Fuel economy of grenadier approx. 23.5 mpg real life use.

[Chocki]

https://youtu.be/RK9DMeGyAyU
at 21:10 you can see the fuel gauge at 50 % and a range of 225 km
Assuming the tank is 90L, then this would be a fuel consumption of  23.5 mpg (UK)

Which considering the weight of the car and the conditions it is being driven in, would be about right for this car.

 

[CountyV8]

As a prototype vehicle without the final software they didn't even have the lockers fitted I would take that with a pinch of salt.

 

[emax]

Most of the gauges in the prototypes are just mock-ups. The fuel gauge may be true, but I don't think the range calculation. And with respect to the kind of driving, namely mud, meadows and slow maneuvers in low gears, 23.5 mpg would simply be sensational. I would locate this kind of driving closer to 15 mpg.

In every days driving, 23.5 mpg are probably feasible, and even more if one cares for an economic driving style.

 

[emax]

If you look at "spritmonitor.de" ('sprit' == 'fuel'), you have an excellent database of fuel economy, with zillions of records entered by normal users. Here is an example for a BMW X5 Diesel (you can switch to english in the upper right corner):

https://www.spritmonitor.de/de/uebersicht/6-BMW/43-X5.html?fueltype=1&gearing=2&powerunit=2



Look at the "Mileage Histogram" on the right half of the screen: most of this models consume around 9.6 l/100 km (about 24.5 mpg). And these

1. are street-related kilometers
2. reflect no average drivers but drivers which usually have some awareness of fuel economy (others don't likely use 'spritmonitor.de').

And the X5 is lighter than the Grenadier with usually more economic tires.

BTW: forget about the first few pages for a specific model, they are extreme examples. Go to pages somewhere in the middle. The Milage History will however always reflect the values for all samples in summary, regardless of the selected page.

But compare with other cars, the findings will likely be resemblant.

Another BTW: This is my Motorbike economy: https://www.spritmonitor.de/de/detailansicht/1138762.html

;-)

 

[Paachi]

I wrote this in another forum about m thoughts on potential fuel economy. No data other than one comment in a South African review video but hey it’s still fun to speculate. 
Here is my hypothesis:

The South African tour video interview quoted Ineos team saying 800Ks on a tank of gas. That 497 mi on 23.78 US gal. I am assuming they are talking about the diesels because that’s gonna be the dominant version sold in those markets.

That translates to ~21 mpg US. I am guessing those numbers are long distance highway numbers and not city numbers.

Modern diesels are quite efficient. About 25-30% more frugal than petrol counterparts. So the petrol should be about 16-17 mpg or a range of about 380-400 miles from a 23.78 US gallon tank.

 

[Paachi]

One additional fun data point. This past weekend I went 4 wheeling with a two other friends. I was in my diesel G wagon and the other person was in a normally aspirated V8 G Wagon. I averaged about 13-14 mpg on a mix of conditions which included a lot of corrugated roads, sandy rally blasts and real technical climbs with two lockers and 4H engaged. He averaged about 9 mpg. Both vehicles were similarly loaded with same diameter and brand tires and same PSI. 
So about 30% better with diesel. Where the diesel really scored was low revs required to climb + really low consumption at idle. Where the petrol really scored was at higher speeds with more power on tap

 

[Paachi]

I wrote this in another forum about m thoughts on potential fuel economy. No data other than one comment in a South African review video but hey it’s still fun to speculate. 
Here is my hypothesis:

The South African tour video interview quoted Ineos team saying 800Ks on a tank of gas. That 497 mi on 23.78 US gal. I am assuming they are talking about the diesels because that’s gonna be the dominant version sold in those markets.

That translates to ~21 mpg US. I am guessing those numbers are long distance highway numbers and not city numbers.

Modern diesels are quite efficient. About 25-30% more frugal than petrol counterparts. So the petrol should be about 16-17 mpg or a range of about 380-400 miles from a 23.78 US gallon tank.

Looks like my back of the envelope math and hypothesis was spot on. 15-18 mpg US for the gasser version. I am also very impressed they shared the detail on how these numbers were achieved (tires, 15-28% of payload, etc). 

As we build/ spec these vehicles up it gives me a good idea what to expect in real life conditions. Ex: going up a tire size to 33” might reduce it by 0.5-1 mpg. 
Since I’m thinking of a petrol, an expedition load might do 11-12 mpg at best off-road. Now what we really need is an aux tank with a provision for additional 20 gal. That would equate to 700 miles/ 1100 Kms at 16 mpg. 

 

[Chocki]

Published figures and worked out from video figures appear to be about the same.
I do agree that the way the figures have been shown is refreshingly honest and I hope this gives a two fingured salute to most manufacturers about their claimed mystical figures.

Although hats off to skoda when they started figures for my Yeti of 45mpg. The best I've got is 55mpg with 45 being regularly achieved.
I do admit initially being put off until I dug deeper. 
With the grenadier, it looks like they are telling things as they are, and I strongly suspect this will show once real users start to get their hands on the car. 

 

[emax]

> Looks like my back of the envelope math and hypothesis was spot on.

I still doubt that the gauges from the videos have shown any realistic or non-mock-up values.

And as we have seen now, the 23.xx mpg are indeed feasable as I had written. But by no means in an off road context such as the Ineos videos have had. That number is the low-end for the diesels in optimal conditions.

And to me, it is not clear whether they are talking imperial or US gallons.

But anyway good, that one potentially can drive at 23.xx gallons.

 

[Paachi]

> Looks like my back of the envelope math and hypothesis was spot on.

I still doubt that the gauges from the videos have shown any realistic or non-mock-up values.

And as we have seen now, the 23.xx mpg are indeed feasable as I had written. But by no means in an off road context such as the Ineos videos have had. That number is the low-end for the diesels in optimal conditions.

And to me, it is not clear whether they are talking imperial or US gallons.

But anyway good, that one potentially can drive at 23.xx gallons.

No. My math was done based on an early South African drive video with AluCab where the quoted diesel range was 800+ km. I back calculated US mpg from that. 
Now looking at the UK spec sheets where the petrol mpg numbers are based on an EU wltp cycle, I believe that US petrol mpg numbers should be 15-18 mpg. 
I do hope they are better but aerodynamics of a brick will always trump. 

 

[emax]

No.

What Do you mean with "No" ?

 

[Paachi]

No meant I didn’t do the math based on the above video or any pre production gauges shown ?

 

[emax]

Well, I didn't write so in my last post ;-)

But whichever video this was, if you refer to to an early South African drive video, than I don't see any difference. ;- )

A clarification from my side for the MPG question: My statement above concerning the 23.5 MPG as a feasible number referred to US MPG, not to UK MPG.  This is around 10l/100 km.  If Ineos instead refers to UK MPG, this would yield around 12 l/100 km. In that case, I would have to rethink the Grenadier.

 

[emax]

I have looked into this in the German datasheet, and what I see is the 10.1 l/100 Km on the petrol side which is 23.5 US MPG. So this very much looks like Ineos having meant US MPG in their english datasheets.

But what I don't understand and actually believe is an error: The petrol/diesel numbers seem to be interchanged. And the CO2 values aren't plausible as well. May be they interchanged the headlines ...?

 

[Paachi]

Well, I didn't write so in my last post ;-)

But whichever video this was, if you refer to to an early South African drive video, than I don't see any difference. ;- )

@emax In your earlier post you had quoted my post and said that the gauges in the videos might not have any realistic or non-mock-up numbers. I wanted to ensure that my post didn’t confuse anyone that’s why I posted back. Perhaps I should have been clearer. My numbers weren’t picked up from a gauge but from this video where the Ineos SA chief states the tank size and range himself. 
see from 16:40

https://youtu.be/JAoZEcbGyCU

In any case now that we have official brochures coming in, it’s a moot point. I agree with your assessment that the table you posted above might have petrol and diesel numbers interchanged. 
A petrol engine generally has more CO and lesser NOx than diesel. So I think the US mpg number is 12-15l/100km which translates to approx 15-19.5 mpg. Makes the petrol tank range about 380 miles. 

 

[emax]

Have you been a member of this excellent video?

I like it very much and had already watched it at least twice a while ago. Cool guys, very good content!

And what I like most is the humoristic attitude. Guys having fun  ?

 

[Paachi]

Haha I wish I was. I am just another information hungry sleuth trying to piece together a story from bits and bobs ?

Yeah really cool guys, great banter and camaraderie 

 

[Francois]

I am from South Africa. I have received and signed my contract last week, 10 Nov 22. I have noticed the following fuel consumption stipulated:

 

[DCPU]

Is that the petrol engine?

 

[Francois]

Diesel engine