrote: "So that's where I'm coming from when I talk about on-road performance. I understand that other folk may not be looking for the same driving dynamics in a rugged solid-axle off-roader - we've all got different end-uses in mind!"

Thanks for the conversation!

DCPU said:

This seems to be giving off the vibe (as far as any photo possibly can do) that it's a comfortable place to be, cruising along at a very indecent speed (for the UK):
View attachment 7798839

Click to expand...

Looks like he's already nursing pain from that left foot rest

painter said:

Looks like he's already nursing pain from that left foot rest

Click to expand...

On what do you notice that? To me this seems quite normal when I am cruising.. I’ve got sometimes one hand or the other on leg no matter if LHD or RHD vehicle.
Also if the footrest is indeed an issue the professional test drivers would have complained to engineers for sure.

@stickshifter

If you assess your expectations of the Grenadier against its origins, perhaps some things will become clearer.

Sir Jim wanted to continue building the Defender, but JLR refused. So he built one himself.

And the Grenadier became way better than the original in every respect, but in the end it never left the conceptual framework.

And there was never any talk of anything different or more than that.

So the simple question from my point of view is: Would a much improved and modernised classical Defender be what I want?

If yes: perfect, I'll get something even better than that.
If no: then I probably won't be happy with the Grenadier.

klarie said:

On what do you notice that? To me this seems quite normal when I am cruising.. I’ve got sometimes one hand or the other on leg no matter if LHD or RHD vehicle.
Also if the footrest is indeed an issue the professional test drivers would have complained to engineers for sure.

Click to expand...

It was meant as a joke.

I think it's already been determined on here that the foot rest won't be a problem. Because we know about these things.

emax said:

@stickshifter

If you assess your expectations of the Grenadier against its origins, perhaps some things will become clearer.

Sir Jim wanted to continue building the Defender, but JLR refused. So he built one himself.

And the Grenadier became way better than the original in every respect, but in the end it never left the conceptual framework.

And there was never any talk of anything different or more than that.

So the simple question from my point of view is: Would a much improved and modernised classical Defender be what I want?

If yes: perfect, I'll get something even better than that.
If no: then I probably won't be happy with the Grenadier.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I totally get that. I'm looking forward to seeing what it means to be "a much improved and modernized classical Defender"!

emax said:

@stickshifter
.

So the simple question from my point of view is: Would a much improved and modernised classical Defender be what I want?

Click to expand...

That’s exactly what I want. Maybe with better speakers. But that’s what I want.

painter said:

Again, I'm with you stick. Videos too short, too fast.
Slick editing, slim content.
They could show more but choose not to.

TikTok Nation, IDK.

Click to expand...

NAILED IT!

Very interesting, and not beating a dead horse (but then again, I'm day one here). I wonder why not just use the same transmission for all vehicles rather than have two different models? Seems like economy of scale, only having to have parts or whatever for one transmission would save effort n manufacturing. Or maybe just grabbing a transmission from stack A vs stack B is irrelevant.

IG_in_AZ said:

Very interesting, and not beating a dead horse (but then again, I'm day one here). I wonder why not just use the same transmission for all vehicles rather than have two different models? Seems like economy of scale, only having to have parts or whatever for one transmission would save effort n manufacturing. Or maybe just grabbing a transmission from stack A vs stack B is irrelevant.

Click to expand...

It is the same transmission in all Grenadiers, the ZF8.

In the broad sense, yes, all ZF8s. But the petrol and diesel have different ZF8 variants.

grenadierguy said:

It is the same transmission in all Grenadiers, the ZF8.

Click to expand...

There are many variants of the ZF 8-speed automatic transmission. The Grenadier gets two different versions - depending on which engine you are running.

The gas (petrol) version, or B58 engine, is paired with the ZF 8HP51
The diesel version, or B57 engine, is paired with the ZF 8HP76

Here is a screen shot from the UK Brochure:



Here are just some applications of the various ZF transmissions, and there is a heavy duty version being developed for the 6.7 I6 Cummins diesel...



NOTE: I don't remember from where I downloaded the second table, but I think there is an error in the table: I believe that the Ram 2500 with the 6.4 Hemi uses the 8HP75, not the 8HP70 (as listed in this table).

DCPU said:

This seems to be giving off the vibe (as far as any photo possibly can do) that it's a comfortable place to be, cruising along at a very indecent speed (for the UK):
View attachment 7798839

Click to expand...

I like it. Its cool that we get to see a still photo of the Grenadier going 84 mph down the highway. But it would be even better if this was a video, and they showed us some more detail, like engine RPM, engine noise, cabin noise (for example, The Fast Lane Truck (TFL) measures sound with a decibel meter in all their towing videos). I mean, why not make it a 2-minute video? Sure, its not going to be an earth-shattering video, no one's life is going to be suddenly changed, but what the hell - just post a quick video of the Grenadier on the highway. It would be easy, and why not?

IG_in_AZ said:

Very interesting, and not beating a dead horse (but then again, I'm day one here). I wonder why not just use the same transmission for all vehicles rather than have two different models? Seems like economy of scale, only having to have parts or whatever for one transmission would save effort n manufacturing. Or maybe just grabbing a transmission from stack A vs stack B is irrelevant.

Click to expand...

I haven’t checked but I wonder if they get the transmission and engine already mated from BMW
Maybe they have to take what BMW has already tested combination