I'll pick up my MY25 Gren on Tuesday, so we'll see if they addressed it but I doubt it.
Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to contribute to the community by adding your own topics, posts, and connect with other members through your own private inbox! INEOS Agents, Dealers or Commercial vendors please contact admin@theineosforum.com for a commercial account.
I am very interested and I'm not the only one. Can you please post pictures of the front driveshaft CV's at both ends of the shaft.
No changes that I can see. Perhaps there is a more durable boot material that wouldn’t be obvious to the naked eye.
The vehicles they tested were standard height, not raised.
Yep all good having crap angles from factory design
The "1.8 million" km was cumulative across a prototype fleet... Many prototypes supposedly travelled less than 50,000 km and were used for extreme climate testing as well as tuning the engine -transmission pairing.
Because we want to and it looks outstanding lifted!The "1.8 million" km was cumulative across a prototype fleet... Many prototypes supposedly travelled less than 50,000 km and were used for extreme climate testing as well as tuning the engine -transmission pairing.
The vehicle has slightly in excess of 10" clearance as stock. Its on road dynamics were tuned for this arrangement.
For the life of me, I've yet to hear a cogent cost/benefit* argument for larger tyres and raised suspension as a "recommendation" on the current very capable stock vehicle ....
* i.e. when the crap/worth ratio exceeds 0.5, the value proposition fails
Stock Gren is just too low for anything but basic Overlanding. The 2" lift really helps with approach, departure and breakover angles. This is very very important for more off-road capability. The larger tires yield larger sidewalls which help in several ways. And here in the US many trails have requirements more or less to run certain tire size. Tire size limits start at 33's then move up to 35's. It's not advisable to go on these trails without the appropriate size tire. This can be heavily enforced by off-road clubs that sponsor bigger events.
And I'm sure you would likely be fine on 33's. The majority of rock crawling takes place in the western US deserts, but 90% or more of it is unnecessary to get from point A to B. Don't get me wrong, I love the scenery at "Point B" but I also very much enjoy exploring the limits of my vehicles and myself. And that means more ground clearance.
Dear lord, a Jeep? Not a chance. I'd rather knock around my Grenadier on the rocks. And quite frankly 35's aren't going to do technical rock crawling. 40's have been the gold standard for quite some time now. 35's are so 1990's.
HA! Love Jeeps or hate them, there is no refuting that they are great in technical terrain. And no 35s are not big enough in the rocks hence why I suggested 37s or larger. Unlike the Grenadier it is easy to lift the Wrangler/Gladiator to accommodate big rubber. The reality is that skinny 35s fit on the Grenadier with no lift and provide more than enough capability to drive any terrain the vehicle is actually fit for. Owners can lift the Grenadier at their own peril to satisfy a vain need for looks, but shit is going to break as has been so readily demonstrated.
and now I'm seeing more and more 42" tires on Jeeps with 1 ton axles. Different horses for different courses. Personally, I have zero desire to do hardcore rock crawling. I want to go see things that are hard to get to for most people and do it with a reasonable amount of comfort. The Grenadier is good for my use case.
In that configuration the Ujoint angle has to be zero or near zero. That cannot be done with the Grenadier.
